Sitting of 21 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill,
Methodist Church Union Bill,
Bead the Third time, and passed.
Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1926, relating to the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel Ashley; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (MR. F. FAULKNER).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the case of Mr. Frank Faulkner, of 3, Devonshire Terrace, Northampton, who was discharged from Birmingham Hospital as fit on 7th December on the understanding that he would return later for operation; that on 9th December his wound reopened and, after subsequent inspection at Northamp-
    1824
    ton on 10th December and by the D.C.M.S. on 12th December, he was informed that he must return to hospital as soon as a vacancy was available for him; that he was not able to re-enter hospital until 2nd January, 1929; that during the interval he was only in receipt of 8s. pension per week, but owing to the state of his wound was incapable of taking work; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he will see whether Mr. Faulkner should be awarded the full pension or allowances for the period whilst he was awaiting return to hospital?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Both the condition of, and the treatment necessary in this case were, as I have already informed the hon. Member, unnecessarily interrupted by the patient's insistence upon postponement of the minor operation required. The palliative treatment which was given during the brief period pending his re-admission for the purpose of operation could not be certified as warranting the payment of special allowances.
    Mr. MALONE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man states categorically that he was offered the opportunity of having an operation before or after Christmas, and how does he adjudicate between what the man says and what the doctor says? Is he not aware that after the case was brought to his notice the man was reprimanded by the D.C.M.S. for bringing his case to a Member of Parliament?
    Major TRYON: I will inquire into the allegations made by the hon. Member before replying to them, but it is obvious that allowances cannot be given when a man, by his own desire, ceases to have treatment.

    SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of his recent pledge to reconsider certain special cases which have gone beyond the seven years' limit and the experience gained in his Department over the reconsideration of these he is prepared to increase the number of cases to receive special consideration; and if he is aware that a large number of ex-service men have been reluctant to apply

    1825
    for pension whilst in employment although entitled to it, and are now being driven to do so by necessity?
    Major TRYON: Any cases of exceptional character clearly justifying the grant of special compensation, on the lines which I have on several occasions explained to the House, will be considered. With regard to the suggestion in the last part of the question, there is no evidence whatever that the number of such eases is large.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the type of men who are coming in now is the type of men who did not want to apply for pensions but went to work at once, and whose disability came up afterwards, and will he give special consideration to cases like that of Blanchard, in my own constituency?
    Major TRYON: That is the kind of case with which we are dealing under the arrangement under which we have granted a considerable number of pensions after the seven years' limit.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the fact that a man was in hospital at the time of the expiry of the seven years' limit, and made his application immediately he came out of hospital, would be considered a ground for reconsideration by the Minister?
    Major TRYON: If the man was in one of our hospitals on account of wounds or other disablement, that would obviously show that we were already considering the case.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult his own Parliamentary private Secretary, who sent me a courteous but an unsatisfactory letter on this case?
    Major TRYON: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise individual cases, he had better do so directly rather than on the general question.

  POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
  Mr. HAYESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can estimate the cost of extending the
  1826
  police widows' pension scheme to include the pensioners of before September, 1918, in respect of wives who were married during the time the husbands were serving; and will he state how many pensioners there are in this class to the last convenient date?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No returns of the number of pre-1918 widows are available, but an estimate made in 1927 gives the number of widows of ex-policemen in England and Wales pensioned before 1st September, 1918, as about 8,000. In addition, there would be probably about 2,000 widows of men who died in the force before the date mentioned and had no pensions. The cost of granting a pension of £30 per annum in all these cases would thus have been about £300,000 per annum in 1927 and would no doubt be slightly less to-day. The number of Metropolitan Police pensioners now living who were granted their pensions before 1st September, 1918, is about 4,700 and many of these will no doubt leave widows. I cannot give the figures for the other forces.
  Mr. HAYES: In order to check the latest figures, will the right hon. Gentleman ask chief officers of police in one or two of the large industrial areas to get information for him, which would be some basis for future calculations?
  Mr. HANNON: May I support the request made by the hon. Member opposite?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will select three or four of the big towns or cities and ask the chief constables to give me this information.
  Mr. HAYES: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

  FRAUDULENT EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the growing number of cases in which the public are being imposed upon by fraudulent employment agencies; and whether it is his intention to amend the Public Health Act of 1907 so as to give the public more protection against the operations of these agencies?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Complaints are occasionally received on this matter, but I have no evidence before me to show that the number of fraudulent agencies is growing, and the Government are not proposing to introduce amending legislation.
  Mr. DAY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that complaints are received with regard to these agencies, will he not consider the advisability of setting up a committee to inquire whether this Act should not be amended?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said in my answer that I have no evidence that the number is growing. If the hon. Member can give me any such evidence, I will, of course, consider setting up an inquiry.

  FILMS (PRODUCTION).
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has any records of any persons being arrested in the Metropolitan police area for taking films on private property; and whether there are any police regulations in the Metropolis which prohibit the filming of cinematograph films within specified private areas?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Records have been searched for the past two years, but no such arrest can be traced; nor are there any police regulations prohibiting the taking of cinematograph films within specified private areas. A film actor was, however, arrested on the 12th March for "wilfully obstructing the free passage of the highway by causing a crowd to assemble at King's Road, Chelsea, through film acting," and in June last summonses were issued against certain persons connected with a film company for causing obstruction in Piccadilly. In both cases the filming—though visible to persons on the highway—actually took place in private places. Proceedings were taken under Section 72 of the Highway Act, 1835, and there was a conviction in each case.
  Mr. DAY: In view of the fact that the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force give facilities now to British film companies, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving instructions or suggesting to the police that benevolent
  1828
  consideration should be given to applications from British film companies to take films off private property?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have given the hon. Member a very full answer. He must see that the paramount interest is the interest of His Majesty's subjects who desire to use the streets for their proper purpose, and, while I am willing that film people should do anything they like, they must not cause crowds to assemble and block the King's highway.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that American and other foreign film companies obtain permission where British film companies, which are taking British films and giving employment to British subjects, are unable to get it?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not only raising another question, but making a very serious suggestion against my Department.
  Mr. DAY: It is a fact.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will let me have the full details—and he must let me have them—I will inquire into them.
  Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that the British public are far more intelligent than the Americans?

  ALIENS.

    MISS ALMA EWERT.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Home Secretary whether Miss Alma Ewert, a German fraternal delegate to women's demonstrations in this country, who was refused permission to land at Harwich on Friday, the 8th instant, was prevented by his order; and what were the grounds for this refusal?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I did not think it desirable in the interests of this country that this alien should be given leave to land.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second part of my question? Is it simply a personal idea that it is not desirable to introduce any alien, or has the right hon. Gentleman any specific reason or report that this particular alien woman was dangerous to the State?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has asked me what were the grounds on which I acted. The grounds were that, in my opinion and with the knowledge in my possession, I did not think it was desirable that leave should be given to this alien to come into this country.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Is there anything in the Act of Parliament that prevents the Home Secretary telling the House on what grounds he acted, instead of simply giving us casual remarks about it not being desirable that this woman should enter the country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is nothing in the Act of Parliament which either prevents me giving or compels me to give the grounds of my action.
    Mr. BENN: What about disrespect to the House of Commons?
    Mr. TAYLOR: Was the right hon. Gentleman's ground for refusal political?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have answered the question, and I do not propose to give any further answer.

    CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour the names of the firms who have been granted permits during the past 12 months to import aliens for clerical work, giving the number of aliens in each case?
    Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend does not think it would be right to publish these names. As the hon. Member was informed on the 27th February last, the number of permits issued during 1928 in respect of aliens required for clerical work was 1,310. With the possible exception of the British branches of foreign banks and other foreign corporations, very few of the employers concerned applied for more than one permit during the year.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend, if he cannot supply the names of the firms, whether he will supply me with the number of firms concerned?
    Captain MARGESSON: I will convey that request to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Will the Minister consult the President of the Board of Education before granting licences to these alien clerks?

  COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS (POLICE INQUIRIES).
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that during the past five weeks visits have been made by persons claiming to belong to the special branch of the Criminal Investigation Department on private individuals, printing firms, and a publishing house, interrogating them about the British edition of the programme of the Communist International and a manifesto issued by the Communist party of Great Britain on the recent riots in Bombay; whether such action is taken at his instance; and what is the reason for it?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These publications having been brought to my notice, it appeared to me to be desirable to ascertain who are responsible for them, and the inquiries referred to were accordingly made at my request.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: When a manifesto is issued by a political organisation, is it not sufficient to let the responsibility rest with that organisation; were any warrants issued to make those searches, or to molest those persons; on what grounds was that action taken; and what was the power of the Home Secretary to take that action?
  Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that this is a revolutionary, not a political organisation?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You used to belong to one, too?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is that I desired to know who was responsible for this document, and I sent someone to make inquiries. There was no molestation; there was no warrant. I simply asked for inquiries, and I got certain answers.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that if a newspaper publishes something, the editor is responsible, and that if an organisation publishes a manifesto, the committee of the organisation is responsible? Why go to the homes of clerks, typists, printers

  1831
  and compositors to find out who is responsible for it, and under what authority was it done?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will give me the name of the responsible committee, I shall be a very happy man.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: There is one important point. Will the Home Secretary assure this House that he did not take this irregular action at the instance of the India Office to create a "stunt" in order to pass a Safety Bill in the Assembly?

  SHOP HOURS ACT.
  Sir THOMAS WATTSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction throughout the country over the exemptions allowed under the Shop Hours Act, 1928; and does he propose to take any action to allay this feeling?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that there is any such general dissatisfaction as my hon. Friend represents, and my own experience is that any dissatisfaction which does exist is very largely due to ignorance of the Act. If I might venture to make the suggestion, a great deal might be done by the hon. Members themselves to dispel this misunderstanding by explaining the position to their constituents, and I should be happy to give them any assistance I can in this direction.
  Sir T. WATTS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the instances of anomalies are rapidly making us the laughing stock of the whole world?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great respect for my hon. Friend, I do not agree with that for a single moment.
  Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that any exemption granted under this Act is in response to clear evidence given before a committee that the exemption is wanted by a large number of people, and that an exemption is withdrawn only after evidence that it is not wanted?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite true, and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir T. Watts) wants an exemption to cease, the natural
  1832
  effect would be that many facilities now given to the public would be swept away altogether.

  LICENSED CLUBS.
  Sir T. WATTSasked the Home Secretary the present position with regard to the request of the clubs for a restoration of their pre-War privileges?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Nothing could be done in respect to the statutory obligations on clubs except by legislation, which, as my hon. Friend will realise, cannot be undertaken at present.
  Mr. HANNON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave dissatisfaction throughout all these clubs at the present state of the law, and will he, when he comes back to power, take an early opportunity of amending it?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have already prepared and submitted to my colleagues in the Cabinet a memorandum on the whole licensing question without any bias from my personal point of view, and when we come back to power the matter will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. TAYLOR: What year does the right hon. Gentleman expect that to be?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think we can do it soon after the 30th May this year.

  ISLE OF MAN (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary whether the Isle of Man Bill for old age pensions, widows' pensions, and orphans' allowance has been again submitted for assent; and has the Measure received assent and been passed into law?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part does not therefore arise.

  ARREST, GRAVESEND (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  Captain FRASERasked the Home Secretary if he will co-operate with the Queensland Government to secure,

  1833
  jointly or otherwise, compensation for Mr. Hubert Storey, who was mistakenly arrested on his arrival at Graves-end from Queensland on s.s. "Sydic" on 5th September, 1928, and suffered the indignity occasioned by a week's imprisonment and the mistaken charge of murder, having regard to the conflict of opinion as to the responsibility of the British police or of the Queensland Government?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must apologise to the House for the length of this answer, but I know that my hon. and gallant Friend is very much interested. Mr. Storey was arrested by Metropolitan Police officers upon a cabled request from the Queensland Police under the Fugitive Offenders Act. His identification as the person indicated by the description furnished in the telegram from the Queensland Government asking for the arrest cannot, in my opinion, be challenged. The description tallied so closely that I am bound to conclude that some at least of the particulars furnished as an aid to identification related in fact to Mr. Storey, the man who had embarked on the "Sydic" at Cairns. Information, however, was obtained by the Metropolitan Police tending to show that he was not the man Kelly wanted for murder. This information was at once cabled to the Queensland Government who replied after four days asking that Mr. Storey should be released and this was promptly done. While I deeply regret the inconvenience and indignity which Mr. Storey has suffered, I cannot admit that any responsibility therefore rests with the Metropolitan Police, Who had no option in the circumstances but to comply with the cabled request of the Queensland Government.
  Captain FRASER: Since this question appeared on the Paper, has the Home Secretary seen a letter from the Agent-General of the Queensland Government, which confirms their view that the discrepancy between the cabled description and this particular man was such that they cannot understand the Metropolitan Police taking the action that they did; and does he not think that this conflict of opinion as to whether or not the Metropolitan Police were at fault is sufficient ground for being generous in the
  1834
  matter and giving my constituent some compensation?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have in my possession the cable in question asking for the arrest of this man on his arrival in London, and I must confess that the description tallied to an extraordinary degree. It is not for me to make any comment on the action of the Queensland Government, but the London police have done nothing whatever but carry out their request to arrest this man. Immediately we were satisfied that it was not this man, we cabled out to the Queensland Government, and they took four days to reply authorising us to release him.
  Captain FRASER: Though the Home Secretary may have seen the two descriptions and considered that they tallied, has he seen the man, and will he take some steps to see that an impartial person peruses the two conflicting matters to see whether justice has been done?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be willing to see the man if my hon. Friend would bring him to me, but I ought to warn him that the man's father has threatened personal violence against myself.
  Captain FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the man's father is a very aged and ill gentleman, and that the suggestion that personal violence has been threatened against him is certainly prejudicial to the case?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He should not have sent a post card to my private house.
  Captain FRASER: May I give notice that I shall be compelled to raise this matter on an early occasion?

  PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of recent cases in which prisoners have been detained in prison for five or six weeks awaiting trial when nearby Assizes and sittings of the Central Criminal Court have taken place in the meanwhile, he will consider issuing a circular to magistrates calling their attention to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As at present advised, I have no reason to think that such a state of facts does exist, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into them and consider his proposal.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will send them.

  EDUCATION.

    FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will set up a committee of his Department to report upon means of encouraging the study of the foreign languages most used in commerce, with a view to reducing the number of alien immigrants into this country who take the positions which might be occupied by British subjects if they had a sufficient knowledge of foreign languages?
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is doing anything to promote the study of foreign languages in schools; whether he is satisfied that the facilities provided are adequate to meet the requirements; whether there are sufficient teachers with language qualifications to give proper instruction; and, if not, will he consider offering travelling scholarships or other inducements to encourage persons qualifying to be teachers to be able to teach French, German, and Spanish, so as to enable young people entering the commercial and export trade to communicate with foreign countries in the appropriate language?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): An inquiry into the teaching of French in secondary schools was conducted three years ago and a report published. Similar inquiries into German and Spanish are now in progress. The Committee on Education for Salesmanship has suggested, and I have accepted the suggestion, that the Board should institute a further and more comprehensive inquiry. I am at present considering with the Committee the form which the inquiry should take and its general scope and purpose. The particular points
    1836
    raised by the hon. Members will receive careful attention in connection with the inquiry.
    Sir R. THOMAS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware that there are hundreds of clerks in this country, men of high character, who are out of employment, and who could get employment on a very remunerative basis, not only in this country, but abroad, if they had a knowledge of foreign languages; and will he therefore at an early date expedite the operation of this Committee?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that there is any scarcity in this country of people with a sufficient knowledge of foreign languages who are capable of taking up these posts?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am very fully impressed with the importance of this question. It is more a question of the quality of the teaching of the language than of the number of people who learn it, and I must honestly inform the hon. Baronet that I also know a good many cases of men who are highly qualified in foreign languages who cannot get employment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Noble Lord inquire into the possible use of gramophones to assist in the teaching of languages?
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the Noble Lord aware that there are to-day, to my knowledge, at least a dozen posts on the Continent open to British people if they knew French and German?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot I have an answer to my question?

    PADDOCK WOOD SCHOOL (DIPHTHERIA).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had a report on the sanitary condition of a school at Paddock Wood, Kent, where five children died from diphtheria: and, if so, whether anything has been done to remedy any defects in the drainage that may have been disclosed by the inquiry?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have received no report on this matter, but I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    HANDICRAFT CLASSES.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is still the policy of the Board to limit handicraft classes to 20 boys; and if he can state the number of classes which exceed this number?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Board's policy is still to restrict classes in manual work to 20. This number may be sometimes exceeded owing to temporary difficulties of accommodation, staffing or organisation. I am unable to give the number of classes exceeding 20, but I have no reason to think that they are at all numerous. If the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, I shall be happy to look into them.

    WELSH.
    Mr. JOHNasked the President of the Board of Education what instruction in Welsh is at present given in Llandovery College; and, seeing that the intent of the founder of the college is not observed nor the endowment deeds enforced, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have no recent information about this matter, but I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. JOHNasked the President of the Board of Education whether consideration has been given to the recommendation of the departmental committee on Welsh in education and life, that a chapter on the teaching of Welsh be included in the Board's suggestions for the consideration of teachers as soon as practicable; will he state what steps have been taken; and when the suggestions will be issued?
    Lord E. PERCY: A chapter on the work of the primary schools in Wales, with special reference to the teaching of Welsh, is being prepared and will, I hope, be issued shortly.

    SCHOOLS (HEATING).
    Mr. BATEY (for Mr. R. RICHARDSON)asked the President of the Board of Education whether His Majesty's inspectors have reported that sundry elementary schools in receipt of grant are insufficiently heated in cold weather; and whether, in view of the suffering caused to school children by the lack of heat-
    1838
    ing provision in severe weather, inadequacy of heating arrangements is regarded as a ground for placing the schools concerned on the black list or for requiring prompt remedy of the defect?
    Lord E. PERCY: Inspectors habitually report cases where the heating arrangements are inadequate to meet ordinary variations of temperature, and this was one of the factors taken into account in placing schools on the black list where necessary a prompt remedy of the defect is pressed for.

    DRINKING WATER.
    Mr. BATEY (for Mr. R. RICHARDSON)asked the President of the Board of Education whether any of the elementary schools in receipt of grant during the school year 1925–26, not provided with an adequate supply of drinking water in 1925–26, have since been provided with a proper supply; and what are the names of such schools, if any?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have no particulars which would enable me to give a detailed reply to the hon. Member's question, but if he will let me know of particular cases which he may have in mind I will make inquiries.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MENTAL AND MORAL DEFECTIVES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether he will set up a committee to advise upon the feasibility of a policy of segregation of mentally and/or morally unfit and subnormal persons?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The Mental Deficiency Acts of 1913 and 1927 already provide means by which mental defectives, including moral defectives within the meaning of the Acts, can be segregated or placed under guardianship or supervision. I see no necessity for the appointment of a committee for the purpose suggested.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that half the crime which is committed nowadays is due to lack of proper segregation of these people?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that provision is already made for those cases.

    LONDON LOCK HOSPITAL (COMMITTEES' REPORT).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction at his declared intention to refrain for the present from publishing the Report of the committee which inquired into the London Lock Hospital; and whether he has set a time-limit to the Board within which the reforms promised by them must be carried out;
    (2) whether he will publish the correspondence between himself and the board of the London Lock Hospital, including the letter or memorandum from the board on the strength of which he has decided to refrain for the present from publishing the Report of the committee of inquiry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence of dissatisfaction with the reply which I gave on this matter last week. I have, as I then stated, made myself responsible for ensuring that changes at the Hospital are made with sufficient speed; but it is not practicable to impose a time-limit in affairs of this kind. I cannot undertake to publish the correspondence alluded to in the hon. Member's second question.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, at any rate, whether the secretary will be retained in his position, and whether the ex-matron and the assistant matron will be reinstated or given compensation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to answer these questions at the present moment. I may be able to do so later.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that within the life of the present Government he will see that these changes are put into operation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never give guarantees unless they are necessary.

    RIVER DARENTH (POLLUTION).
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed his inquiries regarding the
    1840
    pollution of the River Darenth and, if so, will he state the result; and what, if any, steps will be taken to abate the pollution?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These inquiries are not yet completed. I am in touch with the district council and the county council, who are endeavouring to ascertain the cause and extent of the pollution.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: If I send the right hon. Gentleman information, will he consider it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I shall be very pleased to do so.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Minister of Health whether in view of the increasing requirements during recent years of water (other than potable) per head of the population and the inceasing expenditure of water by reason of changing habits and improved facilities, he will call the attention of public authorities and private undertakings to the need of making provision for further supplies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am constantly in touch with water undertakers in all parts of the country, and the need of making provision ahead of demand is generally appreciated. In this connection, I recently issued a booklet on the advantage of advisory regional water committees. I do not think that a special circular on the general subject is required at the moment.

    DAY NURSERIES
    Brigadier-General WRIGHTasked the Minister of Health what is the cost per child of carrying on day nurseries; and what are the difficulties in the way of the extended adoption of these nurseries by local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average net daily cost of maintaining the day nurseries which are recognised by my Department is about 2s. 2d. per child I am not aware of any particular difficulties in the way of the extension of these nurseries, but since the termination of the War there has, of course, been a considerable reduction in the demand for accommodation of this kind for the children of mothers who go out to work.

    1841
    I have under consideration the question of encouraging the use of day nurseries for other classes of children.

  HOUSING.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health the number of houses under
    The following Statement shows, for the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, the number of houses under construction and the number authorised but not started at certain dates.

    Date, 1st March.

    Housing, etc., Act, 1923.

    Housing (Financial Previsions) Act, 1924.

    Number of houses under construction.

    Number of houses authorised but not started.

    Number of houses under construction.

    Number of houses authorised but not started.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    1927

    49,833

    78,576

    53,031

    48,035

    1928

    21,313

    63,985

    29,993

    29,201

    1929

    26,827

    57,871

    27,343

    31,307

    RENTS (METROPOLITAN AREA).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health the average rent per room charged by the public authorities in the Metropolitan area for houses subsidised in the various housing schemes sanctioned by the Ministry of Health since the War; and whether he is prepared to sanction any reduction in the rents charged?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available in my Department, but the hon. Member is no doubt aware of the very full particulars of the rents charged by the London County Council on each of their housing estates given in the statistical statements published by the Council. My approval of rents is not required for any houses erected under the 1923 and 1924 Housing Acts, except in so far as they are for re-housing in connection with slum clearance schemes. So far as my approval of rents is required, it is for the councils concerned to make proposals for my consideration.

  RATING REASSESSMENTS, HULL.
  Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health why he has refused to receive a deputation from the
  1842
  construction, and the number authorised but not started, under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, at 1st March, 1927, 1st March, 1928, and 1st March, 1929?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  Hull City Council and the Lord Mayor of Hull in connection with the Rating and Valuation Acts of 1925 and 1928; if he is aware that in connection with the reassessment of certain areas where 1928 has been adopted as the date of the first new valuation appreciable increases in the inclusive rents of tenants of small houses will be involved; if he is prepared to mitigate this effect so far as possible; if he is aware that the gross assessments of compounded houses in Hull have been increased by more than 50 per cent. over pre-War figures; and if, in view of the hardship caused in many cases of small tenants, he will reconsider his decision not to receive the deputation in order to discuss the matter fully?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have drawn the attention of the Hull City Council to the provisions of the Act of 1928, which were designed to mitigate as far as possible increases in inclusive rentals, and I have put before them certain considerations which appear to me to have a material bearing on the position. The large increase in the gross value attributed to small properties in Hull, which substantially exceeds the corresponding increase in the majority of other rating areas, is a matter within the discretion of the local rating and assessment

  1843
  authorities, but, as I have explained to the council, no action which it is open to me to take could affect the essential facts of the situation and, that being so, it does not appear to me that any useful purpose would be served by the attendance of the proposed deputation.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not the matter be put right by a short agreed Act? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already the agents are issuing increased rent notices? Further, is it usual for him to refuse to receive a deputation from a city of 300,000 people?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question whether I receive a deputation or not does not depend upon the population of the area which asks for it, but on the nature of the subject about which they wish to see me and the possibility of any useful purpose being served by receiving the deputation. As I pointed out, this increase is largely due to the fact that a greater increase in the valuation of properties has been imposed by the rating-authorities in Hull than has been the case elsewhere.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter affects 15,000 of the poorest people in Hull, who will have their rents put up every week?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INLAND REVENUE, SALARIES (EASTER).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain the circumstances in which the staff of the Inland Revenue Department cannot be paid the salaries due to them on 1st April, 1929, until 2nd April; why the staff should be given unfavourable treatment as compared with the rest of the Civil Service by the non-payment of their March salaries before Easter when other civil servants will receive their pay on 28th March; and whether he can arrange for the payment of salaries in full before Easter in the Inland Revenue Department and so avoid hardship and inconvenience to the staff?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am con-
    1844
    sidering the possibility of arranging for payment to be made in these unusual circumstances, before the 1st April. I ought, however, to inform the House that whilst this arrangement will not involve increased expenditure, it will necessitate the presentation of an Excess Vote.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future the Regulation is carried out that these salaries shall be paid previous to the Bark Holiday instead of after? It has been the recognised custom.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether that portion of the Circular has been withdrawn which makes it necessary for junior officers to submit grounds of hardship before payment is made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; as soon as the matter was brought to my attention, I took the decision which I have now given to the House.
    Mr. KELLY: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole salary is to be paid before the holiday?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whatever would have been paid two or three days later, after the holidays, will be paid at this time, so that people going on their holidays will have the money which they expected to have. That is the intention, certainly.

    P.-AND P.U.-CLASS CLERKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has yet been reached with reference to the deputation from the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants which waited upon the Controller of Establishments of the Treasury on 9th January last, concerning the pay and conditions of P.- and P.U.-class clerks in the Civil Service, and with reference also to the letter sent by that association to the Controller of Establishments on 5th March last; and, if not whether he will expedite the decision and cause it to be transmitted to that association without delay?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The claim referred to is still under examination, but I expect that a

    1845
    decision will shortly be reached. There has been no avoidable delay in dealing with the matter.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD FUND (TRANSFERS).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the appropriations from the Road Fund in the years 1926–27, 1927–28, and 1928–29, respectively, for other purposes than those for which the Road Fund was formed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the first part of my answer to his question of Tuesday last.

    ROAD CONSTRUCTION (WAGES).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport the sum expended on wages out of £1,000,000 expended on road construction?
    Captain WALLACE (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to a similar question from the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), of which I am sending him a copy.

    RAILWAY AND CANAL BRIDGES.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport what number of railway and canal bridges in Great Britain are in need of reconstruction owing to inadequacy to carry modern traffic?
    Captain WALLACE: My right hon. Friend regrets that these figures are not at his disposal. A register of bridges is in course of preparation with the object of obtaining this information; but the work entails an exhaustive survey, which must take a considerable time to complete.

    MOTORISTS (EXCESSIVE SPEED).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Home Secretary what is the number of convictions of motor drivers for excessive speed during the last 12 months to any convenient recent date; has he any data to show what proportion of these offences were committed at night; and what proportion of the offenders were drivers of heavy lorries and freight wagons?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Only certain figures for the six months ended 31st December, 1928, can be given. In England and Wales there were 9,195 convictions in connection with 9,910 offences of exceeding the speed limit. The class of vehicle and the time at which an offence was committed cannot be stated.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in reply to questions regarding excessive motor driving which shakes buildings in some places to the very foundations, he said he was not able to allocate the time when this excessive driving takes place? I want to find out whether it is at night or in the day time, because at night I think he will agree there is less police supervision.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The re turns merely state, "So-and-So prosecuted," and the result—conviction or fine. They do not state the time at which the offence was committed. To find that out, I should have to ask the Department to go through 9,000 odd files.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it would be worth while for him to do so? Is he not aware that these offences take place, and must take place, at night time, when there is less supervision by the police? Will he promise to look into the matter? He has not very much longer to do it in.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then it is hardly worth my doing so.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Liberal Government will do it in the next Parliament?
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the buildings in one street in London last Saturday night were almost shaken to pieces between 12 and one o'clock?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry. I was away for the week-end.

  PETROL PRICES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take regarding the reply of the oil companies to his communica-

  1847
  tion regarding the rise in price of petrol and other oils; and whether he has any guarantee that there will be no further rise in the prices of these essential commodities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. The statement of the oil companies is under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, the Prime Minister has already stated that the Government consider that undertakings dominating the supply and distribution of articles of common use have a duty to supply on reasonable terms and to satisfy the public that their terms are reasonable, and these considerations will of course be equally applicable to future as well as to present circumstances. But subject to what I have just said, it is not the intention of the Government to attempt to interfere with the commercial policy of the oil companies.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him whether, when he speaks of an examination, it means that it will be a commercial and actuarial examination of the figures submitted, and also of the policy of basing prices on the Gulf level?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It means such examination as the Government consider necessary in order to arrive at a just conclusion.
  Mr. DAY: In that examination, will the details of the agreement with the Russian oil interests be taken into consideration?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware what the details are.
  Mr. W. BENNETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to enforce prices for a necessary article?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That question does not arise. What happened is that the Prime Minister made a statement to the House which, I think, commanded general assent. The oil companies immediately replied with a very full statement. It would, perhaps, have been for the convenience of everybody had that statement preceded and not followed the rise.
  Captain FRASER: Will the right hon. Gentleman use all the pressure which the Government can exert upon the Russian interests to get their reasons for raising the price along with these capitalist companies?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware that the Government have any means of exercising pressure upon Russian interests.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how close is the touch now kept between his Department and the two Government directors on the Board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company? Will he see that in future the touch is sufficiently close to warn the Government beforehand that a step such as this is to be taken?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The touch between the directors and my Department does not exist. The touch exists with the Treasury, who appoint these directors. The relations between the Government and the directors of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company will be precisely the same in the future as in the past, for the reasons given by the Prime Minister.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is not answering this question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Because this question deals with matters which fall within the purview of the Board of Trade. Questions connected with the relations of the Government with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are properly addressed to me, but this question is general and deals with the price of oil from all companies.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in future there will be closer touch between our directors on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the various Government Departments, and that his Department will communicate with the Board of Trade for the information of the latter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The closest touch is maintained between the Government Departments concerned, including the Treasury and the Admiralty, and those directors, but as I have said on many occasions, we are under a declared obligation not to interfere with the com-

  1849
  mercial management of this company. That may be disputed, but I can assure the House that it cannot be challenged with success. Whether it is a good thing or not is a matter on which hon. Members may differ, but unquestionably we have bound ourselves not to interfere in the commercial management of this company.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean last summer when he spoke of what he would do if the nation were held to ransom?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Holding the majority of the shares, are we not in a position to change the whole of the directorate if we choose to do so?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member has studied the Command Paper to which I have frequently referred, but I recommend him to read it without delay.

  NATIONAL FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to grant the request which he has received from the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations that the Government should immediately appoint a Commission to inquire into the relationship between national financial policy and industry?
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider setting up a committee to inquire into the effects of the return to the gold standard on agriculture and other industries and to make recommendations as to the manner in which any adverse effects may be overcome?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would commend to my hon. Friends' attention the conclusions arrived at on this subject by the Committee on Trade and Industry in their Final Report (Command Paper No. 3282) which has just been published. For the reasons they set out, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by having a further inquiry on this subject, which would be much more likely to revive controversy than to produce any practical results.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cunliffe Committee, which was set up to deal with this question of industry and finance, did say in their first interim report that it was advisable to reconsider this matter 10 years after the end of the War; and does he think that that recommendation is upset in any way by the remarks of the Balfour Committee which is referred to in the reply, and which was not specifically asked to deal with this question of finance and industry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I have not sufficiently addressed my mind to this somewhat complicated proposition.

  INCOME TAX.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that threats of legal proceedings are being sent to Income Taxpayers who have paid the whole of their Income Tax with the exception of small sums which are in dispute; and whether he will issue instructions that this practice shall cease?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind any case in which he considers that demands for payment of Income Tax are being improperly pursued, and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter investigated, and will communicate the result to him.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have sent a case to the Financial Secretary, and will he inquiry into it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, it will be gone into expeditiously and promptly by persons having full authority to settle.

  SMALL HOLDINGS (RENTS).
  Mr. BELLAMYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the typical or average rents charged for small holdings under county councils?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): It is impossible to say what are the typical or average rents charged by county councils for small holdings. Not only does the letting value of the land vary very greatly from one

  1851
  district to another according to its quality and situation, but the equipment also varies both in kind and quantity, many holdings being let as bare land while others are provided with a dwelling house and complete set of farm buildings. To average the rents of all holdings of varying types and sizes would give a valueless and misleading figure.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the county councils have paid too much for the land and therefore the rents are far too high?

  FISH CONSUMPTION.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is giving any assistance to the movement which is now being carried out to encourage the consumption of more fish throughout this country?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The movement promoted by the British Trawlers' Federation to encourage the consumption of fish in this country has my warmest approval and will have all the support which I can give it. I am discussing with the Empire Marketing Board to what extent that body will in the course of its normal activities be able to assist and further the movement.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the trawlers of Acton in this movement?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Some of them, individually, certainly.
  Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Health as to whether a greater consumption of fish would not be for the benefit of the health of the people of this country?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know that that is disputed.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Minister of Agriculture pay special attention to the marketing of British fish and not foreign fish?
  Mr. THURTLE: Will the Cabinet set a good example in this matter in view of the fact that fish is a good brain food?

  PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN (JEWISH IMMIGRANTS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Transjordan has given to certain Arab refugees 100,000 dunams of land between Amman and Derna free of tax for the first five years with the promise of a water supply and protection from Bedouin raids; and, if so, why the Government of Palestine and Transjordan does not provide similarly for Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend is advised that the area of land in Palestine to which the Government have an unchallengeable title is very limited. The Article of the Mandate for Palestine which relates to Jewish immigration does not apply to Transjordan.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that there has been no settlement of refugee Arabs in Transjordania, and can the right hon. Gentleman let us know when the Government are likely to know what Crown lands they do possess in Palestine?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question which has been put to me, this question is the first time we have had any knowledge of any settlement by the Transjordania Government of refugees from the raided areas in Transjordania. With regard to the second wart of the supplementary question, surveys are going on, and notices are being from time to time put up so that claimants can put forward any claims to land, but in view of the great complexity of the old Turkish land laws and the old cadastral surveys, it would be a most laborious business to find out who has and who has not title to the land in Palestine.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Ten years is a long time.

  MALTA (VATICAN DELEGATE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the results of

  1853
  the Vatican intervention in the troubles between the Maltese Government and the Church?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the question refers to "Vatican intervention in the troubles between the Maltese Government and the Church." May I point out that that is a misstatement, which may cause a great deal of misunderstanding in view of the fact that the Vatican was invited by our Government to intervene.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think my answer to this question will make that point clear. As my right hon. Friend informed the right hon. Gentleman on the 6th March, the Vatican was requested to send an Apostolic Visitor to Malta. It has complied with the request, and an Apostolic Delegate has been deputed to visit the island. It is too early to state the results of this step.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the newspapers in error when they report that already two of the Franciscan Fathers have been discharged from the Order? Are we to understand that that has taken place without waiting for the intervention of the delegate from Rome?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no official information of that fact, but certainly it would appear to be a matter of internal discipline. The two Franciscan Fathers have been discharged from the Order by their superior Monsignor Robinson, who is the Apostolic Delegate, has only recently arrived from Rome, and he is deputed direct from the Holy See.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that not prejudging the issue?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That has nothing to do with us.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (EXPENDITURE),
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net capital expenditure on schemes of land settlement in Scotland for the year 1928–29; and what amount of expenditure is estimated for this purpose during the year 1929–30?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is anticipated that the net capital expenditure on schemes of land settlement in Scotland for the year 1928–29 (now current) will amount to approximately £109,000. Similar expenditure during the year 1929–30 may be from £130,000 to £150,000, depending upon the rate at which arrangements in progress mature.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of the grants applied for and the total amount distributed under the agricultural drainage scheme in Scotland during each of the years 1927–28 and 1928–29; the approximate area drained, distinguishing arable from pastoral acres; and what amount will be available for this purpose during the year 1929–30?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The grants applied for in 1927–28 amounted to £31,777. As stated in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question of 26th June last, the grants paid in that year amounted to £8,371. The approximate areas drained during the year were 2,500 acres (arable) and 40,000 acres (pastoral). The corresponding figures for the year 1928–29 were:

    Grants applied for—£34,513.

    Grants paid to date—£6,516.

    Approximate areas drained to date—1,950 acres (arable) and 28,300 acres (pastoral).

    The funds available for distribution in 1929–30 amount to £12,325.

  POST OFFICE.

    STAFFING.
    Captain FRASERasked the Postmaster-General if any permanent male clerical officers in his Department are redundant at the present time and being transferred to other Departments; and, if so, why boys and girls from the recent open competitive examinations are being appointed to his Department?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): There is some redundancy of male clerical officers in one of the London Departments and in some provincial districts, and transfers to other Government Departments have

    1855
    been made from time to time as opportunity offered. No boys have been appointed from the last open competition for some months past. The girls from the open competition have been appointed to women's branches, which are not necessarily affected by the male redundancy.
    Captain FRASER: Is not my Noble Friend aware that the Ministry of Pensions employs no less than 95 per cent. of ex-service men in its offices, and could not the Post Office retain the services of these few men?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir; we already employ a great many thousand ex-service men.

    WIRELESS LICENCES (INCAPACITATED PERSONS).
    Major OWENasked the Postmaster-General whether there is any provision in the Regulations relating to wireless licences whereby totally incapacitated persons may be excused the payment of the annual licence?
    Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir. The only wireless licences issued free of charge are those issued to blind persons under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926.
    Major OWEN: Could not the Post Office make an administrative arrangement whereby people of this kind, who are unable personally to move, could have their licences free?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am advised that that is a matter which would require legislation.

    WIRELESS TELEPHONY (LONDON-BUENOS AIRES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to state when wireless telephonic communication will be available between London and Buenos Aires?
    Viscount WOLMER: Enginering tests of the quality of speech transmission between London and Buenos Aires have been carried out, and negotiations are proceeding as to the terms on which a service might be opened. I am not at present in a position to name a date.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it the fact that communication with the Continent already exists?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir, but only to a limited extent.

    AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES.
    Captain FRASERasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, even when the telephone dial is correctly used, a subscriber is sometimes connected to and answered by another subscriber in the wrong telephone exchange; whether this is due to a defect in the automatic machinery or to a mistake on the part of the operator; and if the originator is charged for such a call?
    Viscount WOLMER: While it is possible for a subscriber on an automatic exchange to dial a number correctly and to be connected to the wrong exchange, this is a rare occurrence. The cause is to be found in some slight defect in the working of the automatic machinery. If a subscriber on an automatic exchange who obtains a wrong number in this way reports the matter to his exchange, credit will be given for the call.

  MILK PRICES.
  Mr. MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the Report of the Food Council on their inquiry into retail milk prices and profits in London and, in particular, their finding that in some cases profits have been made of 49.7 per cent. and 34.1 per cent. on the capital employed, and that there is no justification for a charge of 7d. per quart for eight months in the year; and whether he proposes to take any action on this Report to prevent the continuance of this winter price during the month of April?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on Tuesday last, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the Food Council reported that in their opinion the winter price would not be justified in both April and September this year, but only in one of the two months.
  Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question, as to whether

  1857
  he proposes to take any action; and, if so, does he propose to take action before it is too late?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Obviously there is no question of its being too late. The Food Council, in their Report, say that the price ought to be reduced in one of two months, either in April or in September. If the price were not reduced in April, then, assuming the Food Council's Report to hold the field, the question would arise in September, when the hon. Member will be able to put a question if he is returned to Parliament again.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not the fact that the co-operative societies have already announced a reduction on the 1st April?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not for me to make it general, but no doubt others will follow that good example.

  AVIATION (ISACCO HELIOOGYRE).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has anything to report to the House with regard to the helicopter experiments now being made?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): On the assumption that my hon. Friend is referring to the Isacco Helicogyre, the position is that the machine for which an order has been given by the Air Ministry, for experimental purposes, is erected in skeleton form at the contractor's works, and will shortly be ready for its preliminary trials.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EXPLOSIVES SECTION).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War the number of rate fixers employed in the explosives section of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Nine, Sir.
    Mr. KELLY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it either wise or even
    1858
    humane to have rate fixers fixing piecework prices for the handling of explosives?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, as long as they do their work fairly.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the explosions which have occurred in the danger section of Woolwich Arsenal and other places, does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to continue this method?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly. As long as the wage is fixed fairly, it is the greatest protection to the worker.

    RHINELAND (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been an exceptional amount of illness and mortality amongst the troops on the Rhine during the past three months?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Apart from an increase in the incidence of influenza during February, which was general throughout Europe, there has been no exceptional amount of illness or mortality among the British troops on the Rhine during the period in question.

    TROOPSHIP "NEURALIA."
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiries to be made into the conditions in which troops recently returned to this country from China on board the s.s. "Neuralia," particularly in regard to the lack of space for sleeping and exercise purposes and the inadequacy of the sanitary arrangements?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The s.s. "Neuralia" is a hired Government transport fitted by the Board of Trade in accordance with the Regulations approved for the conveyance of troops by sea. I am informed that the numbers embarked were normal, and that there are no grounds for the suggestion that there was any lack of space for exercise or sleeping or that the sanitary arrangements were inadequate.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make further inquiries, as my information is that these men had to travel through tropical regions under conditions of very grave discomfort?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member will give me any particulars to support his statement, I will certainly look into them.

  LEAD PAINT ACT.
  Mr. VIANTasked the Home Secretary whether he can indicate generally the results of the working of the Lead Paint Act, 1926; and whether he will now consider the propriety of ratifying the International Convention of 1921 with regard to white lead?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Reports recently received indicate that, as a result of the co-operation between the inspectors and the industry, substantial progress has been made in compliance with the Act and Regulations, but, as the Regulations only came into operation on the 1st October, 1927, and have therefore, been in force for less than 18 months, it is not possible yet to form any reliable estimate as to their efficiency. The Act was passed on the understanding that, before prohibition was resorted to, the effect of regulations should be tried, and I am not, therefore, prepared to reopen this question at present.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY)asked the Minister of Health if he will give the estimated number of insured persons under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that the total number of insured persons in Great Britain on 31st December, 1928, was 17,250,000. That figure includes 790,000 persons who, having been insured on attaining the age at which contributions cease to be payable, remain insured persons for life.
  Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY)asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of widows who have ceased to draw pensions on account of the youngest child having reached the age of 14, or 16 in cases where the child remained at school until 16 years of age?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on 19th
  1860
  February, 1929, to a question by the hon. Member for Battersea South and would point out that, in the case of the widow of a man who died before the commencement of the Act, the widow's pension ceases on the youngest child attaining the age of 14½, although the allowance for the child continues, if he remains at school, up to the age of 16.
  Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY)asked the Minister of Health the number of appeals against the decision of the Ministry of Health by applicants for, or recipients of, old age pensions, widows' pensions, children's allowances, and orphans' pensions, respectively, stating the number of successful appeals, repectively?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The following particulars relate to England and Wales. Up to 2nd March, 1929, there were 7,370 appeals in the case of claims for widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances, 10,110 appeals in the case of claims for old age pensions between the ages of 65 and 70, and 2,413 in the case of claims for old age pensions at the age of 70, of which 715, 1,422, and 527, respectively, were successful. Records have not been kept under the separate headings of widows, children and orphans.
  Mr. KELLY: Is it the intention of the Government to keep separate headings?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  INDIA (ARRESTS).
  Mr. THURTLE (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any information regarding the wholesale arrests reported to have taken place in Bombay, Calcutta, Poona, and other Indian cities yesterday?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Under the authority of the Governor-General in Council a complaint was laid against 31 persons from various parts of India, all of whom are alleged to be Communists, on a charge under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, of conspiracy to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India. Warrants for the arrest

  1861
  of these persons in this charge were issued by the District Magistrate, Meerut, and were, I understand, executed yesterday.
  Mr. THURTLE: Will these arrested persons be brought to trial without delay; and was this action taken at the instigation of the home Government or not?
  Earl WINTERTON: In regard to the first question, they will be brought to trial under the ordinary process of law at the first opportunity. I am certainly not prepared to answer the second question, as it seems to me to be a wholly improper one in the circumstances.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the secretary of the Jute Workers' Union in India been arrested, and, if so, have the Jute Workers' books and papers also been taken?
  Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid I could not give information as regards specific cases. If the hon. Member puts down a question for Monday, I will endeavour to obtain the information.
  Mr. THURTLE: Was the home Government privy to these intending arrests?
  Earl WINTERTON: Yes; I am certainly prepared to say the action was taken with the full assent of my Noble Friend.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: The Noble Lord said that these men were all alleged to be Communists. What is the significance of that? Does it mean that they were members of the Communist party, or not, and, if so, how many were members? Also, were they arrested simply because they were members of the Communist party?
  Earl WINTERTON: No; I said in my answer that they are arrested because they are charged by the appropriate authorities with conspiracy to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India. The meaning of the term "alleged to be Communists" is that they are believed to be members of the Communist party.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: If certain persons are arrested for having committed, or being alleged to have committed, a certain act, what was the relevance in the Noble Lord stating that they are alleged
  1862
  to be members of the Conservative or the Communist party? What is the motive of mentioning it?
  Earl WINTERTON: I wished to give the fullest information in my power. I gave the information that reached my Noble Friend from the Government of India. If the hon. Member asks for information, it is my duty to give it as fully as I can.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: That is exactly my complaint, that the information is not full, and it is only a mischievous insinuation. How many are members of the Communist party, and why is that necessary to be mentioned as having any relevancy to the subject?
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to say anything the hon. Member regards as offensive to his party. If he will put down a question for Monday, I will ascertain, if it is possible, how many of these 31 alleged Communists are enrolled members of the Communist party.
  Mr. WELLOCK: Does not the Noble Lord think the methods that have been adopted will tend to cause a reversion to the methods formerly in operation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question to ask.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the trial be public and open and according to ordinary procedure, or will it be under special ordinance?
  Earl WINTERTON: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that it will be under the ordinary procedure of the law, and it will be open to the public.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND EGYPT (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT).

    Mr. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the reported financial Agreement with Egypt and whether it will require ratification by this House?
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the details of the recent financial Agreement with Egypt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the House, as this to some extent affects the course of affairs outside, I should like to be able to make a short statement on the subject of the arrangement reached between the British and Egyptian Governments.
    I am glad to say that the Egyptian Government have now ratified the financial agreement which was arrived at last month, for the settlement of the financial questions outstanding between the British and Egyptian Governments, and in particular that of Egypt's liability for the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855.
    The terms of the agreement will be presented as soon as possible but it may be useful if I summarise the main provisions in a few words. As regards the 1855 Loan, the Egyptian Government agree to pay the arrears of the Egyptian contribution to the service of this loan which have been withheld since 1924, amounting to £328,600. They also undertake to pay to His Majesty's Government the amount required to cover the service and redemption in future of a share of the loan, which has been agreed at £1,386,000. This liability will be discharged by an immediate cash payment of £302,000 and by 16 annual payments of approximately £90,000 each. In return for these payments His Majesty's Government give Egypt a full and final discharge from all claims in respect of this loan. As regards other matters, the Egyptian Government agree to make a payment of £849,000, in settlement of certain outstanding war claims of the War Office and Shipping Liquidation Departments.
    On the other hand, His Majesty's Government for their part undertake to grant Egypt a share (amounting to 464 of 1 per cent.) of British Empire Reparation receipts. The amounts due under this head will be set off against the liability of Egypt for the 1855 Loan, Egypt receiving any surplus and paying over any deficiency: but, provided the German payments continue on the scale of the Dawes annuities, the Egyptian liability for the 1855 Loan should be fully covered by their receipts in respect of reparation.
    I have thus summarised the general arrangements. But in view of the reports
    1864
    which have appeared in the Press I feel that I should make clear the position as regards the redemption of the 1855 Loan. His Majesty's Government are not, strictly speaking, under any legal obligation to redeem this loan, nor does the arrangement with Egypt impose on us any such obligation. But we have in the past applied the surplus of the so-called Cyprus Tribute, over and above the amounts required for the service of the loan, to the purchase of bonds and we have by this means acquired altogether £642,400 of the loan, as the nucleus of a sinking fund. During the discussions with the Egyptian Government, it was agreed that these bonds should not be taken into account in calculating the Egyptian share of liability for the loan and we now propose to cancel them.
    Further we propose that, in future, the surplus of the payments made both by Egypt and by Cyprus, over and above the amounts required for the service of the outstanding portion of the loan should be applied by the Treasury from time to time either to the purchase of bonds of the loan in the market, if they can be obtained at a reasonable price—in which case those bonds would be cancelled—or to the purchase of British Government securities which would, in that case, be accumulated as a Sinking Fund till the whole of the outstanding loan could be redeemed, after notice, at par. It is estimated that the period required for this purpose will be between 30 and 40 years.
    The agreement made represents concessions both on the part of His Majesty's Government and of the Egyptian Government, but I am sure that the House will welcome this settlement of these long outstanding questions between the Egyptian Government and ourselves.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the complicated nature of the Agreement just stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I ask whether this will require to be ratified by this House and will it have to be ratified by the Egyptian Parliament also?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been ratified by the Egyptian Government.
    Mr. BENN: Not by the Parliament?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that question without notice. It would

    1865
    be very unfortunate if I gave a wrong answer, and it might involve, I gather, some delay. A White Paper on the subject will be laid in the Vote Office, so that the Agreement can be examined in detail. I felt it my duty to trespass upon the indulgence of the House, because it came to my knowledge that certain market transactions were taking place, and it is absolutely necessary that the public should be informed exactly what is the position of the 1855 Loan.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is not able to tell us at the present time whether it will have to be ratified by this House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whatever is right will certainly be done.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, the constitutional Government in Egypt being suspended, a future Egyptian Parliament will have the entire right to repudiate this Agreement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No one knows more about repudiation than the hon. Member.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Fully accepting the right hon. Gentleman's description of my aptitude to judge of these matters, does he accept my decision that this Agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written, because a constitutional Parliament in Egypt will never agree to such a robbery arrangement with Great Britain?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope that I shall never be reduced to accepting the decision of the hon. Gentleman or any of his Friends.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Without questioning the equity of this Agreement, which I have not had the opportunity of reading, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Egyptian side of the question? Are we to understand that ipso facto this must be followed by it coming before the Assembly of the Egyptian Parliament for ratification?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am certainly not going to answer any question of a constitutional character connected with Egypt without due notice.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to accept finality without full consultation with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)?
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be unwise on the part of the Government to conclude an arrangement such as this with the Egyptian Government when the constitution is suspended, and when, therefore, that Government is lacking in democratic or popular support?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there has been any change in the programme of business up to the Adjournment which was announced on Tuesday, and, further, whether the Government are in a position to say when the House will resume after the Easter Recess?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The business for next week announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday is subject to one alteration. The Gas Undertakings Bill will not be received from another place in time to allow the Government to proceed with it, and on Tuesday of next week, in its stead, it is proposed to take as the fourth Order, the Report and Third Reading of the Savings Banks Bill. I am not in a position yet to say when the House will resume. We hope to let the House know that next week, but I still hope that we may have the customary 10 or 11 days' holiday.
Mr. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet has yet come to a decision as to the selection of polling day?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Matters of this kind will be announced in due course by the head of the Government.
Mr. R. MORRISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be much more satisfactory to this House and to the nation if the date of the General Election were announced rather than to leave it to official announcements to be made on behalf of Ministers at public meetings, or to be made, as it was made this afternoon before the right hon. Get-

1867
tleman came in, in a perfectly audible manner by the Home Secretary, in reply to a supplementary question.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that I can be called upon to answer questions relating to the proprieties of Parliamentary procedure. I think that such matters had much better be dealt with by questions through the agency of the official Leader of the Opposition to the Government.
Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that most of the Conservative agents have had notification that polling day will be on 30th May, and have been ordered to book up all the halls for the 29th?
Ordered,
"That other Government Business hath precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

PERSONAL STATEMENT.
Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to a statement made to-day in an interruption by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He intervened to observe that I belong to some revolutionary organisation. I wish to state, categorically and emphatically, that I have never belonged to a revolutionary organisation in my life.

METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILL.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: On a point of Order. With reference to the Third Reading of the Methodist Church Union Bill early this afternoon, was it in order that this procedure should have been adopted before we had available the Committee's Report, which might bear upon the representations made before the Committee, concerning an issue which has not been considered by the Committee?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is a private Bill, and if the hon. Member had any objection to it he should have raised it at the proper time.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The point is this: After the representations which have been made to me, and, I suppose, to other hon. Members, I thought we
1868
should find an explanation of these representations in the Committee's Report. Is it in order to bring on the Third Reading before Members have had an opportunity of seeing the Committee's Report?
Mr. AMMON: Would there be a Report from the Committee if there is no Amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can object on Third Reading.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It was passed to-day.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have dealt with it then.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It did not come on yesterday, and was put down for to-day. I am not making any point about that. My point bears on the ratification. I submit that, contrary to the point put from the Labour Front Bench, there is a Committee Report concerning another Measure without any opposition. Why, then, did this Bill pass through without that Report, which, I think, ought to be available to enable Members to deal with the Bill? The Report is not even yet available.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must remember that the Bill was considered last Monday, and ordered for Third Reading. The hon. Member could have raised an objection on Monday, and again to-day.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The representations to which I refer have been made only within the last few days, and I thought we might have found from the Committee's Report an explanation which would have avoided any objection when the Third Reading stage was reached. I have not been able to get any information which ought to be available to guide me or any other Member as to those particular representations.
Mr. AMMON: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the representations to which the hon. Member refers were simply those of persons who opposed the Bill, and were heard before the Committee, and that the Committee were not satisfied that those representations should be carried out?
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In answer to that point, I may say that the repre-

1869
sentations were refused by the Committee, and the hon. Member on the Front bench should know that better than I do. They were refused an opportunity of being heard. It is a scandal in connection with a Church Bill.

CANAL BOATS BILL,
"to amend the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 and 1884," presented by Mr. Gosling; supported by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. March; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,
  Great Western Railway Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  London and North Eastern Railway Bill, Southern Railway Bill.
  Reported, with Amendments (Titles amended); Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Merthyr Tydfil Water Charges) Bill, Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time.
  Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.
  Soke and City of Peterborough Bill,
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Doncaster Area Drainage Bill,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, communicated to them on Tuesday last, "That it is expedient that the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons"; and they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution: "That it is expedient that the said Committee be the Joint Committee on the Railway (Air Transport) Bills."
Railway (Air Transport) Bills,—That they have apponted a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Railway (Air Transport) Bills, pursuant to the Commons Message of Tuesday last; and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 1 on Tuesday, the 16th of April next, at Eleven o'clock.

RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILLS.
So much of the Lords Message as relates to Railway (Air Transport) Bills considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—(Sir George Hennessy.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Mr. Mond.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had

  1871
  added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Fire Brigade Pensions Bill): Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Colman, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson, Sir George Hume, Mr. March, Mr. Palin, Mrs. Runciman, Mr. Savery, Captain Styles and Mr. Robert Wilson.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Justices of the Peace (Small Debt) Amendment (Scotland) Bill): Mr. John Baker, Lord Balneil, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Dennison, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. Hilton, Major Steel, Mr. Tomlinson and Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Five Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Railway (Air Transport) Bills: Sir Ernest Craig, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. L'Estrange Malone, Sir Clive Morrison-Bell and Sir Walter Preston.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £1,988,247 18s. 7d. out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the years ending 31st March, 1928, and 1929.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. SHAW: I take this opportunity—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the point which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is one for the Third Reading. This Clause relates solely to the exact sum of money which the House has agreed to vote, and the matter which the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, wishes to raise cannot be raised at this stage, but must be taken on the Third Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clauses 2 (Issue of £169,488,100 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1930), 3 (Power for the Treasury to borrow), and 4 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I take this opportunity of again calling attention to the proceedings at the Labour Conference in Geneva—proceedings of an extraordinary character—and I hope to demonstrate that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep the promise he made a moment ago that the right thing shall be done, we may be able to get a change of front on the part of the Government. I am going to refer principally to what is best known as the Washington Hours Convention. I must deal with history,
  1884
  because it is my intention to try to demonstrate that the organised workers of this country have certainly been deceived in their hopes and aspirations, and have certainly not had the promises that have been made to them carried out, and I am hoping that these promises so solemnly made will finally be implemented. I absolutely decline to agree that Conservative honour simply consists in voting money to its own friends. We had not long ago an exhibition of how strongly Conservative feelings could be moved when questions of honour affecting large sums of money of their own supporters were in question.
  First of all, let me try to demonstrate why I claim that the Government are in honour bound to deal with the question of the hours of labour, and to implement certain definite promises that have been made to the workers of this country In the Treaty of Versailles itself, signed by the High Contracting Parties, there is no question as to the promise made to the workers of this and of every other country which were parties to the Treaty of Versailles. In the Preamble it was stated by the High Contracting Parties:
  "Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice,"
  and then they proceeded to state what was implied in that justice. A very definite statement was made by the High Contracting Parties in the fourth Clause of the General Principles. It speaks of
  "The adoption of an eight-hours day or a 48-hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained."
  Therefore, there is no question that, as far as the Treaty of Peace is concerned, it is definitely laid down that the attainment of the 8-hours day or the 48-hours week is as much a part of the Treaty of Peace as any other part, and our Government were a signatory to the Treaty of Peace. In consonance with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, a conference was held in the year 1919 in Washington, and the principal item on the agenda was this question, laid down in the Treaty, of the 8-hours day or the 48-hours week. Now the representation at that conference was threefold in character—representatives of the Governments (two for each Government),

  1885
  representatives of the employers (one for each organised national body of employers), and one for the workers representing the national body of workers. These delegates had technical advisers to help them in their work.
  Let me deal first of all with the representation of the Government. The representatives of the Government were Mr. George Barnes, a member of the War Cabinet Committee, and Sir Malcolm Delevingne, of the Home Office. The representative of the employers was Mr. Marjoribanks, who was not only representing the organised employers, but was also himself connected with one of the largest industrial concerns in the country. The representative of the workers was Mr. Stuart-Bunning, who was then President of the Trade Union Congress. These delegates had the right, if they so wished, to appoint any of their advisers to act for them on any of the commissions that sat to deal with special cases. On the commission that dealt with the question of the hours of labour, Mr. George Barnes, along with Sir Malcolm Delevingne, attended the sittings all the way through. The employers' representative on the commission was their principal representative, Mr. Marjoribanks, and I attended as the workers' representative, and actually was the chairman of the commission. Nobody at Washington ever dreamt that the British Government would decline to ratify any agreement that was made, or would fail to give legal effect to the 8-hours day or the 48-hours week. Let there be no question about that.
  Before we went to Washington the organised employers, through Sir Allan Smith, had already declared their adhesion to the 8-hours day or the 48-hours week, and Mr. Marjoribanks, in entering into the agreement at Washington, was merely carrying out the declared policy of the employers of this country. So far as the workers were concerned, they were known to be in favour of the 8-hours day. It was an age-long request on their part that there should be an 8-hours day. When I was a child I used to hear the phrase "Eight hours work, eight hours play and eight shillings a day." As to where the Government stood, there need be no question regarding the definite and precise promises that were made. Mr.
  1886
  George Barnes, speaking in this House on the 1st July, 1921, said:
  "No self-respecting man who was at Washington, as I was, and who had instructions such as I had could do anything but vote against the suppression of a Convention in regard to which he had such clear instructions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1921; col. 2514, Vol. 143.]
  He also said that there was a moral obligation resting on the Government to submit the Convention to the House and that there was a moral obligation resting upon them to adopt it, because their representatives went to Washington and voted upon it according to their instructions. If ever there was a definite promise made to the workers by the employers and by the Government, it was made in connection with the Washington Convention, and I ask that, if feelings of honour are to be brought into play, honour should not be confined to the rich. The Government should take care that they are strictly honourable to the poor as well as the rich. The British Government, in a letter dated the 20th July, absolutely declined to ratify the Convention, on the ground that there were:
  "difficulties inherent in the present industrial conditions in this country which prevent the complete acceptance of these principles as set forth in the Draft Convention."
  I have tried to find out what those difficulties were and I have discovered that, roughly, they amount to this, that it was a question whether the agreement of the railway workers with the railway companies could be brought within the four corners of the Convention. That was the outstanding difficulty, and that was the difficulty which had to be faced. The Government devoted a whole paragraph to defining the conditions applying to from 10 to 12 millions of working people in this country who are engaged under the 48-hours system. The Government have no right to claim for themselves either the responsibility or the credit for that state of things. The Government had nothing to do with it. The trade unions and the employers are responsible. Where the trade unions are not able to keep the 48 hours, the Government step on one side and allow the employers to break through. Therefore, no credit rests upon the Government so far as the institution of the 48-hours week is concerned. The only positive actions of the

  1887
  Government have been against the workers so far as hours are concerned, and never in favour of them. They have stood on one side when breaches of the 48-hours week have been made. Therefore, it is mere humbug on the part of the Government to claim any credit with respect to the 48-hours system that now exists in this country.
  The principal difficulty was with regard to the railway agreement and whether it could or could not be brought within the four corners of the Washington Convention. I admit, quite frankly, that I believed at the moment that under the clauses of the Convention it was highly doubtful whether that agreement could be brought in or not; but that difficulty has been entirely removed. There is no excuse now on that score. The difficulty, if difficulty there was, no longer exists, and the Government have no excuse in any shape or form. Even if under the clauses of the Convention the railway agreement could not be brought in, there is a guiding and dominating clause which says that nothing in the Convention shall be used to make conditions worse than the existing conditions. It is declared on behalf of the railways, both by the companies and the men, that their agreement is better than the agreement within the Washington Convention itself. However, even if the difficulty of getting the railway agreement within the four corners of the Convention had not been taken away, as it has, there still existed the other clause.
  I was keenly anxious not only to find where the difficulties were, but if there were differences of opinion as to interpretation to discover where they were, and what they were. I took the opportunity of meeting the Labour Ministers of France, Belgium and Germany in order find out whether there was any real difficulty in interpretation. I discovered that there was very little difficulty and that, generally speaking, there was a most perfect understanding as to the interpretation of the clauses. I drew up a Bill which would have allowed us to ratify the Convention and to carry into effect the promises that were given to us by the Government and the employers, not only at Washington, but prior to the Washington Conference. The
  1888
  Labour Government were not in office long enough to ratify the Convention; but the present Minister of Labour, in 1926, called a meeting of Ministers in order to see if he could get an understanding as to what the interpretations of the Convention should be. If words mean anything at all, we were certainly told by the Prime Minister that if those Ministers could reach an agreement as to definition and interpretation the Convention would be dealt with in this House, and ratified. The Prime Minister, speaking on the 2nd February, said:
  "We shall do our utmost to secure complete agreement and understanding. If agreement is reached, then the ratification of the Washington Convention by the participating countries will be possible and we shall proceed to ratify, but we are not going to ratify until we are convinced that we all mean the same thing."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] Exactly, and I will answer hon. Members. I will deal with the point. I shall try to show that they did mean the same thing, and that the Ministers left this country feeling that everything was settled. The Minister of Labour, speaking at the beginning of the Conference of Ministers, said:
  "Though the present British Government had not felt justified in pursuing a policy of immediate and unconditional ratification, they felt that to do nothing might be a dangerous policy and might lead to a retrograde movement as a result of international competition."
  The Conference took place. The Ministers went through the difficulties of interpretation and, at the end, the Minister of Labour made this statement:
  "I am sure that we all agree that the Conference has been able greatly to advance the consideration of the whole question of hours of labour from the international standpoint, and I acknowledge with cordiality and gratitude the co-operation of my colleagues to that end. I gladly assure them that I shall, for my part, submit the conclusions of the Conference to my Government, and I venture to express the hope that the other Ministers present will find themselves able to do likewise."
  If the House wants an interpretation of what is meant by "submitting the conclusions of the conference to my Government," shall I read what the Ministers themselves meant by the conclusions?
  "It is further agreed by the representatives of the Governments participating in the Conference, that they will report to their respective Governments the conclu-

  1889
  sions, as set out above, which the Conference have been able to reach, so that those Governments who have not ratified the Convention may take account of the agreements reached and be in a position to proceed with their consideration of the question of the ratification of the Washington Convention."
  Therefore, the conclusions meant, apparently, everything, and the Ministers left London believing that all the technical difficulties had been swept out of the way and that nothing stood in the way of ratification. There is no word in the "conclusions" and there was no word used at the time about any outstanding difficulties of any kind, much less difficulties sufficiently serious as to make ratification impossible for any Government. There can be no doubt from the actions of the other Ministers that they left London feeling that a complete understanding had been arrived at, that everybody knew what was understood by the different clauses and how they should be interpreted. The real friends of the League of Nations hoped that, with the real difficulty of the railwaymen out of the way and with this conference of Ministers, who were apparently agreed upon everything, we should get an understanding, that the Convention—the touchstone of the success or otherwise of the International Labour Office, would be ratified, and that we should really begin to play a part in the League of Nations on its labour side consonant with our dignity and record as an industrial nation.
  In June, 1927, a new development took place. The Confederation of Employers published a pamphlet. They threw their representatives at Washington to the dogs. The agreement that had been arrived at in Washington through their representatives was to them no more good than the agreement arrived at with the representatives of the Government. If the Minister of Labour thinks that the Confederation of Employers is ever likely now, after it has taken the step of breaking the agreement made by its representatives at Washington, to agree to a Bill to limit the hours of adult workers to 48 hours per week, he can get that idea out of his head. The employers do not mean to agree to an act of that kind. Their claim is, that they should be left free to work in accordance with the necessities of the situation. Once they have taken the step of abandoning their re
  1890
  presentatives at Washington, there is no hope of getting them to agree to a Forty-Eight Hours Act, and every honest employer knows that. Speaking generally, the employers with whom I have had the experience of a lifetime, have never done anything like that before. As an active negotiator I have dealt with bodies of employers for the last quarter of a century and I know that when they have given their word they have kept it. I have never known them do a thing like this before. I should have been very sorry for them had they done so; but it has been done in this case, and the promises made at Washington have been abandoned.
  The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour evidently have forgotten all they said and have accepted the position of the employers. In other words, they have made a complete surrender, and we are now in as bad a position as we were in 1926; indeed, we are worse, because the difficulty of feeling that everything was strictly in order in 1926 has been intensified since and the discussions at Geneva were not of such a kind as to make for a more friendly feeling between Governments and between Governments and the principal representative of British employers. The ideas of the Foreign Ministers who came to London can be best understood by their actions afterwards. The Belgian Minister proposed to his Parliament the unconditional ratification of the Convention, and the Convention was ratified. The French Minister, on the 10th February, 1927, declared that the French Government invited Parliament to ratify the Convention provided Great Britain and Germany ratified it also. That was their idea of what had happened in London. The speeches of the German and Italian Ministers at Geneva show plainly what they thought of the action of the British Government. The British Government got little, if any, support from any of the Ministers they had met in London, and there is no question that Great Britain is the one country in Europe that is holding up the ratification of this Convention. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will question that statement.
  The Minister of Labour goes to Geneva and produces to an astonished Conference some 13 or 14 new points. Some of them are not new, I admit. For instance, one point he put was that in places where

  1891
  there are less than five workers there may be a difficulty against ratification in some quarters. What a ridiculous suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman says that in such cases it is difficult to determine what are the real hours of working. In London the Conference came to the decision that the hours of working must be measured by the hours the employer demanded the attendance of the workers, and at Geneva the Minister trots out all these absurd things to people who thought they had settled the question. The result was the greatest humiliation a British Government has ever suffered in an international body. Mr. Forbes Watson said the employers were not going to have the Washington Convention in its present form pushed down their throats. I hope the time will come when someone will tell Mr. Forbes Watson kindly but firmly that he is not the British Government. If he has been correctly reported, that is a statement which might have been made by the British representative but should never have been made by a non-Government representative on behalf of Great Britain.
  The Government I know have declared their friendliness towards the Convention, but they have a most wonderful way of dissembling it. If the Government really meant what they have said about the 48-hours week, they could have passed a general Act in order to assure that 48 hours should be considered legal in this country generally—that would have proved their bona fides—and they could then have said: We cannot ratify this Convention until we have absolute certainty on the interpretation of the Clause and on the details. The Government has never taken any positive action in providing a 48-hours week. Indeed their actions have been directly opposed to it. The Home Secretary introduced a Bill which, on broad lines, gave a 48-hours week to women working in factories, but that Bill was jettisoned. Then, when a Bill dealing with the position of women workers was running out, the Home Secretary re-introduced it, and their position was made worse than it was before the War. Some of these women were working in trades of great national emergency, such as the washing of beer bottles and the wrapping of chocolates It shows the way in which the Government works.
  1892
  When the Lancashire employers demanded a 52½-hours week, did the Government declare that it would be a clear breach of the Treaty and the Washington Convention and that they would take steps to deal with the situation? Not at all.
  Mr. HILTON: Who made that demand?
  Mr. SHAW: The Lancashire employers demanded a 52½-hours week and a 10 per cent. reduction in wages.
  Mr. HILTON: To whom did they make it; and when?
  Mr. SHAW: I cannot give the actual date, but everybody in Lancashire knows that the employers sent out this demand to the unions.
  Mr. HILTON: It is not so. I know something about these things, because I am one of the employers. A vote was taken of the masters themselves, and it was not carried amongst our own people. No demand was made of the trade unions in Lancashire.
  Mr. SHAW: For the moment, I will confine myself to saying this, that as I have not the actual documents with me at the moment I must accept the hon. Member's statement. That is all I can say in the circumstances. But is there any doubt that a firm in Bolton has broken through the arrangement and is working 55½ hours per week? Does the Minister of Labour know anything about that; and, if so, what is the Government going to do in order to prove that it really believes in a 48-hours week and that it is only a question of interpretation that is keeping them back? Are the Government going to do anything? They have jettisoned the Home Secretary's Bill, which would have carried out the promise to some extent; they have increased the hours of the miners and made things worse as far as women workers are concerned, and now they stand on one side and merely say that there are so many millions of our people who work 48-hours a week but since the employers are strong enough to make them work more, there is nothing that we can do.
  We used to have a great prestige as an industrial nation, but the Government found itself in this position at Geneva—and it is the clearest possible proof of what other Governments think

  1893
  about their action—that they were unable to carry the proposition they made for what they were pleased to call a revision of the Washington Convention. We had the humiliating position of the British Government and Mr. Forbes Watson, or, I should say, Mr. Forbes Watson and the British Government, being alone against all the rest of the Convention. Britain used to be considered to be in the line of progress and a leading Power in the League of Nations. But yesterday the fame of Britain might have stood against the world; now lies it there, and none so poor to do her reverence. That was the position of the Minister of Labour at Geneva; absolutely alone with all the rest of the Powers against him. Does not that prove more clearly than any words of mine where we have got to in the International Labour Office. There is absolutely no excuse for pretending year after year for nine long years that you are in favour of the principle of a 48-hours week and do nothing at all except obstruct those who are trying to get it. There are thousands of ways of proving that you really mean what you say. Even if it be the case—I do not accept it—that there are difficulties of interpretation which ruake it unwise for this country to sign, there are a dozen and one ways in which the Government can show that they really mean business on the question of the 48-hours week. We have fallen behind Poland; we have fallen behind Czechoslovakia. What a picture for proud Britain! What a picture it is that even Spain is prepared to go further than we are and carry out the decisions of the Washington Convention. We, proud Britain—
  Mr. HILTON: What about America?
  Mr. SHAW: You can go to the moon if you like, I am dealing with the question of our not signing the Washington Convention. Our employers went to Washington and agreed with it; our Government representatives went to Washington and agreed with it. What is the use of talking about America or anybody else! It is for us to keep our own promises. The German Minister, feeling sorry to see the Minister of Labour drowning in the troubled waters of his own creation, tried to throw him a lifeline, and the French Minister of Labour
  1894
  came to the help of the German Minister of Labour, and both suggested that they would help the right hon. Gentleman and get all the things decided at the London Conference put into a Protocol and embodied in the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman did not accept that kindly offer. They tried to help him out of his difficulties, but he did not want help. I am afraid the employers' representative was rather too powerful. The German Minister says that they are certainly going on with the proposal to ratify the Washington Convention; and here I want to enter a protest against the assumption that we are the only country in the world which honestly carries out what it promises to do. There is no greater hypocrisy I know than the assumption that if we agree to the Convention we shall be the only people to carry it out. That is not true; it simply is not true. If we take our record in connection with this business and compare it with the frankness of the French, Germans and Belgians, we have nothing on which to plume ourselves.
  We are the last people in the world who ought to be guilty of lending the appearance of support to the idea that other people are dishonest and that if they enter into a Pact they will not keep their part. That is the most foolish thing Great Britain could do. If we really need an advantage it is that other nations in Europe should work on the same lines as ourselves. In many parts of Germany and France before the War workmen in factories worked longer hours than the workmen in this country, and on the Continent, Saturday was worked like an ordinary day. We have gained that advantage by the Washington Convention, and it is to our economic interests as well as in the interests of our workers that we should agree to arrange for this Convention to be signed. To sum up, I want to repeat that the workers have a real claim that promises made to them by the Government and the employers should be kept, solemn promises, guaranteed by signatures and laid down in the Treaty of Peace; that the delegates at Washington, Government, employers' and labour, never dreamt for a single moment that this would be the country that would raise objections; and, finally, that when the Ministers left London in 1926 there is no evidence whatever that they

  1895
  had any knowledge of a series of objections not dealt with, that were serious enough to prevent the ratification of the Convention. On the grounds of honour, on the grounds of common sense, on the grounds of understanding with other countries, on the grounds, above all, that in the League of Nations we should be in the van and not be dragged behind like a yapping puppy as we were at the final sitting in Geneva, we ought to be a leading party in the International Labour Office.
  Take our last record. We voted against the Budget. So far as I can see the only cut in the expenses that was proposed was something in the region of 100,000 francs. Assuming that that sum had materialised, what would Britain's share of it have been? Would it have been about £400? I ask the Minister of Labour if he will kindly do the sum for me. For that we held up the whole conference, and the final result was what I say. We were left absolutely alone; even other parts of the Empire refused to vote with us. It is to that that we have come. I think I can speak for the whole of my party when I say that we shall never rest satisfied until the promise made to our workers has been kept We do not believe that the reasons given against ratification are reasons serious enough to prevent the keeping of the promise, and we do not believe that anything at all exists that ought to prevent the signing of the Agreement that was made at Washington.
  Captain CAZALET: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has painted a very gloomy picture, but I am certain that if his prophecies were true there is no one who would regret the fact more than the Minister of Labour. Certainly no one would regret it more than hon. Members on this side of the House. I cannot help thinking that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour replies, he will be able to enlighten us, and I am sure that he will paint a somewhat brighter picture of the prospects of getting the Convention ratified. I want to make one or two observations with regard to the work of the International Labour Office. First, I would offer my respectful and humble congratulations to the Minister of Labour on having attended the recent conference. I
  1896
  trust that he has set a precedent which will be followed in the future. I have seen something of the work of the International Labour Office, and I believe that the work that it does and that it may do in future is almost as important as the work which is being done by the League itself. One of the unfortunate things about the International Labour Office is its name, for in the minds of many people it immediately conjures up-pictures of Bolshevism and Socialism. But a very small knowledge of the work that is done in the Office will quickly dispel that suspicion. After all, if you translate the name into French, Bureau Internationale du Travail, your troubles on that ground are dealt with.
  The work of the International Labour Office is not only to improve the conditions of the workers throughout the world, and to make their lives happier and safer, but also to make them more efficient, and to make the industries in which they work more efficient. There is no office, no organisation in the world, which disseminates so much knowledge as this office in Geneva. I do not believe there is any other place in the world from which one can get the information and knowledge and facts that one can get from Geneva. It combines with the League of Nations in breaking down those economic barriers which divide the various countries of Europe to-day, and it helps to promote that policy for which we on this side have always stood—a fairer and freer condition of trade. I am certain that there is no surer foundation upon which to lay the future peace of Europe than to break down the economic barriers that divide the various countries. To put it on the lowest basis there is no country which stands to gain so mach as this country from the effective work of the International Labour Office.
  Everyone knows that the conditions of labour as a whole in this country are better than they are in the various countries of Europe that are among our keen competitors. There is no better example of this than the question of the Washington Convention for a 48-hours week or an 8-hours day. In Germany, in certain industries, they are quite openly working nine hours a day. With what result? That they impose lower conditions and a lower standard of life on the workers of this country,

  1897
  because we have to sell the same articles in competition with them throughout the world. I realise the difficulties—I have a list of them here—but I cannot profess to know the intricate details of all of them like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I realise that these 15 difficulties, a list of which the Minister of Labour has drawn up, are real. But my argument is that we have had 10 years in which to solve those difficulties. It is not enough to state what the difficulties are. I think that we have now to say how the difficulties and objections can be met. If we were to frame a comprehensive solution of them and submit it to the representatives of the other Governments, I am certain that there could be found some solution which would not only meet the difficulties that arise in this country, but would also be acceptable to the other nations.
  One difficulty was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is an argument which is used very generally against the ratification of the agreement by this country, and it is this: that if we ratify we shall carry it out, whereas other countries will probably not do so. My reply to that is this: What is the use of the Press? If the Convention is ratified at Geneva by all the nations concerned, does anyone imagine that there would be a newspaper in the world which would not publish that fact? I ask the right hon. Gentleman also, what is the use of trade unions in other countries if they do not see that those countries and the employers there carry out the terms of the Convention? Finally, there is Geneva. There are those who are sceptical of the uses of Geneva, but I think they are all united in believing that there is one thing that Geneva can do, and that is that it can give publicity to the misdeeds of any individual country, or of any section of industry in any country. I believe that with the Press and the trade unions and Geneva, we have ample safeguards that if the Convention were ratified it would be carried out by the various countries concerned. After all, if there may be still some doubt left, and if employers in this country think that it would not be carried out for some time, at any rate we in this country cannot lose, because in 95 per cent. of our industries we already carry out the conditions included in the
  1898
  Agreement, I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour when he replies will have an answer to these difficulties, and will give us a much more satisfactory account of the prospects which attend the ratification of the Agreement.
  One or two words in regard to the Budget of the International Labour Office. I regret very much that the Minister of Labour found it necessary to abstain from voting on this matter. I do not want to be thought to be for a moment an advocate of extravagance, and I realise that someone has to do the dirty work in these matters, that the onus of calling attention to extravagance must fall on someone. I am certain that no one in this House would doubt for a moment the sincerity of the Minister when he abstained from voting for the Budget. But the difficulty is that the representatives of other nations did not take the same point of view. I was at Geneva in September last when the Budget both of the League and of the International Labour Office came before the Fourth Commission. I was present on both occasions. In the first place our representatives, with great courtesy and eloquence, endeavoured to cut down the Budget of the League by some insignificant sums, while at the same moment, in another Commission, our representatives were advocating the spending of some 500,000 francs by an Opium Conference. Other nations could not understand our attitude; they could not believe that we were sincere in either Commission.
  5.0 p.m.
  Then again, when the Budget of the International Labour Office came up for discussion, we opposed it, and again recommended that certain items should be cut down. Yet, in accordance with the view of the officials at Geneva, our representatives had already sanctioned that Budget on behalf of the Government. It is very difficult for foreigners to understand the manner in which we conduct our affairs, and in these two instances we have given them, I am sorry to say, ample opportunity of suspecting our sincerity in advocating the work performed by the International Labour Office and, in fact, by the League as well. I believe that if I were allowed free play in the Ministry of Labour in this country I could find items in its Budget which

  1899
  could be curtailed by some small amount, and yet because of that I certainly would not think of opposing the general work which the Ministry does. After all, does any Budget in the world go through the scrutiny that the Budget of the International Labour Office does? Here are the various Departments and Committees: First of all the Budget is drafted by the Office; then a special sub-Committee undertakes to examine it; then it goes to the Governing Body; then to the Supervising Finance Committee of the League, on which we have an honoured and respected member, and it most carefully examines every point which might be criticised as erring on the side of extravagance. Finally, it goes to the Fourth Commission, and then to the Assembly itself. In September India, to the surprise of many delegates, made a strong attack on the subject of the extravagance of the League of Nations, and, yet, I understand that India voted the other day for the Budget, and I believe Canada did the same. I do not wish to criticise the Minister's attitude, but I think that by a statement made in this House he might allay the suspicion which his action must naturally arouse in other countries. The sum involved is £33,000, and, as a matter of fact, I think the telephones of the Ministry of Labour cost about £36,000 a year so that, actually from the point of view of money, it is a very small matter indeed. I have no desire whatever to make the task of the Minister more difficult than it is, and I would like to end on the same note as that on which I began. I am very glad indeed that the Minister went to Geneva, and I hope and trust that his presence there will prove to be a sufficient guarantee and evidence of the sincerity with which we in this country regard and support the work of the International Labour Office. I am convinced that there is no country in which industry, both capital and labour, will benefit more from the work performed by the Labour Office than the country of which the right hon. Gentleman was the respected representative at Geneva.
  Mr. HARRIS: There is one point on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I believe that the one good thing which the
  1900
  Minister of Labour has done during his term of office has been to visit Geneva. We cannot place to his credit many useful acts, but certainly that is the best of his actions since he undertook the office of Minister of Labour. Let me express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman learned something at Geneva and that his journey there has been attended with some profit. I do not go as far as to hope that he comes back to us in a white sheet, but, what may prove to be the right hon. Gentleman's swan song, as Minister of Labour, may also be in the nature of a song of repentance. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman when he entered office aroused great expectations because of the record of his early youth as a pioneer in labour matters. His appointment was considered by many of us to be one of the strong appointments of the Government, but no one who has watched his career for the last four years can say that he has justified that promise. Certainly, he has cut a very sorry figure before the world outside.
  The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last said that, as a visitor to Geneva, he found suspicions about the sincerity of the Government in reference to Labour matters. I am afraid that suspicion is not limited to foreign countries. Some of us, much as we hesitate to do so, begin to suspect the sincerity of the Ministry of Labour in its attitude to the 8-hours question. For my part that attitude is a complete mystery. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as I can make out, uses words to confuse issues and to hide policy. He is a great master of long sentences, and I hope whoever is going to reply to-day will give us a clear statement of policy. It is remarkable, however, that although we have two Ministers representing the Ministry of Labour neither of them deigns to be present at this discussion. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to hear our criticism; perhaps he would find it very depressing.
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I will take a careful note of it, and convey it to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. HARRIS: I think on an occasion of this kind, either the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary might trouble to be present. It is an

  1901
  occasion of sufficient importance to demand the presence of someone more important than the Government Whip for Scotland, although, no doubt, Scotland is concerned in this matter. I think anybody who heard the indictment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) must admit that there is a strong case to be answered. Whatever we may say about the success or otherwise of the ex-Minister of Labour in producing schemes, whatever we may say about the details of his administration, we must do him the credit of acknowledging that he played a good part in drafting and in endeavouring to implement the Washington Convention. It is to be remembered that this country is as much responsible for the drafting of the Convention as any other country. The Convention was carried in Washington as long ago as 1919 by 82 votes to 2, which is as near to complete unanimity as it is possible to get in connection with a Convention of this far-reaching character. As a matter of fact, the original Convention was drafted by a committee of 15 on which we had three representatives. It was afterwards modified and given more elasticity in order to meet the requirements and criticisms of employers, particularly employers in this country.
  After 1919 new difficulties arose, particularly that of the withdrawal of America from the League of Nations, which explain the first year or two of delay. It came as a shock to those who supported the Convention when the United States withdrew from the League of Nations. Of course, it would have been quite a different story had the United States remained in the League. But everybody knows that that is not the big fact. If you take labour conditions in America, wages and hours and all the other conditions, no one can say that, on the whole, labour conditions are worse in the United States than in this country. On the other hand, it is our boast and pride that we lead in Europe and have led during the last quarter of a century, in regard to hours, working conditions and factory laws. We have been endeavouring for years to level up conditions on the Continent of Europe. Hon. Members opposite found their case for Protection, largely on the inferior conditions of labour in
  1902
  Germany and France and among our competitors, particularly as regard hours of labour. Speech after speech is made by hon. Members pleading for safeguarding on the ground of the longer hours of labour worked by our competitors.
  Here is a chance, a real living chance, to level up conditions of labour throughout Europe. For the life of me I cannot understand the attitude of the Government. It is a complete mystery to me and to thousands of people outside. What is in their minds? What are the influences at work? I know that employers of labour, to some extent, have not been favourable to the idea—not because they are against the principle of the 48-hour week but because they like to keep hours of labour as an instrument of bargaining with labour, when it comes to negotiations on general conditions. They do not want to hand over that instrument to the State. But that only applies to a percentage of employers. I think only 7 per cent. of the workers of our industries are working more than eight hours a day.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: No. What about the miners?
  Mr. HARRIS: I thought the hours were still less than 48 per week?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: No.
  Mr. HARRIS: That may be so, but that only strengthens the case for ratification. I did not know they were actually working more than 48 hours a week but that strengthens my case, because the justification for the Government's policy, in increasing the hours of labour, was the existence in Poland of scandalous conditions almost equivalent to slavery. You will never improve those conditions in Poland until the whole matter is brought before the International Labour Office and thoroughly threshed out, and until we set an example by signing this Convention and showing our sincerity. It has been our boast in the past that we are pioneers in social legislation. This country has always been regarded as the home of Liberalism, and the toilers of European countries have looked to us for inspiration. They are unable to understand the reactionary attitude of the Government. No doubt we shall be regaled with all sorts of excuses. The account which I read of the right hon.

  1903
  Gentleman's remarkable speech at Geneva, if it was a true account, shows that speech to have been a wonderful performance in word-splitting. According to the "Times" account, the Minister said at Geneva that:
  "the actual interpretation put on the phrase 'hours of work' was not understood by him."
  He also asked how was "intermittent work" to be defined? and we have this further gem:
  "To begin with the Convention never said what 'hours of work' were."
  Then follows this delightful phrase:
  "What did the Convention mean by the word 'week'."
  Mr. RICHARDSON: After they had had 10 years to consider it.
  Mr. HARRIS: Yes, it has taken 10 years to discover these difficulties. I would point out also that in 1926 there was a conference on this matter, not in any foreign country but in London, in our own city. Here we were not under the disadvantage of conducting negotiations in a foreign language and we had at hand the assistance of our experts. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to give a lead. Just before that conference met the Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons said:
  "We shall do our utmost to secure complete agreement and understanding. If that agreement is reached the ratification of the Washington Convention by the participating countries will then be possible and we shall proceed to ratify, but we are not going to ratify until we are convinced that we all mean the same thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1926; col. 49, Vol. 191.]
  In other words, they were to try to get a proper interpretation of these various points like the meaning of "hours of labour" and of "week." Then the right hon. Gentleman himself at the opening session of the London Conference said:
  "Though the present British Government had not felt justified in pursuing a policy of immediate and unconditional ratification they felt that to do nothing might be a dangerous policy and might lead to a retrograde movement as a result of international competition."
  Well, we have had a policy of doing nothing—a policy of mere negation. I think we have the right now to demand from the Government a clear statement of their attitude. Are they going to be
  1904
  mere tools of the Federation of British Industries? Are they going to be manipulated by that Federation? I do not believe it represents the real mind of the best employers of the country. They recognise that it is in the best interests of this country to have a general levelling up right through Europe to the best standards of British conditions. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman seems to justify the most revolutionary and extreme section of Labour representatives. There are sections in the country who believe that the Government stand to force down labour conditions in this country. I do not believe that that is the real attitude of the Government, but the figure cut by the right hon. Gentleman at Geneva seems to justify the most extreme criticism of their action, and I only hope that one result of our discussion to-day will be that the Minister will be able to show that he has learned something at Geneva, that he has a policy outside mere word splitting, and that he means to do something. If, by some freak of fortune, he should be in office next year, it is very unlikely—[Interruption.] To-day a safe Tory seat was turned into a Liberal seat by a large majority, and if we have any more reactionary work done by Government Departments on the lines of the action of the Minister of Labour in this connection, they will be doing their best to help on a great Liberal revival. From that point of view, we thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attitude, but from the point of view of the well-being of the country, we can only regret it.
  Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I listened with great interest to the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw), which is one that we have heard before on many occasions, but slightly altered to meet the changed conditions of the moment; and I feel that it is only right that one like myself, who has nothing to do with employers of labour, but who has studied these questions very closely and who has been to Geneva and attended many international conferences, should say a word or two on this subject. The case in regard to the Washington Convention has been put forward in such a way that people who are not familiar with the methods of arriving at and preparing conventions may be misled into thinking

  1905
  that because, after discussion, certain representatives of foreign Governments come to a general agreement as to the form of a convention, that is a promise binding in any way on the different Governments concerned. We know very well that a large number of international conventions and agreements have been made, at which points have been threshed out and, according to the best knowledge of the representatives present, agreements have been drawn up for submission to the countries concerned for consideration, and, after modification and alteration in detail, to make the language more clear, the conventions have finally been agreed to in a form understood by all concerned.
  When we come to the Washington Convention, I think it is only right that it should be made perfectly clear that our Government have right through approved the general principles of that Convention. Anything to the contrary that has been said in this House has been said for reasons which we thoroughly understand and to which we are quite accustomed on occasions like the present. I do not say that these arguments are either true or untrue, but they are put forward in a party political manner and addressed to the country as a whole rather than to the common-sense and intelligence of this House, and it is of importance that we should realise the true position. The Government of this country have never set themselves against the broad principle of a 48-hours week, and I submit that the present Government have done their very best to maintain the high standard of labour conditions which we have attained in this country. I am thoroughly tired of hearing people, both inside and outside this House, making light of this country's achievements in this connection. In spite of all that has been said, I maintain, with certain knowledge—having in the last few years been all over Europe, meeting most of the Ministers and many of the Opposition members in the different countries, and having attended international conferences of all kinds—that no country in Europe stands as high in the general opinion as does this country under the present Government.
  The fact that we have not ratified this Convention shows, in my opinion, the real honour of the Government, because they will not put their name to something which may be interpreted to mean one
  1906
  thing by one person and something else by another. We know very well that some foreign countries have ratified the Convention and that they take a different view of the meaning of its words from that taken by us. I do not want to talk about effective working hours, and continuous processes, and other things which are difficult of interpretation, but the Government are determined, irrespective of party, to carry out their obligations when they undertake them, and the Minister of Labour has, in the opinion of many of us who have no practical interest in industry, acted soundly, in the best interests and to the honour of this country. Whatever may be said for certain purposes by people abroad—and one is very familiar with these things—at heart they know what England stands for, and that England is the one country that they can trust more than any other. A great many Conventions have been signed, and I would like to ask hon. Members to take note of the fact that the Government of this country have ratified more Conventions than any other Government in Europe, and have carried them out. At the present moment there are certain Conventions that the Government are carrying out, affecting the trade of this country in a particular way, and we have found it necessary to call the attention of certain other nations to the fact that they have ratified those Conventions and that those Conventions contain certain Clauses which they are not practising. We can do that with certain knowledge, because this country has maintained to the letter the Conventions that it has signed.
  It is a ridiculous statement to make to say that the Government have acted in this matter in the interests of the employers of this country. They have acted in the interests of the industry of this country, in the interests of those called the workers, just as much as if not more than in the interests of those called the owners. I cannot imagine a more foolish statement to go abroad than the statement that this Government or any honest British Government have been influenced in a matter of this kind by the interests of the employers as distinct from the interests of industry as a whole. They have acted in the interests of the workers, and it would be a very satisfactory thing to feel that we had a united support

  1907
  for every measure that we want to see taken to develop the industry of this country, in the interests of everyone participating in it, by taking care of and paying attention to what is going on abroad. On the contrary, what happens is that Debates like this, which have happened half-a-dozen times in the last three or four years, have a deliberately ruinous effect on the very thing which we are seeking to do. These Debates are quoted in various parts of the world and, instead of being regarded as a mere talking to electors they are believed to be a solemn statement of the facts of the case, and a large number of people abroad are misled. I believe that at heart everyone wants to improve the conditions abroad, so that our British working man can have a better chance of proving what he is really worth, and I think the line of argument put forward to-day on both sides of the Gangway opposite is entirely destructive of the production of the right spirit in that connection.
  One speaks rather hotly about it to-day, because this is not the first nor the second time that one has heard these statements. We have had a very flimsy case put before us, and anybody who has a trained legal mind would, I should think, say that it has been entirely lacking in the ordinary law of evidence, and that a large number of mere assumptions have been put forward. Every pledge that the Government have made in this direction and in every other direction has been thoroughly maintained, and any suggestion to the contrary with regard to this particular question is really not based upon facts. Those of us who have had the opportunity of working at many international conventions know very well that we do our best to arrive at a general understanding, and that then we have to submit the convention to our respective countries, unless we are plenipotentiaries, and none of those who went out there were plenipotentiaries. Many of us have worked out draft conventions, and seen them submitted to the Government, and recast and altered until there has been finally a clear and definite convention expressing what we intended to do.
  If the party opposite want a charter for the working men, let them not have
  1908
  one that other people can get behind—I do not say deliberately—but let us have it at least foolproof and straightforward. This Convention is neither one nor the other. I think it is a vital matter that we should know what we are signing and that the actual meaning of the words should be made perfectly clear. It was said that we are behind Poland. It was childish if it was meant to suggest that the methods of Poland can compare with those of this country. Those of us who have been there and who know the hours and conditions of labour and the standard of living there, know perfectly well that to compare the two nations is absurd. The whole of these arguments are worthless, except for publication in the country, where the people are not familiar with the details of the subject. I do not think they were really meant in that way, but I believe they were due to the exasperation of one who very earnestly and energetically wanted to see this particular form of words adopted by this country. I think it is really in the interests of the country that people should content themselves by endeavouring to stand by the Minister who is here to uphold, and who has upheld, the honour and dignity of this country, and to see that when we put our signature to a document it is done in such a way that neither we ourselves misunderstand it, nor others who sign it misunderstand or misuse it, and thus only lead in the long run to greater trouble.
  On the broad question of whether or not legislation should be at once undertaken in regard to the subject matter of hours of labour, irrespective of the Convention, I do not pretend to be in a position to judge, but I assert, without fear of denial from any honest man in this House, that the Government and the party on this side are just as keen and anxious to see the genuine, fair, and proper carrying out of the broad principles of that Convention as anyone else in this country. I feel that the attack on the Minister of Labour has not been a fair one, and I trust that be will give a definite, clear, and very strong answer to it. I want him to be less conciliatory on the subject, to show what this country has done and is determined to do, and to see the right thing done in face of every difficulty.
  Mr. J. BAKER: The hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) seems to think that it is a trivial thing when we on this side of the House charge the Government and their predecessors with not having carried out a pledge. There was a time in this country when an Englishman's word was supposed to be his bond, and that feeling was broadcast in the world, but this is not a case where someone has said something and may not have been quite as clear as he otherwise might have been or desired to be. There are two points at issue. One is the Versailles Treaty, where something was definitely laid down. The signatories to that Treaty said: "We, the high contracting parties, hereby agree," and they signed it. It took them days of consideration to arrive at that conclusion; there was no hurry and presumbably they knew what they were doing. If they did not, it is rather curious that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are insisting that every other provision in that Treaty shall be carried out except this particular one. Since we discussed this matter last year, a rather important event has taken place. A Committee was appointed in 1924 to examine industry with particular reference to our overseas trade and unemployment, and their Report, which has recently been issued, has some bearing on this discussion. The Committee examined witnesses and documents, took evidence and made surveys, and in their final Report, dealing with hours of labour, they say:
  "It appears to us that the obligations laid upon the parties to the Treaties of Peace cannot be said to have been adequately met so long as the important declaration with regard to hours of labour is not generally and effectively fulfilled. It is true that an attempt was made at the Washington Conference of 1919 to give practical effect to the Treaty declaration, but unfortunately the Convention framed for the purpose has not so far met with any general acceptance from States of commercial importance."
  That is not the opinion of biased politicians or of Labour men waving red flags, because that Committee was constituted of 17 persons, of whom only six were Socialists. The others were anti-Socialists and in sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for West Derby. They belong to the employing and commercial class, the only class with any honour and ability in this country,
  1910
  the class that always keeps its word if we are to believe the hon. Member for West Derby, and the class which always does the right thing. They are members of the class that never by any chance does the wrong thing. It is no good the hon. Member shouting for himself and his Government, and using high falutin' sentiments and getting himself a little heated in the process. It is not a question of the Government having made an assertion, and our misinterpreting that assertion. The Report of the Committee goes on:
  "It appears to us that the language of the Treaties of Peace, laying down a certain length of working hours as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained, is incompatible with the adoption of any policy of reverting to longer hours."
  The Committee therefore condemn any attempt to revert to longer hours.
  "We think, moreover, that whatever be the defects of the Washington Convention on hours of labour, the mere refusal or omission to ratify this particular Agreement does not release a State from its continuing obligation under the Treaty of Peace to seek means to give effect to the aspirations expressed therein."
  There is a definite opinion in writing which condemns this Government, and which is not expressed in order to further the object of the Labour party, but to try to restore the trade of this country, because the Committee clearly realise that there is a great danger of conflict in industry in the immediate future over this very question of hours, and that it ought to be cleared up before the danger of the conflict arises. These two references are on page 106 of the Balfour Report. On page 107, the committee go on to say:
  "If, however, these premises be admitted, and if consequently any general increase in the length of the nominal working day in British industry is barred, not only by trade union opposition, but by the obligations of the treaties of peace, it can hardly be doubted that the right policy to pursue in the interests of British competitive power is to endeavour to conclude a suitable convention which shall so far as possible safeguard our industries by establishing an international standard of hours."
  Have we even been trying to do that by the way in which we have gone on during the past four years? Had I been in the position of the Minister of Labour at Geneva having to admit that I did not know what a working week was, or what

  1911
  hours of labour meant, I should have felt a little ashamed of myself. We have had a hundred years of industry in this country, and a hundred years of trade union conflicts, and these matters have been settled here, as they have been settled in Germany, France and other countries, and they are in the process of being settled all over the world. The point made by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) covered the whole question, namely, that the hours that are to be paid for are those during which the employer can call upon the workman to work. I am afraid that if the Minister of Labour went into the steel trade or into a puddling forge, he would be like some of the employers in the industry and take a tally of the actual seconds that the men do something which the employers said was useful, and in the old 12-hour days he would have declared that a puddler worked only four hours. If the puddler could do his four hours, and go home and be a free man and spend his time as he liked, the employer would not be called upon to pay him as long as he was not there, but as long as the employer keeps the man inside the gates, the employer's job is to see that he is fully employed; if the workman cannot work all the time, and if he is not supplied with the raw material with which to get on with his job, the employer must pay him.
  The Minister of Labour wanted to know what intermittent work is, and after it-had been clearly pointed out that it is defined in the Washington Convention, it has not impressed him with a desire to come to a common agreement with people in other countries who are considering this particular problem. In the Memorandum at the end of the Balfour Report, on page 303, this matter is dealt with. It is signed by seven members of the committee, and it says:
  "We would emphasise the urgency of Great Britain honouring its pledge under the Peace Treaty to adhere to an International Convention regulating hours and other conditions of labour, with a view to raising the standard of life throughout the world."
  The Government which signed the Treaty ought immediately to have proceeded to carry out Clause 4 of Section 13, and establish an 8-hours day or a 48-hours week. I know that there are difficulties in doing it but I have suggested
  1912
  in the House before how to get over them. In the steel trade in 1919 we demanded an 8-hours day. We have been told this afternoon that employers are anxious to do their best for the workmen, and to work them reasonable hours and to pay them well. Before the War the organisation with which I am associated asked for an 8-hours shift for a particular section of the industry, and guaranteed that that change should not cost the employers a penny. The workmen who were on piece rates would get the same piece rates; the workmen who were on days, and would have to receive increased hourly rates, would have to be compensated; and the wages of the third shift would necessarily have to be paid and would be paid by the workmen. The employers would not have to pay for it, and yet they refused that offer.
  In 1919 we told the employers that we wanted an 8-hours day and that we were going to have it. We did not in the least desire to injure the employer or to destroy the trade. In the negotiations, a ways and means committee was set up. The country was not dealt with as a unit, but every district, every works, every mill, every forge and every smelting plant had a chance of putting its case before its ways and means committee, in pointing out the difficulties and discussing them, not with a view to hindering progress, but with a view to getting a right settlement which would not injure either side. That meant give and take on both sides, and we established the 8-hours day. There is not a 47-hours week, but we established the 8-hours day. It is less, because you cannot work three eights in 24 if you are going to have something to eat while you are working. The men actually work fewer than eight hours. I have suggested to the Government that they should carry out the pledge in the Peace Treaty, pass legislation, establish the 48-hours week and the 8-hours day, and make provision for its application to the peculiarities of every industry in the country. I could give the hon. Member for West Derby the prophecy that if he expects the workers to wait until everybody on earth can supply a stereotyped formula to every industry, he will be found dead waiting and will never achieve it. These things are brought out with a view to stopping progress, and not with a view to helping things forward. The plain facts of the situation are that,

  1913
  notwithstanding the assertions referred to, the employers of this country want longer hours.
  I am not vitally interested in the cotton trade, but I do read the Press, and my impression from Press reports is that on no fewer than three occasions employers in the cotton industry have demanded longer hours. On one occasion cleaning time was involved. When suggestions were put before the men they were willing to discuss wages but point-blank refused to discuss hours. When the employers wanted to alter the cleaning time the men said, "Bring in other people and have your machines cleaned, but we are not going to work longer hours." The hon. Member who knows says they have never done any such thing. I understood that in the woollen industry they also asked for longer hours. I am not an authority on the woollen industry, but I know the secretary, and I understood that this has been one of his troubles on several occasions quite recently. In the iron and steel trade we do know that they want longer hours, because they have asked us for them. They say we work fewer hours than the Germans, and that we ought to work at least as many, and perhaps a few more.
  In Scotland, in the puddled iron trade, that is, the malleable iron trade, the employers, who are associated with a board of arbitration, gave notice cancelling all agreements. They closed down their works on a Saturday, and thought they could re-open them on brand new conditions on Monday. Every man was invited to go back and resume his job, and he would then be told what his wages would be. The hours would certainly be longer than the hours he had been working, but not more than 48, and his wages for 48 hours would be no more than they were for the fewer hours. The men refused to start. We thought those Scotsmen had engineered their case splendidly. What I, at all events, believe is that they wanted to re-start the old 12 hours shift. But they did not do it like that; they were too canny to do a silly thing like that. I believe the Minister of Labour would have jumped on them if they had wanted to restore the old 12 hours shift. What they did was to dismiss one of the three shifts and to work the other two shifts on the basis on which they had been working
  1914
  when three shifts were engaged. Then they came along later to say, "It is silly to work on Saturdays. It is a short day and you never do much. Cannot we get these hours in the five shifts? The men did not agree, and hence the notice that was issued. I believe that is what all the employers in the iron and steel trade would do if they thought they could get it, but they know they cannot succeed without conflict. They got conflict in that case. On paper we were wiped out. In that area there were 6,000 men who could take our place. We had only 600 members. The employers were refusing to arbitrate, though they were members of a board of arbitration. We had to appeal to the Minister of Labour. I believe he acted fairly. I do not want to say he helped us, lest he gets into trouble, but he was certainly of assistance in ending that dispute. I do not know whether he would have gone further if he could and have helped us, but he did take the view—or he appeared to—that in refusing arbitration the employers were not acting wisely. His Department intervened, and the case has been arbitrated upon, but we have not yet got the decision.
  In face of these facts, it is no good for any Member of the House to tell me that the emlpoyers do not want to bring about longer hours, because I cannot accept it. We have not got 12,000,000 people working a 48-hours week or less in this country. What we in this country do with the hours stipulated for a week's work is to use the figure as a measuring rod. We say: "You work 47, 46 or 44 hours and you will get a week's wages." But how many of those 12,000,000 people are working overtime? I do not think it is wise to work one group of workpeople too long, while there are other groups who could be set to work who are walking the streets. Take the case of the three shifts of iron workers. The third shift which was dispensed with was selected arbitrarily. It was not a question of these men being less capable than the others. There were three shifts, and one had to go, and one shift went out. It would have been wiser to keep those three shifts running rather than have to support one of them on the funds of the Ministry of Labour, because that is what has happened; and this at a time when we are working overtime! The millions

  1915
  who are supposed to have a 48-hours week are working long spells of overtime. If this overtime were not worked, other workmen would be absorbed.
  It has been stated in this House that we cannot trust other countries in this matter; that the French, for instance, have passed an 8-hours law, but have made provision for 200 hours overtime to be worked in the year. In the engineering trade of this country there is an agreement which permits an employer to work his workpeople not more than 30 hours a month; that means 360 hours a year overtime. We hold the Frenchman up to ridicule because he makes provision for working 200 hours overtime a year, though that may not always be taken advantage of, while thinking ourselves the soul of honour through continuing an agreement which will enable an employer to work his workpeople 360 hours overtime in the year. That sort of reasoning does not appeal to me, and I believe that in this matter we are wrong and are dishonouring ourselves and our country. We could put this matter right if we would, but we will not. Our pledge on the Peace Treaty has nothing whatever to do with what another country does. If America does not give an 8-hours day, that has nothing to do with us. We pledged ourselves in the Peace Treaty to do a certain thing, and until we have done it we have not carried out that Treaty as far as the workmen are concerned.
  We have been told that the Government of this country have signed more Conventions than any other country, but they were trade Conventions affecting commercial men and employers of labour. Of course, a Government of employers will carry out Conventions which affect commerce and affect themselves. Here is a Treaty affecting the lives, the well-being and the health of working mea, and it is not carried out, and we workmen are left free to drawn our own conclusions. I think the time is ripe for a further reduction of hours. I have told the House that in 1919 we got an eight-hours shift. In 1924 there were 30,090 people engaged in the pig-iron industry, and in 1928 22,150, so that in four years the numbers had fallen by 7,940. The percentage of unemployed in 1924 was 18.23, and in 1928
  1916
  16.12. Production was lower in 1928 by 7,600 tons, but it was larger per person engaged in the industry. As long as that is going on you are creating unemployment. Unemployed men could be absorbed by a further reduction of hours, and by stopping overtime except in cases of emergency, and until the Government of this country take such action, no one will be able to persuade me that it is carrying out its pledge in the Peace Treaty or under the Washington Convention.
  Mr. WADINGTON: The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) has referred to one matter which, in itself, shows the difficulty of interpreting this Convention. He spoke of the cleaning time in the cotton trade. In England the cleaning time is regarded as part of the effective working time, but on the continent it is additional to the working time, and until we have a satisfactory settlement of the definition of effective working time we shall not have removed one of the difficulties of carrying out the Convention. I am glad the Minister of Labour took up the attitude which he did at Geneva. This Convention ought to be revised; in fact, we have nearly reached the period when, according to one of its Clauses, it is due for revision, and for modification if necessary. I am rather surprised that no stress has been laid upon the fact that this Convention does not carry out what was expressed in the Peace Treaty. The Peace Treaty asked for a 48-hours week. If you look at the various articles of this draft Convention, you will find that it expressly provides that Japan shall work 57 hours per week, that is in the case of any workers who are above the age of 16, and I think that in the raw silk industry they work 60 hours a week. That Convention, which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of as a 48-hours week Convention, specifically lays down that the people of India shall work 60 hours a week. It also definitely excludes the people of China; they are not brought within the scope of, this Convention in any way.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to give a wrong impression. Surely he is aware that under the terms of the Treaty itself undeveloped industrial countries are specifically mentioned, and have to be specifically dealt with, and not on the same lines as a country like Britain.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. WADDINGTON: I cannot accept the statement that Japan, for example, is an undeveloped industrial country. I know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we in Lancashire are suffering from unemployment in the cotton trade from the very fact that Japan's cotton industry is highly specialised. That the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) as a representative of the cotton trade should ask us to support a man working 57 hours per week in Japan when he wants the men of Lancashire to work 48 hours is absurd.
  Mr. SHAW: I did not suggest anything of the kind. I simply called attention to what was laid down in the Treaty and what was asked for at the Convention.
  Mr. WADDINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman, as one of the framers of the Convention, accepted an article which makes it obligatory upon us to exclude Japan, where the workers work 57 hours per week against our 48. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so eloquent in asking for this Convention to be ratified now? I recall a period in 1924 when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Labour and when, burning over with zeal, he ought to have put ratification in force. I remember that some of his colleagues at that time pressed him to ratify this Convention. Since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech to-day I have taken the trouble to extract from the OFFICIAL REPORT some points from the right hon. Gentleman's speeches when he was Minister of Labour. I find on the 14th February, 1924, he was asked when his Ministry were going to ratify this Convention in a Bill, and his answer was that the subject was under consideration. On 20th February, 1924, the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Bill was now being prepared. On the 19th March, 1924, the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped to be in a position to introduce the Bill at an early date. On 2nd April, 1924, he said:
  "I hope to be in a position to introduce this Bill within a short time, but I am not yet able to indicate the precise date."
  In answer to a Supplementary Question on that occasion about ratification, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  1918
  "I am not prepared to give further delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1924; col. 2143, Vol. 171.]
  On 2nd May, 1924, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I hope to introduce this Bill at an early date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1924; col. 1981, Vol. 172.] On 21st May, he said:
  "I am not yet in a position to indicate the precise date on which I shall introduce this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1924; col. 2178, Vol. 173.]
  On 2nd July, 1924, Mr. Ben Turner put a similar question, and he received an answer from the then Prime Minister to the effect that the Government were not yet in a position to give the precise date. Then Mr. Turner got up—I remember the scene—and used these words:
  "Is it not a fact that we have had for at least four months the statement from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that this Bill will be introduced shortly? When will 'shortly' expire?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1924; col. 1324, Vol. 175.]
  Evidently Mr. Turner's indignation had some effect, because on 14th July the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill was introduced. Mark what followed. On 4th August, a representative of the Railway employés put a question asking whether in the existing agreement between employers and their workpeople there was a provision that they should be exempted from the said Bill. The answer came that if they came to the possibility of ratification they would be exempt. The difficulty of that answer and the importance of the question were so effective that, during the existence of the Labour Ministry, this House was never troubled any more with other questions relating to the Hours of Labour Convention, and the House was not asked to give a Second Reading to that particular Bill.
  I submit that with a record of that sort the right hon. Gentleman comes to us in a false attitude at the present time, pretending that he and the Labour party and the workers of this country have always been anxious for the ratification of this Convention. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that at a meeting we had when the representatives of the textile organisations of Lancashire came to this House, asking for the Factory Bill, they asked for the ratification of this particular Treaty in order that 48 hours

  1919
  might be conceded to Lancashire operatives. The point was put to them as to whether they would be willing in the Factory Bill for the 48 hours to be made legal as far as women and children only were concerned. The late Mr. Judson, speaking for the textile operatives' organisations of Lancashire, said:
  "Yes, that would suit them. They were not particular about the men so long as the women and children were subject to the 48-hours legal week."
  No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston will recall that particular incident.
  Mr. T. SHAW: Yes, I do; and I also recall what took place afterwards.
  Mr. WADDINGTON: I suggest that the difficulties which have occurred in connection with this Convention have been due to the attitude adopted by the Labour party. Take the London Conference of two years ago. I would like the Labour Minister to tell us whether that London Conference was one which was binding upon those who attended, or whether it was merely a conference for discussion in order to elucidate points without having any real binding effect upon the various Governments concerned. It is interesting to look at what people in other countries do on this subject, and how they view the question of a 48-hours week. The French people have had an Eight Hours Act since 1919. It is true that two years ago they had a discussion in the French Parliament, where it was stated by the Minister of Labour that if the other countries would ratify the Convention, they would put it into force in France. A further question was put to the French Minister of Labour asking whether it was the intention of the Government to make changes in the existing law relating to the 8-hours day, and the Minister replied that there was no intention of making any change of any sort. Let me bring to the notice of the House a speech which was made by Mr. Louis Gro during a discussion on this question in the French Chamber on 26th November. He spoke of the exceptions, and they are what make this Measure most important. After referring to what had to be included in the Bill and for what each country was allowed to claim exemption in various industries, he said:
  "One may lay down as a principle that the Act is not applicable to motor drivers,
  1920
  engine drivers, electricians, overseers, superintendents, specialists, controlling agents, caretakers, porters, messengers, lift attendants, office boys, etc. I will stop there, gentlemen, for it is impossible to mention all of them. The result is that large quantities of workmen are totally deprived of the eight hour day."
  The same gentleman then took examples from various trades of the exceptions which were allowed, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that various countries can place their own interpretation and make their own exceptions. All they have to do when they make those exceptions is to report what they have done to the League of Nations, and there is no penalty or compulsion in the League of Nations to say that they have made a wrong exception, or that they have taken advantage of another country. They simply have to report what they have done. Mr. Louis Gro took another example. He said:
  "I take as an example the corn milling trade. The millers, sifters and cleaners, the three largest classes required for working, are by permanent exception allowed to do all the year round 12 hours of effective work per day."
  This does not exclude the mills from working 260 additional hours per year. The same gentleman went on to say:
  "Another trade is that of metallurgy and metal working. There are 13 categories for permanent exceptions comprising such a vast number of workers of various kinds that one asks if indeed there can remain in these trades any paid worker eligible to benefit by the eight-hours day?
  In the glass works the permanent exceptions comprise 14 different categories of workers. The same thing obtains with very little variation in all large industrial classes."
  He continued:
  "In fact, one ends with a system not of an eight-hour day with exceptions, but with a nine-hour day without exceptions."
  That is what has happened to an Act which, at its inception, was considered by all the working community as one of their greatest victories, and upon which they place their fondest hopes. If that is the experience of an Eight Hours Act in France, I ask, are we not justified in this country in urging that there should be more consideration, and a real desire to get a common understanding before we are prepared to go to the extent of

  1921
  ratification? Finally, I would like to say that all of us, whether representing workers, or employers or the general mass of the people, ought to consider the difficulties under which we should place our trade and industry if we ratified this Convention, and 12 months or two years afterwards we found that we had put ourselves into a most difficult position. One of the conditions is that you cannot undo a ratification for 11 years after you have ratified the Convention. Is it not a dangerous thing for this House or for the Government to ask us to ratify a Convention in regard to a subject which bristles with so many difficulties? I am glad that the Minister of Labour has taken up the attitude which he has, and I hope he will persevere in that attitude until we get a greater measure of common agreement among the various industrial nations of the world.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Although I cannot subscribe to the arguments of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), I can say that I appreciate that his speech contains what I consider to be the pith of the case against the ratification of this Convention, and I think it may be regarded as being as good an exposition of the case as it is possible to advance. I submit, however, that there are one or two considerations which the hon. Gentleman has allowed, shall I say, to distort his judgment. He referred particularly to the argument, which is often advanced, that it is a dangerous thing for the Government to embark upon a policy of ratification of the Washington Convention, because in practice various nations who have already indicated their desire to ratify interpret the terms of the Convention differently from ourselves. In the course of his argument, the hon. Member referred particularly and specifically to France. He is not alone in the allegation which he makes concerning the statement of the French Minister on this point. Indeed, our own Minister of Labour, speaking on 28th February, 1927, used these words:
  "The difficulty related to such points as the distribution of hours of work, the making up of time lost, the interpretation to be given to actual work and to intermittent work. The definition of actual work is extraordinarily important in this connection."
  1922
  Then the Minister went on to refer to the particular point which was made by the hon. Member for Rossendale. He continued:
  "Almost concurrently with the making of this statement, the French Minister of Labour informed the French Senate, on 3rd December, that the chief result of ratification by France will be to make the existing French law different from the Convention, as it is on hours of work an international law instead of a national law, and, in reply to a question as to whether, if the Convention were ratified, the French law would be modified so as to increase the burden of national economy, the Minister replied that there was not the slightest intention of laying before Parliament a proposal of that kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1927; col. 95, Vol. 203.]
  That was the reference made by the Minister of Labour in this House on the 28th February, 1927, and I observe that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under a similar misapprehension as to what the Minister of Labour in France in fact said on this particular point. There was a discussion in the French Chamber, which arose almost as a direct consequence of the words of our own Minister in this House. I apologise to the House for quoting rather extensively, but it is important that we should get the matter quite clear, for the sake of good international understanding as well as for other reasons. On that occasion the French Minister of Labour said:
  "In these circumstances, Gentleman, the Government is in full agreement with your Committee, and invites you to ratify the Washington Convention as now proposed; that is, with the addition, to the reservation made in the Bill adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, of a fresh reservation regarding Great Britain. The only result of this will be that France's ratification cannot become operative, nor can charges be brought against her for non-application, until Great Britain and Germany have also ratified the Convention definitely and unreservedly, or (if they ratify conditionally) until their conditions are fulfilled. In other words, Gentlemen, a Convention ratified in this manner threatens, if one may say so, no danger to the industries of the nation…
  THE REPORTER OF THE COMMITTEE: French employers are aware that no immediate charge is imposed on them They no longer oppose the Convention, but, on the other hand, they desire as a minimum safeguard that our existing Eight Hour Law should not be modified in any way as a consequence of the text of the Convention until the Convention is definitely ratified. This appears right, and, in so far as the Government can give such an undertaking, we consider that

  1923
  industry should be reassured on this point…."
  Then there was some further cross-examination, designed to get the matter clearly from the Minister, and the Minister of Labour said:
  "The Government has already given that undertaking.
  THE REPORTER: You have not said so from the platform, Sir; the country will welcome such a declaration from you…
  THE MINISTER: I willingly satisfy M. Courtier's request. The Convention as it is presented to the Senate, and as we asked the Senate to adopt it, in no way requires us to modify our national legislation, and the Government has no intention whatever of proposing any amendments to our existing legislation."
  So far, it would appear that the statement of the Minister in this House interpreting the French position was right, but subsequently in the Chamber of Deputies there was a discussion upon this particular point, and the whole matter was thoroughly and completely cleared up. A reference was made to it in the Chamber of Deputies by M. Lebas, and these are his words:
  "Here are the words of Sir A. Steel-Maitland, British Minister of Labour in the House of Commons, on 28th February:
  'We have boon trying to get at the actual facts and to get to the basis of an agreement. The German Bill, and what has happened in the French Senate, do not make things easier, but more difficult.'
  That, Sir, is the view taken by your British colleague.
  THE MINISTER OF LABOUR: I too, am aware that he very much misinterpreted certain expressions which I employed in the Senate, and I am grateful to the Reporter for having given them their true meaning.
  M. CHABRUN (Reporter): Thank you, Sir. I am glad that we agree. I think it was necessary to point out this mistake to the British Government.
  M. LEBAS: The British Minister said earlier in the debate:
  'The Minister of Labour informed the Senate that, if the Convention were ratified by France, he did not intend to propose the amendment of the existing legislation,'
  The French Minister did not say that at all. In reply to a Senator, he said:
  'It is clearly understood that the text which the Senate doubtless will shortly adopt means that the International Eight Hours Convention will not be applied in France until Great Britain and Germany have also ratified unconditionally, or, if they attach conditions, then when those conditions are fulfilled.'
  1924
  I think I have reproduced your declaration fairly accurately.
  THE MINISTER: As you raise this point on the platform, I desire to state, in order that there may be no doubt whatever on this matter outside our frontiers, that I entirely accept your interpretation of my words."
  In other words, until Great Britain has fulfilled the condition which the French Government attached to its ratification, that is to say, until Great Britain has ratified, the French Government regards itself as being free from any criticism for not applying the conditions of the Convention. That is an entirely sensible, fair and proper position to take up, and it has been more than once repeated. It seems, therefore, unjust that hon. Gentlemen in this House who are against the Convention should make use of the fact that the French Government and the French Ministry of Labour have not applied the conditions of the Convention in advance of the fulfilment of the condition which they laid down as a preliminary to their acceptance of the Convention. They consider themselves free until we have fulfilled that condition, and I think that in strict fact and logic they are entitled to regard themselves as being so free. Therefore, I submit that a good deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale rests upon a false hypothesis in so far as it is a criticism of France for failing to observe the conditions of the Convention. She does not intend to apply the conditions of the Convention until we have ratified it coincidentally with herself I think it is rather unjust, and, indeed, rather dangerous, for us to use an illustration of this kind when we know that it is rather twisting the situation to suit our own action.
  Having, I hope, made that point quite clear, let me take another point made by the hon. Member for Rossendale. He twitted my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) with having failed to do this, that and the other with regard to the Convention during the period of office of the Labour Government in 1924. The hon. Gentleman, however, must be fair, and I am sure he wants to be fair. He knows very well that the Labour Government in 1924 were under serious handicaps. I do not intend to reiterate them now, but, whatever they were, my right hon. Friend did in fact introduce a Bill into this

  1925
  House, I think in the month of July, for ratification of the Convention. But, says the hon. Member for Rossendale on the 4th August, 1924, some railwaymen raised a difficulty, and after that, says he, nothing more was heard about that Bill. The hon. Gentleman will, however, remember that it is usual for this House to rise fairly early in August. The Government of 1924 went out of office before the end of October. The House did not reassemble until late in September, and, therefore, the point that the hon. Member has made that nothing more was heard of the matter in that Parliament is really stretching the argument unduly, and a little unfairly.
  Let me turn now to the gravamen of the charge which we advance against the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have taken a very deep interest in this Debate, because I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting the right hon. Gentleman himself in Geneva last Monday week when he was there on official business, and I do not mind saying here and now—I know the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me, but I cite the opinion of a large number of people who were there and heard the discussion—that I never expected to see any representative of the British Government placed in so deplorable a position as that of the right hon. Gentleman last Monday week. Let me just indicate, following what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), the spirit in which the Government approach the whole question of the League of Nations and the International Labour Office. A criticism was made by an hon. and gallant Member opposite with regard to the Budget of the International Labour Office, but what are the facts? The Estimate for the International Labour Office, which was presented last week, for the year 1930, was actually less by some 206,000 francs than the Estimate presented last year, which the British Government heartily supported. Hon. Members were against a bill which was 206,000 francs less than the bill which they supported last year.
  Perhaps I might add one or two interesting details about this year, which the House may like to know. That Budget had been reduced by 298,000 francs on account of the fact that a certain amount of refugee work which
  1926
  hitherto had been undertaken would not be undertaken in 1930. But, on the other hand, there was added to the bill a sum of 215,000 francs to cover certain statutory increases which the Assembly of the League of Nations itself had authorised. Further, the increase covered expenses in regard to certain Conferences which are going to be held in various parts of the world, one of them being a Conference to be held in Johannesburg to examine the whole question of silicosis among miners. A sum of 25,000 francs is to be spent on that subject. There were also some 30,000 francs to inquire into the whole question of labour conditions in China, and it is against a budget involving expenditure of that sort that the right hon. Gentleman's representatives at Geneva thundered so tremendously a week ago.
  There was disappointment at Geneva on one or two grounds. Let me take, first of all, the effect upon Government representatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston has covered some of the historical ground in regard to the evolution of this Washington Convention. There have been some three occasions on which Government representatives have met together in order to arrive at a definite agreement concerning the interpretation of the words of the Convention. There was the Washington Convention itself, there was the Berne discussion, and the discussion later on in London, and it is worth while pointing out to hon. Members opposite who take the view, apparently, of the employers—which is quite natural and in accordance with precedent—that, when the proposal was first presented to the Washington Convention for acceptance or otherwise, there was attached by the Committee that examined the proposals a series of schedules in which an attempt was made to cover certain of the points which have since then been the subject of controversy on the part of the employers. It was definitely on the motion of the employers' representatives themselves that those schedules defining, for instance, continuation processes and other matters, were removed from the Convention. Those schedules were suggested because it was hoped they would define and make more clear certain terms that were used. They were rejected at the instance of the employers. Now the employers are turning the other way

  1927
  and wanting some more definite and precise wording. It was they themselves who got those words removed in 1920 at Washington. Anyhow, at Washington there were representatives of the employers. Surely they could not have been innocent, lamblike people, led to the slaughter. They must have known what they were doing. They knew their own mind. They committed themselves to this instrument which has since been the subject of so much controversy.
  Then came the Berne Conference, and there again agreement was arrived at between some four leading countries. The right hon. Gentleman will argue that he was in no wise committed by what his predecessors had done. Very well. Since then nearly five years have elapsed. The right hon. Gentleman apprehended at once that there would be differences of opinion and, in order to remove them, he invited the leading representatives of some four or five States to meet him in London. They discussed points of agreement or disagreement and issued a communique. Here is the curious thing. After having arrived at an agreement in London upon some four or five definite articles, this year at Geneva the right hon. Gentleman not only raises the issue over again concerning those points which were in discussion in 1926, but raises other articles which, apparently, he did not raise at all in 1926. It is abundantly clear that the Government representatives do not desire to have any agreement upon this matter. Fancy the right hon. Gentleman raising the issue as to what you mean by industry, by commerce and by agriculture, when the Convention states clearly that the determination of the lines of demarcation rests upon the national and not the international authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said at Geneva: "I am putting all my cards on the table, the twos and threes as well as the aces." He did not have an ace. The cards were of very low denomination indeed. At most they were only sixes and sevens. He raises the whole point all over again—15 points—one more than President Wilson thought necessary to solve the whole question of the peace, all of these points, piffling, small, finicky little things that anyone could see through at once. It was only intended to jeopardise the whole agreement. As a matter of fact, to continue the
  1928
  right hon. Gentleman's own simile, instead of playing through the game properly with the cards he had, he has revoked very badly.
  If one examines the objections he had, he does not even advance a case against any particular country. Certain countries are not doing this and certain countries are not doing that. He took good care not to say, "You are doing," or "You are not doing," because he might have been faced with the answer at once. It was easy to say, "So-and-so is not doing it," without defining so-and-so. The result was that he was able to escape behind a cloud of indefiniteness.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Did I say that at Geneva? What words did I use?
  Mr. JONES: I did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of saying so-and-so had failed. I am accusing him of using generalities.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member says I said there had been failure to carry out the Convention. Where did I say there had been failure to carry out the Convention on the part of some nation?
  Mr. JONES: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would follow my argument a little more closely. I accuse him of using words in too general a way. He says "certain nations." I accuse him of having failed to specify what nations he meant, and by using those words he was able to escape quite easily without any special challenge. That is the whole of my argument, and he knows that what I am saying is absolutely true. If he wants any further confirmation, I will quote his speech if he likes.
  We hear a good deal about the failure of Germany. I heard the German Minister, who told him quite frankly that the German Government have already a Workers' Protection Bill before the Reichstag. If I understood him aright, he also said there is at this moment a Bill before the Cabinet in Germany whose whole purpose it is to ratify the Convention per se. That, of course, stands in jeopardy after what the right hon. Gentleman said. But he made a suggestion. He said: "I am prepared to grant that you have difficulties, and I will try to meet you." "I suggest," says Herr

  1929
  Wissell, "that, if agreeable to you, we should attach the London Agreement as a protocol to the Convention itself." M. Loucheur said the same thing. There was a gesture of good will to meet the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman by now had discovered all sorts of new difficulties, and the consequence was that no agreement was at all possible. I heard one or two words at Geneva which I feel were indicative of a trend of opinion or thought. The workers' representatives there, the English, French and Belgians, are all agreed pretty well in committing themselves to this observation. The British Government, by its action at Geneva last Monday, had taken a step which, if it is not corrected soon, might land us in a complete breakdown of the machinery of the International Labour Office. After all, it depends on good will, good understanding and good feeling. If any Government or workers' representatives, or employers' representatives have the feeling that any Government is not facing up to the issue frankly and honestly, clearly there is no point in their staying in an international organisation of that sort any longer. The right hon. Gentleman was warned that if this kind of attitude was to be maintained, the future usefulness of that international organisation would be in jeopardy.
  Is it too late to ask him to review this thing once again? He could very well have joined the other Ministers in ratifying even though he felt some apprehension concerning the meaning that might be attached to certain phrases or clauses or terms, because, after all in 1931 he could, if the Government are still in office, denounce the Convention. He is not precluded from doing that. In any case, how do you learn what are the shortcomings of an Act, either national or international, unless you see how it works in actual practice? He knows very well that if there were flaws in the actual working of the thing or misunderstandings arising from interpretation, he could raise the issue at some future date in the International Labour Convention or at the governing body, and his fellow delegates would have listened with patient attention to all he had to say. Instead of that, we are clearly at this point, that until the present Government are removed from
  1930
  office and another Government take their place, the whole structure of international legislation for safeguarding labour conditions is in serious jeopardy.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No one is more unfeignedly glad than I am to have an opportunity this afternoon of dealing with the facts, and the whole of the facts, of this situation for the purpose of elucidating the matter and of showing exactly, I trust, where the different parties in this country stand. The country has a right to know what is the policy of the Government with regard to this matter. I made it abundantly clear before, and I trust that I shall, if possible, be able to make it clearer still to-day. The country has equally a right to know what the policy of the Opposition is in this matter. The policy of the Government is perfectly clear and has been perfectly consistent. We are in favour of a revision of what is called the Washington Hours Convention, and we stand by that. We want to get a workable Hours Convention that shall clearly embody the principles of Washington, but a Convention that shall be clear and applicable equally to all the countries that ratify it. That is the reason why we ask for revision, and, as I hope to show a little later, we have been absolutely consistent and straightforward in our action. I have stated those principles quite clearly. Now we would like to know what is the policy of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give us your's!"] I have stated it, and I am going to develop it. Now I want to know what is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. T. SHAW: The ratification of the Washington Convention as understood at the Conference of Ministers in 1926.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I see. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to ratify the actual instrument called the Washington Hours Convention?
  Mr. SHAW: I gave the Minister a perfectly clear answer—the ratification of the Washington Convention on the understandings of 1926. That is a perfectly clear and straightforward answer, and the Minister understands it.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not in the least degree clear.
  Mr. SHAW: I cannot help that. Everybody else can understand it.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What we want to know is this: The right hon. Gentleman said in 1925:
  "I claim that the acceptance of this Convention would be good for the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1925; col. 546, Vol. 183.]
  In 1926, he said:
  "I have never been able to understand the position of a Government in this country which under all the circumstances has obstinately refused to ratify this Convention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1926; col. 2378, Vol. 194.]
  He sent a message after the London Conference saying:
  "Britain is bound, both by the terms of the Treaty and the agreement of Government, employers' and workers' representatives at Washington. For her not to ratify is to be guilty of the grossest deception."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1928; col. 84, Vol. 214.]
  Let us come to the London Agreement. The London Agreement has by itself no binding force. As far as it was an agreement of substance at all, it was between five countries only, and not between all the countries. In order to give force to the London Agreement, or to any points like that, the right hon. Gentleman will have to revise the Convention. Is he prepared to revise it or is he not?
  Mr. SHAW: Do you want me to answer your question? Herr Wissell and M. Loucheur gave you the opportunity to do everything you were asking for and you refused to take it.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want the answer of the right hon. Gentleman and not the answer of Herr Wissell. Let me quote what he said last year when I asked him the same question. I said
  "All I can say is, I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman stands now."
  and his answer was:
  "The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the last Bill we introduced with the new railway Clause in it dealt with the railway difficulty on the lines which assured the ratification at Geneva."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1928; col. 175, Vol. 214.]
  Again, I want to know, in order to meet any additional points, whether in the London Agreement or in regard to other points such as I have raised, it is necessary to modify the Washington Conven-
  1932
  tion? Is he prepared to do it, or is he prepared to sign the Convention as it stands? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It is quite clear to this House that, if it comes to trimming, we know where the trimming is. We want to know. In order to incorporate the London points or any other points such as I raise it is necessary to have a modification of the Washington Convention. That is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day used words which went to indicate the signing of the Agreement made at Washington. If there was any ordinary plain meaning to be attached to those words he was going to sign the original Washington Convention as such. Is he going to do that or is he going to modify it? That is what we want to know and surely he can give us a plain answer on that point.
  Mr. SHAW: I will give the right hon. Gentleman a plain answer—the Washington Convention absolutely without modification but with explanation on the lines of the London Conference.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Now we have it, and now let me repeat precisely what he has said:
  "The ratification of the Washington Convention without modification but with explanation on the lines of the London Conference."
  That begins to clear the air. Let me go in detail into—
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What about the Miners Eight Hours Act?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me go into the Government case for revision in details and I will deal with it at the risk of repeating what I have said in some previous debates, and I do so because I think that it is necessary. There are two main reasons for revision and for modification in the course of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) was perfectly right but the criticism by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) were completely wide of my hon. Friend's point; he never met the point at all. It is not a question whether the existing French law will be different or not when the Convention is ratified. That was the point with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly dealt, but that was not the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. My point is

  1933
  the same as that of the hon. Member for Rossendale. Whether the French at the present moment have an Eight Hours Act or not, there are some phrases in the Washington Convention—which these gentlemen opposite are not going to modify, but only to explain—which are so loose and so vague that a lax interpretation of them, which would be a perfectly possible interpretation, would take the whole value out of any ratification. May I quote from this point of view exactly what I said at Geneva?
  "The framers of the Convention were like artists in tapestry, set to work on a new design in a new material, and that too with great haste and under a great strain. Can you wonder at a loose end here and there? The surprise to my mind is that there are not more. The fact, however, that remains and with which we have to deal is that it has become quite clear that there are some points in the existing Convention on which there is general uncertainty of interpretation… Representatives of all countries alike have realised that differences of interpretation may exist on some very important points. What, for example, is the actual interpretation to be put upon the phrase 'Hours of work'? 'How is intermittent work to be defined?' 'What exactly are the limits of overtime as applied to railway workers?' 'Can Article 5 be applied or not to the building trade?' "
  My contention is that these points affect the whole validity of the Convention if it were ratified in its present form. We dealt with some of those points at London and the truth about London was this. We arrived at an agreement on points of substance at London, and we hoped that that would mean that we could take a very definite step forward. Some countries said that they would regard the conclusions reached at London as interpretations only, but we said that they must be put into an actual amending agreement having binding force. The French and the Italian Government wished the London points to be considered as matters of interpretation only. I never could fully understand that, because those who wished to have interpretations only would really not have had their own positions altered unless the interpretations were made binding in an agreement. We could not get further. Therefore, the London Agreement to start with had no binding force, and, as far as it was an agreement upon substance, it only concerned the five nations who took part in it. I say quite clearly
  1934
  that the interpretation of the Convention must be within the spirit of the Convention: it must be the same for all on important points and it must be binding on all.
  The second reason for revision is also quite plain. It applies peculiarly to Great Britain. If I may use exactly the same words as I used at Geneva, it is this:
  "If we embodied in a British Act of Parliament the points contained in the London Agreement, we should not be entitled then to ratify the Convention. On the contrary we should under British canons of interpretation be debarred from doing so. For example, we have certain industries in which the normal working week is 47 hours and is well within the principle of Washington. They prefer to work those 47 hours in five days and to have a whole holiday on the Saturday."
  Since then, I have heard of numbers of cases in which this is a normal practice in British industries. When I read the last Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories I see:
  "The five-day week maintains its popularity and there is a slight increase in the number of factories working on this system… In the south-eastern division (for example) Miss Sanderson (North-East London) reports that in a large engineering works the five-day week is still in force, output has at least been maintained, if not increased and neither employers nor workers have any desire to revert to the six-day week."
  7.0 p.m.
  This is all within the spirit of Washington, and the Law Officers' opinion is that we should be debarred from ratifying the Convention if we passed a domestic Act of Parliament which recognised that practice of a 5-day week. In the same way the Engineers Agreement here at this moment would not be within the Washington Convention, and the same is true with regard to the Railway Agreement. It is not a question of whether the Convention can be modified or not by any railway clause such as satisfied the right hon. Gentleman in his speech last year. Last year, he said that that removed all his difficulties. I obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Their opinion, when they were asked to advise whether the provisions of Clause 2 (5) of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill—the clause that satisfied the right hon. Gentleman opposite—was that the clause would, if passed into law, conflict with the

  1935
  Washington Convention. The clause appeared to them to be founded upon Article 5 of the Convention. They held the view that railway transport would not be regarded as within the "exceptional cases" to which alone the Article-applied, and that the Article itself imposed a limit of 48 upon the average number of hours worked per week, and that limit included overtime. They informed us that they entertained no doubt at all that Clause 2, Sub-section (5) of the Bill, if passed into law, would constitute a breach of the terms of the Washington Convention, assuming that Convention to have been ratified by this country. From all these points of view, we have decided definitely for revision. In the Liberal Yellow Book, I see that that party also has decided for revision. When I turn to the reports of the Balfour Committee, they come to this conclusion:
  "Subject to the considerations set out below, it appears to us that the weight of argument is in favour of adhesion to a revised Convention, but against unconditional ratification of the present instrument."
  The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) quoted the words from the Memorandum by the Labour Members of that Committee. Those words are exceedingly significant. They emphasise the urgency of Great Britain fulfilling its pledge under the Peace Treaty by adhering to
  "an International Convention regulating the hours and conditions of labour."
  They carefully avoid mentioning the Washington Convention and speak of "an international convention," and are therefore in harmony with the main report, which they also signed, proposing revision. Lastly, that Report makes this special observation with regard to labour:
  "We understand that it is the considered view of the trades unions of railway employés…that the peril, which would result from unconditional ratification, to their present national agreement regulating hours of labour could only be removed by revision or reservation, and not by any interpretation of the text."
  The case, therefore, for revision is absolutely overwhelming. The type of criticism which may be raised is: "If so, why have you not stated all these facts long ago?" The answer is that the policy of the Government has been abso-
  1936
  lutely consistent from the very beginning. At the very outset the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Peace Treaty. Let me quote for one moment what the Peace Treaty says:
  "In the case of a draft Convention, the members will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification."
  In other words, it was always contemplated that a convention should be submitted to the home authorities before a final decision was come to, and that was repeated by the Director of the International Labour Office. Our policy has been perfectly consistent. In 1921 a letter, of which I have a copy here, was addressed to the International Labour Office asking for revision. Such a difficulty as the railway difficulty and as the difficulty of working a five-day week had already been felt, and already the Government had said that revision was the proper way. A committee was appointed, and after a good deal of discussion we were unable to get our way. In 1924, when he was in office, the right hon. Gentleman, when faced with the facts officially, seems himself to have felt the same difficulties about interpretation on certain points, or he would never have had the meeting at Berne. All I can say about the conclusions, if they were conclusions, to which they came at Berne, is that they clearly did not indicate agreement, as was shown by the fact that in 1925 he issued a questionnaire, and received replies differing in very important particulars from the replies he had received from the people whom he had consulted in the previous year.
  That was the reason which led us to issue a questionnaire, and to have the London Conference. I have shown the House already, that on the points which we dealt with at London we did not get a binding agreement in the end. It was a record of agreement as to opinions on certain points of substance, but it did not extend to the countries which were not present at the Convention, and it was not a binding agreement. If it had then been made into a binding agreement we would have taken it, but as we did not get it then, we reverted to the path of revision. When we are asked: "Why did you not produce the points?" I say that points enough were known, and

  1937
  known in 1928. They were stated last year by the Parliamentary Secretary. Points enough were already known absolutely to warrant revision. On the point of hours of work alone, the necessity of revision was quite clear. All those points were fully known. If the steering-wheel of your motor is broken, that is reason enough to send it to a repair shop without waiting until all the other parts of it have come to pieces.
  What was asked for last year at Geneva was that a procedure as regards revision should be settled upon. We wished to have revision undertaken straight away, and we were ready to consider the procedure as to Standing Orders dealing with a proper procedure of revision. So we come to this year. I went to Geneva to put our points perfectly clearly, and without any reservations. I knew I should be met with the dilemma of exactly the same sort as has been partially raised on the other side to-night. I hope I may be allowed again to say the same thing as I said at Geneva, and to put it in this way:
  "In making my speech I have been faced by the following dilemma. If I indicated only a few points, though points of such importance that they would by themselves alone justify an amendment of the Convention, someone may say to me afterwards: 'Are those all the points you had in your mind? If I then said: 'No, I have some others,' he may then say: 'Why did you not mention them?' If, on the other hand, I produced all that I had thought worthy of consideration, the same critic might then say: 'Why such a long list?' Between the two difficulties, I have preferred to be frank and tell you everything."
  I, therefore, want to say quite distinctly that we did put forward the London points again. I definitely explained and made clear some of the London points, and particularly the point about overtime, because it was not clear enough at London in order to have a proper working Convention. It was not clear enough then, so when I looked at it and other points, I put them in for consideration. I was asked to put forward everything that might be considered from an international point of view. As far as the point about small establishments is concerned, I knew some people set store by it—not in this country, but in other countries—and I wanted, as far as I could, to let them have everything
  1938
  that they had asked should be considered for a proper Convention.
  That was the situation which was reached there. I have shown quite clearly that we have been perfectly consistent throughout, and have wished to show all the reasons why revision is necessary. We are supported to-day in the conclusion that revision is necessary by such an authoritative body as the Balfour Committee, signed by all the members who produced that statement, and I venture to say that the result of having put it straightforwardly and quite frankly and outspokenly at Geneva has been that British prestige has stood higher there than it has done for years past. I told them quite frankly, as an indication of the British attitude:
  "If at this moment we had an amended Convention on the table here in the drafting of which these points had been satisfactorily considered and settled, I would recommend my Government to-morrow to ratify."
  If there has been any lack of progress, it has been from the fact that on the one side there have been faint hearts who wanted to cling to the shadow which did not give them the substance and there were others, perhaps, who were content to let the shadow remain, provided it always remained a shadow, and no substance was given to it. Then I come to the other kind of criticism, made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we have been subservient to the employers. I am glad again to have the chance of being able to show what are the facts in answer to a flimsy accusation of that kind. To start with, I say frankly that as far as Great} Britain is concerned, there should be no opposition between the employers and workers on this matter at all. I have consulted both sides regularly. There should be only one British policy. Both sides ought to be together, if only the people on those benches would not treat these industrial questions from the point of view of politicians, but of those who want to get a common agreement. So far from the policy of revision being dictated to me by anyone, I am in the memory of most Members of the House when I put it before them that here we have as a Government continually proposed revision. On the other hand, up to comparatively recently, the employers, owing to the difficulties, would have preferred to have no convention at all,

  1939
  and the workers, as far as their view is voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, would have liked to ratify the Convention without any change. The sensible policy of having a workable Convention by revising it was the policy which neither of them had had until comparatively recently. To-day the employers have come round to the view that if you can get a workable convention they would support it. Outside of this House and of one of two individuals, the bulk of the trade union leaders who really have thought about it, like the signatories of the Balfour Committee Report, realise that revision is essential.
  Mr. J. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in asserting that the whole of the members of the Balfour Committee signed a document asking for the revision of the Washington Convention, when his attention is directed to the memorandum at the end of that volume, in which seven of the members say that they believe that it is a matter of urgency for this Government to carry out the pledge in the Peace Treaty, and sign an international convention?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member was not in the House, otherwise he would realise that I quoted the sentence which he has quoted, and I laid stress upon the fact that the signatories referred to "an international convention," which I am advocating, and not to the Washington Convention. So far as the Government's policy is concerned, instead of the Government having been dictated to, it is the Government's policy which I am glad to say the employers have now adopted, in order to get a workable convention, which they desire. So far as the other representative signatories are concerned, many of them, the trade union leaders who have thought about it, realise that the present Convention is not workable, and they want to get a workable Convention.
  What happened at Geneva? I put forward a Resolution there, and the workers voted against it. The employers, apparently, differed amongst themselves, and abstained from voting. There does not appear to be much dictation about that. The effect of the Resolution was that it did not bind the people there to revision at once. It gave them time to consider
  1940
  the matter until May. It asked for an office report upon the points raised. While the tone of the Resolution was favourable to my particular point, it did not bind anyone definitely to acceptance of it until they had had full opportunity of studying it. I think it was the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who talked—I do not want to misquote him—about our Government being isolated among the Governments. What are the facts? Of the 10 Governments that voted, eight voted for my Resolution. One person who spoke in favour of my Resolution who, surely, is a friend of an Eight Hours Convention, but a workable one, was the Director of the International Labour Office, Monsieur Thomas. He spoke strongly in favour of it. Another person who voted for it was one who, whether we disagree with him or not, commands our respect, and that was my German colleague, Herr Wissell. He played a most important part in the great troubles in Germany soon after the War. He knew perfectly well, as he told me, that although we might differ in opinion in regard to other things, at any rate he knew that I was acting perfectly straightforwardly. He, together with the other seven Government representatives, voted for the Resolution that I put forward. There were only two Government representatives who voted against the Resolution. One of those representatives had had instructions to do so from the beginning, and could not return for further instructions, namely, the Belgian representative. The other representative who voted against the Resolution was the Italian representative. The French representative abstained from voting.
  That being so, I am content to leave the matter for the country to judge. Here is our policy—revision, a workable convention, supported by the opinion of the law officers on all important points of British practice, supported by the Liberal party and supported by the Balfour Committee and its signatories.
  Mr. BAKER: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman again? The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the wording in the minority report. Will he accept my assurance that it does not mean what he thinks it means. It may be bad grammar, and I confess than when I read it to-day with the intention of using it, I noticed the bad grammar from my

  1941
  view-point. I am in favour of the Washington Convention. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman leave me out?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The last thing that I want to do is to pin my hon. Friend to any conviction which he does not hold. I would only say in regard to the other signatories, that the main body of the Report, to which they said they jointly assented, contained a very distinct statement that the weight of opinion was in favour of an International Convention for the limitation of hours, subject to certain conditions. Then they say:
  "Conversely, we are of opinion that without the fulfilment of these conditions ratification of the existing Washington Convention would be a hazardous step. Subject to the considerations set out below, it appears to us that the weight of argument is in favour of adhesion to a revised Convention, but against unconditional ratification of the present instrument."
  I do not wish to pledge the hon. Member to that, but I think it is a pity that he and his colleagues should have used the words "an international convention."
  Mr. BAKER: I agree.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: And also that when the other phrase was used in the main report, that he did not indicate that he differed from it, because it was a very precise statement that was being used. The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but it is unfortunate, under the circumstances.
  Mr. BAKER: I agree.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the other signatories, unless and until we get a recantation from them, we are entitled to attribute to them what they said. I am perfectly prepared to go forward, plainly stating the facts in my favour, and the support that I have received. On the other hand, we have elicited the fact that the party opposite stand for ratifying an unrevised Convention, resting upon the understandings of London. I can only say this: let them go forward with that policy, if they will, but I am afraid that it only shows once more the enormous difference there is between politicians on the Labour side and the real trade unionists. It has been shown before, on the question of the cost of living, and it is shown again in
  1942
  a matter of this kind. The real trade unionists for the most part realise the position, but the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) and his party, for whom he has spoken, are going to go forward to ratify an unrevised Convention, resting on the understandings of London. They can only do that in safety, because they know they will not have a chance before 1931 of giving effect to their policy.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has satisfied the hon. Members on his own benches that the Government have done the right thing. He tells us, in 1929, that the only conceivably successful way of dealing with the Washington Convention is for the Government to obtain a revision of certain portions of that document. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to satisfy himself that ratification in months or years to come will have to take place, but before there is any ratification there are one or two things that he will not have removed from the minds of hon. Members who sit upon these benches. From the minds of at least one section of the community, certain things will require a good deal of elimination. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly consistent in his inconsistency. That is the only consistent part that he has played in this business. I want to submit the right hon. Gentleman to a few questions. Will he tell the House and the country how he can contemplate ratification of any 8-hours Convention as a member of a Government which started the 9-hours day for miners?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no 9-hours day.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman so ignorant of mining conditions in this country that he does not know that the present law enables a man to be down the colliery for at least eight hours and 50 minutes? Has he not consulted the Secretary for Mines, who can tell him that the inspectors of mines have allocated times at certain collieries, where the numbers employed are very large, and where, under the existing 8-hours Act, miners can be below ground for 8 hours and 50 minutes?
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: Counting winding time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Counting winding time. Can the Minister of Labour contemplate the ratification of an 8-hours Convention, limiting the hours of work for men and women who work upon the surface, from factory gate to factory gate, while the Government of which he is a member are responsible for an Act of Parliament which keeps miners in the pits, which are sometimes over half a mile deep, for 8 hours and 50 minutes every day? There may be some point in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of revision, but it seems to me, reviewing the past four years, that the right hon. Gentleman is neither serious nor sincere. Might we recall what has taken place during the past four years? The Minister of Labour and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) would deny any charge of being the direct representatives of the employers, but what are the facts of the situation? In 1924, after a very short period of office, with a minority Labour Government, a Bill was brought to this House indicating an intention and desire on the part of the Labour Government with respect to the Washington Convention; but the Labour Government were sent out of office and replaced by the present Government.
  During 1924, the miners had secured an increase in wages, after having submitted their case to the Industrial Court. The moment the Conservative Government were returned to office, with full power, in January, 1925, the coalowners publicly demanded an eight-hours day for mine workers, which means in many cases eight; hours and 50 minutes in the bowels of the earth. The mineowners prosecuted their claim until, in 1926, the present Government gave them the Eight Hours Act. From the first moment that the present Government came into office they were almost entirely in the hands of the mineowners. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) is interested in the textile industry, another industry in which the employers have been attempting to extend the hours of employment of the operatives. Having given to the mineowners an extension of hours for mine workers, it makes it impossible for them to ratify the Washington Convention, either revised or un-revised, without repealing the Eight Hours Act.
  Sir R. HORNE: No.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that statement is incorrect?
  Sir R. HORNE: I do.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this or any other Government could ratify the Washington Convention and still leave the Mines Eight Hours Act on the Statute Book?
  Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I do.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government can ratify a Convention limiting the hours of work to eight hours, from factory gate to factory gate, and at the same time leave 1,000,000 men in a position where the coalowners can compel them to be down the coal mines for times varying between eight hours and 20 minutes and eight hours and 50 minutes, I should be inclined to agree with the Minister of Labour that there needs to be some interpretation of what the Washington Convention means. If it is the conception of the employers that you can have an Eight Hours Act, which means nine hours for some workers, it is not the view taken by hon. Members on these benches. The right hon. Gentleman may argue for a revision of the existing Washington Convention in certain important particulars, but he cannot deny the fact that while there is a miners' Eight Hours Act on the Statute Book there is little or no hope of the Washington Convention, revised or unrevised, being ratified by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman talks about trimming. He has become a perfect expert in trimming; in finding ways and means how not to ratify and how not to render any real contribution to international relations in regard to hours of work.
  There are other reasons why some of us doubt the sincerity of the present Government. We hear representatives of great industries speak from the Conservative Benches in favour of a reduced working day with certain provisions, but the provisions they lay down always make the reduced working day impossible of achievement. The Prime Minister is known by the miners as a politician who has always believed in longer hours for workers. Did not the present Prime

  1945
  Minister make his maiden speech by speaking against the miners' Eight Hours Act in 1908? And it was the present Prime Minister who introduced or who was responsible for the present Act which means that miners work nearly nine hours a day in the pits. That is the character of the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding his supposed honesty and sincerity and also the honesty and sincerity of the Minister of Labour these two right hon. Gentlemen are largely responsible for creating a condition which makes it well night impossible for us to ratify the Washington Convention unless we first of all repeal the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act of 1926. If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that certain interpretations are absolutely necessary before there can be uniformity in regard to hours of labour throughout the world, he has had more than enough time in which to smooth out any difficulties that may exist, and the fact remains that they have not smoothed out these difficulties between 1919 and 1929.
  In spite of all the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and the huge posters which are now being shown all over the country indicating what the Government are supposed to have done—it will take posters 10 times as large in size to indicate what the Government have failed to do during their period of office—you have this fact staring you in the face: that there are 1,500,000 people for whom no work can be found. If there was a sincere desire on the part of the Government to provide for uniformity in hours of work, a revision of the Washington Convention could have been brought about and its interpretation could have been made clear. The present Government, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, stand for longer hours, for an extension of the hours of work instead of a reduction, and we see no hope between now and the end of May, or indeed for another five years if we had another Tory Government, of securing the ratification of an International Convention which would be useful in stabilising or reducing the hours of labour. The blackest spot in the 20th century was the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act, and while that remains, in spite of all the right hon. Gentleman can say, there is no chance of any ratification of the Washington Convention.
  Sir WALTER RAINE: If what the last speaker desired was carried out, instead of having 1,500,000 people out of work we should have 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 unemployed. I am amazed when I listen to such speeches, and I do rather frequently. Hon. Members are carried away with one idea; it does not matter what the world competition may be, we must not work more hours than we used to work when we were the workshop and the chief coal-producing centre of the world.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member not aware that English miners are working longer hours than any miners in the world?
  Sir W. RAINE: I know all about it, and, if this were the time and place I should like to give the hon. Member a little instruction on the serious competition in the export trade. After the clear and convincing statement of the Minister of Labour, there is little more to be said, and my only reason for speaking is that I think it is necessary to express the views of the Chamber of Commerce on this matter. The Chamber of Commerce is not a party political association at all, and it looks at all these business questions from a strictly business standpoint. It has viewed with serious concern the ratification of the Washington Convention, and it has sent resolutions to the Government time after time, pointing out, from their standpoint, what a serious matter it would be if the Convention as originally drawn was ratified. They are in favour of the principle of an 8-hours day; and so am I.
  I learnt my lesson very early from a practical experiment made in Sunderland, the town which I have the honour to represent. Very early in the agitation for shorter hours two large employers of labour, a shipbuilder and an engineer, on their own initiative called their men together and told them that they were going to try eight hours a day for one year to see if it was a success. It was an abundant success, and a further reduction in hours took place. These two works were the pioneers on the question of the 8-hours day. I learnt that lesson very early and, consequently, I have always been in favour of an 8-hours day as far as it can be carried out. At the moment we actually have by agreement between employers and employed in the

  1947
  various trades an 8-hourg day in 92¾ per cent. of the trades of the country, and in the 7¼ per cent., which is the actual percentage of those who have to work over 48 hours a week, are included the continuous processes.
  One would have thought that, having secured this by voluntary measures, we should not be so anxious to ratify a Convention which was going to bind us hand and foot under all circumstances, while other countries would be able to ratify the Convention perfectly honestly from their standpoint, because they put a different interpretation on an 8-hours day. I am not saying that in any unfriendly way. Take the case of France. What is the position in France? France under her interpretation regards 8-hours day as an effective eight hours a day, and in addition she is allowed to add all bank holidays, all other holidays, loss of time and slackness of work in certain periods of the year. If you add all these together you ratify nine hours a day for France under the interpretation of the Washington Convention of eight hours, and France, perfectly honestly from her standpoint, would interpret it in that way. Belgium is in exactly the same position. I could mention other countries, but as long as you have this difference in interpretation I think the Government is quite right in refusing to ratify.
  The House and the country will read with satisfaction to-morrow morning the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he is definitely aiming for revision in certain conditions. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) referred to two countries—Czechoslovakia as having ratified, and Spain as wishing to ratify. With regard to Czechoslovakia, it is curious that in a list of continuous processes there are no less than 29 classes of industries. Again, I am not accusing them of any bad faith, but hon. Members will see how lightly this matter so far has been treated. In this category of continuous processes is included jam and fruit, and it shows how, perfectly honestly from their standpoint, many of these countries treat this question whilst we treat it from a far more serious standpoint.
  The only observation I have to make with regard to Spain is that during the past two years she has done her best
  1948
  by raising her tariffs to interfere with our trade, but she has always suspended these tariffs for a few short months in order that British people might exhibit at Barcelona and Seville. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very fortunate in his reference to Spain. In to-day's "Times" there is an account of an agreement which has been arrived at between the transport workers and the railway workers, under which some of the transport workers in certain conditions have to work up to 12 hours in one day. That shows the kind of anomaly you get in connection with all questions of this kind. As far as the Chamber of Commerce are concerned they are pleased that the Government have up to now refused to gratify this Convention. They think it is in the best interests of the workers themselves and the Minister of Labour will have the wholehearted support of the commercial community in the line he intends to take.
  Mr. W. BENNETT: I only desire to detain the House for just one or two moments. I have not been here very long, but this Debate, together with the Debate on unemployment, with which this matter of eight hours a day is intimately connected, is the most important Debate I have heard. It has also been one of the most unreal. The only real Debate I have heard was that on the question of pensions for people in Northern Ireland, when there was a possibility of the mind of the Government being altered by the speeches which were made. There is no possibility this afternoon, whatever arguments may be used, of any change whatever in the Government's intentions. Everyone on this side has known, as everyone on the other side has known, that under no circumstances whatever would the International Convention be ratified by this Government. Every argument that I have hoard rotted out to-day has been precisely the same as the arguments that were put forward against every Factory Act that has ever been passed. There have been delays and objections of every kind. In these matters it is necessary to take some risk. If the intention of a Government is to interfere between masters and men and to control either conditions of hours of labour, they have to take some risk in bringing in a Bill. No one outside this House, none of the millions of working

  1949
  people who are affected by the possibility of an international agreement on hours of labour, would believe for one moment that it was the intention of the masters of the Government that this Convention should be ratified.
  Let me refer to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). He claimed that the Liberal party were responsible for the factory legislation of the past. Most remarkably short memories these Liberals have. It is true to say that the Liberal party, on principle and consistently, opposed all the early Factory Acts one after the other. It is true that Mr. John Bright in this House stated that the first Act which limited the hours to a total of 10 per day, was the worst Act ever put on the Statute Book, because it interfered with the freedom between master and man. As a matter of fact the first Factory Ants were due to a Conservative, Lord Shaftesbury, who introduced the first Bill in 1802, to limit the hours to 12 per day. That Bill was defeated. Of course the present Conservative Government has entirely departed from the Socialism of Lord Shaftesbury, and to-day stands for a different point of view, just as the Liberals have forgotten that on principle they are opposed to such Socialism. Still, we have had at least an admission of the right and the duty of a Government to state what should be the hours of labour in this country, even for coalminers. It is true that the Government used their power to lengthen the hours. I am certain that the Government have no intention whatever of ratifying this Convention, and that ratification will come from a Government of quite a different complexion in a few months.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to make one or two comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir W. Raine). We are always told in this House that we ought to represent our constituents, but I noticed that the hon. Member started his speech by telling the House that he spoke for the Chambers of Commerce—not for Sunderland, not for the teeming thousands of working people there, but for a select few and the fairly well-to-do. The hon. Member seemed to think that he had a right and a duty to speak in that way, and that it
  1950
  was in conformity with Parliamentary procedure. I think it would have been much more interesting if he had spoken as the representative of Sunderland and its working people. It is a fact that in Sunderland to-day the large mass of the workers have a 48-hours week, or even less. Why, then, the Member for a Division which enjoys the privilege of a 48-hours week should object to the principle being applied to other workers who are less fortunately placed, I cannot understand.
  The Minister in his reply to-day evaded the main argument by quoting France, Belgium, and some other country as not being willing to accept or ratify the spirit and intention of the 48-houra Convention. For the sake of argument, let me admit that the Minister has a case, that what he says is true, and that there are certain difficulties in the way of international compliance with the Convention. Even then the Minister cannot escape the question: Is it essential for the well-being of the working classes in Great Britain, apart from whether other nations ratify or do not ratify—is it for the welfare and the increased comfort of the people of this country to have a 48-hours week? That question ought to be answered, apart from what any other country is going to do. The Government should not merely put on the Statute Book ratification of the 48-hours week, but should go even further and make a larger reduction in the hours of labour of the community. If any criticism can be levelled against the Labour party, it is that it has been too mild in making a claim only for a 48-hours week.
  I think the time has come when, as men can produce goods so rapidly—they cannot be consumed with the same rapidity-there should be a reduction in hours even below 48 per week. I cannot see the sense of having at least 1,500,000 unemployed while other workers are working too long. It seems to me good sound sense that the workers doing nothing should be asked to do some work, while those who are working ought to be asked to do less. With security and good sense the country could take a step forward and inaugurate for the mass of the workers a 7-hours day. The office population, the Civil Servants who draft Bills and give the Ministers their speeches, never work the time that the mass of the people

  1951
  have to work. When one goes to a shipyard one finds men who work 42 or 43 hours a week, while other sections of the community who are less fortunate are compelled to work an excessively long-day. If the Minister of Labour were serving his country well he would introduce a Bill to go further than ratification of this Convention by inaugurating a week of 44 hours for the great mass of the people.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  8.0 p.m.
  During the unemployment Debate the other day I hoped to be called upon to speak, but was not fortunate. I, therefore, wish now to raise one or two points in connection with unemployment administration, and I hope that the Minister will not think me discourteous for not giving him notice. I find flung at me, as it were, an hour or two of Parliamentary time, and I propose to utilise the opportunity in his way. I see the Under-Secretary of the Home Department present, and he represents the First Commissioner of Works. For the past two years he has been answering questions of mine most unsatisfactorily and with a lack of knowledge of local affairs. He ought to know better, for he used to represent a Division of Glasgow. I want to raise the question of the condition of the Scottish Board of Health buildings in Glasgow. Every day there go to that office hundreds and thousands of people, most of whom are old and many of whom are unable with any kind of ease to get to the office which is situated on the fourth floor of a building. When they get there they find the place badly ventilated and overcrowded. It is a small square box and there are usually 20 or 30 people waiting for interviews. There is no proper sanitary accommodation. I know of a case of a woman who actually fainted, and there was no means of giving her proper attention. In the largest industrial centre of Britain outside London one finds that the accommodation provided for this purpose is a thoroughgoing disgrace.
  I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to see this place for himself. It is useless to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As far as he is concerned,
  1952
  nothing can be done but to await May and his dismissal from office. I ask the hon. Gentleman, not in any jocular fashion, to see this office, I ask him to go there, not as a Conservative Member, but as a man of business training and knowledge and a man who wants to see people decently treated. He will find that these offices are badly situated, difficult of access and totally inadequate to deal with the work for which they were created. I hope the hon. Gentleman will regard my suggestion in no unfriendly or hostile fashion, and will take an early opportunity of making a survey of these offices in order to see if he cannot—and I am sure he can—suggest improved accommodation.
  Recently we had a Debate on the administration of unemployment insurance and, if my memory serves me aright, owing to the exigencies of the occasion, very few, if any, of the Scottish Labour Members were able to raise the points which they desired to raise. That was not their fault, nor was it the fault of the Minister, nor was it your fault, Mr. Speaker. It was simply because of the demand upon Parliamentary time, and I propose to take this opportunity of raising one or two questions about the administration in Scotland. First, there is the Ministry of Labour position in Glasgow. In various parts of the country there are divisional offices which supervise certain work in certain areas. A divisional office situated, for instance, in Birmingham, does not merely supervise the work in Birmingham but the work in the Midlands area. Similarly, there is a divisional office in Leeds which covers the whole of Yorkshire and certain adjoining districts, and there is also a divisional office in Manchester. But while there is a divisional office dealing with Ministry of Labour affairs, in practically every large industrial centre in Britain, there is one exception and that is the City of Glasgow. With all due deference to the representatives of other cities the area of the City of Glasgow and its neighbourhood is, apart from London, the most thickly populated area in Britain. I understand there are more insured persons within a 10-mile radius of the centre of the City of Glasgow than in any other industrial area, outside London. Why is it that this important centre has not a divisional office? During

  1953
  the first four years of the operation of the Act Glasgow had a divisional office. For some unknown reason it was deprived of that office At that time there were, comparatively speaking, very few Labour Members from Scotland and the matter was allowed to go by default, but the position then was not as serious as it is now.
  The 1927 Act made the position in Glasgow much more difficult. Previously the divisional office did not to any extent run counter to local wishes, but what do we find now? With the Act of 1927 the administrative machinery had been altered. The whole of the administration for Scotland has been centred in Edinburgh, although Edinburgh has not one-fifth of the industrial population which is situated in the West of Scotland. Some hon. Members may ask why I should insist on this point. I do so because I think that a divisional office in a centre like Glasgow is absolutely essential. Up to the passing of the 1927 Act every applicant, every person who had to appear before a Court of Referees, was summoned by a clerk or an officer of the department—I wish to do that official no injustice by referring to him as a clerk. This officer summoned the applicant for unemployment benefit, he summoned the chairman and he summoned the assessors, representing employers and workmen, and those people were asked to attend at a particular place on a particular date. This arrangement was very important for this reason. It has been found, particularly in regard to the assessors, both workmen and employers, that those who are summoned at very short notice to act in that capacity may be unable to commit themselves to attendance at the required time and place. At the present time these men are summoned not from Glasgow but from Edinburgh, and, if they are unable to attend, they cannot be replaced as rapidly or easily as formerly. This applies particularly to the workmen's assessors, and the result is that, at many courts of referees, the workmen's representative is unable to attend and the court is held without a workmen's representative. The applicant usually wants to have his case settled and signifies his willingness to proceed without one, and his application is often weakened be-
  1954
  cause of the absence of the workmen's representatives.
  I want to see every applicant for unemployment benefit getting a proper amount of time for the preparation and presentation of his case. Each man who is summoned has a right to consult his trade union officials and to prepare his case. There can be no consultation when a man only receives notification on the day before the hearing of the case, even if the man gets the notice at one o'clock in the day. But if a man were at home to receive the notice at one o'clock in the day, it would be taken that he was not out seeking for work. The man does not in fact get the notice until he returns at night, and he may have to appear at 10 o'clock on the following morning. I had a very informative interview on this matter with one of the Minister's chief officials who assured me that he was going to try to get the notice extended. I want to impress on the Minister the need for seeing that every unemployed person is given adequate notice, in order that when he gets to the Court of Referees he will be properly equipped to state his case. They should get at least three days' notice. I would remind hon. Members that we are here dealing with what is probably the most important thing in life for many of these poor people. To us 27s. a week unemployment benefit may not seem a very important matter, but it has a different significance to them. It is their whole income. It is their entire wherewithal.
  I turn to another aspect of this question. I attended a court of referees recently in the interests of a constituent. The question at issue I do not wish to debate here, and I merely use the case as an illustration. The man had applied for unemployment benefit and also for dependants benefit in respect of a wife and two children. He had kept a lodger for a few months, receiving from the lodger 21s. or 22s. a week. Because he got this 22s. a week—which covered board and lodging and washing for the lodger—it was reckoned that he was making a profit, in consequence of which he was asked to lose a sum of 11s. a week. I know the Minister's answer to me will be that these are questions for the statutory authority to decide. I hope, with due deference to some of my hon. Friends on this side, that they have

  1955
  had enough of statutory authorities during the last year. The old rota committees were bad, but I would rather have them than the present statutory authorities. However, this man appeared before the court of referees, and I was there also. We had there just the Chairman and a clerk, and the clerk read the facts to the Court. I had no objection, but I went on to state my case. Then the clerk said, "There is an Umpire's decision in this matter that rules the man out." I said, "Where is the Umpire's decision?" The clerk turned round and said, "You should have it."
  This is a court to which we are going, and if any legal man in a court quotes a document against a person, the sheriff or the judge makes the lawyer produce the document for the court's inspection. It is a first principle of legal practice that, if you quote a document, you must be prepared to produce it. I recently attended one of the High Courts in London, and the Judge said to the leading counsel, "If you are quoting that document, you must see that copies of it are made available and that the Statute is quoted, in order that the Court may know exactly where it is." I say to the Minister that if it is going to be a court, it must be a court, and that if clerks at the court are going to quote umpires' decisions, they ought to be ready, in fairness to the applicant to produce those decisions. When I asked for the umpire's decision, I was told that I, who knew nothing about it, should have it with me, and that he, who knew it and had access to it, should not have it. Where was I to get it from? When was it given? I knew nothing, and this clerk turns and says to me, "You should have it." I ask this, not as a favour, but as a right.
  The Minister stated in the previous debate, that this is a statutory authority, that he has no right to intervene, that it is an authority with power and control, and that it can only be criticised by a special Vote. If that is going to be the case, let us have it conducted on properly constituted lines. Do not let us have it shouted at us that it is a court, with all the privileges of a court, and then, when we ask that proper legal procedure should be followed, have that procedure refused. Either it should be a court, or it should
  1956
  cease to have that name. The Minister ought to instruct his clerks in the matter. I know he cannot instruct Ida Chairmen, or at least he says he cannot, though he can make recommendations to them, but he can instruct his clerks to see that all Umpires' decisions are at the court, and that, if they are going to be quoted against an applicant, they should be produced.
  I will go further and say that in an ordinary court case, a person having an Umpire's decision quoted against him, or a decision of a higher court sprung upon him as a bolt from the blue, would have a right to ask for an adjournment; and I ask the Minister that, in these cases, not only should the whole of the Umpires' decisions be there to be produced if quoted, but that time should be given, if needed by the applicant, in order that he might have some chance to study a decision quoted against him and to reply to the man who has had the knowledge beforehand. These Courts of Referees are now very important bodies. Previously, all that they dealt with were questions concerning alleged misconduct, questions as to men leaving their jobs and so on, but now we have reached the stage when the Court of Referees in connection with Ministry of Labour work dominates the lives of large masses of our people.
  I will go one stage further, and I will ask the Minister to direct his attention to another problem. I have travelled from a by-election in North Lanark, which, I may say, we are sure to win, and, finding myself with an hour or two of Parliamentary time, I ask the Minister of Labour and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office to direct their attention to this further administrative problem. In Glasgow there is an Employment Exchange known as the Parkhead Exchange. It is alleged to be an Employment Exchange, but I keep pigeons in a better place than you ask people to go and sign in there. It is a shocking place, and the Home Office would not keep its worst prisoner in a place in which you ask people to work and poor people to sign. It is a shocking, disgraceful, fearful Exchange, and the staff could not do their work in it properly if they tried. There ought to be a new Exchange there immediately. You have nearly 5,000 people signing there daily, and it is over-

  1957
  crowded. The staff cannot get a decent place in which to eat their food, and yet that Exchange is allowed to go on day after day.
  I put this point before the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, who has something to do with controlling public buildings, in order that, when he goes to Glasgow, he should look first of all at the Board of Health Vote, and then take a 2d. car out to the East End and look at this place that they misname an exchange. A tenth-rate private firm would not tolerate it, and I hope the Under-Secretary will see that the place is rapidly hauled down and a new exchange built in its stead. It is adjacent to a great steelworkers yard, and large masses of men have to sign there. In the open air, in the middle of the cruel winter through which we have passed, they have had to stand there for a considerable time. They call it an exchange, but it would not be tolerated among well-to-do people for 10 minutes. I do not know how the staff have stood it so long. It is a tribute to their patience and almost, I should say, to their being afraid to voice their grievances. If they had been brave, they would have kicked up a row about it long before now, and I hope the Minister and the Under-Secretary will direct their attention to it immediately.
  I ask the Minister to give attention to this further point as to what is meant by the regulations about not genuinely seeking work, and to the question of the interviewing clerks. Applicants are interviewed by a clerk, sometimes by a woman clerk, all manner of questions are asked, and the applicants are asked to sign an alleged statement. We have often heard about third degree methods, and this statement is often got from the applicants by a series of trick questions. The interview ought to be abolished, and if courts of referees must exist, the applicants ought to go to those courts without the intervention of the interviewing clerk, who is like a detective interviewing an alleged criminal. There is the difference, however, that when a detective makes his report, he must go to the court and swear by it and be examined on it in public, but the interviewing clerk does not go to the court of referees to substantiate what he has written down. I know that this is not important. I am
  1958
  merely a Member from the south side of Glasgow talking about unemployment, but if it had been a question of Irish loyalists or pensions for diplomats, I should have got attention. I cannot get attention from the Minister and the only thing he can do is to walk out of the House. If an applicant for unemployment benefit did a thing like that, his livelihood would be cut off for not genuinely looking for a job, but because Ministers get £5,000 a year instead of 26s. a week, they are made knights and the other fellows are sent to the workhouse.
  Either the interviewing clerk ought to go to a court and substantiate the statement, or the statement ought not to be sent to the court at all. It is time that the Minister ceased to shelter behind the contention that the referees' court is a court. He ought either to make it a proper court or go back to the old local committees. I was the only member who believed in the local committees in preference to the court of referees, for I saw that this court would be a cruel machine for the suppression of the poor. That is what they have been. The chairmen appointed to the courts have been the worst possible type in almost every case, and they have been anxious not to improve the conditions of the poor, but to make the lives of the poorer section most intolerable. The Minister has walked away, and I hope that he will find courage and comfort from the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people without unemployment benefit. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) is present, and he knows that in Dundee to-night poor people are not getting the benefit they ought to be getting, and I leave that as a comfort for the Minister if he can find comfort in it. I would sooner occupy the position that I hold to-night than the Minister's exalted position, and rather be in my position than think that I was a part of the machine which deprives a single man or woman of unemployment benefit.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave the Minister of Labour notice that I would raise one or two matters as soon as the scandal of the Geneva Conference had been got rid of, and I do not want to disappoint him by keeping him here and not raising them. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr.

  1959
  Buchanan) on his excellent speech, from which I have learnt a great deal. On a previous occasion I criticised the hon. Member after he had left the House, but it turned out that he had an appointment, and I now take the opportunity of apologising to him. I want to put a point which concerns partly the Minister of Health and partly the Minister of Labour. That is the treatment by the guardians of men who ask for relief after they have been struck off the register for not genuinely seeking work and have appealed. The guardians give the men relief, but they make them do test work. While a man is doing test work he cannot look for another job. The scandalous part of it is that when his appeal is allowed, as is often the case, the guardians recover the relief, so that it means that the man's test work is work done for nothing. If that is not the worst form of slavery, I should like to know what is. It takes the heart out of a man and creates a burning sense of injustice. A few shillings may be saved by the guardians, but much more is lost by making men discontented. Knowing the conditions of the work at the docks, my wonder is that the men are so decent, patient, quiet and law-abiding. If I had to live the life of a casual labourer in the average shipping port, I should be a red-hot revolutionary instead of a constitutional evolutionary. I wish that the Minister of Labour would look into this matter with the Minister of Health, and see if this system cannot be abolished.
  I would like the Minister of Labour also to look into the system under which dock labourers have to suffer. There are over 8,000 of them in Hull and steady work for about 5,000. The Government keep this system of casualisation in spite of this condition and the Shaw Commission's report. It is a hopeless system, but at any rate the Minister of Labour ought to see that it works efficiently. As it works now, we actively discourage men from getting work, and in that way we ruin good men. The ordinary dock labourer, whom the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt come across in the course of his duties, is really a very fine chap indeed. Most of those whom I know are ex-service men, fine, big, husky fellows and not afraid of work. They have their
  1960
  faults, as all of us have, but they are deserving of decent treatment. They turn out in all weathers to do their work, and they are a most valuable part of the community. The trade of the country could not be carried on without them; we should starve in six weeks without the work of these men.
  This is what happens; this is the sort of thing which, if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place, I should set my officials to investigate and should investigate myself. We will say that tide time is eight o'clock in the morning and a ship is coming in. A large party of men go down to the docks to get work. One party is taken on at once, and go on board the ship as she is docking for the work of rigging her for unloading; because unloading has to be done as soon as possible, so that she can be turned round quickly and be off to sea again. The docking and rigging are probably finished by nine o'clock. Up to that time nobody knows how many additional men are required. At any moment, it may be three-quarters of an hour or an hour after the ship has docked, the foreman comes out to take on more men. Until that time, until he has consulted the mate, no one, not even he himself, knows just how many men will be wanted. The men care not go away, because they want the work. If they go to the Employment Exchange and sign at nine o'clock and then go back in the afternoon and sign they get a day's unemployment pay, whereas if they wait on in the hope of getting taken on and are not taken on, and if they are not at the Employment Exchange at 10 o'clock, they do not get unemployment pay, although they may have been waiting three hours in the cold to get a job.
  It is true that exchange boxes have been established on the docks themselves. That reform is a great improvement, and I take same little credit to myself for having brought it about; and I am glad that, as I understand, arrangements are to be made for these exchange boxes not to be closed on Friday afternoons. But the position remains that with a number of docks strung out all along the riverside a man who wants a job and, through waiting on in hope of it, does not go up to the Employment Exchange to sign, loses his unemployment pay.

  1961
  The way to get over this injustice is to do away with the requirement that men must sign twice a day. Let them sign once a day, like other casual workers. I know dozens of men personally who never sign and who never draw unemployment pay, although they only get their chance of jobs in turn with the rest of their fellows, because in the first place, it is such a nuisance to have to sign, and because they actually lose jobs under the present system. They would rather lose their unemployment pay in order to get a job when there is one going. Men of that type ought to be encouraged, but what we are doing encourages the weaker vessels, encourages idleness.
  Here is another matter. The right hon. Gentleman is looking forward to going away for a holiday when the House rises. I want him to think of the position of dock workers at holiday time. Probably there is no holiday for them at all. If a man is lucky he will get work during the holidays. If he is not, he signs at the Exchange the day after the holidays are over and can draw unemployment pay for the period of the holidays; but if he gets half-a-day's work on the day following the holidays he will lose all his unemployment pay for the period of the holiday. I want the right hon. Gentleman to look into that question before the Easter vacation, because this system obviously puts a premium on idleness. A man stands on the edge of the crowd and hopes the foreman will not see him, because if he has been unemployed during the holidays and can prove it—and mostly they can—he gets paid for the whole of the holidays. If he works half-a-day he loses the whole of that unemployment pay—for which he has paid his contribution, I may add.
  With regard to the other points raised, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries. I want him also to have inquiries made about the Employment Exchange in Hull where, I understand, there is still considerable congestion, with complaints of under-staffing. I do not make any charge against the manager or his officials, I believe they do their best, but they are understaffed; and when there is long-continued trade depression, as is the case at the present time, and a lot of
  1962
  men are waiting, we are bound to have congestion. The men want to get their money and get away as soon as they can to try to get a job. There are 16,000 men registered as unemployed in the city of Hull. If you cut out the fractional number of men who would rather draw a few shillings for doing nothing and allow their wives to go out to work, if you cut out those rotters, you will find that the great majority of men would far rather have work, even at the present low rates of wages offered in most instances, than undergo this horrible business of having to queue up at the Employment Exchanges. Such is the system which we have, and the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to see that it works smoothly. It is a hopeless, rotten system. While we have this casualisation we ought to encourage the industrious man who wants work and is a decent fellow, and make it easy for him to get work, and not penalise him. If we did that I believe that public opinion among these casual labourers would prevent the "scrimshanker" from abusing the scheme. That is what I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand. The idler, the shirker, the scrimshanker, would be exposed, and get public opinion against him if the system were just and fair; but if the system works badly, who can blame a man for what he does when he knows that if he takes half-a-day's work he will lose unemployment pay? It may make all the difference between his wife and family having enough to eat and his children going crying and hungry to bed. I would not blame the right hon. Gentleman himself if under those circumstances, he was not quick at seeking a job.
  These are the sort of things which the Minister of Labour ought to look into. In great questions of policy there are forces behind the right hon. Gentleman which he cannot resist. We heard earlier this afternoon how those forces had manipulated him at Geneva. I cannot blame him, because he is not a strong enough man to overcome them; but he can do a great deal in these small matters and when he lays down his office in May or June I want him, when looking back on his five years as Minister of Labour, to be able to say "In the last month, at any rate, I did remove some anomalies at the docks, and these poor ex-service

  1963
  men, who have this awful hellish life as casual labourers, can thank me for having removed these little injustices and made their path smoother." Cannot the right hon. Gentleman imagine the satisfaction he would have if he could say that? I hope he will mate the necessary inquiries.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) dealt with the complaint that employment exchanges so frequently turn down applicants on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work, and I want to offer some confirmation of his emphatic and sweeping condemnation of their methods. I did not really make anything like that condemnation. We discussed this question on a former occasion, and I had reason then to make my decision clear. I am confident that many of those people who are being refused benefits for this particular reason are not getting justice. I am satisfied that many of them are thoroughly genuine in their efforts to obtain work, but the difficulty of making a generalised statement is that when cases arise and are submitted for our personal consideration, in order to make representations to the management of the employment exchange I always find a readiness to enter into the matter, and where anything has gone amiss there has always been a ready response in the direction of a readjustment of the case. There are instances where a decision has been arrived at and where the management cannot intervene and it is in that connection that I feel that there is a difficulty arising because we cannot make our representations to the direct quarter.
  It is there that in some degree the criticisms which have been made are justified. I am strongly of the opinion that the phraseology "not genuinely seeking work" has caused great difficulty in the handling of such cases. So far as my own experience goes, I have never had any occasion to make anything like the deliverance which has just been made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I would like to say to the Minister and the Department which he represents that I think this great body of people are under a great disadvantage. They suffer severely all those awful experiences which go beyond any of those of us who have had a comparatively smooth walk through
  1964
  life when they are met with a decision which puts them into the actual attitude of not only being dissatisfied but so intensely dissatisfied that their feelings are likely to find expression in a way that is not legal. When we have a Government Department responsible in any way for the liability of such development, I submit it is a very serious matter for the responsible Minister.
  Another matter I wish to put before the Ministry of Labour is the great delay which takes place in the settlement of appeals would have to go before the insurance officer. I have submitted instances in regard to which I understand representations have been made concerning the roundabout system which keeps these people waiting for a settlement. I hope the further representations now being made will receive the requisite attention and will be attended by satisfactory results. As regards the question of the Eight Hours Convention, I think everybody concerned about the interests of the workers have had once more every reason, not only for disappointment, but strong reason for criticism of an effective character in that it should be the British Government that has been placed in such a humiliating position. When the representatives of other Governments, which we do not consider are so advanced as ourselves, have made such incisive criticisms upon our action, I am bound to say that I think the Minister of Labour must have felt his position very deeply. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has offered certain explanations, but I do not think on the whole they have been satisfactory.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will briefly answer some of the points which have been put to me. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) very kindly gave me notice of the point he was going to raise with regard to the dockers, and I can give the information. The question was also put before me by another representative for Hull. I am inquiring into the system of payment to dockers in Hull and my representative is down there, at this moment, and when he reports I shall be in a position to communicate to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull the result of his inquiry. As regards the hon. and

  1965
  gallant Member's gentle insinuation that the casual character of dock labour is being deliberately sustained, I would like to point out what happens in other districts. Attempts at de-casualisation have been made in other ports. They have been more successful in Liverpool, and to say that they have been deliberately sustained is quite contrary to the fact.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: De-casualisation has been carried on very largely in Hull and it is part of the general system of casualised labour. Until you get rid of the system you will always have this casualised labour.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards what has been said about the guardians and the pay for test work, I will draw the attention of the Minister of Health to that matter. With regard to the delays in dealing with appeals which occurred earlier in the year there was a great congestion of business, and I said at the time that by the appointment of an additional deputy to the Umpire we might be able to accelerate those appeals. That has been done. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) did not give me notice of the points he was going to raise, but I think the answer can be given very briefly. It is the old case of the district office in Glasgow as distinguished from Edinburgh. I think by having a district office in Edinburgh these matters have been working without any undue delay, but if the hon. Member for Gorbals has a sufficient number of cases of delays I hope he will put them before me and I will take them into consideration.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that people would be more satisfied if the notification of eases to the Court of Referees could be done from the Glasgow office as was done before under the 1923 Act.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not merely a question of being satisfied, or even a question of pride in having a district office in one's own particular town. The question of real importance is whether it acts with fairness and reasonable expedition. So far as I have made inquiries up to the present moment, those conditions are satisfied, and, at any rate, unless and until I get reasonably sufficient evidence that that is no linger the case, the present arrangement
  1966
  must stand. As regards the Courts of Referees, I am afraid that there would be no chance of satisfying the hon. Member in any circumstances. Formerly it was the use of the Ministerial discretion through the rota committees about which I had complaints from him and from others, individually and by organisations. The representation was made to me that there should be statutory courts—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to keep on interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I would ask him to read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in the last Debate, when he deliberately excluded me from that line of criticism. If the right hon. Gentleman would learn a little from his Parliamentary Secretary, it would help us all.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has been exceedingly polite in his correction, and perhaps I did not distinguish sufficiently between the various individual criticisms which reached me from the other side of the House. I am sorry that, in meeting the general wish expressed on that side, I have gone against the great love which the hon. Member must himself have had for the rota committees, but, on the whole, the generally expressed wish, both individually and collectively, on that side of the House and elsewhere, was for the present system of statutory courts. That wish having been expressed, the statutory courts have been set up, and I trust that they are doing their duty properly, as is indicated to be the case by all the information that I can gather. So far as the point about quoting Umpire's cases is concerned, I am afraid that, on the spur of the moment, I have not complete information, as the hon. Member did not give me notice, but, so far as I am aware, the chairman of the court of referees will always quote an Umpire's case which affects the case that is being considered by the court, and will be ready to tell it to the applicant, or, in case it should be suddenly produced, will be willing to adjourn the case where necessary. That, I understand, is the practice. The hon. Member has apparently met with exceptions, but, in the case of a particular exception, he ought to give me enough notice—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have given you official notice.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He has already been discussing the matter with my Department, and I trust that he will realise that his representations are being attended to. Those are all the points that I have gathered, and, if I have been brief in replying to them, I am sure that the hon. Members concerned, other than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, will realise that I have done so without any notice whatsoever as to the points that were going to be raised.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the Police Magistrates (Superannuation) Act, 1915, so far as it relates to Metropolitan police magistrates, and to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of such further amounts as may become payable by reason of such Amendment."—(King's Recommendation Signified.)
  9.0 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The object of this Financial Resolution, on which the Bill will be founded, is to try to fix the pension scale of Metropolitan police magistrates on a basis which will be a more appropriate to the fact that they are not appointed until they reach an age which, on the average, is about 52. At present, the Metropolitan police magistrates are entitled under various Acts, one of them dating back to 1859, to retire on attaining the age of 60 on a pension calculated at 15/60ths at the end of five years, and rising thereafter by sixtieths, so that at the end of 30 years' service they are entitled to a maximum pension of two-thirds of their salary. The Committee will realise that, as they cannot obtain their maximum pension until after 30 years of service, and as the age of compulsory retirement is 70 and the average age of appointment is 52, the
  1968
  average time that a magistrate serves towards his pension is only 18 years, which entitles him to less than half-pay. On the other hand, a county court judge can earn his maximum pension after 15 years' service. I think that most hon. Members of the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), who are acquainted with the work of the Metropolitan police magistrates, will know the very valuable work that they do—often very difficult work, done under difficult circumstances—and the very high esteem and affection in which they are held by the public in London.
  Mr. MAXTON: And by the criminal population!
  Sir V. HENDERSON: Even that is a compliment. I think that the prospect of being compelled to retire on a pension which is really not the pension that they were intended to receive is not conducive to efficient work, and is not fair to the magistrates themselves. The Committee will also, perhaps, appreciate the difficulty of the situation when I tell them that no fewer than 10 magistrates appointed between the years 1907 and 1922 have died while actually in office, and that their average period of office was only between seven and eight years.
  Mr. KELLY: Does not previous service in another capacity count?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir. It is proposed in this Resolution that there shall be an annual increase of pension from the eleventh year onwards, rising by 2–60ths annually instead of 1–60th, so that they will be entitled to their maximum pension after 20 years' service instead of after 30 years, which will enable the magistrate appointed under normal circumstances to obtain his maximum pension before he retires.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what the salary is?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: It is £1,500 a year. It is not proposed to alter the age for compulsory retirement, which is 70, but, in view of the improved pension scale, it is proposed that, in the case of magistrates appointed after the 1st January, 1929, the age for voluntary retirement should be extended from 60, as

  1969
  it is at present, to 65. So far as the cost to the Treasury is concerned, it falls on the Consolidation Fund, and to begin with, there will be a decrease in cost owing to the fact that we are raising the age for voluntary retirement. Eventually the additional cost to the Treasury will be about £1,500 a year, but that will not come into full force for a good many years to come.
  Mr. T. SHAW: After having heard the explanation of the Under-Secretary, I think I can advise my friends behind me not to contest this Resolution, because the Bill will have to be presented, and anything that we have to say in the way of criticism, or any action that we need take in the way of voting, can be deferred until we see the actual Bill itself. It would be premature to vote against the Resolution until we know exactly what it amounts to in the shape of a Bill. When we see the Bill, we shall be better able to judge whether it is worthy of support, of criticism, or of an adverse; vote. Consequently, I advise my friends not to take the matter any further now, but simply to let the Resolution go through on the understanding that our full rights of criticism and action will be reserved to us when the Bill is presented.
  Mr. MAXTON: I agree that my right hon. Friend is probably doing the correct thing in reserving the rights of the Opposition to a further stage of this matter, but I think it would not be out of place for a back-bencher to make a few observations on the position. I have remarked before on the indecent haste with which the Conservative Government are rushing into the House with proposals to put largesse into the hands of persons who are in a fairly comfortable position in society. I have had to call attention to their action with reference to retired diplomats, and others of my hon. Friends have referred to the question of Colonial Governors. There was also the question of the Southern loyalists, and now this is piling on another one. The hon. Gentleman, in reply to an interrogation, said the salary of these persons was £1,500 a year. I have worked out a simple sum in arithmetic, and I find that £1,500 will pay an old-age pensioner's pension for 57 years. The average member of the working class, a skilled engineer or a house-builder, or a worker in the textile trades,
  1970
  if he could count on a secure annual salary of £300 a year would think he was in paradise.
  I want my hon. Friends to know that, while we were discussing problems affecting unemployed, men and women, whose allowance is 17s. for fully-grown men, the total strength of the great Conservative party was three. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has come in since then, and has presumably brought some of the more faithful sheep along with him. There are not many now, but there were only three, all on the Front Bench, for an hour and a half while the problems of the Ministry of Labour were being discussed. Now they have swollen to about 400 per cent. over that position. They are now 12, because the question under discussion is the superannuation of police magistrates with a salary of £1,500 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less Income Tax!"] Yes, but remember the wages I was talking about and the old age pension are less Tea Tax, Sugar Tax and Tobacco Tax, and there is more left out of £1,500 after Income Tax is deducted than out of 10s. after Tea, Sugar and Tobacco Tax are deducted. The argument for making special concessions here is that these men only start at the average age of 52. As far as I know, there is no special reason why we should appoint elderly men to these jobs.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: A stipendiary magistrate cannot he appointed unless he is a qualified barrister of, I think, five or seven years' standing.
  Mr. MAXTON: That is quite legitamate. That puts the age for starting at about 26 or 27. A man can be called to the Bar when he is 21, and five years of experience after that only makes him 26. What has he been doing—wasting his time leading a riotous life, till 52, and then he becomes a stipendiary magistrate in his old age, and says, "Employ me and pay me £1,500 a year on this job." [AN HON. MEMBER: "Less Income Tax!"] The Tory party has absolutely no idea in its mind beyond Income Tax. Its whole conception of government and statesmanship revolves round that. I am here representing the workers, a big proportion of whom, if they ever paid Income Tax, have ceased to pay it under the Tory Government's administration. When the Government came into office,

  1971
  there was a fair proportion of manual workers paying Income Tax. Practically none of them have an income high enough to enable the State to call upon them to pay tax. I ask hon. Members opposite to examine their wage statistics.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep this digression from the point a little shorter.
  Mr. MAXTON: I accept your Ruling, Sir, but I think you will agree with me that an interruption from the Front Bench calls for a greater digression than from a mere back bencher. This magistrate takes on this job at 52 years of age and he is only entitled to a five-sixteenth pension at the beginning.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: After five years' service.
  Mr. MAXTON: He is entitled to a quarter of his salary after five years' service. When the diplomats' pensions were brought in, the justification for singling that lot out for special treatment was that their position was anomalous. I am suggesting that you are creating an anomalous position here. The ordinary standard position for the pensioning of the public services is that forty-eightieths is the proportion for a man after 40 years' service. He starts with nothing, and he has to serve 40 years before he becomes entitled to a pension. Here you are entitling a man to pension after five years, for only a quarter of his salary I admit, but a quarter of £1,500 is a lot of money—some £375. At the expiry of 10 years more, he is to be entitled to two-thirds of £1,500—£1,000 a year. That is after only about 15 years of public service in a job which is not onerous.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate in that statement, and it shows the wisdom of what the right hon. Gentleman said. We are not saying that a magistrate can retire after five years because he becomes entitled to a pension on the basis of 15/60ths after five years' service. He cannot retire. There is a minimum age for retirement for all services, and it is not after five years' service in this case. I think that in this case the minimum age is 60. I am speaking from memory, as I have not the details in front of me.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not want, with insufficient information, to detain the Committee in discussing points, and I do not want to be unfair to the men concerned, but I certainly want to raise now a line of criticism that I propose to continue at a later stage. In the interval I shall take the trouble to inform myself very accurately about the position. I know in every other branch of the public service that if a public employé who is entitled to pension has had two or three years of service, has to withdraw from the service or the account of ill-health—
  Sir V. HENDERSON: That is another matter.
  Mr. MAXTON: I shall want to know, when this matter becomes the subject of discussion, at what age these men become liable to breakdown pensions? My major criticism is that there are huge proportions of the population of this country suffering from serious privation at the present time. The Government, after a full 4½ years of power, have made absolutely no impression upon reducing that privation in any direction whatever. In most directions the privation has been intensified. They have been unwilling or unable to relieve the burden of the suffering masses. They are going to the country very shortly. They are not expecting to be returned to Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] It is no good one Back Bencher trying to interrupt.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This digression is not in order.
  Mr. MAXTON: It is a pity that this is the last Conservative Government, because I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be included in the next Conservative Government. There are a lot of things to be cleared up. They are going out. There are only a few weeks left of effective office, and I would ask them to consider whether they cannot withdraw this proposal altogether, and whether what spare money they have in the coffers and what spare intelligence they have in the Cabinet could not be directed towards relieving the wants of those suffering far more than those who, I am perfectly certain, are going to be pretty well off.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to speak on the main line of argument which has

  1973
  been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) We have before now taken exception to the Government adopting this plan of adjusting anomalies concerning pensions appertaining to those who are in a remarkably well established financial position. My view is that as the Government have time to take matters of this kind in hand, there is very good reason for maintaining that they ought to tackle an adjustment of the outstanding anomalies under the Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions Act. This matter has been urged upon the Government on several occasions. There is not the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to tackle this remarkable Measure, which leaves out so many of the widows and even discontinues pensions in regard to many of those who had already been receiving them. The Government intend to produce a Measure in regard to the pensions of magistrates which will be in striking contrast to their attitude towards many widows in the country who are expressing grave dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Government. The whole trend of the Tory Government regarding pensions is to provide substantial pensions for those who are least in need of them. The proposals which have already gone through have given grave dissatisfaction to multitudes of our people. My view is that the first thing to be done should be to adjust the anomalies affecting those who are most in need of pensions.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask two questions about the Motion concerning these magistrates. First of all, is this a whole-time job, and, secondly, can a magistrate for his own private purposes alter the times of the sittings of his court? Can he say: "Instead of meeting at 11 o'clock to-morrow we will meet at 1 o'clock," and so put everyone to inconvenience. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know why I ask this presently. What redress is there if that kind of thing is done? Is the discipline of these learned gentlement under the Home Secretary or is it under the Lord Chief Justic or the Lord Chancellor?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. and gallant Member is asking questions which I cannot allow
  1974
  to be answered on this particular Motion.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thing that my first two questions are in order—first, whether it is a whole-time job, and, secondly, whether the recognised hours of the courts are to be kept;
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Questions relating to procedure in Court cannot be raised on this Motion.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not making a criticism of judicial functions. I think that on a question of superannuation I am entitled to ask those two questions, but I do not propose to ask the third question.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is that it is a whole-time job. If I may correct a statement, which was not quite accurate, in the course of an interruption of an hon. Member on the back bench, the age at present below which a magistrate cannot retire is 60. We propose to raise it to a minimum of 65, so that he could not become qualified for a pension even if he wished to until he was 65. The question of breakdown is another matter altogether. I do not think this Bill touches the question of retirement on medical certificate. It does not affect the normal position, which is a minimum of 10 years, I think. It is outside the provisions of the Bill altogether.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reply as to the fixed hour for sittings of the Court?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The Court is bound to be open every day by Statute except on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What happens if a magistrate comes two hours late and keeps everybody waiting?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: That has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Gentleman says it is a whole-time job, but how many hours of work is a full-time job and how many days per week?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: There is a great deal of sickness among magistrates, and I really could not carry in my head the

  1975
  answer to that question. There is a Departmental Committee at present sitting, of which I am a member, appointed by the Home Secretary to consider the whole question of the conditions under which the work of the Metropolitan Police Courts are carried on, and this question of the hours which magistrates give to their work is being considered amongst other things in relation to the number of magistrates which, it will be remembered, was increased last year. I think on the average they sit four or five days a week, which for work of that kind is a good deal, because a certain amount of the work has to be done out of Court.
  Mr. KELLY: I want to offer a protest against this determination on the part of the Government in regard to their higher paid servants, while they neglect to deal with the pensions of the lower paid. We have tried time after time to secure pensions for those who have worked 20, 30 or even 50 years in the service of the Government in various establishments, and on each occasion we are refused, because they say they cannot afford it. The curious thing is that when the higher paid come along, the Government seem to be able to look after them.
  Mr. HAYES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the compulsory age for retirement, as magistrates can get too old for their jobs?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: 70 years.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we pass from this subject, I do not want to give an impression that I have tried by a side-wind to criticise any Metropolitan magistrate. I have never been before a magistrate in London, and I do not want to suggest that they do not come at the proper time, but we have had complaints in the provinces.
  Mr. BATEY: I want to join my colleagues in a protest against the action of the Government. The object of this Motion is not only to amend the Police Magistrates (Superannuation) Act by increasing the retiring age from 60 to 65, but it also increases the pension. If that be so, I wish to make a most emphatic protest because this seems to be
  1976
  a part of the policy of the Government. They have increased the pensions of all their friends. First, they came to this House and got increased pensions for the Diplomatic Service, then for the Judicial Committee and the Appeal Lords and that was not sufficient, for they came back and got increased pensions for Dominion Governors. That only seemed to whet their appetites, and, having finished with their friends abroad, they now turn to their friends at home. They are making sure of their friends, because all police magistrates are friends of the Government.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order!
  Mr. BATEY: I will withdraw that. I think it is a little bit unfair and I will withdraw it, but they are increasing the pensions. Where are the Government going to stop? They are a dying Government and when death readies them we will sing the Doxology. Before they die, we shall find them giving increased pensions to someone else. They forget that the Minister of Health told the House only last Tuesday that there had been 62,416 applications for widows' pensions which had been turned down. If the Government wanted to get into the good books of the country, they should have turned their attention to those widows who applied for a mere 10s. a week, rather than to increased pensions for already well-to-do officials. I protest, and when this Bill comes in we will have an opportunity of fighting it, and saying to the country that if it is a question of increasing pensions, we prefer to give pensions to the poor rather than to already well-to-do officials.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) [CONSOLIDATED FUND].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (LOANS, DISTRESSED AREAS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (LOANS, DISTRESSED AREAS).
  SMALLPOX (LONDON).
  SMALLPOX (LONDON).
SCOTLAND.
  BATING AND VALUATION (ONE-MAN BUSINESSES).
  BATING AND VALUATION (ONE-MAN BUSINESSES).
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SKYE.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SKYE.
  SUMMER STEAMBOAT SERVICE LOCHGOILHEAD.
  SUMMER STEAMBOAT SERVICE LOCHGOILHEAD.
  DEPARTMENTAL TYPISTS, EDINBURGH.
  DEPARTMENTAL TYPISTS, EDINBURGH.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CLERKS, HULL.
  CLERKS, HULL.
  COURT OF REFEREES, WESTHOUGHTON.
  COURT OF REFEREES, WESTHOUGHTON.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  PORT TALBOT.
  PORT TALBOT.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
POST OFFICE.
  CHANNEL ISLANDS (TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION).
  CHANNEL ISLANDS (TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION).
  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS, ISLE OF MAN.
  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS, ISLE OF MAN.
  LORRIES (BRITISH MANUFACTURE).
  LORRIES (BRITISH MANUFACTURE).
  ISLE OF MAN (TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION).
  ISLE OF MAN (TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION).
  TYPEWRITERS (FOREIGN).
  TYPEWRITERS (FOREIGN).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (DRINKING WATER SUPPLY).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (DRINKING WATER SUPPLY).
  TRANSPORT (HAW LANE, BLEDLOW RIDGE).
  TRANSPORT (HAW LANE, BLEDLOW RIDGE).
  INCOME TAX (COMPANIES' UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS).
  INCOME TAX (COMPANIES' UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS).
  WAR LOAN ACCOUNTS.
  WAR LOAN ACCOUNTS.
  TAXATION (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  TAXATION (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) ACT.
  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) ACT.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (ACCIDENTS TO WORKPEOPLE).
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (ACCIDENTS TO WORKPEOPLE).
  PETROL PRICES.
  PETROL PRICES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, whether he has any further statement to make on the course of public business.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am under the deplorable necessity of asking your Lordships to sit on Monday if you will be so very kind. I do not think it is asking too much, considering the time of year and the near approach of Easter. We hope to take on Monday the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, Committee stage. I understand that it is not seriously in controversy. I would hope to take the Third Reading on Tuesday; if there were Amendments, the Third Reading might have to be taken on Wednesday. Secondly, the Third Reading of the Gas Undertakings Bill has still to be got through, and I think we might take that on Monday. Then there is the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Bill, which is just about to be presented to your Lordships. I understand that there really is no objection to this Bill, but, if there were objection, I should perhaps have to take a different course. Your Lordships will be able to judge when you see the Bill whether there is an objection to it or not. It would not be in order for me to describe it at this moment, but I think it will be found that the only objection to it from the point of view of noble Lords opposite is that it does not go quite far enough; but that is an objection they often have to urge.
LORD PARMOOR: I shall say nothing about that till we have seen the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then there are the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Local
780
Government Bill. I do not imagine there will be very much for your Lordships to deal with at that particular stage of the inter-Parliamentary proceedings, but there may be one or two Amendments with which the Commons are not satisfied, and which may come back to your Lordships. I hope you will allow the Government to take it on Monday in order to give additional time, so that the Bill may be ready, in all possible eventualities, for the Royal Commission which is to be on Wednesday. If there were any more discussion between the two Houses then we should want another day. I have Tuesday still in hand. I hope your Lordships will be good enough to allow us to take that stage of the Local Government Bill on Monday.
I think I said yesterday that we had to have a morning sitting on Wednesday. The usual practice of your Lordships' House is to begin the morning sitting at twelve o'clock. If noble Lords wish to begin earlier perhaps they will be good enough to let me know. Then, we think that the Royal Commission might be at three o'clock, or, if it appears during the proceedings on Tuesday that it is likely that the Wednesday proceedings will be very short, perhaps we might advance the Royal Commission.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Marquess has been good enough to ask for an expression of opinion from me, and I would say that the course of business which he has suggested is one which is eminently reasonable. There is no reason at all why we should not meet on Monday. At this stage of the Session it is a very proper thing for your Lordships to do. Only two remarks would I make. I am not quite sure about the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill not needing some little discussion, but that is no reason why it should not be put down for Tuesday. If there is any discussion I am sure noble friends of mine will be prepared to fall in with the suggestion to take it on Monday. With regard to our meeting on Wednesday, I think what generally governs our proceedings is the hour of meeting in another place. If there is to be a Royal Commission here members in another place will not like being kept waiting if we meet later.

781
Therefore it is generally thought convenient that we should meet at the same time as the other House, whether that be at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock, because it prevents their being kept waiting. I think that generally governs our proceedings.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is entirely for your Lordships. The Government would be quite willing to meet at 11 o'clock on Wednesday if that were more convenient. The Commons are a little longer sometimes in their proceedings than we are.
LORD PARMOOR: We shall certainly raise no objection. The earlier we meet on Wednesday the better it would be, I think.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We will say 11 o'clock then.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of March 19.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons—namely,
"That it is expedient that the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Moved, That it is expedient, that the said Committee be the Joint Committee on Railway (Air Transport) Bills.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Power of Board of Trade to make orders increasing authorised amount of share capital or of loans.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) imposing a limit on the amount of share capital which may be raised or of money which may be borrowed by undertakers, not being a local authority, for the purposes of their undertaking, the Board of Trade may, on the application of any such undertakers and subject to the provisions of this section, by order authorise the undertakers on such conditions as may be specified in the order for the purposes of their undertaking—

(a) to raise, at any time during the period of three years after the date on which the order comes into operation, any such amount of share capital as may be specified in the order; and

(b) to borrow on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock any amount not exceeding the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital of the undertaking for the time being and of any premiums paid in respect thereof.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert "Provided that any money so borrowed either on mortgage or by the issue of debenture stock, shall (except in any case in which it has expressly been otherwise provided by a Local or Private Act) rank after any existing mortgage or debenture stock." The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 1 of this Bill empowers the Board of Trade to allow a gas company to borrow, on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock, any amount not exceeding the aggregate amount of the paid-up share capital of the undertaking. That, my Lords, as I presume you all know, is very much in excess of the ordinary power given to companies. Clause 2 of this Bill begins with these words:
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, undertakers, not being a local authority, may borrow for the purposes of their undertaking on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock any amount not exceeding one half …"
Your Lordships will see therefore that, while Clause 2 says that an amount not exceeding one half the ordinary capital

783
may be borrowed, Clause 1 says that, notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) an amount may be borrowed to the extent of the whole of the share capital. That is to say, the amount which may be borrowed is doubled. The object of my Amendment is to make it clear that, if I have borrowed money from my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury on a certain security, I shall not borrow more money from my noble friend Lord Cushendun on the same security. I think that is a simple proposition, and one which ought to commend itself to your Lordships.
When I moved the Amendment in a different form on the Committee stage my noble friend the Earl of Lucan informed me that there were already in certain Private Acts certain provisions which my Amendment, in the form in which it then was, would alter. That was not my intention in any way, and accordingly I have drawn my Amendment in a different form. On the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he thought that under two decisions which had been given, and which he quoted—I think I am representing him correctly—my Amendment was unnecessary. He thought so, but he was not sure. My noble and learned friend Lord Danesfort afterwards looked at these decisions—he appeared, it seems, in one of these cases—and he does not quite hold that view. He does not think that they apply. Whether they apply or not, I would ask your Lordships whether it is not far better in the interests, not only of a gas company but of all other undertakings of the kind, that this matter should be quite clear. I think it is evident that if there is any doubt people will not invest their money in the debenture stock of gas undertakings, because they will not be sure whether or not the stock can be watered after they have bought it. It is no use saying that we think that under certain decisions this cannot take place. We all know that, if there is a gentleman learned in the law and he makes an assertion, it is at least a hundred to one that another gentleman learned in the law will say that he is quite wrong and will pronounce a different opinion. I have heard this over and over again.
I cannot see that there is any harm in putting a clause in this Bill to lay
784
down quite clearly an honest provision that, where a person has borrowed money on a certain security, he must not borrow more money on the same security from somebody else. I was thinking of buying a little gas debenture stock, as I happen by frugal living to have a little money to invest, but I certainly shall not do it if there is going to be any doubt. I do not want to have to go to law about the matter. I would far rather buy something else. It is really in the interests of the gas companies themselves that this should be made clear. I should like to add that I have in my pocket a letter from a noble Lord learned in the law, a member of your Lordships' House, who regrets that he cannot be here to-day to support me. I hope that I have made the matter clear, and that my noble friend Lord Lucan will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say just one word in support of the noble Lord opposite. I will not go into the difficult questions of law, for perhaps I may be one of those who are apt to differ from other opinions, but it is certainly advantageous that the matter should be made quite clear, and I think the noble Lord is quite right in wishing to make it clear upon the face of the Bill that these new debentures should rank after any existing mortgage or debenture stock. This will be of advantage not only to investors, but to the gas companies themselves. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I rise to support as heartily as I can in a very few words the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam I do so for this reason. The object of the Amendment is to carry out the admitted desire and intention of all parties, and to make the matter clear on the face of the Bill. When this matter was before us in Committee, the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was good enough to refer us to two cases that had been decided, one, I think, in the Court of Appeal, and the other in your Lordships' House. At any rate, they were authoritative decisions. I examined

785
these cases with such care as I could give them, and the conclusion that I drew from them—I hope I shall not be at variance with the Lord Chancellor, whose authority is supreme—was that no principle was laid down in either of them which would govern a case such as this. In both cases the decision of the Court turned upon the language of the particular actions which were under consideration, and certainly I can discover no general principle that would govern a case of this sort. If that be so, or even if there be a doubt about it, is it not far better to put into the Bill words which will make the point quite clear?
As my noble friend Lord Banbury has said, it is in the interest of the companies themselves to know what they are authorised to do. It is in their interest to be able to state, when they publish a prospectus asking for more borrowed capital, exactly what they are allowed to do. If the Bill goes forward in its present form the companies might misconstrue the Act and issue a prospectus saying, on the one hand, that the new borrowed capital ranked pari passu with the old, in which case they would probably have an action for an injunction against them by the holders of the old borrowed capital; while, on the other hand, if they sail in their prospectus that the new borrowed capital ranked pari passu with the old borrowed capital, and it then turned out that it ranked subsequent, the persons who lent the new capital would probably be able to set aside their agreement. People would be able to say: "This is not what we bargained for; we were told that we were going to get security which ranked pari passu with the old mortgage and debenture stock, and we are not getting it." There is, at any rate, a possibility of litigation in this matter unless the point is made clear now. Accordingly I venture to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment, which can do harm to no one and which will make it clear what, is really authorised by this Bill.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I do not like to disagree with my noble friend Lord Banbury on a question of this sort, which is a Stock Exchange matter, but I would suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friend that really the whole thing turns upon the
786
terms of the prospectus. An undertaking can borrow, according to this clause, an amount up to the total paid-up share capital. When it issues a prospectus, it will have to state exactly what the position of the mortgage is, whether it is liable to be watered, as my noble friend said, or whether it is a first charge on the undertaking. I do not think it matters what is in the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That does not touch the people who have already lent money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lucan to deal with this point, which is a matter of law, and simply of law. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said that the proposition that it embodied was that, when a borrower had borrowed from one person on a security, he must not borrow from another person on the same security. That is a proposition of law which I do not think any one of your Lordships would be disposed to quarrel with, but I should like to assure your Lordships and the noble Lord that it is wholly unnecessary to pass this Amendment in order to produce that effect; and further I hope to be able to satisfy him and your Lordships that this Amendment would go a great deal further than he at present appreciates. I explained the position on the Committee stage, and I will explain it again now, after it has been more carefully examined.
This clause is the clause which deals with the borrowing powers of an undertaking. It has nothing in the wide world to do with the priority of mortgages or of debenture issues inter se. It extends borrowing powers, but it says nothing whatever as to the priority of moneys borrowed. It has been clearly settled by the authority of this House that, when there are successive Acts of Parliament giving borrowing powers one after the other to a public undertaking, the fact that a subsequent Act of Parliament gives further borrowing powers has no effect at all upon the security of those who have lent under the powers first conferred. The case which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Danesfort, referred to last, time was a ease decided in the Court of Appeal by Sir George Jessel and others, which came to this House and

787
was expressly confirmed in this House on the ground laid down in the judgment of Sir George Jessel. I do not agree that there was no principle laid down. The case was one which dealt with the priorities of a series of issues of debentures under a succession of Acts of Parliament and the priorities of the debenture holders inter se, and the principle on which Sir George Jessel decided the case, and on which he said the later Acts of Parliament did not in any way affect the priorities of the earlier debenture holders was this:—
"The argument appears to me to be without answer that the vested rights of persons acquired before the passing of the Act who either bought debenture stock or lent money on mortgage are not interfered with by the Legislature without compensation, and it requires the strongest and clearest words in an Act of Parliament before you are entitled so to interpret it as to deprive people of their property without compensation."
Applying that principle, he held that there was no interference with the priority conferred by the earlier Act.
The only difference in principle between that case and the present one that I can see is that one is a railway company and the other is a gas undertaking and I do not think that that makes any difference at all. That being so the noble Lord said that there might be difficulties if gas companies came to issue a prospectus. My Lords, a gas company could not issue a prospectus which proclaimed that debentures which were issued under an Order made under this Act were to rank pari passu with moneys borrowed under their previous debentures, if their previous powers had allowed them to borrow on such terms as to create a prior charge in favour of the old debenture holders. Supposing a company issued to the public a debenture stock charged upon the same security as their existing debenture stock, nothing in this Bill will allow them to interfere with the rights which they have so conferred upon the earlier debenture holders.
The noble Lord said: "Then why not make it plain and put it in the Bill." In the first place it is plain. I do not think a competent lawyer who studied this could possibly doubt that the law is as I have stated, and is as it is declared to be. But, in fact, the effect of putting in as a substantive enactment
788
something which is perfectly apparent without that enactment is to create confusion in the law, because any Court, trying to construe an Act of Parliament endeavours to arrive at its meaning, and would be likely to arrive at a conclusion that plain words did not mean what they appeared to say, and I can see that if the proviso suggested were put in at the end of Clause 1 the effect would be this: In Clause 2 there is no such proviso, and since in Clause 1 there is power to raise further capital, subject to this proviso, while in Clause 2 you also have power of increased borrowing without such a proviso, the Court would be disposed to hold that in the last case it was intended that you should be able to interfere with the rights of existing debenture holders. That, I am sure, is a right which the noble Lord does not wish to obtain.
There is another difficulty. In the Amendment he has suggested words which, I pointed out, would affect the rights of persons interested under any Local or Private Act. Although I gave that illustration, it was not an exhaustive definition. There are a number of gas companies who act under the Companies Act, and whose powers of borrowing are contained in their Memorandum and Articles of Association. If this proviso were carried in its present form it would interfere with the right which they have of issuing further debentures. I know the noble Lord does not intend to do that, but I mention it to show that his proviso goes further than he intended, and effects an alteration in the law which he does not desire. I hope, in the circumstances, he will realise that the position is, as I have stated, reasonably plain, and that he will not introduce an Amendment which might create confusion and work injustice.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? I understood him to say that in the judgment quoted it was said that the Act was not retrospective, and therefore, as it was not retrospective, no harm could be done. What I want to ask the noble and learned Lord is the meaning of these words: "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment." Is not that retrospective? If those words were not in I should not have had much doubt, but they seem to me to be retrospective,

789
and I would be much obliged if the noble and learned Lord would deal with that matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only speak again with the indulgence of the House. There was nothing in the case that I cited which referred to retrospective legislation or the word "retrospective" at all. The actual words that I read were:—
"The argument appears to me to be without answer that the vested rights of persons acquired before the passing of the Act who either bought debenture stock or lent money on mortgage are not interfered with by the Legislature without compensation, and it requires the strongest and clearest words in an Act of Parliament before you are entitled so to interpret it as to deprive people of their property without compensation."
There is nothing about "retrospective" at all. The point of the judgment was that where you had an Act of Parliament which conferred borrowing powers upon a company, and a subsequent Act which conferred further powers, you were not to read the second Act as conferring rights which interfered with the rights conferred by the previous Act. All this section does is not to interfere with priorities but to increase the amount of borrowing power. It does not affect the rights of a person who has lent money upon a specific security to have that security uninterfered with by borrowing under any subsequent Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think we are agreed upon what ought to be done and are only disagreed upon the method. As the Lord Chancellor's legal experience is very much greater than mine I bow to his superior wisdom and will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING,THE MARQUESS OF READING, on behalf of Lord Melchett, moved alter Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
Extension of powers of purchase of residual products.
" .—(1) Any undertakers may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act or Order relating to them, purchase in such quantities as they think fit from any company, body or person carrying on a gas undertaking (whether with or without statutory authority) or operating coke ovens or carrying on any process of carbonisation or gasification of coal or coke any residuals arising from the
790
manufacture of gas, or the carrying on of any such operation or process and products arising from a primary treatment of those residuals by such company, body or person, and may exercise in relation to residuals or products so purchased the powers which would have been exerciseable by them if such residuals or products had arisen in carrying on their gas undertaking in accordance with their statutory powers.
(2) The powers conferred by this section shall be its addition to and not in derogation of any powers conferred or to be conferred upon the undertakers by any special Act."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment gives rise to no disagreement. All the parties interested are agreed. It provides for the extension of powers of purchase of residual products, and I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment as it is on the Paper. Therefore, unless your Lordships desire it I will not take up more time.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14 at end, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it is as the noble Marquess has said. The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, which we understand has been reached by agreement between the National Gas Council and the chemical industries. Therefore they will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Supply of gas by undertakers to premises outside limits of supply.
4.—(1) The Board of Trade, if they are satisfied that the owner or occupier of any premises, not being within a distance of twenty-five yards from any main of the undertakers within whose limits of supply the premises are situate, desires to obtain a supply of gas from other undertakers, may, subject to the provisions of this section, by order authorise the last mentioned undertakers to supply gas to those premises on such conditions as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under this section may contain such modifications of any enactment applying to the undertakers in respect of whom the order is made as, in the opinion, of the Board, are necessary in order to give full effect to the order.
(3) An order shall not (unless, in the opinion of the Board, consent is unreasonably withheld) be wade except with the consent of the undertakers within whose limits of supply the premises are situate and of the local authority within whose area the premises are situate.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to the clause the following new subsection—
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, every order thereunder in respect of any undertakers shall be framed so as to secure that the provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, with respect to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes shall apply in relation to pipes for the supply of gas by the undertakers under the order as they apply in relation to pipes for the supply of gas by the undertakers under the enactments applying to them before the making of the order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is brought forward by the Government after negotiation and agreement with the railway companies, who rather feared that the Board of Trade might, under subsection (2) of this clause, modify the usual provisions as to the breaking up of roads. The Government appreciate the point of view of the railway companies and have tabled this Amendment in consequence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SAFEGUARDING.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, made by Earl Beauchamp on Wednesday, February 20, to resolve, That the available figures relating to the articles which have been given a duty under the Safeguarding White Paper procedure show that Safeguarding is a failure.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, this debate has been adjourned for some considerable time. It is, I think, about four weeks since we broke off our discussion. At that time I think there was some slight complaint and criticism of the narrowness of the front on which the noble Earl had attacked. It was complained that in his Resolution he alluded strictly and technically to the Safeguarding Duties so called, and did not call in aid certain other Duties which are certainly protective in character but which, from the wording of the Motion, were excluded. It was felt by some, I think, that it was hardly fair to attack the Government on Safeguarding Duties, and not give an opportunity of calling in aid other Duties which, not technically Safeguarding, had the same effect.
792
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, rather expressed a desire that we should disregard technicalities and take Duties for what they effected and not for what they were called. I am willing and ready to accept that position. But if it is accepted, I think you have to go a little further and enquire into the cause of variation in prices—what goes to make up a rise or a fall in prices. And in such an inquiry you must not look at the matter solely from the point of view of one of the elements only; but in discussing the rise and fall of prices you must look at all the elements. In support of that argument, which I think will be accepted by all, I will call in aid the arguments used in the case of the lace industry. It was urged in that connection that though it was true that the lace industry had been somewhat depressed, despite the Safeguarding Duties, yet the reason for that depression was not the Duties but the change in fashion: there was not likely to be such a demand for lace because ladies were not wearing it so much as they used. It was also contended that in addition to the change of fashion the changes which affected prices ought also to be taken into consideration.
There were also representations that when you consider the fiscal policy of the Government it is obvious that you ought to consider the case of motor cars and of silk, two large and important articles of trade which had been given tariff protection, though under different Acts of Parliament. In regard to motor cars, it is common knowledge that they received their protection under the McKenna Duties. I will not delay your Lordships by discussing the origin of those McKenna Duties or the general agreement, I think, when they were imposed that they were for war time only. They have remained. They have a protective effect, and the motor industry has undoubtedly flourished during the years since those Duties were imposed and up to the present time. If you can use the argument with regard to lace and point out that it is fashion that has changed the development of that trade and delayed it, surely we on this side are fully entitled to use the same arguments, mutatis mutandis of course, with regard to motor cars, or silk stockings, or artificial silk generally. We claim that the imposition of a Duty necessarily

793
tends to increase the cost of the article on which it is imposed.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, draws a distinction between what I call Protective Duties and Duties for revenue purposes. In his speech he contended that, while undoubtedly a Duty upon a commodity which is not produced in this country would increase the cost of that article it would not raise it to the full amount of the Duty. He claimed that Safeguarding did not refer to such produce at all, but only to goods which could be produced in this country to the full extent of our requirements and it was difficult to see how Import Duties could affect the price of such goods except when the Duties were first put on. He made no distinction in the case of Protective Duties that the increase is not invariable, but depends largely if not entirely upon the amount of competition by articles made in this country. I should like to deal with that point at once. We urge that a Duty placed upon an import in this country, whether it is competed with by manufacturers or producers in this country or not, has a tendency to increase the cost of the article to the consumer almost invariably, however small, or however great, the production in this country may be.
In proof of that I would instance a case which was common in the pre-War controversies of 1904, 1905, 1906, and onwards. I would take the case of the production of wheat by Germany. In Germany year by year the production of wheat varied. In some years the production was adequate for the consumption of the German people at that time. In those years obviously no wheat was imported. But seasons vary. In certain years the total production of wheat in Germany was not adequate to meet the requirements of the German people, and there was an importation varying according to the shortage. Sometimes it was as low as 5 per cent. of the total consumption, and sometimes it rose to round about 20 per cent. It was discovered in Germany—I think I am right in saying this as my recollection goes back to those days—that where there was even a small deficiency in the wheat crop the tariff imposed upon imported wheat raised the price of that wheat by the amount of the tariff, and by a small amount more because of the difficulties
794
and complications involved in collecting the tariff. You cannot have an economic theory, I submit, which applies to the importation of wheat and does not apply to the importation of hollow-ware goods, gas mantles, or motor cars. If part of your supply is drawn from foreign countries and that part is taxed, however small the part which is imported, the price of the article, other things remaining equal, will rise by the amount of the tariff.
Now I submit that that is not an economic theory, but it can be reasonably proved by a very simple argument indeed. Importers abroad into this country of completed articles—importers, let us say, of hollow-ware goods, to take a concrete example—offer their goods to the importer here at a certain price. They offer either to deliver these goods through the Customs House and to pay all the charges known as c.i.f. and duty as well, or to sell f.o.b at the dock for export. Is it not perfectly clear that, when they make a price, they are bound to add all the relevant costs of importation and that if one of the relevant costs of importation is a Duty which has to be paid on coming into this country, if they undertake to deliver these goods through the Customs House, they will quote a price which would include cost of manufacture, their profit, cost of insurance, cost of freight and also the Duty? They can equally well send the goods from their factory, and charge merely the cost of production and their profit leaving the other things to be borne by the importer here.
It is quite clear that German or French hollow-ware could at the present moment be delivered in this country at a rate which would be cheaper by the amount of the Duty if that Duty were taken off. If we were to-morrow to remove the 33⅓ per cent. Duty on hollow-ware, the competitors abroad in that industry would be able to deliver their hollow-ware at a price less by the amount of the Duty. I do not think that the question whether there is a large or a small competing industry in this country would materially affect it. If the Duty were taken off, obviously the price of the competing goods would go down by the amount of the Duty. That is to say, if the Duty remains on, the price of the competing article remains up and, when the price

795
of the competing article remains up, the price of the article with which it competes will also remain up. I submit that that argument is justified by facts, and is the common-sense result that one would expect to follow from a tariff. Prices are made up of various elements, and it would be economically unsound merely to look at one of the elements constituting a price and to disregard the other elements. Clearly, one of the very important elements in the make-up of a price is the cost of production, which may rapidly come down owing to improvements in the methods of manufacture, or owing to an increased demand for the article, which enables manufacturers to produce on a large scale and so to cut down on the overhead expenses or to introduce labour-saving machinery and to produce in bulk, which will reduce the cost of the individual article very materially indeed.
The noble Earl who moved this Resolution was very well justified in removing from the ambit of his discussion two very important articles which have Protection, but which belong to the class to which I have just referred. There has been, during the past ten years, a tremendous development in the production of motor cars. Ford in America was the first. He was followed by Mr. Morris and Mr. Austin in this country, and will have to be followed, in fact, by all those who produce motor cars for the many. Ford introduced mass production, and, by introducing mass production and creating thereby a large demand for motor cars, he was able to reduce the price to the purchaser very substantially indeed. We have only to cast our minds back to pre-War times to remember that a motor car was then an object of luxury to the very well-to-do. Nowadays it is a matter of necessity to all except the very poorest. That being the case, you have an entirely different condition under which motor cars are produced. You have motor cars produced in bulk, in mass, and therefore you have a very important element—an element far more important than the Duty which is imposed—tending to reduce the price which the McKenna Duty itself tends to raise. The same, of course, is true of artificial silk, an industry which did not exist ten or fifteen years ago, but which, owing to the demand for that material, has been growing year by year. So we
796
claim that it would be confusing the issue if you allowed the question of the development of an industry like motor cars or artificial silk and the reduction of the cost of those two articles to be lumped in with all the other articles so as to make good your case. You are comparing things which are not really comparable. You are bringing in articles in which the price and the employment involved in their production are varying very rapidly indeed. They are two trades which are vastly affected by changes of fashion, changes in production, and greater facilities for production.
The noble Earl (Lord Beauchamp) has taken in this Resolution the articles which are strictly safeguarded, and he was justified in taking those strictly safeguarded articles, because it is by means of Safeguarding that the Government, as I understand it, intend to proceed hereafter. They are not proposing to add to the McKenna Duties or Key Industries Duties. What they do propose to do is to extend and expand the system by which Safeguarding is given. They are to extend it to trades other than existing trades, which already enjoy that Protection. They are holding that hope out to their supporters in the country and to a large number of industries. There exists in several industries the idea that if the Conservative Party come into office there will be, not a general Protection introduced at once, but a general Protection introduced as rapidly as can be conveniently arrived at by means of inquiries, and that those inquiries will be expected to give to the industries what they demand. At present they are few, and comparatively unimportant. Hereafter, we are told that, however important and however vital to the industries of this country an industry may be, that industry is to have an equal chance before a Committee of receiving the protection of Safeguarding.
We have not been told what will be the view of the Government. It will not be unfair to say that they are protecting themselves behind the Committee which is going to be set up. They say they will await the result of the inquiry to be made into iron and steel before they will express any view. They reserve, as I understand, to themselves the freedom to deal with the iron and steel industry after the Committee has reported. They have so far given no expression of view that

797
if the Committee report they will give protection to iron and steel. I do not wish to misrepresent His Majesty's Government, but I think that is their attitude. That is not the view which the ordinary elector takes. The ordinary electors, who go to the poll next May or June, will, in a very large majority of cases, when they vote for the Conservative Party, be thinking of a very large extension of the Safeguarding Duties. They will be justified in thinking that, by returning a Member who supports this extension of the Safeguarding Duties, they are going to get a large extension of them; they are justified, not merely because that is the natural course which politics take in this and every other country, but by some of the speeches of members of His Majesty's Government themselves.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies and the President of the Board of Trade have both made speeches in which they have claimed that the Government will, and ought to, arrive at a system of Protection, that if they cannot arrive at it per saltum they ought to arrive at it per gradum, step by step. They are to reach what they themselves claim, without any doubt at all, is the desirable condition of things—namely, that this country should be converted from being a country in which Free Trade is the dominant economic principle into one where the Protection system shall be introduced. They recognise, I think, in their minds that it is a dangerous and difficult thing to introduce Protection in one go, but they say—I trust I am not doing them any injustice—that if will be easier to do it step by step, and that some day or other—the sooner the better, they say—we shall wake up to find that we have, in fact, got a protective system, though we have hardly been aware that, it, has been coming upon us.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, in discussing this question on the last occasion, set out to destroy two Free Trade postulates. He said:
"The first is that goods are always to be paid for by goods. If that is true there is no such thing as a balance of trade at all. There cannot be."
No Free Trader has ever claimed that goods are paid for by goods to the exclusion of all other methods of payment; but he says that there must be a method of payment, that you may find methods
798
of payment by instalments, and make payments by services, and so on. I think, later on in his speech, he said he included in the question of goods all invisible imports, and asked: How can you have a balance of trade if what you claim (namely, that goods are paid for by services or by goods) is universally and entirely true? I think probably that there will not be any difference of opinion between us, though I think that exposition requires a little elucidation or explanation. There is obviously a method of buying goods and that is by borrowing the price which you pay for them, a, method which has been adopted by many countries, which was adopted by this country during the War, which is still being adopted by some of our Dominions and Colonies—the method of chalking it up, of putting it on a slate. But the fact that you borrow in order to pay for imports does not relieve you of the obligation of finally paying your debt. It does not relieve you from paying for those imports by some form of export. It may be many years before those imports are paid for. It may be that you pay off your debt by a series of exports over a number of years.
The Australian people, though they are a debtor nation, have ever since the War been importing more largely than they export. At the present moment they are still importing more largely than they export, but it is quite easy to see how that balance arises. They are paying for their excess of imports by a substantial contraction of debt in this and other countries. Every year Australia has borrowed in the London money market, in some years it has borrowed in the New York money market, and the money so borrowed must go to Australia, as it must go to any other country that borrows, in the form of goods which are purchased by the money borrowed in the country of origin; but ultimately those imports, though they appear as a balance of excess of imports over exports in the Australian figures—those articles brought into the country in excess of their exports—must eventually be paid for. The debts which Australia has contracted are in most cases debts to be repaid after a period of years, and, while the debt exists, interest has to be paid. The more Australia imports in excess of her

799
exports during these years, the larger will have to be her ultimate exportation of Australian goods to this country to meet the charges, to meet interest, and to meet capital due in respect of the bargain.
So I think we may broadly say that imports are paid for by exports, though they may not be paid for in the year in which the debt is incurred—in the year in which the import is taken into the country—but sooner or later it will have to be done, unless, indeed, you come, as some Continental nations have come, to repudiation of debt. In that case, of course, the repudiation wipes everything out, and the country starts afresh. But one must take it that the normal course of business between two countries is a course in which honesty prevails, and debts are paid, and I think the noble Lord will probably agree that a State's imports and exports must ultimately balance, unless there be repudiation on the part of the debtor.
The reason we have put down this Motion regarding Safeguarding is that we are dealing with the propositions which are going to be debated at the General Election. We think it desirable to look into the results which are being effected in the case of Safeguarding Duties already granted in order to arrive, if possible, at what results may follow from an extension of the Safeguarding Duties. I think the figures given by the noble Earl are of very great importance in considering that matter. It is very difficult to disentangle all the elements which go to make up imports, but those figures do show that unless there are other disturbing elements coming in the result of the Safeguarding Duties, properly so-called, has been disappointing to the industries which are concerned in Safeguarding. But a more serious charge has been made against them, that they have been injurious to the country which has had to undergo them. They have been injurious and they will continue to be injurious because, though doubtless in a paradise of Free Trade you can grow the luxuriant flower of Protection, though the ideal state for a trade is to be protected in its industry while surrounded by all the advantages which it draws from cheap importation and cheap necessities for the workmen, for its supplies, for its raw material, the
800
more you develop these little plots of Protection in your Free Trade garden the less will be the advantage derived from these things:
You come eventually to a condition where Protection is widespread, and then you find that that widespread condition of Protection deprives those who enjoy it of the advantages which they would have enjoyed if they had been the only ones to get the benefits. Surely the business of government is not to pick out a few favoured industries. The business of government is to look after the general interests of the country and see that those general interests are not invaded, and do not have their blood sucked from them by specially selected—and, it seems to me, somewhat capriciously selected—industries for the favour of a Protective Duty. Since this debate was initiated we have had a very important Report issued by a Committee of men who, as all will agree, are men of the first importance in the business world—the Balfour Committee's Report on Industry and Trade. That Report is, of course, a very measured document. It is not a production of the Cobden Club or the Free Trade Union. It is the production of persons who are not noted for belonging to a political Party, but are noted for being men of weight, of learning, of leading in the industrial world. They have enquired into the fiscal condition of this country and their Report is one which I would ask members of your Lordships' House to study with some care, for it contains much that is interesting.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with an undue number of quotations from the Report, but there are matters to which I think I might be justified in calling your attention. In the first place, they urge that frequent changes in tariffs are injurious to the country which indulges in them. Now, you cannot have a system which involves more frequent changes than a system of Safeguarding—Safeguarding imposed for a period of time which is liable to revision, extension, contraction; Safeguarding which involves the setting up of Committees to give Safeguarding to this, that, and the other industry. A system of tariffs under Safeguarding, extended as His Majesty's Government propose to extend it after the next Election, will be a

801
system under which you will have great variety and great uncertainty as to what tariffs will be imposed May I read a short passage from the Report of the Balfour Committee, which was, I think, unanimous on this point? They say:
"The Geneva Economic Conference of 1927, representing no less than fifty countries, declared expressly that one of the most formidable obstacles in the way of establishing and developing permanent and secure trade relations between countries is the instability of tariffs.' The Conference recommended that States should refrain from making frequent or sudden changes in their Customs Duties, on account of the instability which such changes cause in trade relations, and the serious difficulties or disputes which they occasion in connection with the execution of contracts already concluded."
Surely, my Lords, we who claim that we have been leaders in economic thought in the world should be reluctant to introduce into our fiscal system something which would involve us in frequent, uncertain, and even, I fear, capricious changes.
The Balfour Committee go on to discuss the question of whether you really can equalise matters between what is called the pauper labour of the Continent and our own labour. A very strong argument—perhaps stronger on the platform than in this House—has been the argument that we ought to protect our labourers against the competition of sweated labour on the Continent. It sounds attractive, but what is the result of the inquiries which the Balfour Committee made in this matter? It may be said that they are not more capable of coming to a conclusion, than you are or than anyone else is. I doubt it. I think investigations spread over four years by men who are acquainted with business conditions, who are acquainted with industry and trade in this country, deserve very careful attention from your. Lordships' House, and very careful attention from His Majesty's Government. I will not weary your Lordships with the reasons which they adduce for coming to their conclusion—it is open to everyone to read them—but the conclusion to which they come is stated as follows:—
"We are, therefore, of opinion that it is neither defensible in theory nor feasible in practice to frame our tariff policy with the object of neutralising international differ-
802
ences of labour costs by means of differential Customs Duties."
If it is neither defensible in theory nor feasible in practice, then I would urge that the arguments adduced by the Committee are very weighty and very important. Surely it is really not acting fairly with the electorate of this country, and not acting fairly with the workmen of this country to lead them to suppose that such a step is possible, and that you can equalise conditions between them and their competitors overseas by imposing a tariff which will shut out the product of underpaid labour. Labour, of course, is an important element of cost, but what is important in this matter is not the wages paid but the cost of labour per unit of production.
Then the Committee deal, on page 276 of their Report, with the question of the McKenna Duties and the question of Safeguarding. They are careful not to express too confident views, and I only wish that all politicians, on the hustings and elsewhere, would use the same caution which the Balfour Committee have used in their Report, and not be too confident that they are right, when there are so many subjects on which we cannot be quite certain whether we are right or wrong. The caution of the Balfour Committee, their restraint, adds weight to their conclusions. They say:
"… the data furnished to us by the Board of Trade of the recent course of trade, employment, prices, etc., in the industries affected by these Duties"—
that is the Safeguarding Duties—
"do not, in our judgment, enable any general and definite statement to be made with any confidence as to the precise results of their incidence."
I wonder how that would look upon Conservative posters during the General Election. Yet it is possibly nearer the truth than that which is urged by any of the political Parties.
I have one more point to raise. We are at present merely dipping our fingers into the sea of Protection. We have not even gone in over our boots, much less over our heads. But the system that has been introduced is intended by many—I will not say by all—to bring us into the full tide of the protective system. If that be so, surely we are entitled to widen the course of this debate a little and to look for a moment—it must be only for a moment—at the

803
results that follow from the introduction of a full protective system. We have had them argued and re-argued in the last twenty-five years, and I can add but little. But I should like to add just this. Recently His Majesty's Government, at the request of the Government of Australia, sent out four gentlemen of eminence and weight to advise the Australian people on the trend which their financial policy was taking. This advice was given in a Report, which I have in my hand, dealing with very many subjects, including the Australians' pastoral industry and their emigration policy. The Report deals also with their fiscal policy, and there are one or two paragraphs in it which, I think, are of importance as indicating the result of a system introduced, as in Australia it undoubtedly was, in order to give protection to the working man. The Report showed the natural result of such a system when pushed to the extremes to which it has been pushed in Australia.
The Report of the Duckham Mission says, on page 114:—
"We have felt much force in the oft-repeated complaint that successive increases in the tariff which affect prices and the cost of living, following upon, or being followed by, successive advances in the cost of labour as the result of decisions under the Arbitration Acts have involved Australia in a vicious circle of ever ascending costs and prices, and that this condition of affairs is crippling Australia's progress and her power of supporting increased population."
The Report also quotes reports from the Tariff Board of Australia for 1926–7, in the following terms:—
"… in some industries it is apparent that Protection is failing to protect. In so far as recent increases in Customs Revenue have been due to the collection of higher Duties imposed with the object of discouraging the importation of the appliances or commodities on which such Duties were imposed, the increased amount collected represented, in the case of goods used in manufacture, an addition to the cost if production, which indirectly increased the cost of living; and to the extent that any such increased revenue was due to the imposition of duty on commodities imported in the form in which they are consumed it represented a direct increase in the cost of living."
That is the considered opinion of the Tariff Board of Australia, not the view of a Free Trader criticising the protectionist system. It is the view of those
804
who have administered and are administering the tariff policy of Australia.
You may start on a small scale but, having started, you create expectations in the minds of those who are outside the ambit of your benefactions. You create expectations of sharing in those benefactions and, when they have been shared, others come in and find that the share that they are getting is not adequate to meet competition, and they ask for more. The experience of Australia has been that tariffs are constantly increased in order to meet the requirements of the manufacturers, and that wages are constantly increased as a result. In Australia they have a system of fixing wages by arbitration which is not so largely developed in this country. After all, wages are expected to bear some relation to the cost of living. We find that wages are increased in order to meet the extra cost of living resulting from the imposition of the tariff. Wages go up, and then the margin for the manufacturer again disappears, and tariffs again go up. It is a never-ending chase of tariffs after wages and wages after tariffs—not ruinous, perhaps, to the protected industries, but ruinous to those industries which stand outside, and gravely injurious to those industries which cannot he protected. In Australia the industries protected by tariffs are sheltered industries. They can pass on the cost of their increased production to the individual consumer in Australia, for the manufacturers of Australia manufacture, one may say, solely for the Australian consumer. The exportation of Australian manufacturers is small and almost insignificant.
In this country the position is quite different. Here we have a very large manufacturing interest which depends, not upon the consumption in this country, but upon world consumption, and such a passing on of costs is impossible. It is out of the question. Our manufactured articles must compete in the world's markets and, if they are going to do so by means of tariffs, as the system grows—and it is expected to grow by supporters of His Majesty's Government throughout the country—you will hinder and constrict the ability of the English manufacturer to compete in the world's markets. If you hinder and constrict that ability, you will have struck a blow at the industries of this country

805
from which it will take them a long time to recover. I ask you to hesitate long before, by your support on the platform, by your vote in this House, by the influence that you still justly, have as men of wisdom and moderation in your own neighbourhoods—I ask you to hesitate, and to hesitate long, before giving your approval to a system which, if developed, will create misery and poverty amongst a large class of your fellow-men. If you bring about inability or difficulty on the part of our manufacturers to compete in the markets of the world, they will be very poorly repaid by the security of their home market.
LORD RIDDELL: My Lords, I am not a Free Trader, a Protectionist or a Safe-guarder, but I feel it my duty to bring before your Lordships certain facts connected with the packing paper trade, in which I take a remote interest. Packing paper is subject to a Duty of 16⅔ per cent. I am informed by the Secretary of the Paper Makers' Association that the result of the imposition of the Duty has been that imports have been reduced, employment has been increased, new machinery has been installed, the price of packing paper bas been reduced, and the Government have received £650,000 in Duties. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with figures, but I would venture to read an extract from a statement made by one of the largest paper-makers in this country. He says:—
"Comparing the year 1925 with the year 1928, our production has increased by 38 per cent., our wages paid have increased by 34 per cent., the number of workpeople employed has increased by 20 per cent., much overtime was worked in 1928, and none in 1925, and better paper is being produced, and is being sold at a less price."
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat into the theoretical topics to which he mainly addressed himself. I venture to suggest that this question is not capable of solution on a theoretical basis of that kind and that, if we wish to obtain reliable guidance, we must look at facts such as those which I have ventured to place before your Lordships. So far as the experience of the packing paper trade is concerned Safeguarding has certainly been most advantageous. As I have told your Lordships, the manufacture of paper in this country has increased, new machinery has been installed, the price
806
of paper has been reduced, and the Government has received £650,000.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is the second day of this debate, and I am sure you will recognise that it has produced a number of speeches of very high merit, full of information, full of argument, and worthy of your Lordships' House. The speech which opened the proceedings to-day certainly did not fall behind the others in deep economic learning, in the theory of fiscal subjects, and in the controversies between Free Trade and Protection. As my noble friend who has just sat down said, it perhaps erred a little on the theoretical side. The noble Lord is an authority on political economy, a science with which I am afraid I have only slight acquaintance, and so far as the theory of the question is concerned I have nothing to say against the doctrines laid down by the noble Lord. I am sure that most of the text books would confirm his general theory of the effect of a Duty and as to the shoulders upon which it generally rests, but, my Lords, this question is not to be settled by theory.
In this country we are not theoretical. We look at things from a practical point of view, and that is why the short speech which my noble friend below the gangway has delivered is so valuable. He did not deal with theory. He spoke of practice. May I say, very respectfully, to Lord Stanley of Alderley, that, although his speech was most interesting, it had not, a very close bearing upon the Motion of the noble Earl. He himself said that he thought it necessary to widen the discussion, but he widened it, if I may say so, out of all knowledge, because what the noble Earl is asking your Lordships to say is that the system of Safeguarding is a failure. That is a very different matter. The noble Earl did not argue the old contentions of Free Trade versus Protection. He was more specific. He said: "Take these Safeguarding Duties, examine them, and I ask your Lordships to say that Safeguarding has been a failure."
Let me just say, in order to prevent any kind of misunderstanding as regards the general question of Protection, that the position in which the Government stand is perfectly clear. We are against, so far as the next General Election is concerned, a system of general

807
Protection. We are against anything which can be fairly represented as a general system of Protection, and, specifically, we are against anything in the nature of a tax on food. That is the clear position of the Government, which I repeat, to prevent misunderstanding. That, however, is not the issue before the House to-night. The issue is whether Safeguarding is a failure. The noble Lord had evidently thoroughly read the Balfour Report, and he quoted from it, but he did not quote from it fully. He left out a most important passage when he read what the Balfour Report said about Safeguarding. It is quite true that the Balfour Report expresses itself very moderately, and the noble Lord recommended that politicians should be moderate in their utterances on the platform. Will he address that to the Leader of his Party, Mr. Lloyd George, by whom, I am sure, such advice is very much wanted?
The Balfour Report, I agree, is very moderately expressed, and they do not pronounce any very confident opinion. That is true, but the opinion which they do pronounce is wholly inconsistent with the position of the noble Earl. Listen to this passage:—
"The very inconclusive nature of the results so far attained, taken in conjunction with the absence of any substantial complaint of prejudice so far caused to other trades or to the consuming public, affords justification for continuing the experiment."
The noble Earl says it is a failure. The Balfour Report says it ought to be continued, and yet the noble Lord, leaving out that passage, has the boldness to quote the Balfour Report in support of the Motion of the noble Earl. It is clear that these moderate investigators, who are not Protectionists—I believe most of them are Free Traders, although I do not suppose they pre-judged the matter from that point of view—considered that the experiment ought to he continued. As far as the noble Lord's speech is concerned I might rest the case of the Government upon that quotation alone.
What is the object of the Safeguarding policy? It is not Protection in the true sense of the word. The object of the Safeguarding policy is to defend depressed industries which are the victims, or alleged victims, of unfair competition from abroad. It is a very limited objec-
808
tive. The Safeguarding policy is an attempt to deal with what I venture to say most men will agree is a very great evil, and a very great mischief. Of course, that system of defence has to be undertaken with very careful regard to its effects outside the particular trade. However badly used a particular trade may be, we cannot afford to give it anything like fiscal defence unless we are satisfied that that defence will not react adversely upon other trades. What is called the repercussion upon other trades must be carefully regarded. But within that limit we seek by the Safeguarding policy to defend depressed trades which are suffering from unfair competition. The noble Earl says that we have failed in that attempt. I confess I was astonished at his boldness in advancing that confident proposition. After all, whether you are a Free trader or a Protectionist or whatever your fiscal opinion may be, I should have thought it was highly probable that a Duty put upon imports of a competing foreign trade would help the individual trade in this country. It does not prove, of course, that that ought to be done; but upon the face of it it is likely to help, and that indeed is what the evidence, so far as it goes, tends to show.
I am aware that the noble Earl and the noble Lord will not allow us to call in aid the other analogous Ditties which are not contained within the White Paper—the McKenna Duties and the Duties upon the key industries. Nor do I think they belong to the same class as the Safeguarding Duties; but they may be used to the extent that if you can mark that, in their case also, the imposition of a Duty helps a trade, it goes to confirm the general proposition that a Duty helps an individual trade. It does not prove, as I said before, that it ought to be imposed, but it does go to support that particular proposition. The important thing for the purpose we have in view, the helping of these particular trades—is whether we can show, on the subject of unfair competition, that we are helping them or not. Is it, in fact, in the terms of the Motion, a failure, or is it not? I do not attribute very much importance to the elaborate figures about exports and imports which the noble Earl quoted. If he will allow me to say so, he is not accurate in his figures.

809
There is no blame upon him whatever; the figures are extremely difficult to get; but he was not accurate in his figures. Let me give your Lordships an example. I think he said broadly that the exports in these safeguarded articles had gone down by £1,500,000 and that the imports had gone down by £1,250,000. Both those figures are inaccurate. The exports have gone down to the extent of £400,000 only; so that he overstated the exports. But he understated the imports, which have gone down by £1,800,000. I do not attribute a great deal of importance to it, but the noble Earl does. His argument that the exports had gone down more than the imports was a convincing contention to prove his case. If that is what he relies on he must give it up, because it is inaccurate and the figures are the other way. The imports have gone down much more than the exports. The amount to which the exports have gone down is really not significant. It is in about the same proportion as the exports of other commodities in these bad times. The imports, on the other hand, have gone down in a much greater degree than the average. That, of course, was to be expected under the Safeguarding Duties.
As I have said, I do not attribute a great deal of importance to those figures of exports and imports, but I do attribute importance to the question of employment. That is what one means when one asks: Are we helping, or are we not helping, a particular trade? If it can be shown that employment has increased, well and good, trade to that extent is prospering. Therefore, those are figures which are important. I do not pretend that I am going to give your Lordships convincing figures on this point, still I will give you some figures. There are, of course, the figures quoted by the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Riddell). I have not those figures, but I have no reason to doubt that what he told us about the paper industry is accurate, and it shows that the effect of the Safeguarding Duties has been very favourable to that particular trade. Let me take some others. The number of people employed in the lace industry has gone up to a slight extent, by 500 or 600. The number of people employed in gloves has gone up by at least 1,600, I think a little more, since these Duties were imposed. As
810
the noble Lord has said, employment in wrapping paper has gone up. I have not the figures, but I have the information that a great many new works for making paper have been established since these Duties were imposed. That is all material evidence that the imposition of Safeguarding Duties has helped particular trades; that is to say, it shows that the noble Earl is wrong when he says that the Safeguarding Duties have been a failure. For that reason we shall ask your Lordships not to agree with bun in this Motion.
Let me go a step further. Have the Duties had a bad effect? Although I am not sure, I suppose it was part of the noble Earl's case that these Duties had not only failed, but had had a very bad effect otherwise. The noble Lord, I think, was at great pains to prove that if a Duty was imposed on an imported commodity the price the home market must go up. I do not pretend that by an elaborate effort: of argument that might not be shown, but on the face of it that is not what has happened. Let us take gloves. Between 1925 and 1927 the price of leather gloves has fallen on the average by from 3 per cent. to 8 per cent. So far as fabric gloves are concerned the price has not gone up; it has remained very much the saran, and has fallen in a few eases. In the case of gas mantles there was, after the Duty was imposed, an increase in price, hut that has now passed away. The price of some gas mantles is above the pre-Duty price, and the price of others is below it. Then there is the case of wrapping paper, which my noble friend has quoted. I find that representative types of wrapping paper have fallen in price since 1926 by from 4 per cent. to 12½ per cent. The same thing is true of china tableware. In certain kinds of china tableware there has been a fall of between 7½ and 10 per cent., while in other kinds there has been no change.
As I say, the noble Lord may construct an elaborate argument to show that but for the Duty they would have fallen very much more. He did not say so in his speech, but he might construct such an argument. On the face of it, all that can be said is that, notwithstanding these high Duties put on for the sake of safeguarding the home production, the prices have not gone up. On the contrary, they

811
have shown a tendency to go down. The noble Lord is a theoretician, but he said he would like to look facts in the face. I offer him those facts to look in the face and to see how he explains away this—from his point of view—unfortunate result. If you Lordships put the question" How has it come about that these results have occurred?" then I suggest to your Lordships that the noble Lord and the noble Earl have not taken everything into account when they look at this thing from the point of view of theory. There are other elements in the calculation. It is one of the unfortunate things which always pursues scientific men that they always forget certain important elements in the calculation. There is the question of economy in larger output. That the noble Lord did not deal with, but it is notoriously the fact that you can produce economy by larger output because of the saving on the overhead expenses. One of the effects, of course, which is sometimes achieved by a Safeguarding Duty, if it is put on with discretion and judgment, is to increase that particular output, to use the plant to its full capacity, causing not a rise in price, but a fall in price.
Besides that, there is the psychological effect. I hope your Lordships will realise I am not arguing in favour of Protection as a general system, but I am arguing in favour of Safeguarding, the thing which the noble Lords opposite have attacked. When you look at the psychological effect of Safeguarding, you have to picture to your mind some centre of industry, which has been a thriving centre in past times, but which is subject to grave competition from abroad depending upon conditions which are unfair in the sense that there are no compensating conditions in this country, or depending on temporary conditions which are unfair. The effect may be, and indeed has been—for I am not speaking in the air—that this thriving centre has been reduced to great distress. It must be the object of all of us, if we can, to remedy a mischief such as that. The knowledge, which those engaged in the industry have, that, do what they can, they cannot compete with those unfair conditions, has a depressing and a discouraging effect upon them. It deprives them of the full use of their energies and their capacities. After all,
812
our great object in these matters is to get everybody to use their capacities to the very utmost. That is the object of Free Traders and Protectionists alike. What can be more discouraging than to find yourself deprived of your trade—whether you are an employer or a workman—by conditions abroad which are inequitable from our point of view, or which are temporary, and which drive down the price to such a point that you are unable to compete? If by a careful system, after very careful inquiry, you can prevent that state of things, surely you are doing good, and not harm. I am not speaking of a permanent system. Surely, even a strict economist like the noble Lord, the sworn disciple of Mr. Cobden, would be prepared to spend a little of his economic orthodoxy in order to save a community such as I have described, just as he would invest money in any other enterprise which, though costly for the moment, might bring in a fair return hereafter.
It is from that point of view that we have to regard Safeguarding. I say, therefore, that, looked at from that point of view, we are satisfied, just as the Balfour Commission was satisfied, that this experiment ought to be continued. It ought to be continued under the strictest conditions, of course, and your Lordships will remember that in the debate upon the Address in another place and in your Lordships' House these conditions were set forth, the conditions which must be satisfied, so far as this present Government are concerned, in order that a Safeguarding Duty should be admitted. Those conditions are to be interpreted in our view by an impartial tribunal, having nothing whatever to do with the Government of the day. This impartial tribunal is to interpret the conditions laid down by Parliament as fairly as they are able and, if they are satisfied that a case has been made out, well then, let the experiment be continued. We hope and believe that in so doing we shall not really sin against any true economic orthodoxy, but on the contrary we shall be conferring a benefit on the trade of this country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I feel I should be wanting in respect to your Lordships' House if I did not take notice of some criticisms made on the first occasion when we debated this Resolution and also various criticisms

813
made in the country of the statement I made on that occasion. Again, there were statements made in the debate this afternoon to which I would ask leave to reply. There is the statement made by the noble Lord below the gangway in regard to wrapping paper. I am not sure that he told us the real facts of the case. They are that the average price of imported wrapping paper during the first quarter of 1926 was 24 s. a cwt. free of Duty, and for the first quarter of 1928, including the Duty, the price was 24s. 8d. per cwt. There was, however, a drop in the world's price of 12½ per cent. which the Duty prevented us from enjoying. It was the same tendency to which Mr. Churchill referred in another place when he said that full advantage did not accrue to the people of this country when there was a drop in the price of artificial silk. The maintenance of the Duty prevented us from enjoying the full results of the drop. The Duty on packing paper used in spinning was abolished because it raised the price of the manufactured article, as was stated by Mr. Cyril Atkinson, M.P. Mr. Atkinson has been himself a member of several Safeguarding Committees. There are also several other important factors to be taken into consideration. Is the quality always the same in these figures that are given? The price is almost invariably raised, but there may be a lower quality at about the same rate. We are not prepared to admit that when the price remains the same the quality remains the same.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I admit no such distinction. The figures I gave were intended to apply to articles of the same quality.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite sure that is the intention of the noble Marquess, but I am sure that, if he will look into the technical figures of silk and glacé gloves and nappa gloves, and things of that kind, he will find they are more complicated than he realises at the present moment. The circumstances of the case are such that they will not quite hear that broad statement which the noble Marquess has made with regard to them.
I would like -to express my sympathy with my noble friend Lord Hunsdon, because on the last occasion he told us the authority of the Board of Trade is the best
814
and the only authority we have. In the course of the discussion which took place on that occasion, the statement made on behalf of the Board of Trade was this:—
* "In regard to safeguarded goods, exports have increased from £29,000 in 1924 to £38,000 in 1928."
That, of course, was a mistake. The Board of Trade statement forgot three little "0's" which ought to have gone after the figures given. It was not a case of £29,000; it was a case of £29,000,000, and of £38,000,000 in 1928. It reminds one of the occasion when an eminent statesman entered the Treasury, and, on being shown a page covered with decimal figures, asked what was the meaning of all those damned little dots. So upon this occasion the Board of Trade seems to have thought these extra millions were unnecessary. The noble Earl was good enough to send me a corrected copy to which I will return in a moment.
Meanwhile, let me say, however bad that inaccuracy was, there was something much worse in the statement made by the Board of Trade. They say in regard to safeguarded goods that the exports have increased from £29,000,000 to £38,000,000. That is wholly without foundation as is shown by the Board of Trade's own figures that they have been good enough to send me; in fact, they have been good enough to send me two copies of those figures. I will take the figures they themselves have given me, and take item No. 6 dealing with retained imports. The noble Marquess, I think, misunderstood me a little bit on this point. I am not surprised, and I make no complaint. I did not keep imports and exports together. They were not part of my argument. I took them separately. Retained imports are given here at a figure of £9,465,000 in 1924, while the retained imports in 1928 are given at £7,878,000. In this case the reduction in retained imports, I think, is probably accounted for by the increase in price, but with regard to British exports themselves the figure to which the Board of Trade made reference on the previous occasion did not include simply safeguarded figures, but included all those things which, as the noble Marquess has reminded yore Lordships, come under the head of McKenna Duties,
* See Vol. 72, col. 907. These figures were corrected for the volume.

815
which are not Safeguarding Duties, but were imposed before the word "Safeguarding" became a current word in our political controversies—motor cars, silk stockings, musical instruments, gramophones, clocks and watches.
I take once more from the figures which the Board of Trade were good enough to give me their own figure—No. 6, "Goods subject to Safeguarding Duties proper." In 1924 the exports were £5,243,000: in 1928 they had declined to £4,724,000. That is the last figure of the Board of Trade, and it justifies exactly what was contended from these Benches on the last occasion that there is a reduction in the exports, instead of there being a considerable increase, as we were led to hope would be the case from the introduction of the Safeguarding Duties. We do not pick and choose; we take all the articles to which the Safeguarding White Paper applies. In these circumstances to say that our figures, showing that there is a decrease, are hopelessly wrong, is surely a total misrepresentation of the situation, even under the figures of the Board of Trade themselves.
The noble Marquess spoke of gas mantles, to which I ventured to refer on the last occasion. He is not the only person who has criticised what I said upon the subject of gas mantles. I am interested to see that the Empire Industries Association does not deny the agreement which has been come to with the German manufacturers, and admits, indeed, that we pay tribute to the German manufacturers for every gas mantle bought in this country. "But," say the Empire Industries Association," what does that matter; look at the way our manufacture of gas mantles is going up." But the more they go up the greater is the tribute we have to pay to the German manufacturers, because we pay so much per gross upon our manufacture of gas mantles here. Now, instead of the usual slogan of the Empire Industries Association: "Let the foreigner pay," we have another slogan: "Let us pay more and snore tribute to German manufacturers." That is not likely to prove a very popular slogan when it has to be explained on various platforms.
I turn next to the question of lace, upon which a great deal of strong language was used about me by the Minister of Labour. I may say in passing
816
that strong language is generally the fruit of a weak case. The Minister for Labour upon the occasion to which I refer said a good deal upon my inaccuracy, but I would venture to suggest that not even he would say I was quite as inaccurate as the figures of the Board of Trade. He did agree with me that the exports of lace from this country had decreased. He said that I ought to examine the figures of the great import market for lace in the United States. I really do not quite see how that is even directly germane to the question which we were discussing in your Lordships' House of the employment of people who were making lace in this country. The imports in lace may, or may not, be higher. That would be an interesting subject perhaps for discussion on another occasion, but if on every occasion when we are discussing exports from this country we should see what are the imports into every other country in the world, it would make our debates even longer than they are at the present time. The Minister of Labour agreed that there was a reduction in the number of insured persons employed in the trade. That means, as I tried to explain on the last occasion, that there are fewer people engaged in the trade because they do not see any hope of reviving that trade, and have tried to find employment in some other industry.
There was the other point with regard to the through bills of lading, a matter with which the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, have spoken in your Lordships' House, so also has the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. I think he has explained that the figures are legitimately the subject of controversy in regard to their bearing, as to how far they do mean a difference with respect to the exports and imports into this country; but for my own part I would say that there is nothing in this matter, or in the criticisms which have been addressed to me, which in any way invalidates the figures which I gave on the last occasion.
I turn to the question of employment. It has never been the argument of Free Traders that by giving one selected industry an advantage in trade you prevent that industry from having more employment. It is only natural, other

817
things being equal, that it should have more employment. We have never denied that. What we have said, and what is proved by the figures published week by week by His Majesty's Government, is that there is more unemployment in other industries throughout the country, not wholly due to the policy of Safeguarding, but very largely due to that policy, and it is at any rate not unfair for us to say that with the increase in the Safeguarding policy of His Majesty's Government there has been also an increase in unemployment in this country. We are entitled to point out to your Lordships that these two facts do exist and that they may possibly be connected. The exact amount of connection is indeed a matter for argument.
I say once more, we do not deny that any actual industry itself may show some improvement, but for my own part I have been surprised, and I think a good many other people too, that these industries have not shown a greater increase in employment than is the case. It is of very great importance, when you are trying to persuade people to adopt the policy of Safeguarding, to be able to show, if you wish them to adopt it, that it is a success, and that it has tended to increase
exports, because, after all, the greatest market of the people in this country is to be found outside this country. We are but a small proportion of the population of the globe, and it is outside this country that we must look for our largest markets. Therefore when we find exports are going down we see what I venture to call the failure of Safeguarding. Although it may be possible to point to a single instance, or two instances, where there is increased employment, still the general increase of unemployment in this country is the matter to which we draw attention. In my opinion, my Lords, supported as I am supported by the figures which the Board of Trade have been good enough to give me dealing with these exports, and further supported as they are by increased figures of unemployment, I do not know how it is possible for anyone to cone to any other conclusion than that the policy of Safeguarding has been a failure. I shall ask your Lordships to be good enough to divide on the subject.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordship's divided:—Contents, 20: Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Shandon, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Buckmaster L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) [Teller.]

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Russell, E.

Forres, L.

Swaythling, L.

Strafford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Tenterden, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Thomson, L.

Leverhumle, V.

Parmoor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L.Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Dynevor, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairlie, L. (E.Glasgow.)

Churchill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

Greenway, L.

Wellington, D.

Feel, V.

Hanworth, L.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Abinger, L.

Hayter, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Addington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Armstrong, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Airlie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Newton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Denbigh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan William.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Cushendun, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Darling, L.

Riddell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Midleton, E.

Desborough, L.

Wharton, L.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL MEETING.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL MEETING.
METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GALLOWAY WATER POWER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (DOCK ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 19th and 27th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 19th and 27th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
TUNBRIDGE WELLS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
ROMFORD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bristol (Chairman),

L. de Clifford,

L. Sandys,

L. Strathspey:

Agreed to: and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 16th of April next, at half-past eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Hood and the Lord Fairfax of Cameron be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Lilford and the Lord Ravensworth: Read, and agreed to.