Lords Sitting of 2 June 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
BANGOR CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Third Reading of the Scottish Land Court Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Snell, I would like to enter a protest—a mild protest, but nevertheless a protest—against the state of the Order Paper to-day, which necessitates the Motion just moved by the Leader of the House. My noble friend Lord Olivier has a very important Motion on the Paper, which has twice been put off for the convenience of Ministers, Lord Horder has a very important Bill down, Lord Amulree has also a very

841
important Bill on the Paper, and other Orders are of substance. It means that my noble friend's Motion will come on late, after a Royal Commission at six o'clock. Business is rather crowded, I know, at this time of the Session, and it is difficult to arrange, but I would request His Majesty's Government to endeavour to arrange their business in a way more convenient to noble Lords.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am extremely sorry, because I did ask Lord Olivier to put off his Motion to a day other than that for which it was originally down, and I suggested alternative days. When I suggested to-day I hoped that it would be a clear day. As your Lordships see, the Order Paper has got filled up subsequently. That was not my fault, and I only hope that the Bills on the Paper, although of considerable importance, will not take up much time in this House, and that the Motion of Lord Olivier will therefore not come on very late. I apologise to him for what has happened. We have planned out our work from the beginning of last month and during the whole of this month, but, as your Lordships know, it is very difficult to arrange matters satisfactorily, because things come up from another place and one never knows how long debates will take. The Coal Bill, for instance, took a day more than was expected. I again apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Olivier.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
EAST LOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove what has become a growing social evil. The Bill does not restrict hire-purchase on terms of fair dealing. A large proportion of
842
traders deal fairly and equitably with their customers and they welcome the Bill. At the same time there are others who deal harshly and by sharp practices bring misery to many a home and discredit on the whole hire-purchase system. It is the activity of these people that this Bill seeks to check. The Bill also protects the trader against the unscrupulous and dishonest hirer. The Bill is therefore not directed against the normal and reputable use of the hire-purchase system, but against those who abuse it.
Hire-purchase is a device deeply characteristic of our modern way of life. The temptations it may offer to the thriftless are counterbalanced by the facilities it affords to early marriage and home building. It is conducted in the main with integrity and with the consideration that fair dealing is good policy. But many of the customers are persons whose ignorance and social timidity make them n easy prey to sharp practices, and abuses of this nature have been proved by abundant evidence. This has resulted in many tragedies, some of a serious type. County Court Judges, more particularly in industrial areas, as they see most of this type of litigation, have complained bitterly against many of these transactions and have expressed the need for a reform of the law. One learned Judge said on one occasion:
"My bitter experience over the past four years has driven me to desire that all hire-purchase could be made illegal to-morrow … Week after week, month after month, I sit and listen to accounts of minor tragedies affecting the welfare of working people of this district. In the vast majority of these cases I am wholly powerless to avert those minor disasters to these people."
The primary object of the Bill is to protect the small householder, but in a general measure of this nature it was necessary to include ordinary commercial transactions on a small scale as well.
Since the War the system of hire-purchase has grown enormously. It has been estimated—it necessarily is a rough estimate—that something like 5,000,000 families have hire-purchase agreements for furniture alone. About 60 per cent. of the furniture in Great Britain is sold under hire-purchase. The transactions carried out under the system are estimated to amount to about £100,000,000 a year. These are large figures and this large business makes it important that it should be conducted on a level of the

843
highest integrity. That standard in many cases is not observed, and I venture to submit that it is the duty of Parliament to come to the aid of those who need protection. I do not propose to enter into the merits or demerits of hire-purchase. I only wish to say that hire-purchase does enable people to obtain goods on credit who otherwise would not be able to obtain them; but what is a useful practice in the hands of reputable firms has become a source of great scandal in what is recognised as the worst end of the trade.
One of the evils dealt with by the Bill is what is known as the "snatch-back." Decent firms do not want the goods back. They want to be paid; they are content with a reasonable profit and they want the ordinary instalments to go on. But there are firms who want the goods back in order to re-sell them, particularly when a considerable portion of the price has been paid. A hire-purchase agreement grants the option to buy only when all the stipulated conditions are fulfilled. The theory is, under certain agreements, that all the time the hirer is paying only for the hire and that at the end of the stipulated time one pays a nominal sum, say 1s., as the purchase price. That means that it is open to the owner to repossess himself of the goods at any time prior to the stipulated time if the conditions have not been fulfilled. That is where the centre of the trouble lies.
I have had an opportunity of investigating a large number of these cases and I confess they make very painful reading. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with extreme cases, but I will quote one or two cases to show how the system is carried out. A poor woman got furniture on hire-purchase and the price she was to pay was £27 1s. 9d. She paid all save 25s. and then got behind with her payments. She was a charwoman, and one day when she was out charing a van called and took away all the goods. A miner had some kitchen furniture for which he was paying on the hire-purchase system £9 15s. After he had paid all save 17s. 6d. he fell out of employment. The furniture was seized, touched up and sold again at the original price. A commercial traveller got married and obtained on hire-purchase furniture at the price of £100. He lost his job when he had paid £60 on the
844
furniture. Within six weeks his home was cleared out and he lost the £60 and the furniture as well. A farmer had fourteen cows under hire-purchase, for which he was to pay £431 13s. He paid £332 and then, as farmers do at times, he ran short of money and was not able to continue the instalments. The hire-purchase company thereupon seized the cows. They thus got the cows and the £332; in other words they got £763 13s. out of this transaction, because the cows were of the same value as when the agreement was made, or, may be, of greater value.
Another abuse is the linked-on contract. Perhaps it is best explained by giving an example. A young married couple got furniture on hire-purchase at a price of £30. They paid the instalments regularly to the last four instalments. Then a canvasser called and complimented them on the fine way in which they had carried on their payments and had given no trouble. He praised them up to the skies; then he said: "Would you like some more furniture on the instalment system?" They demurred at first, but afterwards were induced to take another £25 worth. This new transaction was not the subject of a separate agreement, but they were given what is known as a "linked-on" agreement, that is, the new purchase was added to the old agreement. The young people did not know the pit that had been prepared for them. They got the old document with the particulars added and they paid off £30 under the original agreement. They went on paying for the new purchase until they had paid about one-third. Unfortunately, the man lost his employment and in consequence was unable to continue his instalments. Thereupon the hire-purchase company came down and claimed the lot, including what had been already paid for in full.
There is no guarantee or warranty that the goods are of an implied quality. A woman bought a divan bedstead for her daughter, a schoolgirl. The daughter developed what the mother thought was a cold in the throat but she could not cure it. She called in a doctor who diagnosed that the child was suffering from an irritant of some kind. He could not tell what it was until the mother happened to say that every time she tidied the room she found sawdust under the bed. On the advice of the doctor the divan was

845
opened, when it was found to be stuffed with wood shavings such as are used for packing eggs. The poor woman complained to the company but she was told that they gave no warranty and refused to admit any liability. The mother was without a remedy and had to pay. Another hardship is that if proceedings are taken in the County Court, they are frequently taken in the Court where the company have their headquarters. People living, for example, in the north of England may be summoned to appear at a Court in London, and accordingly the hire-purchase company get judgment by default. I could give other instances, but I have already cited enough to show your Lordships the evils with which the Bill proposes to deal. The Bill also provides against wrongdoing on the part of the hirer. It makes him liable for any damage to the goods while under the agreement, and inflicts a penalty for removing the goods and refusing to disclose where they are. It also protects the owner in the case of the bankruptcy of the hirer or in case of distress.
So far I have been dealing with the question of hire-purchase. There is another part of the Bill which deals with credit-sale agreements. Under hire-purchase, as I have pointed out, the goods comprised in the agreement remain the property of the owner and do not pass to the hirer until after the instalments have been paid and other conditions fulfilled. In the case of credit sales the property in the goods at once passes to the buyer. It is an agreement to sell, not for ready cash, but on credit. A credit-sale agreement is defined in Clause 16 as a sale when the purchase price is payable by five or more instalments. A hire-purchase Act was passed for Scotland in 1933. A great deal was expected of that Act, but it has not had the success it deserved. It has proved most beneficial in cases where it was not wanted—namely, in the case of good traders. Unscrupulous traders have transferred their transactions to credit-sale agreements, and the abuses under credit sales are said to be almost as rampant in Scotland as those under hire-purchase in England. This Bill, as I have said, includes transactions under credit-sale agreements.
The Bill seeks to check the various abuses I have mentioned and others. The majority of cases coming under the Bill
846
will be those where the purchase price does not exceed £100. In Clause 1 there are three limits set up. There is a general limit of £100, and there is also a limit of £50 in the case of motor vehicles. The reason for that limit of £50 is this. As your Lordships know, a practice has grown up in the motor trade where the person making the purchase arranges for the value of his old car to be taken into account. It is felt that if a higher figure than £50 was specified it might seriously affect the sale of new cars and thereby seriously affect the manufacture of cars. Accordingly it is agreed that the limit as regards motor vehicles should be £50. Your Lordships will observe that this limit of £50 also applies in the case of railway wagons. A curious feature about this is that it was with railway wagons that hire-purchase was first started. The wagons now dealt with in this connection are second-hand wagons, and it is agreed by everyone concerned that £50 should be the limit.
Another case is that of livestock. Livestock stand on a different footing from most articles covered by hire-purchase. Livestock under a hire-purchase agreement generally improve instead of depreciating, and consequently the existing law with regard to hire-purchase operates more harshly on farmers than on other people who buy goods that wear out. The owner under the existing law is able to take possession of an improving asset as well as take the instalments, and under the harsh exercise of this power many farmers have been brought to bankruptcy. A special provision is necessary in this case because these agreements usually include not one animal but a number of animals. Cattle as a rule are not bought singly either in market or from dealers, but generally in groups of ten and upwards. It would practically ruin the beneficial effect of the Bill in respect to cattle if the limit was fixed at £100, so that in this case the limit has been fixed at £500 for livestock;
I do not know that I need go into Clause 2 very fully. It relates to the two prices—the purchase price and the cash price which must be mentioned in the agreement; certain particulars must he specified. Clause 3 relates to credit-sale agreements and is substantially the same as Clause 2. I call your Lordships' attention to subsection 1 (a) where certain

847
words are left out. It should read substantially the same as Clause 2 (1) (a). Then there is a new right to the hirer under Clause 4, where he has paid half the purchase price, and there is a provision in the event of his not having taken reasonable care. The next clause makes provision against contracting out—I need not go into that. Clause 6 makes provision for the owners and sellers to supply proper information. It often happens that these unfortunate people have no record of what they have paid and what they owe, and the obligation is put on the trading company to supply particulars. Then there is a provision dealing with the duty of the hirer to give information as to where the goods are, and if he neglects to do so he is liable on conviction to a penalty.
Clause 10 restricts the owner's right to recover possession of goods otherwise than by action. Where one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid the owner cannot enforce any right to recover possession of the goods otherwise than by action. The next clause says that an action by an owner against a hirer to recover possession when one-third of the hire-purchase money has been paid has to be commenced in the County Court for the district in which the hirer resides. Clause 12 deals with the question I have already mentioned about successive hire-purchase agreements between the same parties. The other clauses are all fairly simple and I need not go into them. I might, however, call attention to the Schedule which sets out the notice which has to be appended to the memorandum of the hire-purchase agreement and states what the obligations of the hirer are and also the obligations of the hire-purchase company. The Bill provides a balanced system of safeguards on both sides. It will protect the sensible and honest hirer on the one hind while permitting a legitimate and useful trade to operate on a reasonable and fair basis on the other hand.
The Bill breaks new ground and accordingly requires careful examination. It has had a prolonged and considered examination in another place, and probably a further examination will reveal that other Amendments, mostly of a drafting nature, would improve it. The Bill was preceded by a long and careful preparation. An investigation was carried
848
out by Dr. Mallon, the Warden of Toynbee Hall, and his colleagues and the honourable member for Thirsk, Mr. Tufton, a former resident there. Mr. Watkins, a busy solicitor in the City of London, did valuable work in getting agreement between the hire-purchase trade and social workers. The investigation extended over a period of two years. The honourable member for Jarrow, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, has been keenly interested in the subject and she conducted the Bill in another place with great skill and judgment. The Attorney-General was most helpful and it is largely due to him that the Bill appears in its present shape. It has the approval of some twenty-seven trade associations, including the Hire-Purchase Trade Association, the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Chamber of Trade and the National Association of Trade Protection Societies. I think I am right in saying that the trade welcomes this legislation to stop the anti-social acts of both bad owners and had hirers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Amulree.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I only rise to say that my noble friends desire to support this Bill and to help its passage into law as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships' House will agree that a Bill of this kind is long overdue, more especially as the hire-purchase trade has increased very rapidly during the time of prosperity since 1931. Therefore it is all the more important to provide against cases of distress such as the noble Lord has described, which will undoubtedly occur if employment gets worse and wages get scarcer. But I do not wish to trouble your Lordships by gilding a lily of this kind. I only wanted to refer in rather greater detail to one aspect of the Bill which, with all due respect to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, has not I think received as full discussion in another place as it might be thought to deserve. I refer to the credit-sale arrangements in respect of livestock.
It will be seen in Clause 1 of the Bill that all credit-sale transactions in respect of livestock up to a maximum of £100 are included in the Bill, whereas the normal

849
limit is £100 and the limit for motor cars and wagons is £50. I do not think that any convincing reason was given in another place why the limit should be five times as high in respect of livestock as in respect of, for instance, farm machinery. To judge from the debates one important reason was put forward, and that was that the Bill would be of no use to the livestock industry unless it included transactions up to £500 because the average of the transactions was somewhere in that neighbourhood. I have been able to obtain some figures which, I think, can be taken as representative, because they cover such a big proportion of the total hire-purchase transactions in this country, and these figures show that the average transaction in respect of machinery is something between £107 and £117, whereas the average transaction in respect of store cattle is £138. The average for dairy cattle is lower, but I think one can take the same actual figure of £138. Now £138 is certainly not five times the size of £107, and it seems rather hard to agree at first sight that there is any reason why the limit should be five times as high in respect of livestock as in respect of other goods. There were also other objections raised in the House of Commons. One of them was that difficulties constantly arose when livestock were produced for sale in the auction market and sold and it was subsequently disclosed that these animals were the subject of a hire-purchase agreement. There is nothing provided for in this Bill making it an offence to produce livestock for sale and not to disclose the hire-purchase agreement in respect of them, and I think the Bill might be improved by an Amendment in that respect.
My noble friend who moved the Bill produced some harrowing cases, notably the case where the farmer paid £700 odd in respect of some cows which ought to have been valued at £431 15s. That case was mentioned in another place, but there are always two sides to every story, and it so happens that I have had the other side of this story, for what it is worth. Unfortunately it is not always true that the livestock improves through keeping. If it were, the farmer's life would be an easier one than it is. In fact, in this case the farmer was not only a bad financier but also a bad farmer, with the result that the stock had deteriorated so much
850
that, instead of the hire-purchase people getting the difference between £400 and £700— £300—they got £140 by selling the cattle to a dealer. That is the other side of the story. As one side has been quoted I think it is only right to quote the other figures here.
At the present time we are told that Government measures will increase the fertility of the soil. If the fertility of the soil is increased there will be more demand for livestock on the land and a demand for increasing credit facilities. There is no doubt that the £500 limit in the Bill will restrict the credit facilities available to farmers. Further, the livestock clauses in the Bill will be difficult of application because there is always risk of County Court actions and, if so, there is risk of trouble occurring over subsisting animals while an action is pending. Therefore in practice this Bill will have the effect of making the farmer rely more on the auctioneers and less on outside credit organisations. That may be right or it may be wrong, but I submit that the matter has not been sufficiently discussed in another place, and that before this provision in the Bill becomes law it should be perfectly clear that it is approved by your Lordships' House and that we should not merely take silence to mean consent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, this is a Bill of a very important nature and there is no doubt that its provisions should be scrutinised with care. At the Committee stage the provisions with regard to hire purchase and credit in regard to livestock can be scrutinised and no doubt the noble Lord will bring forward an Amendment to enable that to be done. All I desire to do now is to tell your Lordships that, according to the information which the Government have seen and according to the various documents which I have had the duty of reading, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has in no respect exaggerated the great grievance that many unfortunate people have suffered in connection with agreements of this kind. The hire-purchase business is in essence a perfectly honest one. If it were always in the hands of respectable firms or people there would have been no occasion for this Bill. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord pointed out, there has sprung up during the last ten years a race of

851
people engaged in this business who have been guilty of conduct which I am sure must shock your Lordships and is well exemplified in the cases which the noble Lord has mentioned.
When the Bill was introduced into another place its form was rather different from that which it has now assumed. There was naturally a great deal of anxiety on the part of respectable people engaged in the trade to see that nothing in the Bill was going to interfere with legitimate business. At first there was in some quarters—by no means in all—some considerable doubt and some opposition. As a result of the proceedings in Committee the associations representing those engaged in this business, or at any rate those who represent the respectable people engaged in it, were practically unanimous in supporting the Bill as it now stands. So far as the organised trade is concerned your Lordships may be assured that the Bill comes to this House practically with the unanimous approval of all these people. Accordingly the Government are anxious to give every facility in their power for this Bill, which I think—subject to Amendments in Committee, which are always possible—will tend to remove what is really in the nature of a social menace in this country, which, as the noble Lord has rightly said, requires some legislation. On behalf of the Government I would say that this Bill is one which certainly should receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, this modest measure, which was sponsored in another place by the honourable Member for the Rutherglen Division of Lanarkshire, requires, I venture to think, neither protracted argument nor studied eloquence in order to commend it to the acceptance of your Lordships' House. The purpose of the Bill, which, I may say, was received with a spontaneous welcome which is rare from all Parties in another place,
852
is to enable local authorities in Scotland to take appropriate measures for the prevention of blindness and also to take appropriate measures for the treatment of all those who are afflicted by optical maladies. I may add that the Bill has the cordial assent not only of the Scottish Office but of all local authorities throughout Scotland. The pivotal provision of the measure is to be found in the first clause, which is before your Lordships, and which enables local authorities, as I say, to deal by way of prevention and by way of treatment with blindness wherever it prevails. I would like to underline in that connection two considerations. The first is that the arrangements so to be made by the local authorities must receive the sanction of the Department of Health in Scotland before they have effect, and the second is that if the Bill passes your Lordships' House it will merely assimilate the law of Scotland to what has been the law of England since 1936. The only other operative provision of the Bill is to be found in its second clause, which enacts that the expense consequent on giving effect to the provisions of the measure shall be borne as are the expenses under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. To that proposal no objection has been taken from any quarter.
It would be otiose for me to stress what I may call the merits of the measure. There are in Scotland to-day, I am informed, 8,737 blind people, many of whom, had the humane provisions of this Bill been in force, would not now have been suffering from that dread affliction. Of these 8,737 blind persons, 6,799 are certified to be unemployably blind. I venture to think that any reasonable proposal to avert, or indeed to alleviate, a situation so catastrophic in its character must enlist the instant sympathy and support of your Lordships' House. I desire to add only one thing, and it is this. There has recently been established in Edinburgh, thanks to the munificence of one of her public-spirited citizens—himself, alas!, stricken by blindness—what is known as the Ross Foundation, the purpose of which is to study the prevention of blindness. The provisions of this Bill will render the practical application of the research which is contemplated by the Foundation not only attainable but, I had almost said, inevitable. Accordingly the Foundation

853
and the Bill are complementary the one of the other. The Ross Foundation, I am informed, is unique in these islands, and it is a fortunate chance whereby the Ross Foundation in Edinburgh will substantially synchronise, if your Lordships please, with the passage of this desirable and ancillary measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell asks me to say that he and my other noble friends are fully in support of this Bill and hope that it will become law as soon as possible.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I only rise to say that His Majesty's Government view this Bill with complete sympathy and intend to give it their full support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I do not think it will take very much of the time of your Lordships for me to say what is in my mind in connection with the Bill which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The Explanatory Memorandum which was printed with the Bill sufficiently describes its purpose, which in brief is to set up a statutory Board to control the training and admission to a register of those persons who carry on the business of an undertaker or funeral director. It is believed that it is in the public interest that the necessary services which are rendered to the public by these persons should be protected and their status raised by such a Board.
I need not perhaps remind your Lordships that between the moment of death, up to which point the doctor is responsible, and the point at which disposal ultimately takes place by burial or cremation, where the Church again takes responsibility, there is a period during which no one is responsible. That period is a variable one, as we know. It is in order to remove the anomaly that during that period—an important period both
854
from the point of view of the public health and from that of sentiment—no one is responsible, that the clauses of this Bill have been framed.
There has been, as I think your Lordships will admit, a great advance during recent years in scientific knowledge in matters of the common health, and at the same time there has been, as those of us who are brought into contact with the profession of funeral directors know, a considerable advance in the knowledge, ability and capacity of undertakers. It is thought by those who have given attention to this matter that there is some urgency in regard to making it possible to advance still further the knowledge, capacity and status of funeral directors.
I am claiming your Lordships' support for this Bill in my capacity as President of the Council for the Disposition of the Dead, a body which was formed in 1931 and was incorporated three years later. The Vice-Presidents of this body are Lord Salvesen, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Sir Holburt Waring, and Major-General Sir Wilfred Beveridge. The chief objects of this organisation are the revision and the codification of the law governing the disposal of the dead and the improvement of the status of those whose profession this is. Quite a large number of associations and societies are affiliated to this body: the National Association of Funeral Directors, which is the largest organisation in the profession of funeral directors; the Federation of Cremation Authorities in Great Britain; the British Institute of Embalmers; the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons; the Corporations of the City of London and of Liverpool; the Coroners' Society, and the Royal Institute of Public Health. It is therefore obvious that this Bill is backed by a large number of responsible bodies outside as well as inside the profession of funeral directors. In short, registration is desired and is pressed for by all these responsible associations. I might add, perhaps, that the Chief Rabbi is represented on the Council, so that Jewry, which, as your Lordships know, has its own particular practice in regard to burial, is entirely sympathetic with this measure.
The Bill provides for the registration of funeral directors under the statutory Board. Ample time is allowed for those persons who are now engaged in the work of funeral direction to conform to the Board's requirements. The Board

855
will have the power of imposing penalties, but these are only to be inflicted after full inquiry, and there is the usual right of defence and of appeal. It is suggested that the Minister of Health should appoint the first Chairman of the Board and should also appoint three of the members of a panel of seven. The remaining three members of the Board, it is suggested, should be appointed by the main bodies of funeral directors which now exist. The Board will initiate and control the teaching of all those subjects which are of importance in the efficient carrying-out of the work of funeral directors. It will satisfy itself, by examination or otherwise, of the ability and competence of all those whose names are entered on the register. I have confidence that your Lordships will concur in the need for this Bill, and I beg to move the Second Reading thereof.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harder.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I regret very much that I shall have to offer opposition to this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. The noble Lord who introduced it in such a very illuminating speech was good enough to write to me personally asking me to support him. I appreciate the honour he did me, but I am unable to do so, for the reasons which I will explain as briefly as possible. This Bill is of the greatest importance because of the subject with which it deals. It is a matter which the Labour Party have had under examination for some considerable time, and I hope to be able to explain our view briefly. I am sorry that a Bill of this importance should have come on this afternoon when your Lordships are waiting to hear my noble friend Lord Olivier deal with another question of very great importance. Nevertheless, I am bound to make these observations on this Bill.
The immediate objection to the Bill that we have is that it will create, or tend to create, a monopoly of those who perform these last rites for the dead, and that already the cost of the burial of the dead is too high, and bears hardly on the great masses of the people. We fear that the monopoly which this Bill would create would tend to keep the price of burials and funeral costs up, whereas they ought to be lower. That is our short objection.
856
But this touches a very much wider and more serious subject—a subject not often spoken about, one that is tacitly avoided, but which nevertheless is of very great importance indeed. The whole question of the disposal of the dead has been complicated by the growth of population, the increase of urbanisation, and, as regards the poorer section of the population, the decay of the guild system and the weakening of parish organisation. It might surprise your Lordships to know that in Greater London one person in every eleven who dies is buried as a pauper, in a common grave, at the expense of the rates. So far have we lost the parish organisation in this country, which was inevitable for the cause I have mentioned. The fear of pauper burial lies on the minds of working-class families, and they take what steps they can to make provision, in case of the death of a relative, to see that that relative is buried decently. It is an instinct with which we must all have sympathy, but it has led to an increase in the cost of funerals and to a very heavy burden on the masses of the people.
At the present moment there are in existence some 80,000,000 industrial death policies, and the payment on them is some £33,000,000 a year. These industrial death policies are of very great assistance to poor families, and do enable the ordinary working-class household, who usually insure young children soon after birth, that they can at any rate be certain that there will be the money for a funeral in accordance with the desires of the relatives. But the cost of funerals today is far too high in our opinion. This is an immense subject. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is towards the Bill of Lord Horder, but I am going to express the attitude of the Labour Party on this subject, and I think it is worthy of a little attention. In England and Wales alone there are about half a million deaths a year, and therefore the duty of disposing of the dead in the United Kingdom is a very great one indeed.
Just a word with regard to the cost of funerals. I am quoting from a very interesting book, of which no doubt Lord Horder is aware, by Sir Arnold Wilson and Professor Hermann Levy, entitled Burial Reform and Funeral Costs. There is quoted here the cost, under contract

857
with the Ministry of Pensions, of funerals of war pensioners—the cost of such interments is borne by the Ministry—in December, 1932. There is no complaint about the decency or propriety of the way in which these war pensioners have been buried. The figure for the whole cost is £8 15s., and that includes cost and delivery of coffin, personal attendance, bearers, motor hearse; in fact the whole cost. That is the Government contract price. The book then says:
"Yet the minimum price quoted by an undertaker of repute for the burial of a young man who died in a London hospital in June, 1937 … was £18 12s. 6d." —
more than twice as much as the Government contract price.
"Efforts to reduce the amount by the substitution of a cheaper coffin were unavailing. Of a dozen funeral bills which we have examined … in no case was the sum charged less than £15, and in most cases it was nearer £20" —
as against what must be admitted to be the fair price, which the Government allow for the burial of a war pensioner, of £8 15s. Under this Bill you make this important profession a closed corporation.
LORD HORDER: No!
LORD STRABOLGI: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I have read the Bill with great care, and in our opinion it will be difficult, if this Bill becomes law, to reduce these costs. I want very briefly to state our view on this very vast question. We think that the whole question of the burial of the dead in this country is deserving of attention by the Government, and that an official inquiry, very strongly manned, is needed. There has been no such inquiry into the whole subject since 1848. We consider that the cost of burial should be reduced while, of course, preserving the decencies. We consider that dealt benefit should be automatic for all persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts, and we consider that the Ministry of Health should set up a small department under a functionary whom we call the Funeral Commissioner, or some such term, who would watch over and advise the whole of this profession concerned with the disposal of the dead. With regard to sanitary safeguards, which I understand is one of the objects of the Bill, we consider that that is the duty of the Ministry of Health. When we touch on this subject we
858
touch very deep cords in human nature, but nevertheless the things which I have said we consider needed to be said. The ideal which I would put before your Lordships is that of the war graves, the administration of which has received universal praise and support. There the youngest private, the colonel and the general, are all buried in graves of the same kind with the same ceremony, and with the same surroundings. We would like to see the same kind of system adopted for the burial of the dead in this country, and the heavy burden that at present falls on poor families reduced.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I think considerable attention should be given to one point raised by my noble friend. It is a curious, perhaps melancholy, fact that the question of burials is one of the most interesting things to the human race. Many of your Lordships have no doubt had the same experience as I have had, of being asked to attend the annual dinner or beanfeast of burial clubs and of having to make an appropriate speech on the subject.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, might I crave for further information on this subject before we give this Bill a Second Reading? I had hoped that the noble Lord in the speech with which he introduced the Bill would have made some reference to its incidence on the agricultural community. For instance, what is going to be the position of those who carry out burials in small hamlets and secluded parishes? Are they in future to be registered, to pass examinations, and finally to receive the approval of a certain group situated in a big town which they hardly know anything about? I can see that this may cause very considerable difficulty in country places, where burials are at present carried out to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Might I ask what are the qualifications which will be called for in the case of funeral undertakers in these country districts? What training will be required? And will it add in any way to efficiency or to the burials being carried out any better than they are to-day? Above all, will it add to the cost? I see the Bill suggests a £50 fine, which would be an impossibly large fine for anybody in a small country village to pay because he has presumably infringed some regulation made by a Board who are responsible for

859
carrying out these duties. This is very definitely an attempt to create a monopoly. It is necessary that we should obtain further information about the proposals of this Bill, for it is an attempt to corner the carrying out of the last sad rites which in due course will be inescapably associated with each one of us.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise to give your Lordships the views that His Majesty's Government hold on the Bill which has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Horder. I understand that a substantially similar measure was introduced into the House of Commons as far back as 1925. The main object of that Bill, as is indeed the main object of this Bill, was to control the work of undertakers by requiring the registration of funeral directors, and to prohibit the carrying on of such work by unregistered persons. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary attaches considerable importance to the public health aspect of this matter, and it is from that point of view that I wish to make my remarks.
My right honourable friend is advised that there is no cogent medical reason for the proposals outlined in this Bill. There are various sections of the Public Health Act, 1936, which give immense powers to local authorities. Section 163 of that Act gives power to the medical officer of health for the district to restrict the movement of the body of a person dying in hospital of a notifiable infectious disease. Section 167 enables regulations to be made imposing conditions and restrictions which appear desirable in the interests of public health and public safety with respect to the means of disposal of dead bodies otherwise than by burial or cremation, or for fixing the period of time the body may be detained after death on any premises. There are other sections of that Act, which I need not go into, dealing with the disposal of the dead.
I am not aware that there are any grounds of public health which make it desirable to support this Bill, and it is necessary before we do so that strong reasons of general public interest should be given to justify the stringent regulations proposed under the measure. I want to refer to the book mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, in which
860
Sir Arnold Wilson and Professor Hermann Levy call attention to the high and growing cost of burial. The authors strongly oppose the attempt to establish State registration for funeral directors on the ground that this would tend to create a monopoly and to enable undertakers in a larger way of business to raise their prices and to drive small men completely out of business, since the professional body would have power to regulate entrance into it. I have no doubt that considerable hardship might thus be inflicted upon poor persons living in outlying areas, who under these proposals would be involved in considerable expense in bringing a funeral director from a distance for the burial of a deceased relative.
I notice that in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill it is stated that there is a need for securing that undertakers have proper qualifications, and that touting for orders and similar practices, which would naturally cause pain to relatives, should be brought to an end. If these undesirable practices are in fact causing widespread annoyance, the remedy would appear to be that undertakers should be required to register with the local authority and comply with such regulations or by-laws as might be made. But I am advised that, on the contrary, common experience has shown how efficiently and decently these duties are carried out. His Majesty's Government know no reason which would warrant the conversion of this trade into a close corporation, and therefore they are opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised various questions concerning the administration of war graves and the burial of the dead generally. He w ill recollect that this Bill is one which comes within the province of the Home Office, and I have no doubt that the information he seeks could be best obtained by putting down a Question, to which the noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Health in this House would reply. In view of the facts I have mentioned I hope that my noble friend Lord Horder will be prepared to withdraw the Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure you cannot fail to have been impressed by what has fallen from the representative of the Government, and, furthermore, the contention advanced by

861
the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, is undoubtedly one that will carry weight. A great proportion of the funerals in this country are of course conducted by persons who are not, so to speak, whole-time funeral directors, but who are builders or village carpenters, or who combine some other occupation with occasional service at a funeral; and the effect of a Bill such as this upon the customs of the village community must be considered. Further, there are very important considerations that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
For my own part I should feel a difficulty in supporting a measure of this kind unless it were brought forward after a full inquiry such as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Indeed, legislation on a matter of this sort, where a number of difficult and perhaps technical considerations are raised, is seldom advisable without having been preceded by a Committee—either a Select Committee, or a Departmental Committee or, if the subject is of sufficient importance, by a Royal Commission. I would venture to suggest to my noble friend who introduced the Bill that, in view of the attitude of the Government and the views expressed by the House generally, it might be better if he were not to press the Bill to a Division on this occasion, but to see whether the Government might not be induced to appoint a committee of inquiry into the whole subject. Then, after the result of that inquiry is known, the matter could be considered to better advantage.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, there is one alternative to the course which has been proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and that is that the Bill should receive a Second Reading and go to Committee. Then a great many of these points which have been raised could be much more fully discussed and, later on, if your Lordships thought fit, when the Bill came back for Third Reading, if the House did not wish the Bill to proceed further, it could be rejected at that stage. It is going a rather long way to reject at this stage a Bill of this character brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, with his very great authority and experience. I do not think anyone would argue that the various points which have arisen have been adequately discussed this afternoon.
862
I listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and to the points he made about the very high price of funerals at the present time. But, after all, when he says this Bill will, or might, establish a monopoly, there is at present no monopoly, there is no restriction at all. Therefore I do not think his argument is one which could be accepted without further consideration. The price may be high, but it does not necessarily follow it will be any higher if this Bill passes; it is high without this Bill. I shall not follow the noble Lord into the question of industrial insurances, but it is a very astonishing fact that there are in this country, with a population of 45,000,000 people, no fewer than 80,000,000 death policies. I have felt for some time that this question of industrial insurance is one that ought to receive the consideration of Parliament. It is an enormous subject with tremendous implications and of very far-reaching importance. Therefore, I cannot follow that matter further to-day. I simply refer to it because of the astonishing figure—I knew it myself—that Lord Strabolgi brought forward. Similarly with regard to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, about agricultural districts. These matters are very important, but they could be dealt with in Committee. We should have more information on that aspect.
The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who spoke for the Government—not, I am bound to say, very encouragingly—gave it as the opinion of the Ministry of Health, as I understood, that this Bill is not required on health grounds. I do not think I am misrepresenting him. For my part, with great respect to the noble Earl and to the Ministry of Health, I do not take that as the last word. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, has great experience of these things, and he would not bring forward this Bill and be responsible for the Explanatory Memorandum, which no doubt your Lordships have read, unless he was of opinion, for which undoubtedly he was given grounds, that the Bill is desirable, as he says, "with due regard to the public health." However the truth may be about these various matters one way or another, it is quite impossible for your Lordships to determine this afternoon, but it does seem to me in all the circumstances that there is a case for the Bill going to Committee. Then if these various points are not satisfactorily determined,

863
or more information is needed, the Bill need not go any further, but can be rejected on Third Reading. As I have said, it is going a long way not to give a Bill of this character a Second Reading.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I would like to support what my noble friend Lord Arnold has said, not for the reasons he gave, but because the whole of this subject needs a great deal of ventilation. One of the objects of your Lordships' House is to ventilate matters which are generally not discussed, which are generally rather kept out of sight, and which, in point of fact, might benefit from more careful examination. I do not like the measure, but we ought to know more about it. While it is improbable that there would be any Commission of inquiry as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—at least I imagine there would be considerable difficulties in the way of such a proposition at present—we could use the Committee stage in this House as a means of examining various aspects of the problem which have been brought up.
Take for example the remarkable figure given by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. He tells us that for a population of 45,000,000 people there are something like 80,000,000 or 90,000,000 insurance policies. I do not understand it. Are there two or three policies for every individual in this country? There are only 45,000,000 people, and therefore it seems that there are two policies for every individual alive in this country at any given moment. Secondly, we are told that the average cost of funerals is between £15 and £30. Five hundred thousand people die every year, and that would make an average expenditure of £10,000,000 a year. Yet the value of the premiums paid on the policies is £33,000,000. In other words, we are paying £3 10s. for every £1 actually spent on funerals. That rather seems to indicate that someone is making a good thing out of it. It may be that the insurance companies spend every year an average of £10,000,000 and receive £33,000,000 in premiums. That seems to me at least a reason for some examination of this subject.
It is all very well to keep it quiet. It is all very well to say very little about it, because people's feelings are said to
864
be harrowed and so on; but there is an economic aspect of the problem which might well be gone into, and I hope Lord Horder will be able to say something about it in his final reply. There is a strong reason for encouraging monopoly in this subject and a large increase in the price of funerals. I would like to see the price of funerals put up and up until it was utterly beyond the power of most people to meet. Then people would at least use the Ministry and its methods, and the disposal of the dead would become a public charge. We should then have our funerals carried out on an average at £8 15s. or whatever may be the amount—£5 possibly—and we would not waste so much money in this way. We should get rid of the absurd waste, we should get rid of the pauper feeling, and the whole thing would be carried out in a more decent and better way. That might at least be an object of this Bill—an oblique object, perhaps, which Lord Horder would indignantly deny. But if he does carry his Motion to a vote I shall support the Second Reading, because I consider a Committee stage in your Lordships' House would do much to ventilate a matter which never receives adequate understanding on the part of the mass of the people.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the rules of your Lordships' House are very elastic, but I cannot see that a Committee stage would tend to raise the questions referred to by noble Lords opposite. When your Lordships approve a Second Reading you accept the general principles enshrined in a Bill, and as the Government are opposed to this Bill, and as all sections of this House appear to be opposed to it, except three noble Lords, I hope your Lordships will not give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Eltisley. I think, too, that this Bill would give too much power to the registration authority, and I believe that it would tend to deprive small part-time burial businesses of their very useful work. That, I think, would be a grave injustice, and I would suggest that the Government might consider an inquiry into the whole matter before this Bill is proceeded with.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I hope my sense of discretion is not so immature that I am not prepared to accept one at least of the suggestions made to me which are alternative to pressing to a Division the Motion on this Bill. All the same, if I may crave your Lordships' attention for a very few brief comments on some of the matters that have been put before the House, I would say that in the first place I never supposed that this Bill could cover all the points connected with this important matter of burial; but so much legislation is postponed indefinitely on the same plausible pretext that the particular Bill put before your Lordships does not cover everything of an ideal nature! Secondly, if I could believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, had either the power or the opportunity, either in this House or in another place, to press the inquiry which he suggests within measurable time, I would support him. Thirdly, in regard to this matter of monopoly which has been raised, it is very difficult for me to see how the large body of persons who, as I have reminded your Lordships, have urged me to bring forward this measure, by which they may become registered and by which they may improve their status and render themselves more efficient to do what we must always regard as an important public service, could achieve any effect by way of monopoly or the raising of prices. There is no restriction imposed in any clause of this Bill upon an undertaker offering his services for what price he wishes.
Perhaps I made a mistake in not being more explicit about some of the abuses which I know to exist at present during that interval to which I drew your Lordships' attention, between the moment of death and the moment of proper sanitary disposal of the dead body. I must not now, of course, be tempted to do so, but I could a tale unfold in that matter. I think the noble Earl who spoke for the Government minimised the significance of this interval in terms of public health. May I remind him that the Ministry of Health is rather far removed from, and is not immediately concerned with, those very anomalies which do come to the notice of medical men in this respect. As to the question of whole-time occupation in regard to funeral directions, there is no restriction imposed upon half-time funeral direction. I cannot say
866
from my own experience that half-time funeral direction is a matter to encourage, but there is no compulsion against it. That a person should be a milkman in the morning and an undertaker in the afternoon is, I suggest, not perhaps without its risks.
Finally, I have been urged by these very persons themselves to press this matter in their interest and in the interests of the community. As I say, I might perhaps have been wiser had I been more explicit, but that was due to my feeling that I should not occupy more time than necessary, and also to a certain amount of confidence in your Lordships' experience as to the need for control of this important interval between death and burial or cremation. If, therefore, I have now at this point to choose, I do not press for a Division on this Bill. It is clear I think that I must accept a negative, if that be the wish of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion negatived.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as Home Secretary, in 1936 set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into hours of employment of young persons employed, firstly in the capacity of van boys, errand boys, messengers, porters or warehouse boys in connection with any commercial or industrial undertaking, and, secondly, in the capacity of page boys or lift or other attendants in hotels and places of public entertainment. As a result of their inquiries, the Committee were satisfied that a definite need existed for the regulation of hours of the young persons forming the subject of their inquiry. The evidence which they obtained showed that a substantial proportion of the young persons concerned were working from fifty to sixty hours a week, exclusive of any intervals for meals or rest; and a large number of cases were quoted to the Committee in which the number of working hours was greatly in excess of sixty. The Committee accordingly recommended that

867
there should be a statutory limitation of hours applicable to all the young persons to whom their inquiry related. They also considered that the statutory limitation of hours should be extended to certain classes of employment which were not strictly within their terms of reference, but which they regarded as "borderline" cases. These were page boys employed in clubs or Turkish baths: lift boys in offices or blocks of flats: young persons employed behind the counter of a laundry or cleaners' receiving office: and those employed as operators or film winders in cinemas.
The recommendations of the Committee so far as they apply to the first set of young persons I mentioned has already been implemented by Section 98 of the Factories Act, 1937, which regulates the hours of young persons employed in these capacities, and which your Lordships approved of last year. The present Bill deals with the remainder of the young persons to whom the inquiry related and with the "border-line" cases to which I have already referred. It is proposed to provide for a limitation of weekly hours to forty-eight a week. In the case of young persons under sixteen this limit is to be reduced to forty-four after a period of two years. Overtime is restricted to fifty hours a year, and subject to certain other conditions will be permitted, but only in the case of young persons over sixteen. Clause 1 (2) provides for a statutory interval for meals, subsection (3) makes provision for a weekly half-holiday from 1 p.m., and subsection (4) provides for the prohibition of night employment so that a young person may not be employed after 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. Subsection (5) makes provision for a whole holiday in any week in compensation for any employment on Sunday. In addition to dealing with the unregulated occupations it has been thought desirable in Clause 4 to include a provision for amending the Shops Act, 1934. This Act at present provides that the normal maximum weekly hours of these young persons shall be forty-eight a week.
It will be within the recollection of most noble Lords that when the Factories Act which we approved last year was before Parliament a provision was included reducing the hours of young persons under sixteen from forty-eight to
868
forty-four after the Act had been in operation for one year. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated at that time that it would be necessary to consider an amendment of the Shops Act in order to effect a similar reduction of hours of young persons employed therein. It is now proposed to make this reduction by Clause 4 of this Bill. You Lordships will observe, however, that this reduction is not to come into operation until the Bill has been in operation for two years. It perhaps would be appropriate that I should say just one word on that point. We have been in consultation with the principal organisations representing shopkeepers, who rightly point out to us that under that Act the hours of young persons were fixed at fifty-two a week for a period of two years. They were reduced to forty-eight as recently as the beginning of 1937. These reductions of hours of juveniles, if they are to be carried out by shopkeepers, involve a considerable amount of reorganisation. They, therefore, ask that we should provide that a period of two years be allowed before the hours of these young persons are still further reduced to forty-four a week. My right honourable friend took the view that in this instance they are entitled to this period of grace to enable them to make their arrangements to meet the further reduction of hours.
I think the only remaining point to which I need draw the attention of your Lordships is that of the question of the enforcement of the Act. It is proposed, following the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, that enforcement should be entrusted, generally speaking, to the local authorities at present responsible for the administration of the Shops Acts, but in the case of railway companies which operate in a very large number of local authorities' districts it has been represented to us by the railway companies that it would be a great convenience to have central administration. Accordingly we propose that in the case of railway companies enforcement of the Act should be in the hands of the Home Office Factory Department. I am not able to give any exact estimate of the number of young persons whom this Bill will affect, but I understand that between 60,000 and 70,000 young persons whose hours are not regulated at present by the Factories

869
Act will come within the scope of this Bill. I am further told that the amendment of the Shops Act will apply to about 150,000 young persons under the age of sixteen employed in shops. Before I close my remarks and ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, perhaps I might be allowed to pay a tribute to the ladies and gentlemen who composed the Departmental Committee and who have issued a Report which I understand is accepted unanimously by the great majority of people in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have been in touch with this question of the employment of young persons for a great many years at intervals through the Home Office. Perhaps, therefore, I might be allowed to express my warm support of the proposals of this Bill. It has long been known that serious abuses exist in regard to the overwork of young persons, but it has never been found possible to deal with this question by any comprehensive measure. It has been found necessary on account of the controversies that have been raised to deal with it piecemeal. Under the Factories and Workshops Acts a number of these young persons have had their grievances remedied. Under the Shops Acts a large section again have been dealt with, and in the Factories Act last year there were brought into the regulations those van boys, messengers and others who are engaged in connection with factories and clocks. But there still remained a margin of several thousands of young people designated under the somewhat invidious name of "unregulated young persons." This Bill will now deal with their case. The Departmental Committee found that nearly half of some 12,000 van boys were working forty-eight hours a week or more, and over 1,500 were working sixty hours a week and more. The Juvenile Employment Committee which has done admirable work in this connection found that seven-eighths of the page boys and lift boys were working, including rest and meal times, no fewer than seventy-two hours a week, and sometimes as many as eighty hours a week.
There is one defect in this Bill still remaining. The hours of work of these
870
young persons from fourteen to sixteen years old may be up to ten o'clock at night and may begin at six o'clock in the morning. That means that they will often have to leave their homes at half-past five or earlier in the morning, and may not get back to bed—of course the period is not continuous—until after eleven o'clock on those nights on which they are allowed to work until ten o'clock. These very early hours, or alternatively these very late hours, may be worked continuously for five days a week. That is not allowed, of course, under the Factories Acts, where other and stricter provisions apply, and I hope that at some future time it may be possible to remedy this remaining grievance. Another point I would mention is that Clause 1 (7) gives very large powers of exemption to the Minister. I hope that those powers will be somewhat sparingly used. The Bill, as a whole, makes a considerable advance, and I trust that it will receive the approval of your Lordships' House.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the Royal Commission is now due, and I suggest to your Lordships that we should adjourn the debate on this Bill.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Sea Fish Industry,

Scottish Land Court,

East Lothian Water Order Confirmation,

Royal Sheffield Infirmary and Hospital,

Aldridge Urban District Council,

Brixham Gas and Electricity,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

Bangor Corporation,

West Surrey Water.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed on the Motion for the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Bill, the Young Persons (Employment) Bill, because I think everybody agrees that the objects which it seeks to attain are most desirable. I do, however, want to raise a point which, although it is really a Committee point, should, I think, be raised on the Second Reading, because it has a point of principle in it. It is as to the effect of the Bill with reference to van boys employed by railway companies. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, in introducing the Bill, I think described the Bill as dealing with juveniles employed in unregulated occupations. That can hardly refer, really, to van boys employed by railway companies, because railway company employees are quite definitely regulated under Part IV of the Railways Act. There is an elaborate machinery in being for the determination of all questions relating to conditions and rates of pay, which in fact works very effectively, very efficiently, and has conduced to very amicable relations between the railway companies and those whom they employ.
Those regulations have recently been revised and improved, and I venture to say there is probably no large industry, in this or any other country, in which the machinery for the regulation of employment is so effective or so efficient. These van boys who are employed by the railways are not quite in the same category, for another reason, as the ordinary van boy who is included in the Bill, because van boys generally are looked upon as in a blind-alley occupation. That is not so in the case of railways, because railway van boys when they reach the age of twenty can apply, and have the right to apply, for advancement into other grades. The vast majority of them do so apply, and continue in the service of the railways throughout their working lives. Most of them are the sons of railway servants, and I doubt whether their fathers would let them go into the service of the railway companies unless they were satisfied with the conditions of service. There is also a guaranteed week and guaranteed pay; that is, they are guaranteed a full week's pay, even if they are not wanted for the whole week, and a full day's pay, even although the railway does not require them for a whole day.
Their work consists of being on a van with a man who drives the van, whether
872
it be a horse or a motor van, and their principal job is to keep an eye on the contents of the van when the man in charge is delivering goods. Incidentally these vans not only deliver goods but also at the same time collect merchandise. Therefore it cannot be quite certain that they can keep to the hours required of them. Every effort is made to see that they do so, because the railway companies, like other big organisations, are anxious to avoid, if they can, any question of paying overtime. Your Lordships will however realise that a van delivering and collecting parcels and merchandise may be delayed for various reasons. If the hours are limited you cannot replace a boy on the van, if he has gone over his time, because if he has not got back to the depôt you do not know where he is or where to send his relief, to replace him. Therefore it is quite impossible from the point of view of working that the railway van boy should be replaced.
In the proviso in Clause 1 the Bill says that where "overtime employment of any designated person"—I suggest incidentally that "designated person" is a rather inharmonious expression to use about these people and that the Government draftsman might try to find something nicer—
"under an employer has taken place in twelve weeks (whether consecutive or not) no further overtime employment of that or any other designated person under that employer or under any person succeeding to his business shall, during the remainder of that year, take place in connection with the business carried on at those premises."
That means that if one van boy, through shall we say misfortune, or circumstances over which the railway company has no control, is employed overtime for twelve weeks in any one year, as I read it, all the van boys of that railway company are not allowed to be employed overtime any more during that year. That of course is rather a serious thing. The four main line railway companies employ something like 2,750 van boys, so that a large number of van boys employed by each of those companies would be affected. That is the position as it is under the Bill; and their occupation is regulated by the Railways Act, and has been very satisfactory.
A rather important principle is here concerned. The machinery for regulating employment in the railway industry is extraordinarily effective. If this Bill

873
passes into law in its present form it is attacking, so far as the railway companies are concerned, the principle of voluntary collective agreement, and that is very important. It may be attacking it in only a small way, but it is attacking it all the same; it is making a breach in an arrangement which is satisfactory, and which the Government would like to see strengthened rather than weakened. I should like to quote the words of the Minister of Labour in another place on May 27 last, when he was replying to a Motion by Colonel Sandeman Allen to amend the Road Haulage Wages (No. 2) Bill, and said:
"All the interests are to make voluntary collective agreements. We with to make voluntary collective negotiations more and more effective in the industrial and economic life of the country."
And later on he added:
"But in attempting to improve what is defective machinery in the road haulage industry we ought not to do anything which would have any adverse effect upon the admirable machinery for collective bargaining in the railway world."
He went on to quote the Baillie Committee as follows:
"The facts relating to the regulation of the wages and conditions of road transport workers employed by the railway companies afford a refreshing contrast to the position existing in the road transport industry generally."
And later on:
"It would constitute a grave disservice to the principle of settling wages by means of organised voluntary collective bargaining if the present effective machinery for the harmonious settlement of wages by means of the railway machinery of negotiations were disturbed."
One can entirely agree with those statements of the Minister of Labour, and I hope the noble Earl will bear that in mind when he is replying, because it seems to me quite definitely that the inclusion of railway van boys in this Bill will be making a breach in the railways' admirable arrangement.
I would make a suggestion to him to which he might perhaps reply. Clause 10 (3) (a) excludes from the Bill all those young persons who are already included under the Factories Act, 1937, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and other Acts there mentioned. Perhaps he might add to that paragraph those who are included under the Railways Act. I admit that
874
that goes a bit further than van boys, because there are other young persons employed by the railway companies, but I do not think anybody as yet, least of all the trade union concerned, has had any complaint to make of their conditions of employment. So far as I understand, the particular trade union which is concerned with the railway companies is of the opinion that the Bill as at present drafted, with the inclusion of the railway van boys, will probably be unworkable so far as they are concerned.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not think it would be right and proper for a Bill that is so vitally important for the lives of thousands of working-class lads to receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House without some comment, however brief, from those who sit on these Benches. It will probably not be beyond the recollection of many noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Sanderson has on several occasions in recent years espoused the cause of the van boy, the errand boy, the page boy and the lift boy and urged very persuasively that the Government should take action to regulate their conditions of employment. I am perfectly certain that he as well as his colleagues will be exceedingly gratified that the Government have decided in this measure to bring the conditions of work of adolescents engaged in occupations of this kind into line with the conditions already prevailing among their more fortunate contemporaries in factories, shops and restaurants. It is a considerable step forward that we should have the employment of young people in occupations which at present are outside the protection of Parliament brought within the sphere of legal protection and put on all fours with the employment of young people of the same age in other forms of business.
We are very gratified that the Government have acted on the Report of the Departmental Committee that they appointed, but at the same time there is a very long way to go. I should like to support that contention by reading one recommendation of the Departmental Committee. On page 38 of their Report the Committee say:
"Pending comprehensive legislation for all young persons which should aim at restricting their weekly working hours to something substantially less than forty-eight, with suit-

875
able provision for further day time education, we recommend, as an immediate step, the following restrictions":
and the "following restrictions" are in fact the substance of this Bill. I beg the Government to take into consideration very seriously this recommendation because it shows that the members of this Committee are fully aware that these adolescents, taking the long view, should not be treated as wage-earners but as students engaged in learning the art of living rather than learning the way to earn a living, and that they hope that the Government will increase the opportunities offered for both full-time and part-time education, with the limitation of working hours in order that these opportunities may be fully enjoyed by young people of both sexes. That is, after all, merely putting the children of working-class people on the same footing as the children of well-to-do people, as the children of every member of your Lordships' House. In the long run that is surely what we all wish to achieve for those for whom education must be provided in this country, to whatever class they may belong and whatever the financial position of their parents may be.
There is one major point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that I should like to support and which I urge the Government to consider very seriously. This Bill limits the total hours of work that can be pursued by any young person during the working week, but it allows these young people to continue at work up till ten o'clock at night. That is surely presenting a temptation to hotel managers which it would be very difficult for them to resist. However injurious and undesirable it may be for a page boy of fifteen to be kept at work until ten o'clock at night, with a long interval in the day in order to bring his working hours within the scope of the Bill, it is obviously desirable from the point of view of the business, and unless the Government protect the child one is afraid that advantage will be taken of the loophole that has been left. I hope it may be possible for an Amendment to be agreed upon and accepted at a later stage that would prevent the fourteen-and fifteen-year-olds from being employed later than, say, eight o'clock at night.
I sincerely hope that the Government will resist the proposal that has been
876
made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I am speaking in this matter for myself, without consulting my colleagues, but I feel that if any organisation, however powerful and influential it may be, claims exemption from the provisions of the general law, the Government are likely to find that similar organisations will put in similar claims during the course of the Bill. It does seem to me unreasonable to suppose that regulations which are desirable for van boys employed by companies engaged in road transport should not be desirable for van boys employed by railway companies. I therefore sincerely hope that no exceptions will be made for the benefit of any organisation, however forcibly it may be able to support its claims in Parliament.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I might be given an opportunity to reply to some of the questions which have been raised in the course of the discussion of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Radnor raised a proposal that the railway companies should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Of course, we are perfectly prepared to consider any representations that may be made to us by the noble Earl or by the railway companies. While I can give no guarantee or promise that we can consider an Amendment such as that which he has broadly outlined, if he has any observations to make I feel quite certain my right honourable friend will be perfectly prepared to discuss them. He also raised the point of whether some other words could be found for the description of a young person under sixteen years of age. I must own that I support him in his suggestion, and I have no doubt additional words can be found which will meet the object in view.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, informed your Lordships that young persons might work up to ten o'clock at night. If they look at subsection (4) of Clause 1 they will find that, even if that is so, every young person has got to have an interval of eleven consecutive hours' rest, so that if he ceases work at 10 p.m. he cannot start work before 9 a.m. next day. Subsection (7) of that clause gives the Secretary of State certain powers to relax the provisions with regard to weekly overtime, and your Lordships will recollect that under subsection (6) there

877
are certain powers also given to enable the Minister to prescribe by regulation certain conditions for safeguarding the welfare of young persons. Your Lordships will excuse me at this late hour from going into all the points which have been raised, and which we shall consider between now and the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committeed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONDITIONS IN JAMAICA.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER rose to call attention to reports of recent fatal disturbances on sugar estates in Jamaica; to ask His Majesty's Government for information upon the subject; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has already expressed a slight murmur on my behalf at being compelled to address your Lordships at so late a moment. The present moment is even the later, because many of your Lordships have apparently taken a much more serious view of your responsibilities for giving His Majesty advice and discussing the Bills brought forward than the noble Earl the Leader of the House led me to expect they would be likely to do. I am sorry I cannot postpone the observations I have to make. It is important that some observations on the present situation in the West Indies should be made at the present time, and I shall not have another opportunity of making them. I have put together as concisely as I can a statement of facts and figures which are quite outside the cognizance of most people in this country and which should be brought to their attention. It is not my purpose to make any hostile or factious attack on His Majesty's Government or on past administrations. Nothing is more futile than pouring out blame for actions with which you may disagree.
I wish to contribute some information, and also to make some complaints and give some warnings. First of all, the general complaint I have to make is that for the last two or three years there appear to have been great and serious defects in the intelligence system of the Colonial Office, and I believe that when he was in another place the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, indicated that he hoped
878
that office would be able to exercise greater vigilance in future. Early in 1936 there was a book published written by Professor W. M. Macmillan, an honorary Fellow of All Souls', under the arresting title of Warning from the West Indies. That was two and a-half years ago. Mr. Macmillan was formerly Professor of Economics in Witwatersrand University in South Africa, and is recognised as a high authority on economics and industrial questions. During the year 1935 he visited the United States and the West Indian Colonies in the hope of obtaining material for assisting towards a settlement of economic and industrial difficulties in South Africa. Of the West Indies he wrote:
"I myself went to the islands prepared to be impressed. I came away dismayed that where such progress is possible so very few have been able to attain it … The tutelage supposed to be necessary to safeguard the interests of the weak has signally failed to develop the potentiality of either land or people.
"This book will serve its purpose if, by showing the state of our oldest Colonies after centuries of British rule, it can at all shake this complacency and rouse at once a livelier sense of our responsibility to the old West Indies, and an aspiration to do better in North-West Africa … It is the besetting national sin to take credit for the benevolence of our intentions."
That is very much what has been said in the columns of The Times in some excellent articles recently written by Mr. Stannard and practically endorsed by The Times in its editorial columns. Mr. Macmillan went on:
"Lord Olivier's report related particularly to the emergency caused by the great world depression."
That Report was written in 1930.
"But it showed also that even in normal conditions, with the British preferential tariff in operation to support the sugar industry it must hasten the process of rationalisation."
I quote this to show that a careful and documented warning was given in 1936 to reinforce the warnings given by Mr. Semple and myself six years before. I cannot understand how it is that no attention appears to have been given to this warning otherwise than in respect to the rationalisation of factory work. That was done, but no attention was given to the rationalisation of the position of cane farmers or labourers. That is my complaint. Immediately after that book was published I myself also published a book

879
on Jamaica, giving a very full account of conditions very relevant to the present situation. In Jamaica, as is well known, there are great numbers of small settlers who earn part of their livelihood on their holdings. This is one reason why, when they work at wages, they do not work more than about four days a week. But much of the population of Jamaica still depends almost exclusively on wage labour, and for many years past it has been recognised that the conditions of wage labourers on sugar estates were intolerably wretched. Even since the abolition of slavery the feeling has prevailed that the conditions on the sugar estates were intolerably wretched and that if you wanted to demoralise any man you kept him as a labourer on a sugar estate.
So much is this the case that when Mr. Semple and I visited Trinidad and Barbados, and later Jamaica in 1929, we found many people—there is very much in my mind that I could say but I will try to cut it down and be as short as I can—who told us that the sugar industry there was not worth preserving, and there has always been considerable opposition in Jamaica to subsidising it from public funds. So great a proportion of the whole population of the West Indies, however, as well as the public revenue, depends on the sugar industry that even such objectors agreed that an effort must be made to maintain it, otherwise the whole of many people's livelihood would disappear. The Government therefore, we hoped, would make an effort, and His Majesty's Government made an excellent effort to maintain the price of sugar which has saved the industry. That reacted on the conditions of the cane farmer and the labourers. That I think will be generally agreed. Land settlement could not meet their needs in some islands, and had not been pushed far enough in Trinidad to form any substantial substitute for the maintenance of the distressed population.
Soon after my book was published I began to receive information, from Jamaica especially, that the condition of the wage-earners was worse than I had made it appear in my book, and that it was rapidly deteriorating. Subsequently I continued to get further evidence of increasing poverty and hopelessness in Jamaica, and also that a similar situation was arising in Trinidad and Barbados. Thereupon I formed a desire
880
to spend a winter in Barbados and Trinidad in order to acquaint myself more fully with the details of what I knew was happening, and of making a final appeal to the British Government to attend to the situation. I was, however, prevented by various causes from doing this. Towards the end of the summer of 1937 Trinidad and Barbados blew up, as Sir Edward Grey in 1896 prophesied that Barbados would one day do. The distress in Jamaica continued to be ignored, and when trouble began the British public was told that these troubles were merely local and that they had been easily settled.
During the past month labour disturbances have occurred all over Jamaica. I want to say here what I said three months ago, that you must not look at this Jamaica trouble simply as one of rioting upon an estate in Westmoreland. That is simply an indication of what is occurring all over Jamaica. The Press reports received in this country are amusingly perverse. After the not at Frome, in Jamaica, Press telegrams informed us that twenty-three police were in hospital, from which readers naturally inferred that they had been hurt in the not in question. Jamaica newspapers received by me a few days ago explained that these police were in hospital because they had fallen sick of dysentery and malaria through sleeping in the accommodation provided for them (presumably old labourers' barracks), and drinking unwholesome water, and that the police who had been brought into Westmoreland had to be withdrawn. I rather fancy there are a good many labourers who would see humour in that situation. As a matter of fact the police had to be withdrawn from Westmoreland because they were so ill they were not able to be employed on their duties.
Subsequently, because the police were on their backs in Westmoreland, the militia and troops were sent up to Mandeville. That is one of the last places where I should have thought there would be industrial disturbances. It is a health resort with no large plantations near. The trouble was simply one originating among casual labourers. To send troops there seems to me much as if you sent the Lifeguards to Tunbridge Wells to keep order during the hopping season. It is perfectly ridiculous that there should be trouble there. It is symptomatic

881
of the fact that all over Jamaica, in places where one would least expect it, the worm is turning. Colonel Spencer Smith has written one letter in The Times and one in the Daily Telegraph, very pertinent letters. He is the proprietor of the Fonthill estate. He says that in the last few years there had been great destitution among the people which was rendering them an easy prey to agitators. Then he says we have heard of relief works. We are always being told that the Governor is organising schemes of relief work. That is misleading. Relief works have practically not yet begun. They have been talked of. The first relief work was to be an aerodrome, but on May 14 the site of that had not been determined. Then there was the erection of a tuberculosis hospital. Much good the erection of a tuberculosis hospital would do the Western Jamaica labourers. I can assure your Lordships that even reconstruction works in the town of Kingston are not employing more than too men, if so many. The last Jamaican newspapers say that no employment has been given. It is all hope and intention.
Another example of Press statements is that numbers of labourers have assembled armed with clubs and knives or cutlasses. Thai: statement occurs so constantly that I think there must be a code word for it. If you saw a group of shepherds approaching a hiring fair carrying crooks and hurdle-bars you would not think necessarily that they intended to trip up and impale the farmers. All labourers in Jamaica carry cutlasses. If I saw a countryman without a cutlass I should imagine he was loitering with intent to commit a felony. They all carry cutlasses. The cutlass is the universal tool of the agricultural labourer. He uses it for every purpose—for billing pastures, for cutting bananas, for chopping firewood, for cutting down canes. As regards cudgels, I was often struck in Jamaica by the fact that coolies used to go about carrying lathis. It is analogous to a policeman's truncheon, but about ten times as long. When these men are out for a walk they often carry these long lathis, much as a soldier carries a swagger stick. Creole labourers, on the other hand, go about with what originally was the quarter staff. Your Lordships will know that a quarter staff is a quarter of a rod, which was the old English
882
measure for every kind of agricultural work. The chain and the rod are still the measures in Jamaica. These people have quarter staffs to measure their work and they carry them about, especially in Westmoreland. These long cudgels—they are rather more than four feet long—may, of course, be used as weapons of combat, and they are formidable weapons, but they are not carried about for the purpose of fighting.
Some of the replies which have been given in another place by my noble friend opposite (Lord Harlech), or by his representative, have been inadequate and not informative. I am sure that they were all given with perfect ingenuousness and in perfect good faith, but in some cases when there were supplementary questions and answers put and given in a hurry they were not very informing. I am sorry to say that there are few honourable members in another place with sufficient knowledge to ask really pertinent supplementary questions about Jamaica, and so they are an easy prey to an old Parliamentary hand like my noble friend opposite. The Under-Secretary of State has given me a statement of wages paid in the different parishes. I am not going to read it to your Lordships, but I hope it will be issued through the OFFICIAL REPORT because I think it is important that it should be available to the public. I will read it if your Lordships like, but it has been laid on the Table.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): It is a written answer.
LORD OLIVIER: I think I may take it as read. There are fourteen parishes in the island. In the case of Kingston St. Andrew, which is completely urban or suburban, wages I think are rather higher than elsewhere. The figures for St. Thomas in the East and Westmoreland seem to me to require criticism. The other parishes include Portland, where the average wage for men is given as ranging from 1s. 4¾d. to 2S. 3d., and for women from 9¾d. to 1s. 6d. The statement given in the Parliamentary reply that wages in Westmoreland have risen appears to me to be questionable. Westmoreland wages in my experience are not higher than in adjacent parishes, where they range from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. When I was there in 1930 they were lower. If

883
higher maximum wages are now paid in Westmoreland and St. Thomas in the East, I think it must be for specially skilled jobs, such as cane cutting, which only comes at special times, and is very much harder than fagging off heavily laid corn in England. They are full of prickles. A man gets 10½d. to a shilling for cutting a ton of that stuff, and by working very hard he can possibly cut three or four tons a day. It is terrific labour. The latest returns I have been able to get, for 1935, from the Royal Empire Society's library, gave the average wages in Westmoreland as 1s. to 1s. 3d. As I have constantly stated, a Jamaica parish is equivalent to a rural district in England, so that we learn officially that throughout by far the greater part of Jamaica field labourers' wages average 1s. 4d. to 2s. a day, with about half that rate for women.
Figures such as these indicate the futility of supposing that labour unrest can be pacified either by better housing of labourers resident on the estate in barracks, or in tied houses, or by improved medical service, or by crèches for children, or advice as to better nutrition. All such efforts are praiseworthy but do not touch the root of the trouble. The late Secretary of State has, as I know, done his best to encourage all of them. It is hardly possible to give any reliable general statement as to rates of wages in Jamaica. All field labour is paid by the piece—that is, all field operations are contracted for by the square chain—log wood cutting and chipping by weight or measure, cane cutting, which is the hardest and highest paid work, by the ton, cut and tied into bundles. When Indian emigrants were employed in estates or plantations under indenture there was a legal minimum wage for them of 1s. 6d. a day, with quarters and medical care. They were not paid by the day. The Protector of Immigrants had to see that the tasks given them were priced at such rates as would enable them to earn, with reasonable exertion, not less than 1s. 6d. a day. Jamaican field labourers are rarely employed for more than four full days in the week. They start on Tuesday and are paid off on Friday, usually once a fortnight. Until comparatively recently, the field hands on sugar cane in Westmoreland and some other districts were mostly East Indians
884
out of indenture, and the basic wage for field labour did not exceed from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. a day, earned by task work for four days a week. I say this from personal knowledge acquired in frequent visits to Westmoreland, where I used to stay with the then owner of Frome Central Factory, recently acquired by Messrs. Tate, Lyle and Company.
There is no trade union of agricultural labourers in Jamaica, and I see no strong possibility of establishing one—any more than I do for the van boys!—which could work effectively for collective bargains. The same general difficulties exist as have prevailed in this country, and have been recognised here as necessitating dealing with agricultural wages by statutory provision for fixing minimum wages, the establishment of local boards in every county, and the fixing of prices for wheat, milk, bacon, etc., and other guarantees to employers. There would be considerable difficulties in Jamaica, and doubtless in all other West Indian Colonies, but I see no reason to think them insuperable under the guidance of qualified labour advisers such as the late Secretary of State has already decided must be appointed. The previous experiences of fixing indentured coolies' wages will still be familiar, and they may help. All wages, as I have said, are assessed by the piece or task. There are many different kinds of work to be bargained for, and each kind of work may differ in different localities in its own class in regard to its value according to the condition of the field and pasture. They vary almost from week to week.
At the beginning of every week, when I was in Jamaica, the field labourers used to come out on the land in gangs of four or five men, including a cook to make their breakfasts and possibly a woman or two to tie canes or otherwise help. This preliminary operation was known as "looking upon the work." They did not always start on Tuesday. The gang would bargain for the work with the overseer or the bookkeeper, and haggle vigorously about the price. No local gang of men would have been disposed to be satisfied with a schedule of flat rates per job fixed in a Kingston office nor, as I should surmise, with any invariable rate for any particular class of job; and if the field was very dirty of course the price was higher. On the other hand, if the labourers had to hoe

885
in cow peas, which were used for green-manuring the cane, it sometimes worked the other way, because if the peas were very full of pods, the women used to fill their baskets, and that made the price a little easier. But as soon as their baskets were full they would go off to breakfast, and they would not come back until perhaps next day, when they would get another basketful. All these things have to be taken into account, and make it extremely difficult to fix rates of wages.
All these "labour difficulties" are now complicated by the appearance of unemployment. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there were a thousand sugar estates in Jamaica. When slavery was abolished, in 1838, there were more than six hundred. When the Royal Commission of 1897 surveyed the industry, there were more than a hundred. When Mr. Semple and I surveyed it in 1929, there were between thirty and forty. There are now thirty-five sugar plantations dealt with by twenty-nine factories, several groups of properties having been amalgamated for manufacturing purposes. This process will doubtless continue. In my opinion the whole of Jamaican sugar production could be efficiently and more economically served by about fifteen factories. This process, and the centralisation of certain groups, have naturally affected the quality of the contacts between employers and wage workers. The latter do not and cannot regard a joint stock company or an absentee-owned factory in the same human relation as they could the owner or manager of a two-hundred-ton factory on the estate of their own village.
So far as the process of centralisation has gone in factories owned by British absentee companies, I think it right to say that, having known personally the local managers of most of those factories, I consider that more efficient, considerate and reasonable men could hardly be found anywhere. All of them were considerate and knowledgeable in relation to labour. I say this with reservation in regard to anything that may transpire as to new staff introduced lately in Westmoreland. We have not yet received the Report of the Commission, and I carefully guard myself from expressing any opinion about this disturbance until we get that Report. I have every confidence in the Commission that has been appointed; I know they are admirably tried and trained public servants.
886
One of them is an ex-Judge, one is a very experienced administrator, and another is one of the most capable men on the Council, and very capable in parochial board business. All those men are admirably fitted for the task for which they have been appointed, and I shall accept what they say with full confidence. I was not able to accept everything that was said in the Report of the Trinidad Commission, because there were important parts of the question which had not been referred to them at all; they were not dealing with the whole question of agricultural wages.
Nevertheless, the personal attitude of the labourer cannot possibly be the same towards such managers as it evidently has been, for instance, among the labourers of St. Thomas in the East, in the Blue Mountain Valley, where they had to deal with a managing director well known to and trusted by most of them as a public-spirited worker in the interests of their parish. Now I want to call your attention to this little story, about which we heard nothing in England. In December, 1937, the central factory of Serge Island in the Blue Mountain Valley, in St. Thomas in the East, started crop. Labourers turned out in large numbers to contract for cane cutting. They were dissatisfied with the price offered, which was 10½d. per ton. At this rate a strong cane cutter might earn 3s. 6d. a day, less than Jamaica cane cutters had been able to earn in Cuba.
Pressure was put by the majority upon such labourers as were prepared to accept the rate offered. There was some disturbance and the police were called in, but there was no violence and no casualty. The proprietor of the estate, who was the elected member of the parish and a popular and public-spirited man, conceded a rate of 1s. a ton and persuaded the strikers to accept this. Sixty-three persons were taken in charge by the police, and were prosecuted before the Resident Magistrate for "intimidation and besetting." Those words will have a familiar ring in the ears of those who know the history of British trade unionism. Three were imprisoned, and the rest fined. The sentences were not severe, but the fines were no doubt beyond the means of many to pay. The Resident Magistrate who tried them is reported to have said from the bench that crop would be starting at Duckenfield (the central

887
factory for the adjacent Plantain Garden River District) in February, and he "wanted no nonsense there. If any of them came before him by reason of any trouble there they would be severely dealt with." If the magistrate was correctly reported it would be inevitable that he should be generally understood in the parish and throughout Jamaica as expressing the view of the Government that any strike or demand for higher wages was nonsense.
No doubt this was not precisely what he intended, or the Government would desire him to intend, but such would certainly be the first interpretation. Trade union politicians, some of them Members of Parliament, have been consulted at Transport House on behalf of West Indian labour, and naturally perhaps, considering that "there is nothing like leather," have continually plied the Secretary of State with questions about the progress of trade unionism in the West Indies. Both the present and the late Secretary of State have shown great willingness to yield to this pressure, and to direct legislation for the establishment of trade unions, albeit with some reservations, characteristic of the views of their Party, which are objectionable to experienced British trade unionists. I regret to have to observe that in my opinion this method of dealing with West Indian labour conditions appears to me to be about a hundred years out of date, and I should myself be very sorry to see West Indian industrial history go through the agony of such a course of development as has had to be endured in this country, the leading idea of which has been to organise all wage earners into a disciplined army, to battle by collective bargaining with a much better organised army of capitalist employers. In my opinion it is of no more use to tell the West Indian agricultural labourers to organise themselves than it would be, as I said earlier, to tell the van boys that they should organise themselves for collective bargaining.
As soon as the qualified labour advisers appointed by the Colonial Office get down to their work they will discover the intricacies of the job, and there will ultimately have to be wages boards, with an arbitrator or other authority to settle prices promptly in every parish district, or possibly estate, as the Protector of
888
Immigrants used to for indentured Indian labour. On this account I should not place much reliance on the outcome of the well-intentioned efforts of Secretaries of State to encourage the creation of unions, except for artisan trades, on British models, even if I had not lately noted with consternation a statement of the late Secretary of State in another place, that when once the industrial laws had been passed the responsibility for making them work lay with Colonial Governors. That frightened me very much. Even Colonial Governors and other officials who have, as most have not, a real appreciation of the case of the workers, would be very shy of proving themselves officious on the latter's behalf, after witnessing the experience of Sir Murchison Fletcher and Mr. Nankivell in Trinidad, when those two gentlemen did exhibit some sensibility to the plight of the workers.
The late Secretary of State will perhaps think this an unjust observation. He has made his explanations, but I can assure him that the West Indies have not accepted them, and that the supersession of Sir Murchison Fletcher has had, and will continue to have, a disastrous effect on the credit of the Colonial Office in those Colonies, and will strengthen the agitation which is pervading there against the system of Crown Colony Government. Lord Harlech explained that Sir Murchison Fletcher voluntarily resigned from the Government of Trinidad on the ground of ill health. I venture to say that it would have been quite possible for the Secretary of State to insist on his taking six months leave to recover his health, and then to send him back as a public officer of a kind which it was most highly expedient to retain in the Colonial Service. That incident, however, is closed, and I do not desire to provoke any further reply on that subject. I only feel that what men sow they will reap.
Neglect of the West Indian people is now producing its natural crop in disturbances in the three principal West Indian Colonies, and there are other Colonies in as unhappy conditions. Governors who have made their mark as administrators of a forced labour policy in one part of Africa, or of a native segregation policy in another, however liberal minded and however devoid of prejudice they may be, or believe themselves to be, are generally for some years

889
positively unable to see their way into the essentials of West Indian society, and especially to appreciate the profound independence of character established throughout Jamaica by three centuries of British tradition. Not seeing the facts, they do not report them to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Office cannot give them instructions or give adequate answers to Parliamentary questions when they are asked. Such Governors may even, if they are prudent men, feel diffident and postpone action, and therefore allow such situations to come about as have arisen during the last three years in the West Indian Colonies. The present Governor of Jamaica has zealously promoted with public support the policy of land settlement initiated by Sir Henry Blake about fifty years ago, and now long accepted as settled policy by all classes in the island. Long after Sir Henry Blake had established that policy a prominent planter denounced him to me as a pronounced negrophilist, and we have witnessed the kind of gruel administered locally to Sir Murchison Fletcher when he began to sit up and take notice in Trinidad.
Some extracts from a private letter which I received a few days ago from an agricultural friend in Jamaica throw an interesting light on the views of some Jamaicans to-day. It says:
"Everything to do with agriculture is beset with difficulties and the whole country is a seething mass of discontent and ingratitude."
That shows that I am not exaggerating in saying that there has been discontent all over the island, and not only in Westmoreland. It continues:
"So much has been done for the labouring classes—crèches, school meals, clinics, and still they want more and more. This Governor has considered the peasantry far too much. He is far too considerate, and now they turn and rend him."
This correspondent's psychology appears to correspond with that expressed by the managing director of a sugar company in a recent letter in The Times, in which he said that because philanthropic endeavour is applied to improving housing and providing medical care, wage-earners show ingratitude in demanding higher wages.
The scandalous state of housing has been brought to the notice of the Colonial Office for many years past and Professor W. M. Macmillan, in his book Warning from the West Indies again brought it
890
to notice, observing however that the best housing for workers he saw in Trinidad was the housing of the oil companies. I have seen no effort made to improve it except by two West Indian Governors, both of whom began their Colonial Service as medical officers and were of course very sensitive on this point. The same may be said about crèches for children which also have been promoted under the same two Governors.
With regard to nutrition, the late Secretary of State has set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to study the question. In my book on Jamaica published more than three years ago I pointed out that the dietary of Jamaican labourers was below the scale of nutrition estimated by the British Medical Association as being necessary for proper nourishment, and by Professor Bowley in a study of the subject. There is room for misunderstanding on this point. The West Indian labourer does not need a physician or a report from the Colonial Office Committee to tell him when his belly is empty, and provided he has the means to fill it, either by having a provision ground of his own or by getting an adequate wage, he is quite capable of keeping up his strength by his own habits of diet. When labourers from Barbados and other sugar islands went to work on the Panama Canal they had to be conditioned for a fortnight before they could do a day's heavy work, because they had the wages to buy themselves beef and pork and beans, which is what they wanted, and which they can quite well get in their own Colonies if they have the means to go and buy them. Colonel Goethals, who managed the whole business of the Panama Canal, and two of his contractors told me that when they had got the Jamaican labourers into condition they were the best navvies they had ever had in the world. They must therefore be pretty good, though Sir Leonard Lyle states in The Times this morning that the English casual labourer can do five times as much as the Jamaican labourer.
Representations have been made in the Press of destitution and starvation among Jamaican children. The Governor has reported that these representations have been "grossly" exaggerated. I deprecate the use of such epithets. Jamaican children, off the sugar estates, and outside

891
of Kingston, are, in fact, generally fairly nourished. That is my observation, confirmed by Professor Macmillan in his book to which I have referred. Children are worse nourished in Trinidad, Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts, and perhaps elsewhere. The more pertinent complaint has recently been that their parents cannot send them to school because they cannot clothe and shoe them, which is a very familiar reason, and a good one; because the benefit of country schools in Jamaica largely consists in teaching the children habits of self-respect, cleanliness, and decency. Praedial larceny has been said to have increased lately in Jamaica. This and absenteeism from the schools are an infallible symptom of near destitution among the families. The two go together. If the children are not in school they will be wandering abroad, and picking and stealing all day.
It may not be generally known in England that there is in Jamaica not only no system of unemployment relief, but none of poor relief as such. No able-bodied man or woman can get any help from the Poor Law; not even a night in a casual ward. Public relief is confined to the aged and incapacitated, and to the destitute sick. The whole question of poor relief is now receiving attention, a very able report having recently been made to the Government by the Secretary of the Board of Supervision of the Poor, Miss Edith Clarke, and proposals are, I believe, to be placed before the Legislature on the subject.
When I was in Jamaica early in 1931, on a prolonged private visit, the Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Kingston Corporation invited me to go round the town with him. As a result of my observations, I contributed a full page article to Gleaner newspaper. Considerable interest was shown, both by the Corporation and by the Government, in the matter. Soon after that the then Governor left the island, and, as is usual at such junctures, all interest in the matter appeared to have temporarily dropped. The present Governor has recently been paying attention to it, and practical steps are now being taken to remedy Kingston housing conditions. Housing reform in Kingston presents very great difficulties. In 1908, after the earthquake, I was Chairman of the Committee distributing funds for
892
rebuilding the city, and thereby I gained a very exhaustive knowledge of how the poor are housed in Kingston. A small private company, promoted by the late Archbishop of the West Indies, was formed, to provide decent dwellings at moderate rents: but it did not succeed, either financially or, as it was intended to be, as a model for imitation. The Kingston poor are so poor that no tenement for which they can pay the rent can bear the rating necessary to provide for proper sanitation. The extension of the sewerage system to the whole of Kingston has therefore had to be held up. I believe it is hoped to provide for completing the sewerage system out of the funds lately authorised to be provided by loan at the cost of the Island Treasury.
Shortly before the disturbances recently reported from Kingston, a number of unemployed men applied at the parochial alms-house for a night's lodging, and were turned away to sleep in the streets, as many do every night on the side-walks, and under the front piazzas of private houses. No doubt they have since then been warming themselves in demonstrations. If anyone who is ill enough to receive poor relief wishes to lodge outside the poor-house, he or she receives an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week, more than half of which would have to be spent for a single yard-room in Kingston. They must supplement their maintenance by begging or stealing.
There has been of recent years much controversy, and several schemes of reform, in connection with the provision of public medical aid. It is an indication of failure that well-meaning estate proprietors should now be proposing to provide hospitals and estate medical officers for their own employees. This was the system under slavery, and since slavery it has never been found, and cannot now be found, workable. There is a long-established Government medical service, and there are one or more public hospitals in each parish. What appears to me desirable is to complete this organisation by a system of health insurance and panel relief. Strong efforts are already being made locally to induce the Government to adopt this policy.
Last summer, a lady of a well-known Jamaican family made representations in favour of this policy to the Colonial Office. She also applied to me for advice. I referred

893
her to Dr. G. F. McCleary, lately of the Ministry of Health, who was associated with the late Sir Robert Morant and Sir John Anderson in elaborating the present organisation in this country. That, and not a reversion to the old system of private estate medical officers, is the line that ought to be followed. A great deal of money has lately been spent, and more is intended to be spent out of loan funds, upon the public hospitals. The old estate hospital had the worst possible reputation, being commonly known as "the hot house." Any hospital not under control of the superintending medical officer, and criticism by the Legislative Council, through the elected member for the parish, is liable to degenerate, both in efficiency and in equipment. I hope that the Secretary of State will insist upon the Colonial Government introducing a proper scheme for the total reorganisation of this branch of provision for public health. Any provision by the estates should be merely subsidiary, for purposes of first-aid and temporary accommodation. Proper equipment cannot be expected in such estate hospitals.
Within the last few days I have seen a Memorandum on Unemployment in Jamaica, unsigned and undated—so that I am unable to give credit where credit is due—recently laid on the table of the Library of another place by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When I spoke in this House in February I remarked on the uselessness of a previous report on unemployment in Jamaica sent home to the Secretary of State by the Governor. This more recent Memorandum is more perspicacious, though still somewhat discursive. It is mainly filled with particulars of the steps that have been taken to relieve unemployment. The report of these, though still" to a certain extent rather anticipatory and prophetic, is very interesting, and the policies indicated are in my opinion generally sound. I might find matters for criticism, but that is not what I desire to do this evening. Far be it from me to throw the slightest splash of cold water on any smoking flax!
That is the substance of what I want to get on official record. I am distressed by the general ignorance of the public, all sections of the public, on this question. I am moving for Papers. We are still awaiting the Report on the West-
894
moreland troubles, but no doubt that will be laid, and I feel confident the Government will lay any further Papers bearing on this question, which affects the whole of the West Indies and not only one corner of them. I am merely asking for such Papers as the Government are prepared to lay, Papers giving real information. I do press the Government to consider whether legislation cannot be formulated to establish a Labour Department with machinery for fixing rates of pay and securing a minimum wage.
The noble Lord has sent out well-chosen labour advisers, and we must await their Report. What I have urged for years is the fixing of guaranteed prices for sugar in the British market sufficiently adequate to enable better wages to be paid in the West Indies. I got this week a letter from Jamaica telling me it is nonsense to say sugar will have to be raised in price to enable the planters to pay higher wages. But that is my opinion, and I have gone into the figures. My view is that with the present price of sugar in the British market, even with the preference, adequate wages cannot be paid. I want information, and I want the Government to deal with the matter on sound lines, rationalising the industry and doing away with the reproach that the sugar industry is not worth preserving. One-third of the population cannot live unless they are maintained by the sugar industry, which I believe is a sound industry, especially the Jamaica one. It has some of the best sugar soils in the world.
First of all, I desire labour legislation to establish minimum wages. The Government will then find it easier than they would have done eight or ten years ago to get an increase in price in England—which is my second point—because several of those who at that time were most strongly opposed to the proposals then made are either themselves interested or are becoming interested, and I cannot help feeling that it will have some effect on their views in fixing the price of sugar. Thirdly, I want to see established a Government audit of all sugar-producing concerns, so long as the sugar industry is subsidised either from Imperial or local funds and wherever monopoly of manufacture or land exists. The purpose of such an audit would be to enable the fixing of reasonable rates of payment for

895
canes to cane farmers, and the establishment of minimum wages for labourers, consistently with reasonable profits on capital invested in efficient factories.
I can assure your Lordships that I get a good deal of semi-private correspondence from Jamaica and I know a great deal of what has been going on during the last two or three years, and probably know better than the Colonial Office or Colonial Governors. I can assure your Lordships that it is not a trivial matter, and that the action of the Government in regard to Abyssinia has produced a very serious effect of prejudice in the West Indies against the good faith of the British Government. It has had a considerable effect on public opinion out there. In the last two or three years the apparent neglect of the Colonial Office and the lack of information as to what is going on, especially in Jamaica, has caused a strong protest against the system of Crown Colony Government. They say that the Government may mean well but that they do not know what is going on. The people there say they are being governed by people who do not know enough about their conditions. During the fifty years I have been conversant with this subject I have not seen so much general distrust of Crown Colony Government as I have seen during the last two or three years.
I should like to express my own feeling about the matter. It appears to me now, and it has for some time, that the British Empire has reached its culmination. I think that the British Government's attitude towards Abyssinia, justly or unjustly, reasonably or unreasonably, has knocked the linen pin out of the British Empire. The linch pin was absolute confidence in the King and his representatives. You have severely damaged that confidence throughout the Empire. That confidence appears to me to have been still further shaken by the negotiations that have been proceeding for the cession of African Protectorates to the Union of South Africa contrary to the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government. If you go back on an undertaking you do inevitably, reasonably or unreasonably, create a strong prejudice. You have shaken the respect and confidence that the West Indies felt in England. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take some serious step to stop the rot at any
896
rate in the West Indies, which in my opinion is one of the Colonies best worth preserving. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has made several references to me in the course of his speech, and I feel that it would be discourteous to him and to the House if, even at this late hour, I did not say a very few words, and they shall be very few on this occasion. May I at the outset say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is absolutely vital to all sections of the population in the West Indian Islands that the sugar industry should be maintained. That industry, it is indeed true, is admittedly in a condition of poverty, and that condition is becoming one of general destitution. After all, in the West Indies, owing to climatic and physiographic conditions, there is no source of wealth in many of the islands except sugar cane. Trinidad, of course, has its oil and is fortunate. It is the only one of the West Indian Islands that has any mineral resources. In Jamaica, again, there is one other agricultural crop of outstanding importance—namely, the banana, which of course now is senior in every way to the sugar industry.
None the less I entirely agree with the noble Lord that even in Jamaica, which produces such a large share of the world's supply of bananas—the premier industry of Jamaica—it would have a most serious effect on the social and economic life of that Colony if the sugar industry were not kept in being. A great deal of the trouble arises to-day in the West Indies from world economics connected with the sugar industry. In the eighteenth century great fortunes were made, but ever since the introduction of sugar beet in many countries of the world, and ever since the opening up to cane sugar of the great volcanic soils of Java and the Sandwich Islands, and the immense aggregations of capital that have gone to those great sugar-cane producing countries, the British tropical and subtropical islands have undoubtedly had a most difficult time. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the unrest in the West Indies has many causes, and is very general, but let me assure him that I realised during the two years that I was at the Colonial Office that that was so. But one of the major causes is undoubtedly the position of the sugar industry.

897
It is impossible for the industry to be maintained in existence at all without substantial preferences such as are now given by this country and by Canada. Further than that, even with the preference, my own view is that better wages and better conditions cannot be paid, much less any dividends be paid on the capital invested in the industry, unless a more reasonable fixed price for sugar in world markets can be assured.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord. I have to go because my train service home is absolutely limited, and I have to start tomorrow morning for Cardiff, where I have an appointment at the National Museum of Wales. I am sure the noble Lord will excuse me. I should very much like to stop and listen, but I really must go.
LORD HARLECH: That will give me an excuse for still further curtailing the many things I wished to say. I hope it will be recognised by other noble Lords that though I do not say them I should have said many other things. May I wish the noble Lord, as president of the museum he is visiting to-morrow, a very interesting visit to that admirable institution. As I have said the economics of the sugar industry are fundamental, and in this connection I must say one thing, because although the noble Lord did not refer to it this afternoon it has been made a major part of the case in the public Press against the Colonial Office, particularly in relation to Jamaica. The Spectator last week said in an article that for the situation in the West Indies the Colonial Office must be held responsible, and the specific reason given was that the task of meeting the situation had been made more difficult by the commercial policy of the British Government which had restricted the Jamaican sugar quota. I really must make die position in regard to that clear, leaving other matters to be dealt with by the representative of the Government, because I am personally concerned with it in connection with the International Conference which met in London last year and which fixed the quotas with the object of preventing the world price of sugar falling to such a level throughout the sugar distributing countries of the world—Cuba, some of the French Colonies, Java and our own Colonies—as to have a most serious social
898
effect upon the wage-earning classes in those vast areas.
That conference was the direct descendant of the World Monetary and Economic Conference which met in 1932. It was attended not only by members of the Secretariat of the League of Nations and representatives of the League Powers, but also by representatives of the United States of America and certain other States not members of the League. After many discussions quotas were agreed upon for export to the world markets by all the States represented—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Czechoslovakia (two of the important beet sugar countries), Germany, France, the United States, Cuba—and the British Colonial Empire had to bargain for its quota among the other nations of the world. After prolonged negotiation we reached a unanimous conclusion, and it was one of the most successful international conferences ever held. Therefore to criticise the Colonial Office of this country for what is a big international settlement is, I think, rather unfair. Further than that, apropos of the Jamaica quota, in the course of the negotiations I got what I was quite sure would redound most to the-interests of the British Colonial Empire, a global figure agreed upon by all the foreign countries for the British Colonial Empire—apart from the Dominions—as a whole. We were given a free hand to allocate the quota for sugar which might be exported between the various sugar-producing Colonies. That was agreed to by the foreign countries.
I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far from curtailing the Jamaica quota, when I addressed the representatives of the sugar-producing Colonies I singled out Jamaica as the Colony especially deserving of an extra quota over and above the proportionate rate which all the others would have according to previous production, on account of social difficulties which I knew of and foresaw in Jamaica. For the Spectator to ignore that fact and say that the Colonial Office reduced the Jamaica quota is, I think, a most singularly unfair suggestion. These quotas were not imposed but were agreed amongst the representatives of all the sugar-producing Colonies, and I am glad to say—I believe it is recognised by the I Government in Jamaica—that if anybody

899
got an extra bit of a square deal it was Jamaica.
I was very glad that the noble Lord opposite paid what is, I believe, sincerely due, a tribute to Messrs. Tate and Lyle. I believe it is essential to the future prosperity and success of the sugar industry in the British West Indies to get new capital and to bring in firms of that standing with a command of technical resources, scientific outlook and finance who can help to rationalise the industry and help it to compete with the up-to-date machinery of other countries. I think it is most unfortunate that the recent outbreaks in the islands should have commenced, not on the sugar estates, but on the building work of the factories which Messrs. Tate and Lyle are putting up, because without new factories of that type it would not be possible to make a success of the industry on which the livelihood of all the people must depend. Anything which discourages the investment of new capital and the rationalising of the technique of the sugar industry in the West Indies is bound to be a very severe detriment to the wage earners and peasantry of the West Indian Islands.
There is one other point on which I think I ought to say something, as the noble Lord specially referred to me. He must not think that I was ignorant of what was going on. I did take certain steps at the Colonial Office, in connection with the introduction of Minimum Wage Acts which were passed in several of the West Indian Islands, and also in connection with trade unions. I do not think that I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite in expressing doubt, as he did, about the possibility of forming successful trade unions in the West Indies. I am quite satisfied in regard to industrial labour that it is most desirable to have trade unions, and I see no reason why we should deny agricultural workers help in forming trade unions if they wish to have them.
The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, talked about van boys in the railway vans not being able to form trade unions. That is the old policy which regards the coloured labourers of the West Indies and elsewhere as children. I believe that day has gone by. Now that we have wireless, the people there hear what is happening in America and other places and are
900
fully alive to modern movements in labour. The idea that you can deny trade unions where there is a desire for trade unions or fail to help to make them effective means for collective bargaining, would not be wise, and relies solely upon Minimum Wage Acts. There is a danger of minimum wages becoming maximum, and of the thing becoming stereotyped by Government regulation of wages and becoming inelastic. It is far better, wherever you can, to have trade unions, which can vary wages from time to time by agreements and supplementary agreements, and negotiate different rates and different wages in different classes, which is always an extremely difficult thing to do when the matter is tied up by Statute.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I am most reluctant to interrupt his extremely interesting maiden speech, but what has fallen from him now is of very great importance to my Party. What he has said about the desirability of encouraging trade unions is admirable. Is that the policy of the Colonial Office, which he has just, unfortunately, left?
LORD HARLECH: I said it when I was Secretary of State, and you can see it in a public Dispatch. I have said this in another place; certainly as long as I was at the Colonial Office it was the policy of the Colonial Office.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: It still is.
LORD HARLECH: And I have no reason to suppose that in the last fortnight my successor has changed that policy. I want to make that perfectly clear. As I do not want to keep the House, there are only two other points arising out of the noble Lord's speech about which I must say something. He said something about relief works. I entirely agree that public works and relief works are no ultimate solution, or indeed really a very effective solution, for unemployment. That has always been the view put forward by the Party with which I have been associated. I was rather surprised at the noble Lord who belongs to the Party opposite, because I remember in years past hearing so much about great programmes of public works being the solution of the unemployment problem. I well remember, in the days when Sir Oswald Mosley was a member of a Labour

901
Government, the enormous importance he attached to that as a solution of the unemployment problem.
But we have to recognise that, quite apart from the sugar trouble and the other problems of the agricultural industries, and their welfare in the West Indian Islands, then are in the few towns—because there are very few towns—notably the capital towns of Kingston in Jamaica, Port of Spain in Trinidad, and, to a certain degree, Bridgetown in Barbados, both slums and extraordinarily bad housing and sanitary conditions. There has also been a drift in from the country districts, and an inflow of returned emigrants from Panama and Cuba, and the growing-up, particularly in recent years, not merely of an unemployed population but also of an almost unemployable population. The scientific treatment of relief of unemployment may indeed tax the resources of those elective municipalities. Let us remember, when it comes to finance, that you may talk of Crown Colony Government, but it does not obtain in Barbados, where the Colonial Office has no control whatever over finance, where they have a completely elective Assembly, and where the Government cannot spend any money without their assent. The noble Lords talked about large sums that ought to be spent on public health. There again, any nine of the fourteen elected members in Jamaica—it does not matter what the officials say or what the Governor says—can veto and can stop any expenditure whatsoever. We have no power to impose expenditure or taxation upon Jamaica under its present Constitution. Such reforms have to be carried out with the assent of the elected members. That ought to be made clear in discussing these matters.
The final thing upon which I want to say something is this. I did not catch quite clearly what the noble Lord said about my treatment of Sir Murchison Fletcher and Mr. Nankivell, but I take it that he said with regard to the first that the matter is now closed. I hope it is closed. I made a very full statement in another place, and the noble Lord suggested this evening that it should be closed. But in regard to Mr. Nankivell I want to make it perfectly clear what the position is and was. Mr. Nankivell was criticised by the Commission, which included Sir Arthur Pugh, for making a
902
particular speech on a particular occasion. I will not go into that. I have never said anything about that. When I was asked what my attitude was, my attitude was this. Mr. Nankivell was a subordinate official under the Governor. The Governor was in the Chair, and Mr. Nankivell was called upon by the Governor to speak. Under that circumstance I do not think anybody can really criticise Mr. Nankivell for what he said, for the Governor and not Mr. Nankivell must have been responsible. The attitude I have taken in regard to him—and it has been suggested that I have in some way victimised him—is this. As I said in another place, Mr. Nankivell will remain in the Colonial Service. I offered him promotion in that service. Since I left office a fortnight ago I understand that he has accepted the promotion that I offered him on that occasion, and that he has been promoted. For the noble Lord opposite to suggest that Mr. Nankivell has been badly treated because he made a particular speech on a particular occasion which has been criticised by an independent Commission, and that the Colonial Office has victimised him for that, is, if I may say so, very far from the facts of the case. I had to say that, only in self-defence, to make quite clear what has happened.
I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised these questions, because I undoubtedly think that there is very little realisation of the grave difficulty which is not only before the Colonial Office but also before Colonial Governments, or of the difficult phase through which the British West Indian Colonies in particular are now passing. We must do that with all sympathy and with all thought. I hope that in this matter we shall act as a Council of State, and not endeavour to make Party capital one way or the other, or introduce acrimony in wrestling with what are very complex problems. All I can say is that I think the tone of the noble Lord's speech this afternoon will be helpful. I know he loves Jamaica. His name is almost a household word to many classes of the community there. He has been Governor there and has been long associated with it. There is a tendency in this country for people without first-hand knowledge of the conditions in those islands to cloud discussion by introducing all kinds of suggestions. I admit that my own knowledge is somewhat out of date. Though

903
there is poverty, there is the sun. There are conditions that certainly may depress us, yet when I was there—and the wages then were lower than what they are to-day—I formed an impression which I still hold. That is, that there are few coloured populations in the world who on the whole, in spite of difficulties, in spite of bad times, have a more cheery outlook and a more happy social life among themselves than that of the Island of Jamaica. It certainly gave one a very pleasant impression to move among them.
But then there is trouble in the West Indies, there always is trouble. They are not like people who have been accustomed, as we have, to long centuries of order and the like. We must remember that in the tropics tempers are apt to get more excitable. You are dealing with an emotional—a delightfully emotional— people, and those smiles that you see everywhere when you go ordinarily among the people in a quiet time may suddenly turn to violence and rage. Let us regret these "shindies," as I have often heard Lord Olivier call them, but do not let us magnify them into believing that there is something bitter, savage and brutal in those communities, because I am quite sure there is not. We have difficult problems to solve, and they can only be solved with good will. My final word is that I am quite sure that what the noble Lord said about the human touch in Governors and officials and other people, managers of estates and managers of factories, is all-important in solving the difficult problems which we have to solve in this matter in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, it is very late, the noble Lord who raised this matter has ranged over rather a wide field, and it is a little difficult for me to decide exactly what points I should answer. I would, however, first of all say how happy I am that by a convention in this House it falls to me to congratulate Lord Harlech on his maiden speech. I think it would be almost sycophantic if I were to add anything more than to say, in the time-honoured phrase, that we hope he will take his part very often in our future debates. My difficulty is also slightly increased, partly, because my noble friend Lord Harlech has already given one possible answer to the question that Lord Olivier raised, and
904
partly because the actual wording of Lord Olivier's Notice: "To call attention to reports of recent fatal disturbances on sugar estates in Jamaica; and to ask His Majesty's Government for information upon the subject," was in fact hardly touched upon at all during the course of the noble Lord's speech. I am left a little in the dark as to whether he would prefer a detailed report which I had prepared, as to what has taken place.
I think, however, as he is no longer here, it would be best if I were to sum up what is the present position, as our last advicest have it. We may say this, that a Commission of Conciliation has been set up at the present moment, that that Commission has already settled the dock hands strike, and that in consequence we may say that the situation in Kingston itself is calm, and well under control. The "Ajax" is still there, but as far as we know no parties have beep landed from her. The Commission of Conciliation, to which I shall refer again in a moment, is now investigating the banana industry, and it is our hope, and there are signs, that the disorders which still exist in the parishes will calm down as soon as the work of the Conciliation Board gets generally known. As a result of the Conciliation Board's first recommendation the Public Works Department has come to an agreement with the Labour leaders for increases of approximately twenty-five per cent, on the present rate of wages of the lowest paid workers, and the wharves, as I say, are fully working.
These disturbances have had many articles written about them in the Press. There has been a certain amount of loss of life, and I would only say this, that although Lord Olivier is perfectly right in saying that the cutlass is the normal weapon or daily companion of the Jamaican, that often the cudgel is found in his hand, he must remember that there are moments when these cutlasses are not directed against bananas or against the canes, but are directed against the police, or bodies in authority, and I do not think from anything we have seen of the disturbances that it can possibly be said that undue violence was shown by the police. On no occasion have the military or naval authorities been called upon to fire, and I think it is clear that Sir Edward Denham, and those in authority under him, have performed an extremely difficult and complicated task with very considerable

905
restraint. The report on the firing to which my noble friend Lord Olivier referred is not yet available, and therefore I think that, according to the rules of this House, it is not possible for me to promise to lay it, but naturally in due course it will be made public.
I would like to say how very sorry I was to hear, late this afternoon, that Sir Edward Denham, who entered hospital a few days ago for an internal trouble, is in a dangerous condition. I know everyone will join with His Majesty's Government in wishing him a speedy recovery to resume his duty. Now, to make the record straight, I think that some small tribute should be paid on this occasion to Sir Edward Denham, because, no doubt unintentionally, Lord Olivier in the past, in speeches in this House, has not been altogether fair to the work that he has done. Lord Olivier, in speaking on Jamaican subjects speaks, as was said in The Times, ex cathedra, and owes it to himself and to his Party to be entirely accurate in what he says. On February 23, last, in his speech in this House, raising the question of labour conditions in the West Indies, with special reference to the disturbances that had recently taken place, said:
"Again, recently, certain ex-Service men wanted to go to the Governor and voice their grievances before him. The police stopped them. That was, I think, a mistake. That is how these troubles are occasioned. Any Governor is perfectly competent to deal with a petition presented to him without committing himself, and when he refuses to receive these petitions or deputations, that is the sort of thing which brings about trouble."
That is a misstatement. On several occasions the Governor did receive these ex-Service men. The deputation expressed itself as satisfied with the result of the interview and informed the general body of the men what had been said. That I take the opportunity of correcting, because I have no doubt it is the last intention of the noble Lord to impute anything to Sir Edward Denham that is not true.
Secondly, I think Sir Edward Denham deserves a very considerable tribute for the short-term measures he has taken to arrest the obvious problems which face Jamaica at the present moment. He has to the best of his ability forced forward a policy of public works to give so much employment—for a short term it may be, but still employment—and although Lord
906
Olivier has complained that these public works are not in fact being pushed forward, we had a telegram on May 19 showing that the public works sanctioned this year were already in train. Therefore it is clear that he has not delayed at all, and that every possible method has been taken for alleviating unemployment. We all know that the problem is a difficult one, and bound up with many causes which the Governor and Government of Jamaica, as well as the Colonial Office, have very little power to control. It is bound up with the cessation of migration from Jamaica, and with the repatriation of Jamaicans who have previously left Jamaica for another land. It is bound up with the increased birth-rate in Jamaica, the increased population, and above all it is bound up with the prices to be paid for the main crops on which Jamaica must depend.
It is quite clear that it is not housing conditions, it is not lack of trade unions, it is not any of the other comparatively subsidiary ills to which attention has been rightly called this evening—it is not these things which have caused this discontent in Jamaica. What that discontent has been caused by is surely the low rate of wages paid. The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, are clearly misleading, as all figures of that sort always must be. The mere 1s. 6d. or 2s. on paper does not take into account all the extra perquisites which go with the payment of that kind of labour. Nevertheless, making all allowances of that kind, it is clear that the root problem of Jamaica must be the raising of the standard of wages. That can only be done by raising the price of the product which those labourers produce. The two main products are bananas and sugar. Bananas make 58 per cent, of the total exports of Jamaica at the present moment. And I would say this to those who complain that England has done nothing for the West Indies, or for Jamaica in particular, that at any rate Jamaica does supply about 20,000,000 out of 22,000,000 of the stems imported by this country, and that we do give a preference of £2 12s. or 16 per cent. on those stems to help the Jamaica banana industry along. In consequence that industry is not in a bad way.
That is not, of course, the case as far as concerns sugar, which forms about 16 per cent. of the exports of the island.

907
I should like to add just a little to what my noble friend behind me (Lord Harlech) has so rightly said, because there does seem to be a very great misconception as to the amount of help that England is giving to our Colonial sugar producers. The sugar industry has been faced, as my noble friend has said, by the fact that certain exporting countries have desired to increase their exports of sugar. Secondly, there has been a great increase in the production of sugar by countries which formerly used to import it. We have tried over and over again to get the sugar position on a rational basis, and finally in June, 1937, we did get an agreement, which we believed at last had solved the problem. All the principal exporting and importing countries were parties to that agreement and, while the exporting countries undertook to limit their exports to certain quantities, the importing countries undertook to maintain a certain market for imported sugar. We as one of the great importing countries undertook to limit our own production to a stated figure, and we also undertook that the Colonial Empire should limit its exports to a certain figure. The Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa, which sell all their sugar in Empire markets also undertook to limit their exports to certain figures. There was an arrangement by which if Empire consumption of sugar increased, the United Kingdom, the Colonial Empire and the two Dominions would get a proportionate share of this increase.
Thus, when the International Agreement was concluded last June, it really did look as if the sugar industry had been rationalised at last. Unfortunately since then everything has gone to make the position more difficult. In the first place there was a general fall in commodity prices throughout the world, which dragged down sugar prices with the rest and checked consumption of sugar as well as other commodities. In the second place there was the particular difficulty that the war in the Far East has checked the consumption of sugar in that area, which is normally a large importer. Last September it was still hoped that China (including Manchukuo), Japan and Korea would between them import 560,000 tons during the sugar year ending in August next. It is now doubtful whether they
908
will even import 300,000 tons. Thus the International Sugar Council is in very serious difficulties; demand has not come up to expectation and the price, instead of rising, as was hoped last June, has fallen. Drastic action has already been taken. The total export quotas for foreign countries under the Agreement amounted to about 3,700,000 tons. This figure in itself represents a great sacrifice, for the countries receiving these quotas have exported much larger quantities in the past. By voluntary surrenders and by the compulsory cut of 5 per cent, of the quotas, which is the full amount of the compulsory cut allowed by the Agreement, this figure has been brought down to just below 3,250,000 tons, and the Council is meeting again in July to consider the possibility of further surrenders of quota.
Let me make the position quite clear; the present price of £5 a ton c.i.f. in this country is not a satisfactory one for those foreign countries which export to the free market, and I feel quite sure that the countries concerned will go on reducing exports by one means or another until they have improved the price. The British Colonial Empire is in a favourable position. It does not get merely the world price for its sugar, it gets the full advantage of the preference in this country and Canada, and by means of the special quota preference in this country on 360,000 tons of Colonial sugar, it is given additional preference beyond even that which the Dominions enjoy. Thus when the world price of sugar is £5 a ton, the price of Colonial sugar is about £9 15s. a ton, and if the world price is increased as a result of the efforts of the International Sugar Council, the price of Colonial sugar will be increased also. On the other hand there has been no suggestion that the Colonial Empire should contribute to bringing about this state of affairs by surrendering any part of its quotas; it will get the full quota of about 948,000 tons provided in the Agreement and it will get not only its own but also the United Kingdom's share of any increase in Empire consumption during the present sugar year ending in August next over the sugar year ending in August, 1937.
His Majesty's Government are of course studying the position very carefully. There can be no question of the Colonial Empire getting larger quotas than those provided

909
in the Agreement. We signed an Agreement for five years last June and I am sure that none of your Lordships would suggest that we should go back on our signature. It is clear, however, that ii prices continue to be so unsatisfactory as they are at the present moment, the Colonial sugar producer is quite unable to make a livelihood or to pay the proper rate of wages, then something must really be done. As I say, I do not believe that sugar will remain at £5 a ton, because I feel sure that the foreign producer who is selling at £5 must be finding it far more difficult to make ends meet than the Colonial producer who is selling at £9 15s. Therefore until it is clear that the Sugar Council is unable to raise the price of sugar, it is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, premature to take decisive action in any other way.
I must apologise for this rather lengthy dissertation on the sugar problem, but it is a problem that I would like to be understood in this country, because it is important that we should realise that it is not quite true to say, as the articles in The Times rather suggested, that for a century we have gone on taking money out of the pockets of the West Indians and now it is about time that we put some back. Whether it is time that we put some back is one problem, but it is not quite true to say that we have not helped to a very considerable degree indeed the producers of the West Indies. That is, I think, a fair answer, in combination with the answer my noble friend has already given, to what the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has said. We have very carefully considered the whole of the West Indian problem. My right honourable friend in another place has taken up the problem where my noble friend behind me laid it down, and I can assure the House that this will not be the last that it will hear of the West Indian problem in the next few months. At the moment, beyond the 1936 Report on Unemployment which is being placed in the Library, I do not think there are any Papers I can lay on the Table.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Olivier not only apologised for having to leave, but he asked me to say that he does not desire to press his Motion for Papers. I would like to add to what the noble Marquess has said about the welcome we give to Lord Harlech, that I am sure he will be
910
a great acquisition to your Lordships' deliberations. This is not my subject. I do not speak on these matters with authority. I try to follow them as closely as I can, but I have not been to the West Indies, I am sorry to say, and I cannot speak with expert knowledge. But I can express what the ordinary rank and file members of my Party think. We do not think that the Colonial Office are villains, and we do not think that Governors are lacking in their duty. We believe they try to do their best, but we feel that it is rather a pity you should always have committees of inquiry and conciliation committees after there is serious trouble, instead of before. I feel there is something in what Lord Olivier said about the intelligence system of the Colonial Office not being so good as it might be.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Sir Edward Denham did set up an inquiry in April, which was long before there were any riots.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was not referring to any particular instance; I was speaking very generally. The other observation I have to make, which I am sure will be agreed to by the noble Marquess and by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and by all other noble Lords present, is that at this particular time we must be very careful indeed, as far as we can, that no serious charge can lie against us of neglecting or mismanaging the great heritage of the non-self-governing parts of the British Empire. We are being assailed for selfishness at the present time in interested quarters, and I am sure there is no conflict between any Party in the State on the point that we should see to it that there is no justification for any such charge. As my noble friend has asked me, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.