HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 17 December 1935)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
My Lords, this Bill is one which passed your Lordships' House in all its stages at the end of the last Parliament and therefore it will not be necessary for me to do more than to recall to your Lordships the main purpose of the Bill. It is to carry out the two Conventions which were adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation last summer. The first is a Convention as to the employment of women in any industrial undertaking, and the substantial difference between this new Convention and the older one, which was adopted at Washington in 1919, is that it contains a specific exemption for women holding responsible positions of management who are not ordinarily engaged in manual work. The other Convention dealt with in the Bill is of a technical character and of limited application. It deals with the system of shift working in continuous operations in sheet-glass works where the machinery is automatic. On this Convention the noble Lord, Lord Marley, raised a point that the proviso to Clause 3 (1) (a) might be abused, and I believe that I shall have the noble Lord's agreement when I say that my answer to him at a later stage met with complete satisfaction. I beg to move.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, wish on behalf of those of us who sit on this side of the House to welcome very warmly this ratification of two Conventions that were passed by the International Labour Organisation. Naturally we are particularly interested in regulations that ultimately become law and which affect the conditions of work and of employment of the working population in many different parts of the world. We are satisfied with the Bill in its present form and do not intend to 238 move any Amendments to it. I am also requested on behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley, to say that he is perfectly contented with the answer which the noble Earl gave him.
This Bill does, however, raise the very vital problem of the attitude of the British Government to the International Labour Office, and we feel very discontented with the amount of support that has been forthcoming in the past for the work that this Organisation has done. It is, I think, a not very favourable reflection on our Government that, out of the forty-nine Conventions which have been passed by the International Labour Office since its inception in the years immediately after the War, only nineteen, that is to say, less than half, have been actually accepted by the British Government. It is also, I think, unfortunate that Great Britain should figure as eleventh in the order of those States which have at present given their consent and ratification to Conventions. As a country that is at least on a level with the most progressive countries in matters of labour legislation we ought to support this body as strongly as we can and to see that other countries reach our level as speedily as possible. And this argument is not merely humanitarian, but should be considered on its merits from the business point of view. As an exporting country we cannot afford to have competition in our markets by those countries which employ labour under unwholesome and exploited conditions.
Now there are two Conventions which I think are particularly urgent, and about which I should like to address a question to the noble Earl. Those Conventions are the Marking of Weights Convention, which was ratified in Geneva in 1921 and endorsed by the representatives of the British Government on that occasion. They, as well as the representatives of the employers and of labour, supported this Convention. It has been ratified already by as many as thirty-two States. It has now been passed a very considerable time, and I should like to know, in the first place, whether the Government consider proposing a measure which would ratify this Convention in the future; and, in the second place, whether, if this is not the case, 239 a reason could be given. I am not expecting the noble Earl to answer this question impromptu, but I dare say he could do so after consulting with his right honourable friend.
I should like also to address the same question in regard to the Convention dealing with the minimum age in agriculture, which was passed in 1921. This Convention simply lays it down that children between the ages of twelve and fourteen shall not be employed in agriculture during their school hours. In England it is impossible to employ children during their school hours at that particular age, but in Scotland on the other hand the local authorities—

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I think I should point out to your Lordships that the subject which the noble Earl has now raised is not in any respect relevant to the Bill under discussion. I would, however, at once assure the noble Earl, with regard to the minimum age in agriculture, that, as far as it lies in my power, I shall satisfy him with the answer he requires, and inform him, or ask some representative of the Department concerned to inform him, as to the circumstances at present relating to the Convention made in 1921.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer on the point I was putting, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships if the subject goes beyond the usual latitude allowed in this House when a Bill is being discussed.