EIGHT HOURS CONVENTION.

HL Deb 20 November 1928 vol 72 cc166-203

THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable—

1. 1, That the Government should inform the International Labour Office, at Geneva, of the precise points on which they desire a revision of the Washington Eight Hours Convention;
2. 2, That the Government should publish the text of a draft Bill showing what modifications, if any, in the existing industrial agreements in this 167 country would be required as a result of the ratification of an International Eight Hours Convention in the amended form desired by the Government.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of the Resolution which I have placed upon the Order Paper has been much discussed in another place, but not, I think, in recent years, at any rate not in your Lordships' House, and my justification for bringing it forward here is that in spite of many discussions, and of many questions and answers in the House of Commons, there are still some elements of uncertainty in the policy of the Government which those discussions and those questions have failed to elucidate. Until as recently, I think, as last Wednesday, a question was asked in the House of Commons, but like many previous questions even that failed to clear up one point of uncertainty in connection with this matter, and, as in your Lordships' House we are less restricted either by time or procedure, I venture to hope that I may be successful in removing such elements of uncertainty as still remain.

My Resolution has not been framed in any spirit of opposition to the Government. I am well aware of their difficulties in connection with this matter. The Minister of Labour has been good enough to tell me of them on more than one occasion. I appreciate those difficulties and I have no desire whatever to add to them. On the contrary, I have framed this Resolution in the hope that I may be successful in removing one at least of the difficulties, which has been mentioned to them. I hope before I am finished I may be able to show your Lordships how this may be done. I ought, perhaps, to explain that in discussing the question I am not representing the opinions either of employers or of workers in the matter; I am merely concerned with the international aspect of the question; I am not concerned with the obligations of the Government to any particular section of people in this country, but with their obligations to other countries with which they have been in conference from time to time. From this international point of view let me summarise the history of the question. I can do so very shortly because the main facts have been stated on many occasions.

For the beginning of this question we must go back to the Treaty of Versailles. By Part XIII of that Treaty, the establishment of an international forty-eight-hour week was declared by the signatories of the Treaty to be not only desirable but urgent, and in pursuance of that ideal a Conference met in the following year (1920) at Washington, where a Convention was drafted to give effect to the ideal which had been expressed in the Treaty of Versailles. Although I have no doubt a great deal of trouble was taken to make that Convention as satisfactory as possible, it is evident that it failed in that respect, because there is evidence that closer examination of the Convention by the various Governments concerned disclosed difficulties whether of interpretation or application which have considerably retarded the ratification of the Convention. For several years no step was taken by any country to ratify the Convention, and as long ago as 1921 doubts as to its practicability were expressed by the British Government and a demand was made for its revision. That demand however, was refused, and first of all, in 1923 I think it was, a Conference of three Powers met at Berne to discuss questions of interpretation, and in the year 1924, under the Chairmanship of the present Minister of Labour, a Conference of five Powers was summoned in London.

The first point of uncertainty and doubt to which I have referred is concerned with the results of this Conference at London. The matter has been frequently discussed, and there has been some difficulty in understanding to what extent agreement was reached at the London Conference. Judging from the speeches made by the Minister of Labour I think that point is now, at least, clear. There was, I understand, complete agreement between the Powers represented at that Conference as to the interpretation of the context of the Washington Convention, but, though agreement was reached on that point, there was a failure to agree as to whether the interpretation that was agreed upon was, or was not, within the four corners of the context of the Convention. The British Government, I understand, held the view that the terms of the London Agreement were incompatible with the context of the Washington Convention as it stood, and that it would be necessary from their point of view to add the heads of that Agreement to the Convention in the form of a Protocol or addition to the Treaty. The representatives of the other countries present, however, took the view that the draft of the Convention as it stood was sufficiently clear to be interpreted in the sense agreed upon, but as the British Government did not take that view they found themselves unable to ratify the Convention, even after the discussions which had taken place at that Conference.

Up to this point I have no criticism to make of the policy of successive Governments in this country from the point of view of our international obligations. They had agreed in the Treaty of Versailles with the policy of an international eight-hour day; they had taken part in a Conference at Washington to put that policy into effect; and they had signed the Convention there drafted. On further examination, having found that the draft was defective, they first of all asked for revision, and they subsequently summoned a Conference to discuss the question of interpretation. They did, in fact, all that a Government could do to bring about a ratification of the Convention in a form consistent with the existing industrial agreements in this country. As a result of that Conference in London, Belgium, one of the countries there represented, subsequently ratified the Convention. But that was in 1924.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

1926.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My noble friend reminds me that that was in 1926. We are now in 1928. In so far as I have any kind of criticism to make it refers to the action of the Government from that time. Up till February of last year the Government had taken no action at all, but in February last year the British representative at the International Labour Conference demanded that the question of the revision of the Washington Convention should be put on the agenda of the Conference for 1929. Now, it is obvious that a mere demand for revision, unaccompanied by any explanation of the terms in which revision is required, is open to grave objection because it would throw the whole Convention into the melting pot and re-open consideration, not merely of details, not merely of interpretation, but of the whole principle involved in the Convention. Consequently that demand was again refused at the International Labour Conference.

Your Lordships may remember that at the beginning of last Session I placed a Motion upon the Order Paper of the House requesting the Government to withdraw their demand for revision and to ratify the Convention forthwith. I did not move that Resolution because, when it appeared upon the Paper, the Minister asked me to go and see him and explained to me in a personal interview the facts which I have already laid before your Lordships and the difficulties which the Government found in ratifying the Convention as it stood. I was naturally impressed by the explanation he gave me, and wishing that it should receive greater publicity, I invited him to receive a deputation and to explain to that deputation—and I hoped it would have been public—what he had told me in our private conversation. At the same time I placed my Motion on the Notice Paper amongst those for which no date was named. Unfortunately, at that time the Minister fell ill and was unable to receive this deputation until the month of July. It was, therefore, only towards the very end of last Session that the deputation was able to wait upon him. The deputation then made a request to the Minister in terms identical with those of the Resolution which I am moving to-day. We asked him, namely, to define the points on which the British Government desired a revision and to show those points in the form of a draft Bill so that the actual legislative effect upon the industrial agreements in this country could be made known.

The only reason which the Minister gave to us on that occasion for his inability to accede to our request was that in his opinion it would be inopportune and tactless for this country to specify the particular form of revision they required in a Convention to which a great many other countries were parties. Well, I thought that there might perhaps be some force in that objection, and so this year, when I was at Geneva, I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Director of the International Labour Office and with the Assistant Director. I had a long conversation with both of them, and they assured me that, in their opinion, nothing could be more helpful at this moment from an international point of view than that the British Government should do the very things which I am today asking them to do. They assured me that if the British Government would only specify the particular points on which they desired to revise the Convention and make it clear, if possible, that they did not desire to reopen the whole question of an international eight-hour day, this would strengthen their hands very considerably in dealing with other countries, and that, if indeed it were the fact that the present Government merely desired the Washington Convention with the addition of those points which had been agreed to at the London Conference, there would be very little difficulty in securing general agreement.

We are, I think, justified in believing that that is the policy of the Government, because I think there can be no doubt that, if at the London Conference the Minister of Labour had succeeded in persuading the representatives of other countries to add to the Convention in the form of a Protocol those points which had been agreed to at the Conference, the British Government would then have been willing to ratify the Convention. It is because I received an assurance from the Director of the International Labour Office that such a course would be helpful, that I felt justified in placing this Resolution upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House, and in asking the Government to consider whether this would not remove the only objection which was stated to us when we went before the Minister on a deputation.

I see that the Government have issued a Whip summoning their followers to resist this Motion if it should go to a Division. I must, therefore, conclude that they are intending to oppose my Resolution. But I find some difficulty in understanding why they should have any objection to it. I ask your Lordships, and I will ask the Government very respectfully, what possible objection there can be to the Resolution in the form in which it appears upon the Order Paper. I am not asking them to change their policy in any respect. I am not asking them to ratify a Convention which they have assured us presents considerable drafting difficulties. I am merely asking them to define their policy, to let us know what it is that they wish to see done, because up to the present they have only told us what they are unwilling to do. They have told us that they are unwilling to ratify the Washington Convention as it stands, but they have not told us what changes of words would satisfy them and secure their consent to ratification. The Government are known to be in favour of the principle of an international eight-hour day, and the only question at issue is what is the best way to bring that about at the soonest possible moment. I submit that the situation internationally is one in which everything is to be gained by complete frankness, and that any vagueness or reticence upon the points which I am discussing only gives rise to suspicions and criticisms.

I have no doubt whatever of the sincerity of the Minister of Labour or of the Government. I have no doubt whatever that they desire to see a workable Eight Hours Convention adopted by all the nations of the world as soon as possible. But they must not, I think, be surprised if, by those who do not know them so well, by those, perhaps, who have less interest in representing their actions favourably, their inaction in this respect, their reticence, their hesitation in giving information which is repeatedly asked of them, leads others to question their good faith or to doubt their sincerity. Consider for a moment what we should feel about another country whose actions had been what ours have been. Let us suppose for a moment that, after the London Conference, we had ratified the new Convention, as Belgium has done; or let us suppose that we had stated that we were prepared to ratify it if, say, France would ratify at the same time—that being the action which France has taken. Then let us suppose that the French Government had replied: "We are entirely in favour of the principle of an international eight-hour day, but we are not prepared to ratify the Washington Convention." And if the only action of France, after nine years, had been to demand the revision of the Convention in general terms, without stating on what points revision was desired, thereby putting the whole Convention back into the melting pot, should we not have found great difficulty in justifying it and should we not have said, is not the best that we could have said, that their action might be sincere but that at least it was not very helpful?

It is just because I am jealous of the reputation of my country that I am anxious to remove any occasion for misunderstanding or for suspicion in the minds of other countries as to our good faith. Again, it is just because I am jealous of the reputation of the existing Government that I am anxious to save them from misrepresentation by their political opponents. If I had any doubts as to their perfect sincerity in the matter I should be content to leave to noble Lords opposite the task of criticising them and of calling them to book. It is only because, after having discussed the matter several times with the Minister of Labour, I am perfectly satisfied that the Government are entirely sincere in this matter that I venture to appeal to them, as I do very strongly on this occasion, to disarm their political opponents and to remove from their friends in other countries any grounds for suspicion or anxiety as to their action; and I would beg the Government to believe that it is in this spirit, and in this spirit alone, that I have placed upon the Order Paper the Resolution which I now beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable—

1. 1, That the Government should inform the International Labour Office, at Geneva, of the precise points on which they desire a revision of the Washington Eight Hours Convention;
2. 2, That the Government should publish the text of a draft Bill showing what modifications, if any, in the existing industrial agreements in this country would be required as a result of the ratification of an International Eight Hours Convention in the amended form desired by the Government.—(The Earl of Lytton.)

LORD OLIVIER

My Lords, when I first saw this Resolution upon the Paper I agreed entirely with its intention, and I thought that we on these Benches should support it as being a move in the right direction. I did not altogether like its phraseology, because it seemed to leave open the possibility of having a special revision of the Convention, and this appeared to us, and to most of the Governments represented, to be disposed of last May, when the question of revision was raised and settled. This Resolution suggests in terms that the Government should represent to the International Labour Office the precise points on which they desire the revision of the Eight Hours Convention, which would appear to indicate that the question of revision was again to be raised. I hope that this is not the case. In the course of his speech, however, the noble Earl said, if I do not misunderstand him, that M. Thomas, the Director of the International Labour Office, commended the purpose of this Resolution and thought that such action as the noble Earl desired would strengthen the hands of the International Labour Office and help them to get forward in this business. Consequently I shall not hesitate to support and vote for this Resolution.

The noble Earl has given your Lordships a certain amount of the history of this matter, and he said that he desired to go into it solely from the point of view of our international credit. I want to go into it, not only from the point of view of international credit, but also from the point of view of our national interest. I want to know definitely from the noble Marquess, I want to have it put forward in this House, what are the points of difficulty that stand in the way of ratification of this Convention by His Majesty's Government, subject to what was agreed in the London Conference of 1926 as to the interpretations that might quite properly be put upon it. With regard to these I understand that all other Governments concerned were willing to agree without raising any points of difficulty. Objections appear to have been communicated to the noble Earl by the Minister and to have impressed him, but it would be a very great thing for the world and for the workers of this country, who are practically unanimous in favour of this Convention, if we could understand what the Government's objections are. It has been impossible so far to elicit them.

I have some correspondence which I wish to quote, and which took place in the course of 1927, between the Minister of Labour and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations. It appears evident that a good deal of the opposition to the Convention must have come from this Confederation owing, doubtless, to their holding the view that it is not in the interests of British industry that the Convention should be adopted in its present form. The Confederation was invited to state its objections, and this is the reply that it gave:— The Confederation's position, briefly stated, is that its representative at the next Governing Body meeting will vote for the revision of the Convention, and if the Government representative also votes for it, and the Convention is put down for revision on the agenda for the 1929 International Labour Conference, the Confederation will be prepared to meet the Trades Union Congress as suggested and submit the result to the Minister of Labour before the 1929 Conference. That is to say, the Confederation would disclose what their difficulties were, as apparently they had not yet done.

Further than that, we had some indication that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the meeting in May last was precisely the same. It was stated:— The British Government will enter into details at the appropriate moment when, with other Governments, under the procedure now agreed by the Governing Body, it is asked for its views. This was the statement made by Mr. Humbert Wolfe when the Governing Body had declined his proposal that there should be a revision in 1929. I want to know what are their difficulties now. Why are they kept so dark? Let us have an opportunity of judging whether or not they are covered by the agreements come to at the London Conference in 1926. Why should they be kept dark. The keeping of them dark creates the greatest possible suspicion and creates that suspicion from which the noble Earl wished to dissociate-himself, that it is done owing to pressure from one side of the industrial world—namely, the Confederation of Employers' Organisations—and one side only. Certainly it is not done from the other side, because the whole of the trade unions in England are satisfied after full consideration that the Convention is workable, subject to the enlargement and interpretation provided by the Conference. The International Federation of Trade Unions and practically the immense majority of the Delegates from all the Governments at Geneva are satisfied that it is workable, and do not think that there are any such difficulties as the Government assure us there are. Why do not the Government tell us precisely what they are, instead of saying: "When you have decided that you will revise, then we will tell you what are our objections."

The comment made by the Spanish Delegate, Mr. Caballero, at the meeting of the Governing Body on May 28, 1928, appears to me to be very pertinent. Mr. Caballero contended that had the British Government acted according to the spirit of the Convention, they would have ratified it and carried out its provisions by July 1, 1921, as stipulated in Article 19. He further maintained that before the British Government were entitled to demand a report on the working of the Convention they should have ratified it. There is the greatest impatience on the part of the workers' organisations in other countries with regard to the position of the British Government in this matter. At the last meeting of the Trade Union Congress M. Mertens spoke very feelingly upon the subject, and he represents a feeling which is entirely concurred in by the organised working-class movement in this country. There is this general feeling that the International Labour Office was set up for certain purposes, one purpose being the attainment of a world-wide standard of hours, and that we are prevented from having that by the fact that certain Governments have not ratified the Convention, and will not ratify it until the British Government ratify it.

Italy, although she has issued a decree lengthening hours, says she would be bound by her obligation under the Convention, and the world of labour is waiting for the ratification by the British Government. The world of labour has had no instructions as to what are the difficulties which the British Government see in the Convention; its own labour representatives do not see those difficulties; and therefore how can we escape having that attitude of suspicion which the noble Earl regarded as being so unfortunate? M. Mertens said this:— You all know the very great importance of this matter, and you know also the interest all workers in all industrial countries have in a prompt and general ratification of this Convention. Is not that a consideration which ought to weigh with the British Government? Is it not of world-wide interest that there should be this ratification, and that the British Government should not defer their ratification to the furthest possible moment, until revision has been agreed to and their objections have been stated and considered, and until after ten years have expired and the whole thing has to be opened de novo? Is not that a material interest which you ought to do your best to serve by every possible means—by the means suggested by the noble Earl—namely, the ratification of this Convention?

M. Mertens added:— Most countries are taking the attitude of the British Government … as a pretext for not ratifying the Convention themselves, and the decision of the British Government to press for a revision of the Washington Convention encourages them in their determination. I am sure if Great Britain ratified, the other countries would feel bound to follow their example. If a general ratification were obtained, a great part of the competition for the world markets—which competition means long working days in so many countries—would disappear. Such competition as there was would then be fairer, and if we could subsequently obtain from the various countries a ratification of the Convention on legal minimum wages adopted by the last International Labour Conference …. It is perfectly unintelligible to the ordinary working man how the Government can say that they want to have Safeguarding Duties, that we must safeguard ourselves against goods coming from countries where the workers work longer hours or under worse conditions of labour than ours, and that we should, at the same time, stand alone among all the nations in obstructing one of the instruments devised to prevent that kind of under- cutting—an instrument which would at once bring almost all, if not all, the nations of Europe and America under the same scale of hours of work. On those grounds, because it is of real human interest, we should not go on temporising and procrastinating and refusing to give our reasons, and I support the Motion of the noble Earl.

LORD HENLEY

My Lords, I have not very much faith in the success of this effort to submit the Government to a sort of psycho-analysis, but with such a timid and hesitating patient it may, in the last resort, be worth trying. Let us hope that it will enable the patient to formulate his fears and confess them to a sympathetic doctor, the I.L.O. These fears have been kept in the background until about May of 1927, and their hopes kept alive, as I judge, by the speech made by Lord Balfour in 1927, but the censor, in the shape of the National Federation of Employers' Organisations, appears to have stepped in. The result has been that a serious inferiority complex has supervened, which has prevented all further action. I have no doubt that definition would be better than the attitude of vague, possibly half-hearted, but none the less effective obstruction which is being adopted at present, but I hope that this definition will not lead on to revision because that will put back any effective action until 1931 at least, and even when revision is carried out it will produce very serious legal complications in the case of those nations who have already ratified.

The Government's fears seem to be centred round the question of exact definition of effective hours of work. This habit of exact definition seems to have been developed in the case of the Local Government Bill, and it is very difficult to get out of the habit of exact, lucid definition; but the more you define the more you reduce the range, and the fewer trades you include; and I foresee that ultimately the only body of workers who will fit into the last perfect definition of effective hours and overtime will be the members of your Lordships' House. Too exact definition, I fear, will spoil the efficiency of the Convention. It is necessary to allow a certain flexibility, and possibly even indefiniteness, so that all the varying conditions which exist in other countries may fit into the Convention without straining it. What would be the risks if that course is adopted? It is agreed almost universally that in a very wide range of industries the maximum of efficiency is obtained with eight hours' work a day and 48 hours a week. Why is it, then, that the leaders of industry, as represented by the Confederation of Employers' Organisations, are so opposed to an international definition of the hours of work? Surely, it must be the result of the same confused and short-sighted habit of mind which impels people to advocate the protection of some of our industries against foreign competition. Surely, if you encourage your neighbour so that he may develop his health and his resources, he will become a more valuable purchaser of your goods.

No Convention that can be framed, I believe, can protect us from every dishonest trader—there will always be someone, whether we sign the Convention or not. Success in industry depends very much more on contented work and active brains than on adding or subtracting an hour or two's work per week. What we have to fear is that some increase might be made in the difference which exists between our time standard and that of other countries, but this surely cannot be caused by the ratification of this Convention; rather the effect which it will have will be to stimulate the adjustment of scales of hours to the optimum throughout the world. I trust that, even if we do formulate our fears, we shall by doing so discover that they are groundless, and that we shall then be able to proceed boldly to ratification.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY)

My Lords, I am sure no one can quarrel with the tone of the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and I only hope that I may be able to give the noble Lord a satisfactory reply to the Question which he has put to me. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence, because I know you are aware that this is not a matter with which I personally have been closely in touch, and therefore I have done my best in a comparatively short time to study the whole question and to endeavour on this occasion to put it before your Lordships. The noble Earl who initiated this debate has a wide experience, and I think your Lordships will fully realise that the intention which he had in his mind in raising this question is to absolve this country from the suspicion of secrecy and mystery, and really to put its case before the world. The noble Lord who followed him was more ardent in his protestations, but I am not sure that the case which he put forward is one in which he would have the full support of his colleagues in another place. I regret to say it is quite true that there is an atmosphere of suspicion both at home and abroad and that atmosphere of suspicion has, to a very large extent, been spread by the speeches made from time to time by prominent members of the Labour party, criticising the attitude of the Government upon the whole question of hours of work, and the Washington Eight Hours Convention in particular. It is in order that I may dispel and disarm that suspicion that I shall ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few moments while I try briefly to recapitulate, as far as I can, the history of the Washington Convention.

The noble Earl who initiated this debate passed briefly over a certain portion of that history, but your Lordships will doubtless remember that the Preamble in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles—that portion which dealt with the whole question of labour—declared that the improvement of the conditions of labour is urgently required in order to assist in the establishment of universal peace, and it recited "the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum day and week" to be the first among the various objects, by the achievement of which improved conditions of labour might be secured. For this purpose, under Article 387 of the Treaty, a permanent organisation was set up, consisting of the original Members of the League of Nations and of any Member joining thereafter. Under Article 388 this organisation consists of a General Conference and an International Labour Office, controlled by a Governing Body of twenty-four, of whom twelve are representatives of the Governments, eight being nominated by Members of the League which are of greatest industrial importance. Of the remaining twelve, six are elected by the Conference delegates who represent the employers, and six by those delegates who represent the workers. The General Conference of representatives of Members meets at least once a year and is composed of four representatives of each of the State Members, two being Government Delegates, and two representing respectively employers and workpeople.

With regard to the procedure, Article 405 provides that the proposals of the Conference shall take the form either of a recommendation or of a draft International Convention for ratification by the Members. Later the same Article says that if the draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon that Member. Now I have taken your Lordships as far back as the Treaty of Versailles, because there appears to be a fairly general misconception that there is something binding in the draft Convention itself, the Convention which we are discussing to-day, and that there is something dishonourable attaching to this Government and to this country, if we do not ratify that Convention.

I hope I have made it clear, and I believe it should be plain by now, that the honour of this country or of the Government is not involved in the least in the ratification of any particular draft Convention. The Delegates to the Conference are not Plenipotentiaries, they have no power to bind or to loose. I am not going to say for a moment that as Delegates they do not represent their Government and the employers and workpeople of their country. No doubt, also, they receive certain instructions; but I do say that this Government, like every other Government of a represented country which is a Member of the League of Nations, has perfect freedom, and, moreover, has an absolute duty to examine any draft Convention which comes from the Conference and, after examination, to give or withhold ratification, whether that draft had or had not the support of its Delegates at the Conference which adopted it.

The only point of honour that I can see is that this Government and every other Government of this country, must maintain and promote the application of the general principle of the eight-hour day or forty-eight-hour week "so far as special circumstances permit." That, I say, is a point of honour because it is part of the undertaking of the Treaty of Versailles. But I cannot believe for a moment that any general accusation of dereliction of duty on this head can be made against this country or any of its Governments since the Treaty. The forty-eight-hour week, as we all know, has long been an accepted principle in this country and is the general basis upon which our industrial employment rests. Indeed, I am not sure that we cannot claim to have been the first great industrial country to see its establishment.

The first General Conference of the International Labour Office was held at Washington as long ago as October, 1919, when the Eight Hours Convention, which has been the subject of to-day's discussion, was adopted by a very large majority; in fact, that majority was 82 votes to 2, all the four British representatives naturally voting in the majority for it. When, however, the Government of the day came to examine the possibility of applying the provisions of the draft Convention to British Industry with a view to its ratification, it became clear, and very clear, that serious practical difficulties were involved, so serious, in fact, that the Government felt that they would not be justified in ratifying in face of those difficulties. The policy of the Government was announced to the House of Commons in the debate on May 27 and after that on July 1, 1921, and a reasoned letter was sent to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations explaining the inability of the Government to ratify the Convention as it stood and suggesting that steps should be taken to secure its revision with a view to making it more generally acceptable. This suggestion was rejected by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, but, after protracted negotiations with the Director of the Office, a Committee was set up by the Governing Body in April, 1923, to make recommendations as to the means of furthering the ratification of the Convention. The result of these deliberations, however, was to reaffirm the decision which the Governing Body had already reached.

At this point, the Labour Government came into power and announced its intention of taking the necessary steps to enable the Convention to be ratified and, as noble Lords will remember, the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill was introduced for this purpose into the House of Commons in July, 1924, by Mr. Shaw, the Minister of Labour. This change of policy encouraged the International Labour Office to renew its efforts to promote the ratification of the Convention by the chief industrial Powers of Europe and in September, 1924, a meeting, to which the noble Lord has referred, was held at Berne of the Ministers of Labour of Great Britain, France, Belgium and Germany. At this meeting various points of obscurity and difficulty in the Convention were discussed and at its close an official statement was issued to the Press to the effect that the four Ministers present were agreed that ratification by their respective Governments was a practical possibility. About a month later the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill lapsed on the Dissolution of Parliament, without having secured a Second Reading.

Such was the position, therefore, and I apologise to noble Lords for going into history, but I feel it is of great importance that we should proceed slowly in the matter for the purpose of showing exactly the position in which the Government is at present. The Government held that the Bill which had been introduced by the Labour Party, if passed into law, was calculated seriously to hamper British industry, particularly in the matter of overtime, and the Government were further impressed by the fact that the interpretations given to various Articles of the Convention in different countries were widely divergent. Accordingly, in the summer of 1925 my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour circulated a Memorandum to the Powers that had been present at the meeting at Berne and also to Italy, in which he indicated the principal difficulties with regard to interpretation that had been experienced in Great Britain and that the Government believed to have been experienced in other countries. He informed these Powers that the British Government were prepared to summon a Conference if the other States were willing to attend, provided that the replies forwarded in answer to his Memorandum appeared to hold out any hope of general agreement. All the Powers consulted were in favour of the proposed Conference, which was, therefore, convened by His Majesty's Government and which met at London in March, 1926. Various agreements were registered and signed by the representatives who attended the Conference.

When, however, the precise effect of the conclusions of the London Conference was more closely studied, it became evident that they had by no means cleared the way to ratification as successfully as had been hoped. On the one hand, there was the problem of securing the adherence of the other State Members of the organisation to these conclusions—a matter which presented considerable difficulty—and, in addition, there was a fundamental divergence of view as to the exact force of the conclusions themselves. The Powers assembled at London had determined with regard to a number of points how they would administer the Convention if ratified and had agreed that administration on these lines was essential from a practical point of view. However, whilst some of the Powers were convinced that the agreements reached were completely in harmony with the Convention, the British Government felt and expressed considerable doubt as to whether they did not go beyond what could be considered a fair interpretation of the terms of the Convention. Further examination only strengthened these doubts, and in the autumn of 1927 the Government finally decided that the only possibility of reaching a really satisfactory solution lay in putting into operation Article 21 of the Convention which runs:— At least once in ten years the Governing Body of the International Labour office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention, and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision or modification. The Convention would thus again come up before the International Labour Conference for review.

Criticism of the Convention itself follows two main lines. First, the text is vague and ambiguous and therefore fails in itself to provide the necessary guarantee for uniformity or practice after it has been ratified; and, secondly, it makes no allowance for various industrial practices perfectly consistent with its main purpose. Perhaps I may illustrate it to your Lordships. For instance, there are no definitions in regard to vital points such as "working hours," which in some quarters have been considered to mean only hours of actually productive work, or the "continuous processes" by which, under Article 4, a fifty-six-hour week may be worked. Again, to prove my second point, Article 2B. of the Convention, while making provision for one short working day in the week, limits the normal hours allowed on any day to nine, with the result that it becomes impossible to work forty-eight hours in a week of five days, a practice which obtains in large sections of the British boot and shoe industry and other important industries.

Again, consider Article 6B, which deals with overtime. That Article lays down that regulations made by public authority shall determine for industrial undertakings the temporary exceptions to the normal limits of the eight-hour day and forty-eight-hour week that may be allowed, so that establishments may deal with "exceptional" cases of pressure of work. Now, there is nothing exceptional about a great deal of the overtime essential to the carrying on of industry. Indeed, that overtime is often seasonal and recurrent. Any British Government in drafting a bill to implement the Convention will, therefore, be faced with the alternatives of making use of the words "exceptional cases of pressure of work" when it will be left to the Courts of Law to determine what are exceptional cases, or of employing some other phrase, when they will be exposed to the charge of departing from the terms of the Convention. I venture to put all this before your Lordships to show that it is not quite so easy as the noble Lord seemed to think it was when he made his speech. In particular, the terms of this Article would render impossible the existing agreement in regard to the hours governing the railways in this country, an agreement highly prized by the railway workers, since all Sunday work, which is naturally of regular occurrence, is treated under that agreement as overtime and paid for at overtime rates.

I know it may be urged that all these matters were the subject of consideration at the London Conference, and were included under the agreements arrived at at that Conference. That, of course, is the case; but I would remind your Lordships that, as I have already stated, the British Government felt and expressed considerable doubt as to whether the agreements then reached did not go beyond what could be considered a fair interpretation of the terms of the Convention.

The Labour Party at various times has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that we have refused to ratify the Washington Draft Eight Hours Convention. The Minister of Labour in the late Administration, Mr. Shaw, has been particularly severe in his castigation. He has even attacked the honour of the Government. On February 27, speaking in another place, he said:— I suggest that both from the point of view of the Treaty and the action of the Government representatives at Washington, no honourable body of men can escape the responsibility of this Convention. If this were a case of a private individual who had acted in this way, there is not a club in London who would accept him as a member. But when we get together in a body, somehow ordinary common morality seems to go to the wall, and a mere signature, a mere Treaty, is a scrap of paper and it does not matter particularly if it be a Treaty which will be of advantage to the workers. That sort of thing may do and, I have no doubt, does do harm to this country so far as foreign opinion of our conduct is concerned, though it should do little here at home where such accusations pass as the current exchange among some politicians of the Labour Party.

But the attitude of the Labour Party on the question of ratification is manifestly insincere. My right hon. friend the Minister of Labour, in the course of the same debate—and I would direct your Lordships' particular attention to the record of it—challenged the Labour Party upon the draft Convention. I will quote an extract because it is very important and very illuminating. He said:— It is clear from to-day's debate that the right hon. gentleman and his friends would like to ratify the Washington Convention as it stands. That I understand to be the case? I pause for correction if I am wrong. To which Mr. Shaw, who made the speech I have referred to, replied:— The right hon. gentleman pauses for correction. He knows perfectly well what he says is not the case. Is it not perfectly clear then that neither this Government nor the only other alternative Government that I can foresee at the present moment, will ever ratify this Convention as it stands. We cannot do it, nor could a Labour Government do it because of the very inapplicability of it in its present shape to our peculiar circumstances and because of the ambiguities which I have already described. We, at any rate, will be no parties to an action whose first effect would be to disturb the working arrangements under which our railwaymen are working at present, arrangements with which, I believe, they are perfectly satisfied, which they would not have disturbed on any account and which, though not within the ambit of arrangements possible under the draft Convention, are yet perfectly conformable with the observance of the principle of the forty-eight-hour week to which we stand pledged.

Now let me deal more particularly with the question of revision which the noble Earl has specifically raised by the terms of his Resolution. As I have already said, His Majesty's Government, convinced that the process of interpretation had already gone so far as to encroach upon the domain of revision and that revision was the only possible and straightforward way of securing the ratification of the Convention, made proposals to that effect to the Governing Body at Geneva. That Body postponed consideration until it had laid down definite stages of procedure for bringing into operation Article 21 of the draft Convention—that is, the Article to which I have already alluded—which provides for a report from the Governing Body to the General Conference on its working at least once every ten years. That procedure consists of four stages.

First a draft report by the International Labour Office on the working of the Convention will be considered and adopted by the Governing Body with such modifications as appear to be required. Secondly, the Governing Body will consider whether it shall lay proposals for revision or modification of the Convention before the General Conference, when, if it decides against revision, the report will be laid before the Conference without any recommendation. Thirdly, In the event of the Governing Body deciding to give further consideration to the question of revision, the report on the working of the Convention will be sent to all the State Members of the Organisation for their observations. Finally, on receipt of these observations the Governing Body will decide the terms of its report to the Conference and define the precise question or questions dealing with revision which are to be placed on the agenda of the Conference.

The Governing Body has called for a report on all the Conventions adopted at Washington and it is understood that the first report to be presented will be that on the Eight Hours Convention, which will be taken towards the close of this year. It is in these circumstances that we are asked in the terms of this Resolution to inform the International Labour Office of the precise points on which we desire this Convention amended. We are told that agreement with our request for revision without any clear idea of what is intended in that direction, may open the way to such drastic alterations of the Convention as even to impair the principles which it embodies. But we have invariably made it clear whenever the subject of revision has been raised that we have no desire, nor have we any intention, to impair in any way the principle of the forty-eight hour week. Our desire is merely to render the Convention an instrument under which uniform practice and enforcement will be assured by removing its ambiguities and by making provision for various industrial practices which are in no way opposed to that principle.

My right hon. friend the Minister of Labour, speaking on the same subject in another place emphasised that proposition. He said:— The Convention for which we should press is a Convention the principles of which are the principles of the forty-eight-hour week contained in the Washington Convention. We have no objection to the principle of the forty-eight-hour week contained in the Washington Convention, and we have to embody in any workable Convention those points which were raised at London and one or two other points which probably need consideration as well. That is as far as we can go at present. To publish at this stage the precise modifications which we propose for our declared purpose we feel would be altogether premature.

The report on the working of the Convention is not yet to hand and the procedure adopted by the Governing Body, which I have already outlined to your Lordships, provides a definite opportunity for all State Members before any final decision as to proposals for revision is taken. The Government cannot bring forward its final proposals in advance of the general report on the working of the Convention and of any international discussion thereon. I feel sure that the noble Earl will agree, so far as concerns the second part of his Resolution, that if the Government consider it premature to inform the International Labour Office of the precise amendments which we desire, it is quite out of the question to bring forward a Bill to give effect to these proposals.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

If I may interrupt, I never intended that the Government should introduce a Bill. I merely asked that their proposals should be put into legislative form so that the different parties in this country should understand the kind of Convention which they would be prepared to ratify.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. However, we feel that such a step, even as the noble Earl has put it, would be inadvisable on other grounds. It would crystallise our proposals in such a way as to leave little, if any, scope for subsequent international negotiation and would undoubtedly lay us open to the charge of attempting to force the hand of the General Conference and to dictate decisions to it in advance. That is a course which I am sure the noble Earl, like ourselves, would never adopt and a charge which, like ourselves, he would hesitate to incur.

I must apologise to your Lordships for the length of my remarks, but I shall indeed be glad if this Motion has given me the opportunity of dispelling for ever whatever impressions there may be either here at home or abroad that His Majesty's Government or this country has ever either entertained the desire or remotely intended to abandon the principle of the forty-eight-hour week to the maintenance of which we stand solemnly pledged by the Treaty of Versailles. We regard that as a very high undertaking and the sole reason that impels us to call for revision of the Convention is that we will not set our hand to any document whose terms we are unable exactly and with the utmost punctilio to fulfil.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, my noble friend has made, as those of us who have had the honour of his acquaintance now for a good many years fully expected, a most able presentation of the Government's case, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will gain very greatly by his presence on the Government Bench. But he will forgive me for saying that he has wholly failed to convince me that this Motion is wrong. I will come to the question of our exact obligations—moral or otherwise—on this question later, but I want to deal with the latter part of my noble friend's observations first. He says we cannot ratify this Convention, not because we object to any principle which it embodies; on the contrary, we are warm adherents of the forty-eight hour week. We feel ourselves bound by the Treaty of Versailles and, quite apart from that, we accept and desire to see that carried into effect. The principle of the thing is not in dispute.

I pause for one moment, before I come to this detailed criticism, to call your Lordships attention to the very astonishing condition in which we find ourselves. More than nine years ago we agreed by the most solemn international document that it was desirable on the highest grounds to establish a forty-eight-hour week. We proceeded within a few months to a Conference, at which a Convention was drawn up with that object. It turned out to be imperfect, and yet for nine years, though everybody has been most anxious to carry into effect this great labour and international reform, somehow or other we have not yet arrived, not at a composition of a difference of principle, but even at being able to state in intelligible language what it is that we want. That is a very astonishing state of things, and one that does not reflect great credit on any of the parties concerned.

I am not going into them, but what are the broad objections that were raised to the Washington Convention? Broadly speaking, there are two. It is said that it is vague in its terms and that it has not the necessary elasticity. Both those objections were considered, as I understand it, at the Conference that was called in 1926, and agreements were arrived at then as to what was meant on each of the points raised, but if there were other points—and we have never yet been able to ascertain definitely from the Government whether there were points beyond those that were raised in 1926—why were they not stated in 1926? After all, we had then had seven years for consideration, and we surely ought to have arrived then at a conclusion as to what exactly we thought ought to be done. It would surely have been reasonable for the Government to be able to state fully and without ambiguity what exactly it was that they wanted in 1926 and, if the other parties agreed, to find out some means of carrying out the common agreement.

If it be said—and it may be said—that the Conference thought that it had arrived at an agreement, though it had not done so, that seems to me to be the very case for this Motion. What is really wanted at this moment, in order to clear away the whole misunderstanding, is a plain, unambiguous, unmistakable statement of what exactly we want. If that statement is made it is absurd to tell me that some means will not be found for carrying our desires into effect. You cannot expect an agreement with these foreign countries and with the different parties concerned in this matter until you have stated exactly what it is that you want. That is the elementary thing that you have to do, and that is all that this Motion asks you to do. It is said that the necessary elasticity and accuracy cannot be provided within the terms of the Convention, by explanatory statements or by any one of the many different ways which are open to diplomatic usage in making clear what is meant by any signature that you attach to a particular document. That may be so, but nobody can tell until a definite statement has been made in black and white of exactly what it is that you want. That is the first thing to be done. I venture to say that I do not believe that the Government have such a statement in their own offices yet. I am not contradicted. They have not such a statement in their own offices yet—a definite statement of what exactly it is that they want. That really is not the way to do business in such a complicated matter as this.

What are the specific objections raised to my noble friend's proposals? There were two objections which I did not, I confess, quite appreciate. One was that it would crystallise our position and disable us from diplomatic bargaining. That is exactly what is wanted—that we should crystallise our position. To crystallise is to make a thing clear, and until you have done that you cannot even begin to bargain. To say that once you have made a statement you are not to vary from it in any particular has never been a doctrine of British diplomacy, and I hope that it never will be. The first thing is to state fairly what you want. Then it is said that, by doing so, we should force the hands of the other parties to the negotiations. Could anything be more fantastic than such a statement? They are all begging us to do it. They are all anxious that we should state in most specific terms what it is that we want. They have said so over and over again. They have begged us at Geneva to say exactly what it is we want, and we tell them that we cannot do so because we might force their hands. You do not force the hands of another party to a negotiation by telling them what you want. Surely you then enable them to meet any difficulties that you feel, and either to agree with you or to convince you. There is no question of forcing their hands.

But the objection upon which my noble friend seemed to rely with greater confidence even than upon the objections regarding crystallisation and forcing the hands of other Powers, was that the demand is premature. "Premature" is a blessed word, one of those words which, like "co-ordination," is always used in official explanations. Why is it premature? What is there premature about it? I have tried to explain to your Lordships why I do not think it is premature on the ground that it will in any way injure our position. Why is it premature? Surely it is never premature to make a statement which will clear up any misunderstanding. That is what is wanted, and that is the only thing that this Motion asks. My noble friend recited with great fullness, of which no one complains, the history of this matter. He cited the Treaty of Versailles and accepted the principle there enshrined. He cited the Conference at Washington in 1919, though he did, indeed, omit one small detail of which I will venture to remind him. Not only did the British Delegates at that Conference vote for the Convention but, in view of its complicated and important character, before they did so they telegraphed home for express instructions—not general instructions, but express instructions—and they received, as Mr. Barnes informed the world, express instructions to accept this Convention. Thus it was rather more than an ordinary acceptance. It was an acceptance on express instruction, though it is quite true that, when the Convention came home, difficulties were found.

At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I want to state, though it may be quite wrong, my own view of the position we are in with regard to the Conventions accepted under the Labour Articles of the Treaty of Versailles. As I understand it, the object was to simplify the procedure and shorten negotiations for dealing with these Conventions—an object which certainly has not been attained in the present case. The framers of those Articles—I had nothing to do with them—took some such view as this. They said: "In an ordinary Convention you have negotiations, then you have, it may be, a Conference, a Treaty is signed, and then it goes home and has to be ratified. We think we can get a little further on a little quicker if, instead of a signature, We enact that an acceptance by the Conference under the Labour Articles should operate just in the same way as a signature, and that this should involve certain consequences and should go home to be ratified by the Government at home."

I quite agree that it does not absolutely bind the Government. Nobody says so. They are quite free, no doubt, as they are in every case, until they have actually ratified a treaty, to refuse to do it, but I think it is generally thought that there is, I will not say an obligation, but a certain imperfect obligation resting on Governments to ratify, unless they see some very grave objection to ratifying, Conventions to which their representatives have affixed their signatures. There is a prima facie case for ratification, and that was the position after Washington, and it seems to me that it did impose a definite obligation on the Government to do their best, by the most rapid method, to get rid of the difficulties which they might feel, and to ratify the Convention if they could.

It does not, however, rest there. There was this Conference in 1924, and at the end a statement was given to the world that the ratification of the Convention was possible. I do not say there was an absolute obligation, but it was the sort of thing which a Government ought to take into consideration. Then came the 1926 Conference, and the statement made by the Prime Minister, already quoted, that he hoped for agreement, and that if agreement was reached ratification of the Washington Convention by participating countries would then be possible, and we should proceed to ratify. That was the expectation held out at that time. There are minor statements all bearing in the same direction. And then we come to the constant pressure of Geneva, asking whether we were or were not going to ratify after the Convention of 1926, and there was no suggestion for eighteen months that there was to be any difficulty about the ratification, except that the British Government was busy with other matters and could not find the time. Meanwhile other countries had ratified; the Belgian Government, and I think Czecho-Slovakia, without condition, and France and Italy, subject to our ratification. That was the position. We were, in effect, the country standing in the way of ratification, and although I would not go so far as to say that we were doing anything dishonourable or inconsistent with our honour, we had put ourselves in a position of extraordinary international difficulty, and one which, if it had happened to any other country, would have been severely criticised in this country.

I have only one quotation to read which has not yet been referred to. My noble friend now says to the Government: "Tell us what it is that you want. That will be a definite pledge of your sincerity, and show that you really are in earnest and mean what you say." We are told that that is premature and that that is objectionable. May I remind your Lordships that on May 4, 1927, my noble friend Lord Balfour said this:— The object and policy of His Majesty's Government is to proceed with the legislation required before ratification can take place, and immediately after that legislation is accomplished to proceed with the policy of ratification. Therefore at that time the policy of the Government was to do exactly what my noble friend wants to be done now—namely, to produce a Bill showing exactly what we want, and to pass that Bill into law. The noble Earl added that the British Government still maintained the view that ratification ought to be simultaneous and ought to involve a common policy.

That is the case of my noble friend's Motion as I understand it, and I must say that I think this is a case in which your Lordships might well assist the Government by explaining to them that we, who are outside the Government, are no less sensitive to the honour of the Government than they are, and that we feel most strongly that to do nothing now, and merely to say we are in favour of revision but not to say what revision means, exposes us to charges that we are not really in earnest in our advocacy of the forty-eight-hour week, and the eight-hour day, although we who know the Government may be ready to discard any such charges. Those charges are, however, made openly and freely in other countries, and they are, I am afraid, believed by a great many people abroad. It is not a position which any of us like to see, and there is something in it, because if we insist upon revision generally, it means that we throw the Treaty into the melting pot altogether, that the old Treaty is gone and that you are going to formulate a new Treaty; that the ratifications of the old Treaty will disappear, and acceptances, whether conditional or otherwise, will disappear. I cannot think that that is a policy which should commend itself to your Lordships. I think we might begin by making a clear statement of what we want, and then asking other countries whether by some method short of complete revision of the Treaty—by a Protocol, or interchange of notes, or other diplomatic device—we can reach an agreement such as it is said that everyone desires to obtain. Holding these views, if my noble friend proceeds to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I should not wish to add anything to the speech of the noble Viscount had it not been for what I think was a very unfortunate phrase used by the noble Marquess opposite. We are dealing here, as he will agree, with an international question of grave importance, but he allowed himself to say that on this great international question, involving these labour difficulties, the Party to which I belong was manifestly insincere. I should like to think that, it having been drawn to his notice, he would withdraw an accusation of that kind, for which there is not the slightest foundation, and which can only bring prejudice and bitterness into an international question, which from feelings of national loyalty we, the Labour party, wish to discuss on the highest lines. Certainly, we repudiate altogether the suggestion of introducing into a discussion of this kind a term of this character. I wish to read a note that I have here of the reasons put forward when the International Labour Office was constituted at Geneva, and it is as follows:— … conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled": That is absolutely true. And so far from the Labour party being insincere, they desire in every way, not only in this country but internationally—that is the point—to get rid of the injustices, hardships and privations that exist as regards labour conditions in many parts of the world.

On the other point let me say this. The noble Marquess, I think, only gave a partial history. I agree entirely with what he said about the initiation of this discussion at Washington. It was not an ordinary occasion, it was a great occasion, and the British Delegates in terms telegraphed back to the Government of this country asking what attitude they should take up in order that they might be in accord with the desires of the Government itself. I am not going into all the subsequent stages, but I must say a word or two in emphasising what the real position was in 1926. The Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons why the British Government did not proceed to ratification. His answer was that there were misunderstandings as to the interpretation of the terms of the Convention, but that there was going to be a Conference—which was held in 1926—in order that these misunderstandings might be removed, and that, if they were removed, ratification would follow as a fact. As a matter of history those misunderstandings were removed. They were removed on the occasion of the Conference of 1926. I am not speaking of the Conference at Berne in 1924, but I am speaking of the Conference of 1926 and I am referring to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister that ratification of this Convention would take place as soon as those misunderstandings had been removed under the agreement, arrangement and understanding which the Conference would promote.

The next point I desire to emphasise is one which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has already referred to. Early in 1927—I think it was in May—I brought this question before your Lordships' House, and the Government on that occasion were represented by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. What did Lord Balfour say? He said that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to proceed with the legislation required before ratification, and then to ratify without delay. We are now told that the necessary legislation cannot even be specified; and yet Lord Balfour in 1927 said that the Government would proceed with the legislation required before ratification, and that ratification would then follow. I do not want to make any charges against anyone: we want to get this matter put on a sound and firm foundation. But could any statement be more explicit than that? Could any statement make it clearer that, according to his view and on the instructions he had, His Majesty's Government were prepared then and there with the necessary legislation, and that then, at once, ratification would take place? I recollect it very well, because, of course, I accepted that statement as one of the greatest importance. I accepted it as a statement on behalf of the Government, that after the Conference of 1926 the difficulties had all been overcome, that the Government were prepared to bring forward the necessary legislation at once, and that after that legislation had been passed the Convention itself would be immediately ratified.

These are matters to which it is impossible to shut one's eyes. I do not want to go again into what took place at Geneva, but everyone who has read the record of what took place there knows that it was the action of the British Government, and that action alone, which prevented the carrying out of the terms of the Convention and its general ratification. Belgium has ratified, even independently of ourselves; Italy has promised to ratify as soon as we do; France has done the same; Germany has passed legislation and is passing legislation so that it may ratify at an early date; and, if you look at the records, you will find that, if we had not taken what I must call this obstructive attitude, ratification before this would have followed, and the Eight Hours Convention would have become not only a draft Convention, but a Convention assented to by all the great industrial Powers.

I wish to say something about the words "draft Convention." No treaty, of course, is binding until it is ratified—it does not matter what the form of the treaty is. There is no weakness in the draft Convention coming forward for ratification. You must have a ratification. I should be the last person to suggest that this country ought to be bound to any treaty of any kind without its being ratified in a constitutional manner; and it means nothing more in this case than in any other case. But I must say I am deeply disappointed with the answer which the noble Marquess gave, and, if a Division is called, we shall certainly support the noble Earl in his Motion. But perhaps your Lordships will forgive me once more when I repudiate in the strongest possible terms the notion, so constantly put forward, that the Labour Party in international affairs is either insincere or disloyal or unpatriotic. I venture to say it is in just the same position as any other Party: we put our country first, and we care for national honour beyond all other things, particularly in carrying out our international agreements.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say one word in answer to what has fallen from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. In the first place, let me thank him for saying, in perfectly distinct terms, as indeed every speaker to-night has said, that there is no obligation of honour on the part of this country to ratify. Ratification is a matter in the discretion of the Government, which they must exercise in accordance with their view of their public duty. It is not merely that ratification, to give or to withhold, is open to the Government, but that every Government has come to the conclusion that it could not ratify the Convention as it stands

A NOBLE LORD

No.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government was of opinion that it would require modifications to a certain extent. It is a very remarkable thing that that should be so—that the two parties should be agreed upon the matter. But it is not remarkable that these things should be very difficult. After all, we know in our own experience how immensely difficult labour legislation is when you only have to consider one community and one Parliament; but when you have to get an agreement among a great number of different countries in a matter of this kind of course that difficulty is immensely multiplied.

If I may make a criticism on some of the speeches which have been made in this debate, I do think that there is a certain element of impatience in those who think that these great international changes of procedure which are going on can be all carried through within a very short time. That is not the case. The whole conception of the International Labour Office at Geneva is, of course, novel. It is, no doubt, already of some years standing but still novel when you come to consider the history of great countries. And it is immensely difficult to get a system of that kind to work; that is to say, to get anything like similarity of treatment by different countries who have to approach the subject from different points of view, with different histories, and with different conditions to which these things are to be applied. That it should take a long time does not surprise me in the least.

I think we have arrived at the conclusion that, though the Eight Hours Convention is admirable in principle, yet there are immense difficulties in the precise conditions which ought to attach to it; and that is the view not only of the present Government but of the Labour Government. The only question is how the matter should be dealt with. The present advisers of the Crown are of opinion that to lay down beforehand, as my noble friend Lord Lytton would wish us to do, the exact words which we would like insisted upon, would in fact not facilitate but would hamper negotiations. We may, of course, be perfectly wrong, and my noble friends below the Gangway may be perfectly right that the proper way of negotiation is to be very precise and to say to other countries: "Here is our view. We have made up our minds. If you cannot come within our view the thing cannot be worked." We do not feel that. We feel that negotiation is more likely to be successful if it is approached with a greater delicacy of touch. Therefore we are not prepared to say forthwith in precise terms exactly what should be the modifications in the Convention in order to command our full assent.

No one, of course, can accuse this country of being lax in this eight hours question. It is practically the system already prevailing in our own country, and the only question for us is how far we can carry other countries with us. I agree with the critics of the Government that the delay is very lamentable and it would be much better to avoid it. But that the carrying out of big changes which are to apply not only to this country but to numbers of other countries as well, all looking at them from different points of view and under different conditions, should take a long time, is not surprising, and we shall certainly ask the House to support my noble friend Lord Londonderry in resisting this Motion.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, the speech of my noble friend beside me absolves me from the necessity of saying more than a very few words in reply. I feel that there is an unfortunate fate which dogs this subject and necessitates that the more that is said about it the further we seem to be from that point of clearness at which we are all aiming. After two hours of discussion in your Lordships' House I feel as if I were in looking-glass land, where, though one runs very fast, one remains in the same place. I cannot feel, I am afraid, that the replies we have received from the Government have in any way come up to expectations or explained to your Lordships or to the world the reasons why they find it difficult to do the very simple thing that we are asking them to do.

We had a very able and lucid speech from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) who spoke for the Government, but if he will allow me to say so the greater part of it was directed to speeches that had been made outside and was no answer to the Resolution which we are discussing. In the first place, the greater part of the speech was concerned with the history of the question, with which I do not in any sense quarrel. The history of the question is common ground between us and there is no difference of opinion about it. The next portion of his speech was devoted to an answer to Mr. Shaw. It was a very effective answer, if I may say so; but it was not an answer to my Resolution or to the speeches that were made in defence of it. The noble Marquess gave us the grounds for the difficulties which the Government had in ratifying the Washington Convention. But I am not asking the Government to ratify the Washington Convention. The Resolution which is before your Lordships does not ask the Government to ratify the Washington Convention, and I was careful to say in my opening remarks that I was aware of the difficulties which the Government had in ratifying that Convention, that I respected them, and that I accepted them; and that also was common ground between us.

What I did ask the Government to do was to tell us what kind of Convention they would ratify, and we are no nearer to knowing that now than we were when this debate began. The noble Marquess has told us that we could not ratify the Washington Convention. He mentioned the points upon which the Washington Convention was defective. He then went on to admit that all those points were considered at the London Conference and that all these points were covered by the agreement that was reached at the London Conference. Therefore, the speech of the noble Marquess, as the speech of the Minister of Labour and every speech made by the Government on this question, brings us to the same point—namely, that the Government would be satisfied with the Washington Hours Convention plus the terms of the London Agreement. All I ask is, if that is the case why not say so? All that I ask in this Resolution is that the Government should tell the International Labour Office at Geneva that if they can get a Convention which embodies the terms of the London Agreement they will be satisfied with it.

When I ask them to do that I am told it would be premature. I really do not know what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House means when he says that it would premature and inadvisable to state these precise points beforehand. Before what? The Government have indicated that they are unable to agree to the Washington Convention because of its defective wording. We say: "Tell us what wording you would agree with, because it is common ground between us that you are in favour of the international eight-hour day. How would you propose that the Convention should be amended in order to make that possible?" The answer is; "Oh, but it would be premature to tell you this beforehand." There is no question of beforehand. This demand is being made with insistence by the International Labour Office itself, by various countries in Europe with which we have been in conference and by the advocates of the Convention in this country. All that we ask is that the Government should state that they are willing to accept the Convention if it embodies the terms of the London Agreement.

In conclusion, let me call the attention of your Lordships to the terms of my Resolution. I am not asking you to vote for a resolution in favour of ratifying the Washington Eight Hours Convention. I am merely asking you to state that it is desirable to do that which the Director of the International Labour Office himself has said would be the most helpful action which the Government could take from an international point of view at this moment, action which would remove all uncertainties, which would show exactly the form of Convection which the Government would accept, and which would strengthen their hands in dealing with other nations. The noble Marquess who first spoke for the Government said that to do that would force the hands of somebody else. I am not asking you to force anybody's hands: I merely ask you to facilitate international discussion by letting the world know where you stand. That, if I may say so, is precisely the procedure which is always adopted at Geneva in discussing international affairs. The Delegations of all the countries go up to the tribune of the Assembly and state clearly the position for which they stand. No one ever suggests that it is improper for them to do so, or that the statement of their case would necessarily force the hands of the Delegation from any other country. How can you proceed to international negotiation unless you know what are the elements of the situation?

All that the Government have told us up to the present is that they cannot ratify the Washington Convention. All that I ask them now is this: If that is the case, let us know what Convention you would ratify? If the noble Marquess had given me any reasons why this could not be done I should have been prepared to consider them and accept them, but, as no reason whatever has been given for not doing that which my Resolution asks, I will ask those of your Lordships who agree that this would be a desirable step, to show the same by supporting my Resolution.