Sitting of 11 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Torquay Corporation Bill [Lords]
(Prince of Wales's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  KOREA (YALU RIVER BRIDGE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make a statement with regard to the permanent closing by the Japanese of the swing span of the Yalu River railway bridge, resulting in the cutting off of the treaty port of Antung to sea-going craft contrary to the undertaking of the Japanese Foreign Minister to the late Sir Claude MacDonald, by a note in 1910, to the effect that the bridge should always be kept open for traffic; and whether he is aware that the bridge is still being used daily for railway traffic, civil and military?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to make representations to the Japanese Government on the subject and to ask for arrangements to be made for opening the bridge when necessary to enable British shipping on the Yalu River to pass. I am not yet acquainted with the result of these representations. I have no information on the point raised in the second part of the question.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not this just another example of the way in which the Japanese are squeezing everybody out in that part of the world?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (CONVERSATIONS).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement as to the nature and results of the conversations between himself and the French Foreign Minister in London?
  Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Foreign Office Vote will be put down on Friday, and I propose to make a statement on this subject in the course of that Debate.
  Captain MACDONALD: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that these negotiations will not involve this country in any commitments?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think on the whole that my hon. and gallant Friend might possess himself in patience until Friday.

  CHINA (BRITISH CONSULATES).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many consulates in China are closed at the present time; how long they have been closed in each case; and when his Department anticipates being able to fill them, in view of the facts that the shortage.of,officials is causing inconvenience to British traders?
  Sir J. SIMON: My information is that a temporary shortage of staff due to recent cases of death, illness and resignation, has involved closing for the time being His Majesty's Consulates at Newchwang, Ichang and Tsinan on the 17th April, the 30th April and the 4th May respectively. I anticipate that the Consulate at Tsinan will be reopened at an early date, the Consulate at Ichang in the autumn, and that at Newchwang not later than next spring. Meanwhile the usual consular facilities in the districts affected are being supplied by neighbouring consular posts.

  PROFESSOR H. LASKI (LECTURE, MOSCOW).
  Mr. GOLDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a lecture recently delivered by Professor Harold Laski, of the University of London, to the Communist Academy at Moscow;

  307
  whether a passport or permit was granted by his Department to the professor in order to enable him to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether, in applying for such passport or permit, Professor Laski stated as his reason for such proposed visit his intention to deliver such lecture, or, if not, what reason was given in so applying?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have seen a Press report of the discourse to which my hon. Friend refers. Professor Laski's present passport was issued in 1932 in renewal of a passport which he had previously held, and was then endorsed, as has been the general practice for some years, as valid for journeys to all countries in Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkey. No special facilities for travelling to Russia are necessary, nor was my Department asked for any on this occasion.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lecture was not delivered to the Communist Academy but to the Institute of Socialist Law and consisted of a defence of parliamentary government; and that it was followed by a five hours' attack on Professor Laski?
  Sir J. SIMON: I gather from the hon. Gentleman that he has some special means of information—
  HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
  Mr. THORNE: He is one of our comrades.
  Sir J. SIMON: My information is limited to Press reports.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Arising out of the reference to my having special means of information, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the correspondence column of the "Daily Telegraph"?
  Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the "Daily Telegraph "refutes that statement?
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the substance of it?
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a lecture on the prospects of revolution
  308
  in Great Britain delivered in Russia last week by Professor Harold Laski, of the London School of Economics; and whether, in view of the fact that this school is supported by a grant from His Majesty's Government, he will take steps to indicate that the said grant is not given with the object of facilitating activities of this kind?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): My attention has been called to reports in the Press of this lecture. As regards the second part of the question, the London School of Economics does not receive a grant directly from the Government. The University of London receives an annual block grant, paid on the advice of the University Grants Committee, and from this source and others at its disposal makes allocations to its various constituent schools and colleges. It does not seem to me to be necessary to take any action of the nature suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is it not the fact that this Professor Laski is an avowed Communist as well as being of alien origin, and will the hon. Member say why he should be allowed such facilities as are provided frequently by the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the London School of Economics to spread his poisonous propaganda?
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is the hon. Member aware that the Charter of the London School of Economics expressly provides for complete freedom for professors and lecturers to express their political opinions outside the school, and will he resist the obvious tendency to try to curtail this freedom?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the professor in question collaborates with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken?
  Mr. MAXTON: Is not the gentleman referred to in the question a perfectly respectable member of the party which composes His Majesty's official Opposition?

  ROYAL NAVY (DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, MALTA).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the partial restoration in title cut made in salaries is

  309
  to be applied to Government employés in Malta Dockyard or, if not, on what grounds is it to be withheld?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The decision to restore in part certain reductions in the remuneration of salaried and industrial employés in home establishments does not apply to locally entered employés in Malta Dockyard. The reductions in the rates of bonus of these local entrants in the autumn of 1931 were solely due to and related to the fall in their cost of living that had occurred between 1924 and the 1st January, 1931, and were in no sense an economy cut. Subsequent reports to date show that the cost of living of local entrants at Malta has still further declined since 1931 and we would not be justified in increasing their present remuneration.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the reply that the cuts that took place in 1931 in Malta had no relation to the 10 per cent. cut generally imposed?
  Lord STANLEY: Yes.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the cuts in Malta were made by the late Socialist Government?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Were they not made by the present Government for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave?
  Lord STANLEY: The decision to reduce the wages was taken by the Socialist Government.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that the wages paid to the Maltese employés, who are very good workmen, are so low, does not the hon. Gentleman think it is time that they were paid a little more?
  Lord STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer to that question in my original reply.

  AVIATION.

    AIR. MAIL SERVICES (COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the British Colonies or mandated territories have introduced the use of special air mail stamps or boxes; and whether there have been any developments in this respect in any of the
    310
    Colonies or mandated territories during or since 1933?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The use of special boxes for the collection of air mails is a matter for consideration by the local postal authorities. I am not aware of any developments in this respect during or since 1933. As regards the use of air mail stamps I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 8th of June, 1932, to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the importance of encouraging Imperial air routes, will my right hon. Friend look into the matter and see if anything can be done?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have looked into the matter, but there is no point in having a special air postage stamp. As I said in my previous answer, that would merely add to the postal costs. All air mail letters carry a blue air mail stamp under the Convention.

    LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any more light aeroplane clubs have been approved for subsidy since the last Air Estimates Debate?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Two further clubs have so far been approved. A number of other applications are under consideration.

    A AND B LICENCES.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of A and B licences granted since the beginning of this year, and the number granted in the corresponding period of last year?
    Sir P. SASSOON: 471 new A licences and 77 new B licences were granted up to the end of June. The corresponding numbers last year were 364 and 66.

    IMPERIAL AIR SERVICES,
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the reasons why the railway journey from Paris to Brindisi is still a link in our Empire air services?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Negotiations with a view to making the whole journey by air are in progress with the French authorities.
    Mr. SIM,MONDS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any hopes of an early result from these negotiations?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, I have great hopes.

    AIR Poser, SHOREHAM (LOAN).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Health if he has yet considered the civil engineer's report on the drainage and problematical flooding of the site of the Brighton, Hove and Worthing municipal airport at Shoreham called for by the Ministry following the local inquiry held on 7th March last; and whether, in view of the fact that the aerodrome has been approved by the Air Ministry and that the development of the airport should be proceeded with at once to ensure its being opened next spring and providing continuous employment for a number of men during the summer, autumn and winter months, he will state at an early date whether sanction will be given to the loan of £39,000 to enable the initial work to commence without further delay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The report is being considered by my right hon. Friend's engineering advisers, and he hopes shortly to be in a position to announce his decision on the town council's application.
    Sir C. RAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea how long this matter is going to be delayed?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I hope that it will be cleared up very shortly.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MALAYA (IMPORT QUOTAS).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the opposition of the Penang and Singapore Chambers of Commerce to the system of quotas upon imports into Malaya; and what is his policy with regard to this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that opposition to the quota
    312
    policy has been expressed by the two chambers of commerce although I understand that the opposition was by no means unanimous. As explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the 21st of June, the most careful consideration was given to the special circumstances of Singapore and Penang before it was decided that a quota system should be introduced, and I see no reason to alter the conclusion then reached.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that the opposition of these chambers of commerce is based on a lack of appreciation of the great advantage that this market offers to Colonial produce?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is based on some fear about the entrepot trade. That is only one element in the whole of our great Imperial commerce, but great care has been taken to safeguard the entrepot trade.

    COLONIES (JAPANESE IMPORTS).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in all British overseas territories steps are taken to prohibit entirely Japanese imports when it is discovered that such imports are bearing forged trade marks purporting to represent British manufacture?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Most parts of the Colonial Empire have legislation similar to that in force in this country with regard to false trade descriptions, and where such legislation does not exist or is in unsatisfactory form I am endeavouring to secure the enactment of legislation to bring it into line with United Kingdom practice. It is normally provided that goods to which false trade descriptions have been applied shall be subject to forfeiture.

    IMPORT DUTIES, INDIA (MOTOR CYCLES).
    Mr. HALESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the duty on British motor cycles imported into India is 7½ per cent. higher than the duty on British motor cars; and whether he will communicate with the Indian Government with a view to having the duty on motor cycles reduced to the same level as that on motor cars?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The difference

    313
    of 7½ per cent. represents the preference granted at Ottawa on motor cars of British manufacture. It was not found possible to secure this preference for motor cycles. The hon. Member's suggestion will no doubt be borne in mind by the Board of Trade when the revision of the agreement comes to be considered.

    FREIGHTS (INDIA).
    Mr. HALESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freights on merchandise from the United Kingdom to Calcutta, Bombay and Madras are being raised from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per ton; and, having regard to the extent of the competition from Japan on the Indian market, whether he will insist upon reductions in these freights as a-condition of the grants to be made to the shipping companies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE, (Dr. Burgin): I am aware that the Indian Shipping Conference have announced their intention of raising freight rates from the Continent and United Kingdom to India on 1st September next. The conference are now considering representations from shippers affected by the proposal, which they state is necessary owing to the non-remunerative level of the present rates. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the rates quoted are liner, not tramp, rates

    RUSSIA.
    Captain ARCH I BALD RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of goods from Russia, so far as they appear to be identifiable in the Trade Returns, have increased from £4,306,000 in the first five months of 1933 to £5,393,000 in the same period of 1934, while the exports of British goods to Russia have decreased in the same periods from £1,853,000 to £1,368,000; and, in view of these figures, what steps are being taken to secure, in accordance with the recent trade agreement, a more satisfactory state of affairs?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the balance of trade, whereas the Temporary Commercial Agreement deals with the annual balance of payments, which can only be calculated after the conclusion of
    314
    each year. United Kingdom exports to Russia consist largely of capital goods which take some time to manufacture, and orders for goods of this description are not reflected in the trade returns for a considerable period.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has my hon. Friend been able to ascertain whether a considerable amount of the goods ordered from this country by Russia are reexported goods—raw materials—and not goods manufactured in this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The trade returns show the proportion of re-exported goods passing. There has been a considerable amount in the last few months.
    Captain RA,MSAY: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give us the assurance that, in spite of these figures, which seem to be at variance with the spirit of the treaty, he will see that the bargain as to the balance of trade is carried out?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the imports into Russia from this country were reduced only when the trade agreement went out of existence; and is it not the case that the orders from Russia this year are £2,000,000 above the figure for last year?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, we shall certainly see that the provisions of the agreement are implemented. With regard to the second supplementary question, I am aware that further orders have been placed this year, but I cannot say exactly to what amount.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Would my hon. and gallant Friend, as a Scotsman, like to do business of this kind?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE:I am
    willing to do business with anybody.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. and gallant Member pay more attention to the silent Members of this House, who want to trade with Russia, and not pay too much attention to the Diehards, who do not want to trade with anybody?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Are not some hon. Members only silent when they are absent?

    COLONIAL SERVICE (GIFTS TO OFFICERS).
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Colonial Regulation 59, relating to the receipt of gifts by Colonial Governors and other Colonial officers, is being strictly enforced?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Major MILNER: Have there been any important recent exceptions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so.

    EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken, in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on East Africa, to bring the administration in the various territories in East Africa into harmony with recent Government declarations, and in particular the Memorandum on Native Policy,
    1930?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be impossible within the compass of a Parliamentary answer to review all the action which has been taken in these territories. But the hon. Member will find in my published despatch of the 13th of July, 1932 (Cmd. 4141) the decisions of His Majesty's Government and the action taken in connection with the report of the Joint Select Committee. I should also refer him to Lord Moyne's report and the report of the Land Commission and the Government White Paper thereon.

    GAMBIA (NATIVE AUTHORITY ORDINANCE).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what modifications have been made in the Native Authority Ordinance, as published in the Gambia Government Gazette on 28th February, 1933, and in particular whether any judicial authority is set up to which appeal may be made from the Native Tribunals; and, if not, to whom such appeals lie?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There has been no modification of this Ordinance.. In accordance with the Native Tribunals Ordinance, the Provincial Commissioner
    316
    concerned may, upon the application of the defendant or upon his own motion, transfer any cause or matter from a native tribunal to a subordinate court, whence the Supreme Court may, on application made, order proceedings to be transferred and heard before itself.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRCRAFT SALES (CONDITIONS).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an aircraft, previously the property of the Royal Air Force and with squadron markings, has recently been exhibited in a crashed condition beside the Great North Road for commercial advertising purposes; and if in future he will make it a condition of sale of service aircraft that they shall not be thus exhibited?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am making inquiries into this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    AIR STRENGTH.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement with regard to the expansion of the Royal Air Force or, failing this, if he can state whether the Government will be able to make such a statement before the summer Adjournment?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).
    Mr. SIMMONDS: In view of the importance of this matter, could the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to give the House previous notice when he intends to make his statement?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport the number of persons killed in road accidents during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1934, in Lancashire; and also the number of people injured in road accidents in Lancashire for the same period?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): During the three months ended 30th June, 1934, 137 persons died and 5,720 persons were injured as a result of road accidents in Lancashire. I am not in possession of similar information for the first three months of the year.

    SPEED LIMIT, OXFORD.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the provision of the order governing the speed limit in the City of Oxford whereby no corroboration is necessary of the evidence of a constable's estimate of the speed of a car in cases brought before the magistrates for exceeding the prescribed limit; and whether, as such corroboration is required under the Road Traffic Act, he will cause the order to be so amended as to bring its provisions in accordance with the terms of the Act?
    Mr. H0RE-BELISHA: I have no power to provide in this or similar orders for corroboration of evidence as to speed, but an Amendment to the Road Traffic Bill to meet the point will be moved in another place.

    TRAILERS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report in connection with a trailer which broke away from a tractor in Corney Road, Chiswick, and seriously injured a young man; whether the connecting rod was of sound construction; and if he intends making any alterations in the regulations covering the use of trailers whereby safety chains could be connected to the trailer and its motive power?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that the accident to which the hon. Member refers occurred on private property and accordingly I have not received any report with respect to it. I am in consultation with representatives of the motor vehicle manufacturing interests on the general question of the strength of trailer connections.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these trailer connections are strong enough to prevent similar accidents?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer covers that point.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE (TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. GOLDIEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to passengers arriving at Waterloo Station, who desire to proceed to the West Central districts, by the closure of Waterloo Bridge; and whether, with a view to alleviating such inconvenience, he will arrange for traffic over the temporary bridge to proceed during the morning rush hours from south to north, and during the evening rush hours from north to south, thus providing connections with the suburban train services arriving at, and departing from, Waterloo Station?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of the traffic conditions resulting from the closing of Waterloo Bridge and am advised that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, before introducing the existing traffic arrangements, considered fully the possibility of adopting a scheme on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. The conclusion reached was that such a scheme would not be practicable and would indeed result in serious confusion.
    Mr. GOLDIE: Can the hon. Member say how long the present disorganisation is likely to last?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That question is easier to ask than to answer.

    AERIAL WARFARE (SAFETY PRECAUTIONS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of taking action, similar to that being generally adopted in other countries, for giving instruction to the public in the proper precautions to be taken in the event of aerial invasion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am not in a position to add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 21st March last.
    Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that no information will be given to the public as to the precautions to take until after there has been an air raid; and would it not be better to give the information beforehand, as is being done in various Continental countries?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will read the statement, he will see that it supplies a complete answer to his question.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Would it not be better for us to see that we are strong enough in the air to drive off an enemy air raid?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that an hon. Member of this House should imply that foreign nations will break their obligations under the Kellogg Pact?

    DEFENCE SERVICES (COST).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net expenditure on the Defence Services, excluding all pensions, during the financial year ended 31st March, 1934, and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for the years ended 31st March, 1933, and 31st March, 1913?
    Mr. COOPER: The Appropriation Accounts for the financial year ended the 31st March, 1934, are not yet available. The net expenditure provided for in the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, 1933, excluding all pensions, i.e., all non-effective services, was £91,191,500. The corresponding actual net expenditure for the years ending 3Ist March, 1933, and 31st March, 1913, was £85,969,232 and £66,179,802 respectively. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the number of pounds sterling does not afford a completely reliable measure of comparison between 1913 and 1933.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the time he has been answering this question we have spent £213 on armaments?

    UNEMPLOYMENT (COAL INDUSTRY).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the reasons for the increased unemployment in the coal trade during the last months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY if LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The net increase in these figures, which was almost entirely confined to men temporarily suspended from employment appears to have been mainly
    320
    due to seasonal influences, no doubt accentuated by a reduction in consumption due to the exceptional weather conditions of recent weeks.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is it not a fact that this reduction is not mainly taking place in the export districts?
    Mr. HUDSON: I think the fact is that the normal seasonal reduction in employment in the coal mining industry took place much later this year than last year. Last year there was an increase of unemployment in the earlier months, amounting to 96,000, compared with 27,000 this year, but the leeway this year was made up this last month.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a decrease in the number of those employed in this industry, and an increase in the number of employed who are affected by seasonal circumstances, and are the Government investigating that position?
    Mr. HUDSON: The lion. Member will recall that that point was raised on the Estimates the other day, and that I showed that the men were working more shifts per week this year than last year.
    Mr. LAWSON: But is it not true that the number definitely employed in the industry is decreasing, and that an increasing number of workers are being affected by seasonal conditions. Whole collieries are now being touched by seasonal fluctuations which formerly were not subject to them?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, because the number of unemployed, even after the big increase last month, is still less than it was in the corresponding period of last year.

    NAVAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as in 1921, the Powers attending the Naval Conference will, in connection with the consideration of armaments, be invited to try to find a solution of Pacific and Far Eastern problems?
    Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am at present aware, the answer is in the negative.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the water shortage in England?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend during the Debate on the Ministry's Estimates. He proposes also shortly to issue another statement on the general position of water supplies.

    LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY (GOVERN-MENT PROPOSALS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make a statement on the livestock situation?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Government have had under consideration the situation in the livestock industry of this country, and more, particularly in that branch which is concerned with beef production.
    The Government have examined the possibility of—

    (a) further reduction of imports by means of quantitative regulation;

    (b) action along the lines of the Wheat Act, 1932, involving the collection of a levy on imports of meat to provide a fund from which payments could be made to supplement the returns accruing to home producers from the sale of their stock in the open markets, imports being unregulated;

    (c) the retention, in the interests of all suppliers, of some degree of direct supply regulation as a foundation for a plan comprising a levy on imports and payments to producers as referred to above.

    The problem has been approached with the intention of framing proposals which could be brought into operation forthwith to deal with the beef situation, leading up to the formulation of a permanent policy.
    The Government are of opinion that a plan based on a levy and a regulated market, as indicated in the third course referred to above, would afford the best long-term solution of this problem, and one which would hold the balance evenly between producer and consumer.
    322
    The Government therefore would hope in its long-term plan to establish, under the control and management of a permanent commission, a fund into which would be paid in due course the proceeds of such a levy and out of which would be made such payments to producers of livestock in the United Kingdom as might be justified by the market situation and as might from time to time be determined. It would be an essential function of the commission to co-operate with any Producers' Marketing Board that may be constituted, and with other interests concerned, in a reform of marketing and slaughtering systems, with a view to greater economy and efficiency, which the Government regard as indispensable to the permanent prosperity of the livestock industry.
    Discussions with representatives of the Governments of the Dominions and of Argentina have therefore been opened, but, in the absence of consent to the levy proposals to which I have already referred, the only action open to the Government so far as imports of meat are concerned, is by further regulation of supply which would be designed, first, in order to hold the position for the time being, and secondly, to bring about a material improvement in market conditions. In view, however, of the serious nature of the problems which such action on an extended scale would present to certain of the Governments concerned, the United Kingdom Government are anxious to allow time for further examination of the situation before determining the extent of the action which will be required. The Government are therefore introducing forthwith an emergency Measure (the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill) which they will ask Parliament to pass into law before the House rises for the summer recess, providing for payments at a rate not exceeding 5s. per live cwt. (9s. 4d. per cwt. dead-weight) to producers of certain classes of fat cattle sold for slaughter in the United Kingdom, between a date not earlier than 1st September, 1934, and 31st March, 1935. The payments to producers under this Bill will be made from a fund to be established under the name of the Cattle Fund.
    Authority will be sought in this Bill for making temporary advances to the Cattle Fund from the Consolidated Fund to an

    323
    amount not exceeding £3,000,000. A Supplementary Estimate covering the exact amount of the advances will be laid in February or March. All sums advanced, including advances to cover the costs of administration, will be recoverable by the Exchequer from the proceeds of the levy which will be collectable under the Government's long-term proposals. The actual amount of the payments per unit of live and dead weight to be made to producers will be prescribed by Order which will be laid before Parliament. Particulars of the administrative arrangements will also be laid before Parliament. The Financial Resolution for the short-term. Bill will appear upon the Order Paper to-morrow. A White Paper setting out both the short-term and long-term proposals will, I hope, be made available for hon. Members before the House rises this evening.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Bill is likely to be before the House?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As soon, no doubt, as the Financial Resolution has been disposed of.
    SIR HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that this sum of £3,000,000 will in fact be repaid to the Exchequer?
    Mr. ELLIOT: That depends upon several factors, which the right hon. Gentleman will see set out in the White Paper which is to be laid before Parliament. I am sure that we may hope for his assistance in seeing that these advances are recovered.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the regulation of supply, does he mean regulating the amount of cattle which it is proposed to produce in this country, having regard to the increased production in this country?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It would be better to await the White Paper which I have promised to lay before the House this evening.
    Mr. MAXTON: Now that the Government have initiated a doles policy for industry, will the Lord President of the Council give us a complete list of all the doles that are in contemplation for the
    324
    various capitalist interests of this country?
    Mr. LOGAN: Will this additional impost be applied to the Irish Free State?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It will apply, of course, to all imports of livestock from whatever sources.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will there be a means test?
    MR. H. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the £3,000,000 will be chargeable against the revenue of the current year; or will it appear in the Finance Accounts as a loan?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend had better await the' White Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask the Lord President of the Council for what purpose the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being moved to-day; and can he give an assurance that the Debate on the amendment of the Hops Marketing Scheme, with regard to which a good deal of interest is being shown outside as well as inside this House, will not be taken unduly late this evening? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the business on Friday?
Mr. BALDWIN: The business on Friday will be Supply, 16th Allotted Day, first Part. The Vote which has been put down is the Foreign Office Vote. With regard to the other parts of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am expecting a similar question from the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will be able to make a statement to-morrow on the business to be taken before the House rises, whether it is proposed to adjourn or prorogue, the approximate date of rising, and when it is proposed that the House should reassemble? May I also ask him what business it is proposed to take to-day in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
Mr. BALDWIN: The answers to both the hon. Gentlemen's questions are somewhat closely linked together. I will do my best to make such a statement

325
to-morrow, but I doubt very much whether it will be possible. We have a good deal of business to get through, but at the same time we are very anxious to bring the business of the House to a close as soon as we can; I think the whole House will be glad of a rest. I hope that I may rely upon the co-operation of the House to that end. With a view to accomplishing it, I hope that we may get the first five Orders on the Paper, and the Hops Order, to-day. I would point out that two of those Orders—the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and the Public Works Loans Bill—are both what I would call "hardy annuals," and should require very
little attention; and I think that the Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments) Bill [Lords] is non-controversial. I hope that, without asking the House to sit unduly late, we may get this programme to-day. If we do, it will, of course, materially help the statement which I shall endeavour to make tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 52.

Division No. 3 2 7.]

AYES

[3.25 p.m.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Knox, Sir Alfred

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Law, Sir Alfred

Aske, Sir Robert William

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Leckie, J. A.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Elmley, Viscount

Leech, Dr, J. W.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Baillle, Sir Adrian W. M.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

Levy, Thomas

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lewis, Oswald

Balniel, Lord

Fox, Sir Gifford

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Liewellin, Major John J.

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Bean, Sir Arthur Shirley

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John

Loden, Captain J. de Vere

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Loftus, Pierce C.

Bernays, Robert

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Goff, Sir Park

Mabane, William

Blindell, James

Goldle, Noel B.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Boulton, W. W.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

McKie, John Hamilton

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grimston, R. V.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Magnay, Thomas

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Burnett, John George

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Butler, Richard Austen

Hales, Harold K.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Carver, Major William H.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Harbord, Arthur

Motion, A. Hugh Elsdale

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hartland, George A.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Clarry, Reginald George

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Morrison, William Shepherd

Cobb, sir Cyril

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Conant, R. J. E.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Cook, Thomas A.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nunn, William

Cooke, Douglas

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hepworth, Joseph

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Cranborne, Viscount

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Patrick, Colin M.

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Hills, major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Pearson, William G.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Peat, Charles U.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Petherick, M.

Cross, R. H.

Hornby, Frank

Potter, John

Crossley, A. C.

Horobin, Ian M.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Cutverwell, Cyril Tom

Horsbrugh, Florence

Radford, E. A.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Ramsay, Capt. A, H. M. (Midlothian)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Rankin, Robert

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Rathbone, Eleanor

Dickle, John P.

Jackson. Sir Henry (Wandsworth. C.)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunning ham-

Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Doran, Edward

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Drewe, Cedric

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U

Duckworth, George A. V.

Knight, Holford

Rickards, George William

Ropner, Colonel L.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Ross Taylor, Walter, (Woodbridge)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Stones, James

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Strauss, Edward A.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Wise, Alfred R.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hersford)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Thorp, Linton Theodore

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Tree, Ronald

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Attlee, Clement Richard

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Maxton, James

Banfield, John William

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)

Rea, Walter Russell

Cape, Thomas

Grundy, Thomas W.

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Cove, William G.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Rothschild, James A. de

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Harris, Sir Percy

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Curry, A. C.

Jenkins, Sir William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Dagger, George

John, William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Thorne. William James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Stephen Owen

Leonard, William

White, Henry Graham

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

McEntee, Valentine L,

Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934).
Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
London County Council (Money) Bill.
London Passenger Transport Board (Interim Financial Arrangements) Bill, without Amendment.
Chailey Rural District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Petroleum (Production) Bill [Lords].
Newport Extension Bill [Lords].
Newport Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room C, House of Lords, on Wednesday next, at Ten o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills, considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Captain Margesson,.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.32 p.m.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is a very short one. I do not think it will require many words from me to explain why it is necessary for us to bring it forward and ask that it shall receive a Second Reading to-day. Under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, it was provided that colonies which desired to have their loans registered as trustee stocks had to conform to three conditions which were laid down by the Treasury, and, after the passing of the Act, the Treasury in fact prescribed in December, 1900, three conditions which had to be observed for this purpose. I need not trouble the House at the moment with all three conditions, but I will read the third, which is relevant to my purpose:
  " A colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression of their opinion that any colonial legislation which appears to the Imperial Government to alter any provisions affecting the stock to the injury of the stockholder or to involve a departure from the original contract in regard to the stock can properly be disallowed."
  At that time this power of disallowance was a recognised constitutional right, and no colonial Government of that day would have felt any embarrassment in acknowledging that right. But after 1900 things began to change in the constitutional relations between the colonies, as they were then, and the Government of Great Britain, and colony after colony became a Dominion. Questions of constitutional rights in these Dominions were the subject of discussion and of representation from time to time. A conference was set up in 1929 which consisted of representatives of the Dominions and of this country, mostly legal representatives, to discuss the operation of Dominion legislation, and among other things they gave careful attention to this question of the right of disallowance of Dominion legislation. The result of their examination was that they expressed the opinion that this power of disallowance should no longer be exercised, and any Dominion which had the power of amending its
  336
  constitution could amend it by repealing the power of disallowance. That opinion was subsequently confirmed by the Imperial Conference of 1930 and in the Statute of Westminster, which was passed in 1931, it was to all intents and purposes embodied in legal form.
  But there was one exception to this principle which the Conference of 1929 laid down, and that was in regard to Colonial Trustee Stocks. They expressed the view that, where a Dominion had complied with the Treasury conditions and there was at the time outstanding trustee stock of that Dominion, the power of disallowance must remain and could properly be used in the case of the passing of any legislation which in the view of the home Government would be injurious to the interests of the stockholder. That exception has not been embodied in legislation. It was merely an understanding accepted by the Dominions and formed what is called in modern parlance a gentlemen's agreement. But, obviously, it was not an understanding which it was to the interest of any Dominion to upset, because naturally the Dominions desire to maintain the credit of their loans as high as possible in the London market, and they would naturally, therefore, hesitate long before they took any action which was likely to have a depreciatory effect upon their value.
  When, therefore, the Government of the Union of South Africa last year made up their minds that they desired, in the exercise of their undoubted constitutional rights, to repeal Section 65 of the South Africa Act, 1909, which deals with this power of disallowance, they were extremely anxious that no deleterious effect should be produced upon the value of the stocks and, accordingly, they asked the Treasury to discuss the whole matter with the representatives of the Union. A discussion followed, and, as a result, a complete agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the Union 'Government and the Treasury, and the Union Government agreed to enter into an undertaking in the form which will be found in Clause 1 (1, a) of the Bill. The actual undertaking that was given by the Union Government was:
  " The Union Government undertake that legislation which appears to the United Kingdom Government either to amend the Act of 1913 of the Union to the injury of stockholders or to involve a departure from

  337
  the original contract with regard to the stock shall not be submitted for the Royal Assent except after agreement with the United Kingdom Government. Furthermore, if attention is drawn to such legislation already passed by the Union Parliament, the Union Government will take the necessary steps to ensure such amendment as may be requested by the United Kingdom Government."
  That undertaking was perfectly satisfactory to the Treasury, and the Bill which is now before the House is one to validate the procedure which has already been adopted by the Union Government and to provide that in future there shall he two alternatives open to a Dominion Government, namely, either to comply with the third condition laid down by the Treasury in 1900, or to give an undertaking in the form of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), and that undertaking is to be confirmed by the legislature of the Dominion. It has been thought desirable to draw the Clause in wide terms so that it is not confined to the particular Dominion whose action has given rise to the Bill. It therefore becomes open to any Dominion, although not obligatory upon it., to adopt the form prescribed in this. Bill in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Treasury. But, having consulted the other Dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have informed us that, as far as they are concerned, they are perfectly satisfied to abide by the original condition. They do not desire to take advantage of this new method or form which is open to them, but are quite satisfied with the position as it already stands. The New Zealand Government, if I may quote their observations as an illustration of the attitude of other Dominions, say:
  " The Government of the Dominion of New Zealand considers that stockholders in the United Kingdom cannot legally be more adequately protected than under the existing law, and it has neither the intention nor the power to impair the present adequate legal safeguards."
  I need hardly say that it is very gratifying to His Majesty's Government to find that with regard to these other Dominions they are perfectly satisfied to allow the present state of affairs to remain as it is and to maintain the safeguards of the interests of the stockholders which cause their trustee stocks to stand so high in the market, and that, at the same time, we have been able to agree with the Union of South Africa., which wished to change this condition,
  338
  upon an alternative which, in our opinion, gives the full equivalent amount of security to the stockholders. I have only to add that, in the case of the Union of South Africa, the legislation which they have passed becomes operative on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General, and it has already been agreed that the date to be fixed by the Governor-General is the date upon which this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Therefore, there will be no gap between the old system and the new, and we shall pass automatically from the one to the other.
  3.44 p.m.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We are not as a party naturally very vitally interested in the question of the interests of the stockholders, but we are very interested, as is the right hon. Gentleman, in the development of the Commonwealth of Nations. This step, although it may appear to be a small one, is a very important step in the gradual development which has been taking place in the transfer of the Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that this area should be reserved under the old system of Empire while the rest of the area was transferred into the conception of the Commonwealth of Nations, that is, an equal brotherhood of nations without one of those equal brothers exercising any control or power over any of the others, and in the Bill, as it is brought before the House, it seems to say that there is an attempt to preserve what may become a very dangerous matter of controversy in the future. It is true that the other Governments, the Canadian, the New Zealand and the Australian, at the moment are prepared to cling to the old right of this country to disallow bills which they have passed in this particular area. That is clearly a right which is going and which has to go if we follow logically the development which has been taking place. We have in fact now entered upon an era when we have substituted agreements between equal nations for control by one nation. This Clause, which has been agreed upon with South Africa, seems to us to offer very great dangers because you are in fact not doing away with the old system but are merely giving it another form.

  339
  If the House will be good enough to look at what is in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a)—the alternative which is proposed —they will see that the Government in the Dominion has undertaken that legislation which appears to our Government to alter any of the provisions to the injury of the stockholders or to involve departure from the original contract shall not be submitted for the Royal Assent except after agreement with His Majesty's Government, and that, if it gets through without being noted, then upon representation by His Majesty's Government, the Government of South Africa bind themselves to bring in repealing legislation. It is obvious that the two Governments may take, perfectly legitimately, a different view as to what is injury to stockholders, or as to what departure from the original contract may be. Suppose there is a scheme for conversion. It may be that some people will take the view that in fact the stockholder is doing better out of the conversion scheme, and others may take the view that in fact the stockholder is not doing so well out of the conversion scheme. There is obviously, because that is what is contemplated at the moment, liable to come a time when legislation is either proposed or passed in South Africa which the British Government say ought not to be proposed or passed. This Sub-section preserves the right of this Government to negative that legislation. What is to be the position if you have a secessionist group in South Africa, such a group as there is at the present time in the South African Parliament, a Republican group, and the British Government tells the Government of South Africa that they have to repeal an Act which they have passed? I would not envy the Minister in South Africa who had to get up in the South African Parliament and say: "I have been told by the British Government that this Act which the South African Government has passed must be repealed." It would give a glorious opening for attack to the secessionist element, and that, surely, is what we want to avoid.
  We do not want to keep on a chain of this sort. When we have decided upon the development to A logical conclusion of the Commonwealth of Nations, we do not want to give opportunities for secessionist groups to come along and
  340
  say: "Ah, here is a very good reason for seceding." We have come across enough difficulties of this nature on Imperial questions with regard to Ireland. I ventured to state to the House on the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster that it was absolutely urgent and vital that an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal should be set up immediately the Statute of Westminster was passed, because otherwise we should find ourselves involved in discussions in which there was no solution. And so it has happened with Ireland. Here is just that type of difficulty which is going to arise—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take particular note of what I am saying, because I am saying it most sincerely and not in any sense from a party point of view—or may arise in future between a South African Government and a Government in this country who take a different point of view as regards A bit of South African legislation.
  Surely, this is a very God-sent opportunity for setting up an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal. We have the recommendation of the Imperial Conference of 1930 in some detail as to what sort of tribunal it should be and how it should operate. If this matter, instead of being left to the veto of the British Government, were left to an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal in case of difference arising between a South African Government and a British Government—nothing can arise under this Bill unless there is a difference—the inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal will do two things. It will provide in advance 'an absolute method of solving the difficulty when it arises, and it will be a precedent for the settlement of inter-Imperial difficulties.
  I regard it, as I always have regarded it ever since the Statute of Westminster was passed, as vitally important to get this principle started. We talk a great deal about the League of Nations and settling matters by arbitration, and there is the Hague Tribunal, and the rest of it, but we have not yet within our own Empire been able to set up machinery by which we can settle our internal disputes. Here is a case where internal disputes may arise in the future. Do not let us wait till the disputes arise, so that when they do arise they may be used by secessional groups within the Empire as an argument for secession. Let us initiate, while it is opportune, methods of

  341
  settling these disputes, just as in regard to our own domestic matters we should decide upon some court to which we could refer the matter if dispute arose. Here, however, we are leaving the position open to the possibility of dispute between two co-equal Governments in the conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and not giving any methods in Advance by which they can solve their difficulties.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the development of the Commonwealth of Nations, to consider very seriously whether something cannot be put in this Bill so that if two Governments disagree as regards anything arising out of this matter, the dispute shall be referred to an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal on the lines set out in the report of the Imperial Conference of 1930, when the Commonwealth tribunal was dealt with in detail, and that that decision shall be accepted by this country and by this House as binding and as definitive. Unless we do that it is no use having arbitration by an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal. If we do that, it will lay down a precedent for the conduct of inter-Imperial relationships which will be of the greatest value to this country in the future. I am not sure that once one got such a tribunal constituted it might not help to solve the Irish problem.
  I most sincerely beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the opportunity that arises now for initiating this great development and to pledge himself, and to get the South African Government to pledge themselves, in the event of a dispute arising, whether it is interim or whether it is a departure from the original contract, to submit it to the inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal and to accept as final the decision of that inter-Imperial tribunal. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that I am certain that this Bill, far from being regarded as a small matter, will in future be regarded as one of the foundations of the Commonwealth of Nations.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The Colonial Stock Act when it was put on the Statute Book was comparatively small and not a sensational piece of legislation, but I have always felt that it had an important place in the development of the Colonies and subsequently of the Dominions. It
  342
  gave at a most important time in their development a definite preference, amounting to one or two per cent. to the overseas Dominions in what was the most valuable possession to them of free access to the capital market of this country. It is obvious in view of the enormous expansion of the development which has been built up upon the foundations of that Act, that anything which seeks to modify it in any way must be of wide importance not merely to stockholders and others directly interested in that way but also to all who are concerned with the future stability of the Empire and the future development of the Empire, because it is likely in the future that the developments will be no less important than those which have been built up in the past upon this Act.
  There appear to me to be two points of importance in regard to the Bill which the House will wish to consider. The first is the fact that the Bill proposes to make no change in the status of security of any existing loan, or to modify the conditions under which future loans may be made. To those who have heard the statement of my right hon. Friend, coupled with the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) last week, and also the explicit terms of the proposals which have been passed by the Union Government of South Africa, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, there will be no apprehension that there is any intention to do anything to alter the security or status of any loan which has been made up to the present time. It is also important that there should be no question of any kind in regard to that matter in the mind of any body of investors or anybody else. The facts cannot be too widely advertised that no change is intended which will in any way act deleteriously to the developments which have taken place in the past. The other point, which is of very great substance, is that there should not be in this Bill and in this proposed alteration any seed of possible trouble between different parts of the Empire, however unlikely it may be that that seed will germinate.
  The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has pointed out that there is clearly here a matter which does raise doubts in our minds. He has pointed out with very great force that it

  343
  is possible a difficult situation may arise owing to the fact that a Dominion Government may not be able to persuade the Parliament of that Dominion to carry out a change which the Government itself wishes to carry out in order to give effect to what is done here. I entirely subscribe to what has been said as to the desirability of having some machinery to which, however remote the contingency may be, differences of opinion may be referred for arbitration. I should like to know whether this matter was considered in the discussions that have taken place between the Government of this country and the Union Government of South Africa, and, if not, whether the Government will see whether they cannot do something in regard to a matter which requires further attention.
  3.59 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: As the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has said, this is a very important Bill. Having read it, I am satisfied that it amply protects the trustee holders in this country of Dominion and Colonial loans. I cannot see why it should be thought that there is anything invidious in saying that the Government of the United Kingdom should have the decision as to whether or not legislation in a Colony or Dominion affects this particular security. After all, there is no obligation on any Dominion or Colony to ask that any particular loan which that Dominion or Colony may put upon the market is to be put on the Trustee List, and, as the last speaker has pointed out, the very fact of any loan of the kind being put upon the Trustee List by the Government of the United Kingdom, means that the particular Dominion or Colony will obtain the money which they desire to have at 1 or 2 per cent, less than they would otherwise obtain it.
  Surely, therefore, it is not asking anything out of the way when we say that if this great privilege, this great security is given the British Government should be entitled to tell the Dominion or Colonial Government in question if they consider that the security in which trustees have invested their money on our certificate and recommendation is affected, I certainly think it is not asking anything too much—in fact, it is
  344
  shown by the agreement which the Dominions and Colonies have already expressed in this matter—that the United Kingdom should decide whether or not the security which has obtained these great privileges has been in any way interfered with.
  There is only one other matter to which I desire to draw attention, and that is the statement with which the hon. and learned Member representing the Socialist Opposition commenced his speech. I took it down, and I think it is substantially accurate. It was, that he and his friends were not particularly interested in securing the rights of Colonial stockholders. I think that was an extraordinary statement to come from a leader of His Majesty's Opposition.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I said that we were more interested in preserving the Commonwealth of Nations, which apparently, the hon. Member is not.
  Sir W. DAVISON: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the OFFICIAL. REPORT to-morrow he will see that what he said was that he and his friends were not particularly interested in securing the rights of colonial stockholders, but were more interested in Colonial and Dominion development. I was going to read on, if hon. Members had not interrupted. That was exactly my point. On this side we are all interested in Colonial and Dominion development, but, at the same time, we realise our responsibilities to people who have lent money on certain securities which we have approved. It was because the electors of this country at the last election realised that they were not secure with the late administration that the present administration is here with such a great majority. I think it is of immense importance that the country should realise that the hon. and learned Member leading the Opposition to-day says that he and his friends are not particularly interested in securing the rights of Colonial stockholders. I think it is a most remarkable statement for a leader of the Opposition to have made, and I hope that the country will note it.
  4.5 p.m.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I think that we can only attribute to the weather the heat which has been imparted into this Debate. It is not a. party matter,

  345
  nor is it a controversial matter, and we have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member opposite and to the suggestion which he put forward. I would say, in the first place, that there can be no possibility of amending this Bill in any way, as it is the result of a definite and formal agreement with the Government of the Union of South Africa, who have already passed the necessary legislation. But with regard to the hon. and learned Member's interesting suggestion that we should take this opportunity of setting up an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal, and should submit matters that might arise on differences of opinion between the home Government and the Dominion Government to that tribunal, I would remind him, in the first place, that when he suggests that that tribunal would prove in days to come useful in many ways, such as settling our differences with the Irish Free State, that we have already suggested—I think I am speaking correctly—to the Irish Free State the setting up of such a tribunal, and they have declined to appear or to put their case before it, insisting upon it being not an inter-Imperial, but an international tribunal. That really brings home the fact that we have not yet reached the stage in inter-Imperial relations when the principle of an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal is sufficiently well-established to command that confidence and general assent which it would certainly be necessary for such a tribunal to command before we submitted questions of this sort to it.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the only way to get that started is to start it in a small way with such a thing as this, so that people may get confidence in it?
  Mr. COOPER: I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member. This is one of the subjects which ought not to go to such a tribunal, because it differs from every other Measure and cause of dispute which could possibly arise between the South African Government and ourselves, as it is not a question of inter-Imperial policy or, indeed, of policy at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) pointed out, when a Dominion is asking for special privileges, which we never give to any foreign government, however friendly to ourselves, in return for those privileges we say that we must
  346
  be the judge of the conditions under which those privileges are to be exercised. Under this system they are able to borrow money in London more easily than they otherwise would do. That plan suits them admirably. They do not wish to see it changed, and the hon. and learned Member is really more royalist than the King; he is more sensible of the interest and dignity of the Government of the South African Union than the Government of the South African Union are themselves. They are perfectly satisfied with this scheme, and when the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) envisaged the possibility of a dispute between that Government and ourselves—and that possibility is, of course, not beyond the range of practical politics in the future--and when people speak of a secessionist group arising on a matter of this sort, I think they are entirely wrong. The last thing' that a secessionist group would want to do would be to undermine the credit of South Africa on the London market. They would be doing so obvious a disservice to their country to begin by ruining the credit of their country in London, that that is not a real, practical danger.
  The scheme is one which the South African Government have themselves worked out. The Bill now before the House is one which suits their purpose, one which they think will maintain their credit; whereas they do think, as we think, that if the whole of this stock were put in a position in which the interest were no longer guaranteed, as in the past, by His Majesty's Government, but really rested upon some dim inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal, their first reaction to such a proposal would be to say, "Well, there are other stocks in which we can invest our money with a better guarantee than this." We have heard a lot about tribunals and arbitration. Arbitration may be all very well in its way. I am sure that it is the opinion and the policy of His Majesty's Government that the more use which is made of arbitration in the future the better, and it is an ideal of His Majesty's Government that we may reach the time when all disputes are submitted to arbitration. But at the present time the ordinary bondholder would much rather have the whole guarantee of this Government behind his money than the guarantee of an inter-

  347
  Imperial arbitral tribunal. That being the feeling both of His Majesty's Government here and of His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of South Africa, I think the House will be well advised to pass this Bill without further discussion.

  SHOPS BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  SHOPS BILL [Lords].

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to regulate employment in spells.)
    (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to make provision for preventing the hours of employment of young persons from being so divided into spells as to deprive them of reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation, he may make regulations directing that, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be provided by the regulations, the working hours of a young person employed shall (notwithstanding anything in the definition of the expression "working hours "contained in this Act) be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to include the period from the time at which that person first begins on any day to be employed about the business of a shop until the time at which he last ceases on that day to be so employed, exclusive only—

    (a) of such intervals, whether for rest or meals or otherwise; and

    (b) of time allowed for attendance at such instructional courses,

    as may be specified in the regulations.
    (2) Any regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation has been laid before it resolves that the regulation shall be annulled the regulation shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of a new regulation.—[Captain Crooksliank.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.11 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In spite of the kindly welcome, I must ask for the indulgence of the House, because it looks very different here from what it did from the somewhat exalted position on the back benches, and par-
    348
    titularly because this is a very technical Measure, and I was not on the Committee, although, naturally, I have read every word that was said. One, however, does not quite get the atmosphere in which the Debates were conducted by reading about them.
    The Clause I have now the honour to move deals with the "Power to regulate employment in spells." All such Clauses are, of course, capable of the most wonderful mathematical possibilities if we set out to find them, and in Committee it was pointed out that it was possible to work a young person—this was die actual case given—from 8.30 to 1 o'clock and from six o'clock to 9.30, and on another day to alter the hours, so that a young person would never know where he was. Therefore, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has taken such a great part in all these discussions, proposed the adoption of the principle of continuous employment, whether the employment was actually continuous or deemed to be continuous. The argument, of course, was that, owing to the haphazard nature of the employment, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to afford reasonable facilities for these young persons, it might be for sport, or it might be for further educational opportunities.
    My right hon. Friend in Committee promised that this matter would be further considered. We have, therefore, made inquiries again into this matter, and I am sure that everyone will be glad to know that the principal associations who speak for the traders have no objection at all to this on principle. I do not think that any reasonable person could have any objection on principle. It is the commonsense thing to do. But the trouble is, as everyone who has followed this Bill knows, that we are entering into an entirely new field of legislation, and while inquiries have been very thoroughly made, both by the Select Committee and by other means, the fact remains that a great deal of the water is still uncharted, and there may very well be abuses. On the other hand, until the Bill is in operation, it is very hard in this particular matter to make anything more than a surmise, and so my right hon. Friend has thought that the best way of dealing with the matter is the way this Clause sets out, that is, that he should have the power to make

    349
    exceptions with regard to particular trades, but that the general idea should be continuous employment, exclusive only, as the new Clause says:
    " of such intervals, whether for rest or meals or otherwise; and of time allowed for attendance at such instructional courses."
    I need not go into details in regard to particular trades, but there is the case of the butchers, who employ young persons for cleaning the shop and the instruments mornings and evenings. They have a system by which they get two half holidays a week, but it is impossible to meet their case under this Amendment. There is also the case of newsagents, about which many communications have been received. These are exactly the kind of case with which we have taken power to deal with by regulations when we have seen how the provisions of the Bill work out in practice. We suggest this method of dealing with the matter. It is difficult to lay down rigid conditions for every conceivable case as we are dealing with 400,000 young persons, who have not been legislated for for many years. The House will, no doubt, be pleased to see the second part of the new Clause which gives them power with regard to any regulations Which may be made. I hope the House will accept the Clause. It is designed to meet the case made in Committee stage and allows the House to protest if necessary against any regulations which may be made. By having a system of regulations it enables the Home Secretary to discuss the difficulties with any particular trade affected and see how they can be surmounted within the general framework of the Bill, which is designed to assist the employment of young persons.
    4.17 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the House will wish me at the outset to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his promotion to his present office. The only thing I am sorry about i3 the company in which he now finds himself, but I hope he may improve the company. I am not, of course, referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but the Treasury Bench as a whole. This is a Clause to deal not with the total number of hours to be worked by young persons covered by the Bill, but with the problem as to whether
    350
    young persons shall be obtainable for work for 10 or 12 hours although actually employed for only eight or nine hours a day. That is a fair way of putting the position. In Committee we discussed this problem at some length and I thank the Government for having looked into the question and for bringing forward this new Clause. But I feel sure that the Home Office is capable of something much better than they have now proposed. What does the Clause say? It says that the right hon. Gentleman is to bring regulations before the House of Commons regulating the spells of employment of these young persons on two specific grounds, that is, in relation to reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation. Young persons, however, have more to think about in connection with their employment during the day besides reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation.
    Take the case of a young boy or girl living five or six miles out of the centre of London employed in a large shop in the Metropolis. Take the case of a boy employed in a butcher's shop, who comes to town in the morning, starts work at eight o'clock cleaning knives, and all the rest of it, and finishes at half-past 10. He is then told by his employer that he will not be wanted until one o'clock. He comes back at that hour and at half-past four is told again that he is not wanted until half-past six. That is possible under the new Clause, and may be possible also under the regulations to be laid before
    Parliament. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State do not want to encourage that sort of thing in connection with the employment of
    these young people. Take the case of a girl of 14, 15 or 16 years of age. She lives five or six miles out in the country and works in a shop in London. My trouble about the new Clause is that it is an invitation to unscrupulous employers to do what I am now suggesting. What is going to happen to that girl. She is told by her employer at 12 o'clock that she will not be wanted until three o'clock in the afternoon. All that is possible under the Bill, and such an employer would still come within its provisions so far as total hours of work are concerned. Parliament should

    351
    not allow a situation or that kind to arise. It would be a shame upon hon. Members of all parties if we tolerate such a condition as that.
    The answer, of course, is that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the regulations before Parliament. But what is going to happen? The Home Office has consulted the trades. We have heard about the butchers and the newsagents, and about cleaning shops; and to be quite frank the people who have made these representations to the Home Office in regard to these spells in shop life manifestly represent the exceptional rather than the common case. In shop life in this country there are in the main no splits of that kind at all. There are no spells in the grocery and provision trade, in the drapery trade, in fruit shops and tobacconists; there are indeed no spells in the distributive trades, and I was astonished to hear that butchers want boys to come in the morning for about three hours and then to be unemployed for the remainder of the day until about four o'clock. Parliament should not allow butchers to do that any longer. I have never heard until now that butchers did that as a general rule. I say, therefore, that we have to be careful.
    I am not criticising the Home Office. I understand their difficulties. We are tackling a new problem entirely in this Bill, but however clumsily it may be worded I still say that it is a Bill which is, or should be, the basis of a big reform. When we are laying down the basis of a big reform, and all the facts are known, we should not make the mistake of allowing this new Clause to be passed in its present form. The object of the Bill is to safeguard the interests of young people. After what I have heard to-day and during the last few weeks I am afraid that the pressure of the shop-keeping community on the Home Office has been such that the Bill, if we are not very careful, will become a measure to safeguard the interests of shopkeepers. We are dealing here with 350,000 to 400,000 young persons. I have never been able to understand the mind of those who run the shops of this country. The best shopkeepers, the larger shopkeepers, and some of the multiple firms, are well within the provisions of the Bill already. We are passing this legislation not to deal with the best shopkeepers
    352
    but to bring unscrupulous employers up to the standard of the best.
    There are no spells of this kind in the co-operative movement, which employs about 200,000 shop assistants. Their conditions of employment are in the main well within the scope of the Bill. I am up against this problem, that if this new Clause is put into the Bill and it provides a sort of incentive to the unscrupulous private employer to do what is suggested here, the butchers in particular, the co-operative movement, which is now working well within the ambit of the provisions of the Bill, will be faced with competition and will ask themselves how long they are to go on without breaking with the practice of the past in shop life. We must indeed understand what we are doing in this Clause. The Home Office has done well in bringing the Clause before the House, but I think they could have done much better to meet the criticisms made in Committee, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his first appearance as a Minister of State should have to move the adoption of this Clause, as the Opposition will have to go to the Division Lobby and vote against it.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. DENMANUnlike the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) so far from sympathising with the hon. and gallant Member for having the misfortune to have to move such a Clause as this, I would desire to congratulate him sincerely on introducing it, because it appears to me to go beyond the hopes of some of us who sat on the Committee. We recognised how extremely difficult the problem is. There are isolated cases in the best trades of what are known as split duties, which are unavoidable. What we were afraid of in Committee was that this system of split duties, which enables people to be thrown out of work and then brought back again, might prevail, and might be encouraged by the overtime provisions we were passing in the Bill. We hoped that the Home Office would provide a Clause which would regularise whatever system might be approved. If there must be split duties, let them be recognised within certain limits. Those limits are very carefully defined here. The regulations will have to specify what the intervals are, whether for rest or meals or otherwise, and they will lay down the time allowed for attend-

    353
    ante at instruction courses. A regulated scheme of that kind is very much better than a hopelessly unregulated scheme of which we were afraid, and we ought to accept the Clause with gratitude. The Clause definitely states that we regard courses of instruction as a valuable addition to the day of young workers. I do not think that in any other part of the Bill there is any such indication, and I do not know of any other legislation, except the Unemployment Bill which has just been passed, that throws such emphasis on instruction courses.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I recognise that the Home Secretary has tried to meet what is rather a serious point, but I am by no means satisfied that the new Clause will do away with what I fear may prove to be a blot on the Bill. It is obvious that the Clause cannot be operated for two, three or more years. It is impossible for the Home Secretary to make an Order under the Clause without first of all making inquiries into the working of the Act and until he has found out how far the split periods extend. What I am always afraid of is that when we get legislation passed employers who work under the provisions of an Act bring in their own rules to govern their own boys and girls, and it takes a. great deal of trouble and agitation to persuade the Home Office that any real grievance exists. We have to remember that the vast majority of employers concerned with this Bill are already working within its provisions. I refer to the great houses, the decent employers, and the thousands of small employers who are just as anxious as the large employers to do the right thing. All these people are already pretty well within the provisions of the Bill. But it appears to me that this House makes a great mistake very often when certain people—they may be a very small minority of the people involved—put up a case that there is hardship as far as they are concerned, and the House immediately turns a sympathetic ear and proceeds to protect, not the good employer but the position of the bad employer.
    Let me give a case that comes to mind. Under the Bill a boy can be employed at a baker's shop at 5 o'clock in the morning, an unreasonable hour which is totally unnecessary. We are told that that hour is necessary because the bread just made
    354
    has to be delivered. Fancy delivering bread at 5.30 in the morning when 99 per cent. of the people are not- out of bed. The baker having brought the boy to his establishment at 5 a.m. proceeds to put him on to jobs to prepare things for the bakers. The boy is allowed to work eight hours a day or a little over. The employer sends them away at 9 o'clock when he has worked four hours. He can bring that boy back at 4 p.m. and proceed to work him another four hours until 8 p.m. That is not going to happen except in the case of the kind of employer who compels this House from time to time to bring in legislation of this kind. I can imagine nothing more demoralising to the moral of a young man between 14 and 18 years of age than to be lounging about during the middle of the day, a nuisance to himself and to every one around him, and then to be at the disposal of his employer from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member is overlooking Clause 2, and the interval of eleven hours consecutively. Eleven hours up to 5 o'clock in the morning would make it impossible for the boy to be employed at 8 o'clock the evening before.
    Mr. BANFIELD: But that does not alter the validity of my argument that if a young fellow is to be at the disposal of an employer all the hours of the day that in itself is a bad thing. Suppose the young fellow leave at 6 o'clock. He has been at the disposal of his employer since 5 a.m. He has then to have a period of eleven hour's rest. He goes away at 6 o'clock and he must have seven or eight hours' sleep. The effect of the proposal, therefore, is that, except in a very slight measure, the young person is at the disposal of the employer for at least 13 hours. He must have eight hours sleep if he is to be of any use at all, and all he gets in the way of recreation is three hours on any particular day. I am satisfied that if we were legislating for the vast majority of this trade it would be possible to have four consecutive hours of work, to allow at least two hours for a meal, and then to work the other four hours, so that young people could have recreation and instruction during the evening. I have dealt with the question of juvenile employment in my own industry over and over again. I have

    355
    persuaded employers in all parts of the country that it is not desirable to have split shifts for young persons, that they are a cause of very serious discontent to older people, and that to start them with young people of 16 years of age is a step in the wrong direction. The whole thing is totally unnecessary.
    I do not believe that even 2 or 3 perceŉt. of the employers desire or require -this system of split shifts. Why, therefore, bring in a complicated Arrangement like this for the benefit of those who have always been the biggest trouble to the. Government, to the trade unions and to every one interested in the welfare of young people? It would have been far better for the Government to have recognised that we have a case in this matter. The mere fact that this new Clause is brought forward shows that the Home Office have given the matter serious consideration, but I suggest that they have dealt with it in A rather half-hearted way. It would have been far better to have provided that the hours should be as consecutive as possible, that they should finish at a reasonable time in the evening and that five o'clock in the morning for young workers to deliver bread made overnight is an altogether unreasonable hour. In justice to ourselves, not particularly as politicians but as members interested in young people, we must take this matter to a Division.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. LEVY: All the arguments used by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) And the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) are exactly the same as the arguments that we heard in the Standing Committee. It was recognised in Committee that there were some trades which were compelled to have split shifts and that it was impossible to get continuous employment. The work that occurs instantly to one's mind is the collection and delivery of newspapers in the morning and again in the evening. There was a Division on this matter upstairs. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in bringing before the House this Clause, which fills a gap and deals specifically with the various hours that young people shall be allowed to work. There is no doubt that the Cause ought to satisfy all reasonable people. It is practically impossible to
    356
    satisfy unreasonable people. The Clause is one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the T7nder-Secretary, can be highly satisfied at having introduced, because it will give satisfaction to practically everyone concerned.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. IMANDER: The Clause has been introduced by the Government as a result of the discussions in Committee, and it represents a concession by the Government. I am sure that it represents a substantial advance, and that the Bill will be infinitely better for having this Clause in it. I really cannot follow the reasons why my hon. Friends of the Labour party do not desire to have the Clause. I would very much rather that the Government had dealt with the matter on different lines, from the exactly opposite point of view, and had laid it down that hours shall be consecutive as the general rule, subject to execeptions in certain cases. I believe that that would have been far preferable. But this is a compromise Measure. We are trying to improve things as far as we can. I shall certainly support the Government on this Clause.
    Without this Clause there would be a real danger that as a result of this Measure the lot of a number of shop assistants would be worse than it is now. When an employer can keep people at work for an unlimited number of hours he does not bother much about how the hours are divided out but if a shopkeeper has only 52 or 48 hours a, week during which he can employ a person he thinks very carefully about how he is going to allocate those hours and a shopkeeper might be inclined to say to an assistant in those circumstances: "I will concentrate your activities in the shop on those hours when I want your services most, however inconvenient that may be to you." As a result of this Clause, if the Home Office find that in any particular trade employers are depriving assistants of their proper opportunities for recreation and education—and I wish that this provision could be made wider still—it will be possible to pass regulations which will compel those employers to make the working hours reasonably consecutive. Because of the fact that the Clause definitely protects the assistants and prevents abuses which might otherwise grow up and render the

    357
    lot of those assistants worse than it is, for my part, congratulate the Government on having brought forward this proposal though I wish it had gone further
    and dealt more firmly with the matter.
    4.47 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I regret that the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has seen fit to suggest that there are unreasonable people standing in the way of this undoubtedly good Measure. I do not think he can have gained that impression in the Committee upstairs because from what I saw of its proceedings, I thought there was more of the spirit of sweet reasonableness shown in that Committee than in some of the other Committees on which I have had the honour of serving. If there was any unreasonableness at all I certainly do not think he can make such a charge against Members on this side of the House and if it be the case that he regards us as unreasonable, I would say that we are acting unreasonably—from his point of view—on behalf of people who are entitled to protection and who are least able to protect themselves. With regard to the new Clause itself, I would point out that the former Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that he would take back this matter for reconsideration in the hope of damping down the ardour of the Opposition for the views which they had expressed in Committee. Our ardour has not been damped and nothing has happened since to lessen our desire for something specific in the Bill in connection with this matter. We must bear in mind that this Bill, in essence, is an Hours Bill and it is up to us to see that the regulation of hours is specifically provided for in the Bi11. Regulation of hours being an essential part of the Bill, we ought not to leave that regulation to the people who are in control of the employ6s concerned. That is the proposal, in effect, although I know it is tempered to some extent by the provision as to the eleven-hours interval. The person who can control the starting point and the finishing point of the working hours of an individual, determines that individual's day and the point made by the hon. Member for. Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) as to what might happen in circumstances such as he indicated is a very good one and one that could be extended in its application.
    358
    In regard to the regulations which may be made under this new Clause and may be laid before the House, the matter is to be gone into only if the Secretary of State deems it necessary to do so. What factors will be taken into account in deciding whether there is necessity or not for such action? Will it be possible, for instance, because comparatively few people in one section of a trade are being harshly dealt with, for the Minister to decide that it is not necessary in such a case to take action? I think the wording of the Clause in this respect is rather wide and I do not think we have yet received sufficient guidance upon that point. I look upon an investigation of the kind proposed as being capable of ensuring the application of a certain measure of justice in particular cases, but I do not think it is possible to get the same degree of justice or impartiality by that method, as would be achieved by a specific provision in the Bill in regard to these hours. I would not suggest that there is no possibility of impartial decisions being defined and applied, as the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would wish, but I hold that the proposed method would not be so good as a specific injunction in the Bill.
    I would also point out that a proposal of this kind involves the possibility of interference with the domestic conditions which obtain in the great majority of households throughout the country. The arrangements in those households are not based upon periods of work cut up in the manner which would be possible under this proposal. The domestic arrangements in the homes of the people have been made so as to fit into specific and continuous periods of employment, and I submit that that is another point in favour of our attitude on this matter. There is also the difficulty which has already been pointed out with regard to the possible misuse time at certain hours of the day. Upstairs in Committee the former Under-Secretary of State placed a great deal of reliance upon the application of the Shop Hours Act and referred to the possibility of that enactment imposing a restriction upon the cutting up of hours under these proposals, but I do not think that that example will be found, on examination, to be as effective as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. I think that a specific injunction in the Bill on the lines which have

    359
    been suggested in our criticisms would be better than leaving the matter to future investigation and regulation.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 42.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary modifications of limitations imposed by Act on working hours.)
    Until the twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Schedule (Temporary Modification of Reference to Working Flours) to this Act shall have effect as if for the references therein mentioned in the third column of that Schedule there were respectively substituted the references mentioned in the fourth column thereof:
    Provided that as respects any shop to which the provisions of sub-section (1) of section four of this Act are applicable during a period comprising the said twenty-seventh day of December the substitution of references in that sub-section which are mentioned in the said Schedule shall continue to have effect until the expiration of that period.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.1 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is to put back the original Clause, which was struck out of the Bill in the Standing Committee by one vote. Members of the Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill upstairs said that it would be necessary for the Government to ask the House to replace the Clause. I should like to say at the outset that in bringing this Bill before Parliament we at the Home Office have endeavoured to move in close contact with all the circumstances of the problem with which we have had to deal and that over a considerable period of time negotiations have gone on with representatives both of the employers and of the various classes of those employed. The Select Committee which had to report to Parliament upon the problems with which we are dealing
    362
    to-day did, I think, clearly anticipate that there should be an interval between the passage of legislation and the actual working of the new proposals. I think it is also clear that they rather anticipated or considered that it would be the existing circumstances which would obtain in that interval of time until the new circumstances were brought into being.
    That is not the view which the Government have taken. The House will observe that, while it may have been unanticipated by some of the employers that a 48 hours week would be achieved straight away, still they have accepted, and accepted loyally, that change coming about eventually, on the basis that there should be a period of something else. Now what is that something else? It is not, as I have tried to indicate, what what was in the minds of the Committee, namely, the existing circumstances, but it is Ian immediate reduction of the maximum weekly hours to 52. The transitional period will bring benefits which, I think, are appreciated by all sections of the House. The present legal limit upon the hours of young persons is 74 inclusive of meal-times, representing something like 68 actual hours of work. I think it is true, as has been already said in the Debate to-day, that the maximum may not often be used, and that particularly among large employers and good employers these hours are not reached, but the Select Committee, when they were examining this problem, found that the average hours of employment approximated to 54 per week. It is clear, therefore, that the immediate reduction to 52 hours is better than the average which has been in existence.
    There are, of course, other provisions in the Bill besides those which deal with weekly hours. There are, for example, the provisions in Clause 2, which restrict night employment; in Clause 8, extend-

    363
    ing the law relating to weekly half-holidays and intervals for meals; and in Clause 9, requiring the provision in shops of adequate sanitation, washing facilities, etc. All these provisions are, I submit, of importance, and they all come into operation immediately the Bill comes into force and are not affected by the proposal, which in fact is what I am moving, to postpone the introduction of the 48 hours week. Those who desire to see the material improvement which this Bill aims at bringing about may say to themselves that two years is a longish time to wait for the final objective, but I have to say to the House quite frankly that, in my view and in the view of those with whom I have been working, a material advantage will be achieved if in fact we carry with us, not only the consent, but the good will and the close co-operation of all classes of employers in this country, who, frankly, did not expect to have this Government imposing upon them a 48 hours week, but something less restrictive.
    We have had to discuss this question over a long period with all sorts and classes of people and under all kinds of circumstances, and I would say that this is a Bill which has no party complexion about it at all. It is a social reform which everyone of us, to whatever party he may belong, desires to see achieved; and as a result of having taken part in and followed closely all these negotiations over a long period of time, I say to the House emphatically that in my judgment it is right and proper that this interval of time should be granted, and that I believe that the final result of making this arrangement and putting it into the Bill again, as it was originally, will be, not to the detriment, but really to the well-being of all those whom we desire to serve.
    5.10 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted what happened upstairs, when the Labour group in the Standing Committee, with the help of several of the Members supporting the Government, was able to defeat the Government by one vote. The right hon. Gentleman is re-instituting that Clause, and I had better say how we look at it. This Clause will provide a 52 hours week for all young persons from
    364
    14 to 18 years of age up to the end of 1936, with no overtime at all for young persons up to 16. At the end of 1936, 2i years hence, the 48 hours week will come into operation with a stipulated number of hours overtime for young persons of 16 and 17 years of age. There is a Schedule to the Bill connected with this Clause, and I have one congratulation to offer to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has given us in that Schedule the best crossword puzzle that I have ever seen in a Bill before Parliament. I have been studying it very closely, and although I thought I had an acute mind on these things, I have practically failed to understand what it all means.
    We are face to face, therefore, with this simple problem, and I had better explain what we propose to do with this Clause, and with the Amendment to it which stands in our name lower on the Paper. We propose, if it pleases Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss the principle of this Clause, including the date of its coming into operation, in general, and not to vote against the Clause, but to vote for the Amendment bringing forward the date to 1935, when that Amendment is put.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly that he would like to take a general discussion on the Question, "That the Clause be read a. Second time," including the question of date, on the understanding that he takes a Division on his Amendment afterwards without further discussion?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That will suit our purpose very well, Sir, because we can then get a Division. We have come to a very important point in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion in this Debate has tried to express the mind of the Select Committee by saying that it recommended a proper interval before the change was brought about. I have been looking round to-day, and I think I am the only Member of that Select Committee left in attendance in this House to-day—I think there are only five of us left in this Parliament—and I think I can interpret the mind of the Select Committee, if I may say so without offence, better than can the right hon. Gentleman, because I was a member of it, and he was not. The mere fact that he is Secretary of State does not

    365
    give him a greater title to interpret the mind of that committee than that possessed by a member of it. I am sure I am right in saying that the Select Committee never contemplated that before a 48 hours week was established for these young persons they would have to wait 2½ years after the passing of the Measure; and let it be remembered that the Select Committee reported in 1931 and that all the organisations representing the shopkeeping community brought their proposals before that Select Committee and all of them have seen articles and comments in their own trade Press on these recommendations ever since 1931.
    This is not new to them. They know all about it, and consequently we say that the date ought to be brought forward from December, 1936. We thought that the suggestion that we made upstairs might be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. That suggestion was that, instead of asking that it should come into operation at the end of December, 1934, we were willing to compromise by accepting December, 1935. The right hon. Gentleman has stuck to his guns in spite of the opposition of his own supporters, and I am not sure that he is not going to be defeated this afternoon. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) was in the same Division Lobby as ourselves on the last occasion, and I feel sure that every hon. Member who voted in that way upstairs will vote in the same way to-day in order to carry the flag to the last ditch as it were.
    Let me give reasons why we object to December, 1936. Can hon. Members conceive anything in any kind of shop that warrants a preparation for 21 years before this Bill comes into operation? There are hundreds of thousands of shop assistants who have been working for 48 hours a week for years. All Co-operative employs, numbering 200,000, have worked for 48 hours and less for the last 15 or 20 years. Consequently, it is no argument to say that shopkeepers cannot put their house in order in less than two and a-half years. The National Government bring in a Bill to deal with about 400,000 young persons in order to regulate their conditions of employment, and they want to give the employers two and a-half years in which to arrange their business, so that the Act can be put into operation.
    366
    Yet the same Government transformed the fiscal policy of this country from Free Trade to tariffs, subsidies, bounties and quotas in the twinkling of an eye. That was an operation affecting 42,000,000 people. When it comes to the welfare of a few thousand young persons, they want two and a-half years in which to act. If they want to subsidise tramp shipping, an hour will do, and they can give £3,000,000 to the beef industry in five minutes. That is the attitude of mind of the Government—young people last, beasts of burden, farmers, shipbuilders, employers and financiers first every time. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division will no doubt speak after me, and perhaps she will reserve her remarks until then instead of conducting a duet with me.
    We see no reason why we should wait 2½ years. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the mining industry, the textile industry and all the well-organised industries, but none of them would wait for 2½ years. The sad and pathetic feature of this problem is that we are dealing with young persons who, for reasons known to themselves, are not organised. The distributive trade is very badly organised on the employés' side. The right hon. Gentleman has listened to representations from the employers' side, and I do not think he has stood up to them as he ought to have done. I do not know whether some of them represented Scotland, and he was influenced because of his Scottish descent. The whole of the industrial countries in the world—people of all political parties and all shades of opinion—are marching forward, not to a 48, but to the conception of a 40-hour week. The distributive trades in this country are the last that would argue that they could not afford a 48-hour week. The balance-sheets of the retail trade companies are astonishing when nearly every other industry is suffering under the depression. I could name some of them operating in London which are well away with their 10, 15 and 20 per cent. dividends, and I am ashamed to think that some of them have been to the Home Secretary to try and induce him not to bring the 48-hour week into operation until December, 1936.
    We shall have no hesitation when our Amendment is moved in registering our protest, because the shopkeeping community ought not to have waited for an

    367
    Act of Parliament before doing this, even if only out of sheer decency, for they have made enough profits out of the community in the last two years and ought to have given a 48-hour week without waiting for a legal enactment. We shall press for 1935, and I am hoping, in spite of all that has been suggested to the contrary, that the House will defeat the Government in order to make them do something for these young people, who have waited for 25 years and been put off by Governments with promise after promise. In spite of that, when a Bill does come before Parliament, the Government wants shop assistants to wait 2½ years before they can get their reform.
    5.22 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I do not want to join with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in his fierce denunciation of the Government, because we all know in our hearts that the National Government have brought in more reforms in the last two years than any other Government in the previous 20 years. I Am the last person in the world who wants to beat the Government, but I think the hon. Member has made a good case against delaying the Bill for 2½ years. Some hon. Members speak of this as being an uncharted field. It may be, but there have been many inquiries into it. This is not a party question, but no party in the world is so pledged on this particular legislation as we are. I want to remind the House of what has happened. I admire the Government for being so wonderful in bringing in this Bill, but, although I admire them so much, I must correct my loved ones if I think they are wrong.
    In 1926 Lord Astor in another place brought in a Bill to deal with juveniles, and the Conservative Government said they would bring in a Bill at the earliest opportunity. In 1929 the Conservative Government were again pledged to do it at the earliest opportunity. In 1930 Lord Astor again introduced a Bill, and the Labour Government promised to put it into a Children Bill. In 1931 the Labour Government repeated that promise. In spite of the Labour Government having been in opposition for years and having plenty of time to think about their Children Bill, they did not bring it in.
    368
    At last we got a Children Bill, but the Under-Secretary upstairs said that they could not deal with the regulation of juveniles at the moment but would do it when industry recovered.
    The recovery of our industry has been the envy of all nations in the world, and it has now recovered enough to enable a Bill to be brought in to deal with juveniles in unregulated trades, but we get only a Bill for shop assistants instead. It is a very good Bill, but it happens to leave out 300,000 juveniles in unregulated trades who are working appalling hours. I would remind the Government that I got 89 Members to vote against them two years ago because this House felt so strongly about this question. It seems to me that, if the Government had really sensed the feeling of the House, they would have brought in a Bill to deal with all children in unregulated trades. They have not seen fit to do that. They have only seen fit to bring in this Bill. Although it leaves out 300,000 juveniles, it will cover 400,000, and we are grateful for that.
    I cannot understand, however, why the Government say that it should not be brought in for 24 years. When the Select Committee spoke of delay, they were referring to the whole of the shop assistants and not to juveniles. If this industry depends on working juveniles for 52 hours a week for another 2A- years, it must be in a very parlous way. I have been looking into the profits of the distributive trades. Are there any trades in the country that are doing as well? Ought they not, therefore, to be willing to face a slight reorganisation of this kind? The Home Office has been a little timorous about this question, and we ought to vote in order to show the Government what the back benchers of the House feel about it. I am sure that in the end it would help the Government. It may be said that we have an agreed measure, but the Government have not had to argue with the good employers.As hon. Members of the
    Opposition — those class - conscious brethren sitting below me—have admitted, the majority of employers in this country are all right. We are not legislating for them, but for those who are bad and who are determined to remain bad.
    I had a letter to-day from the National Federation of Retail Fruiterers, Florists

    369
    and Fishmongers opposing the 48-hour week. In the next two years those who are against this reform will get together and bring pressure to bear and do all that they can to delay it further. I urge, therefore, that the Government should do it now. The Home Secretary has been negotiating with these people since last autumn, and for eight years there has been pressure in the country
    in favour of this reform. In spite of that, this compromise has been arrived at. We ought to show these people that the House of Commons wants the juvenile protected now. One reason why we want them protected is that juvenile crime has increased enormously. Upstairs in a Committee Room we heard some Noah's Ark men speaking. They wanted to get back into the dark ages, and I thought that Lord Banbury was in our midst. It was a small group of teachers, and they said that the cause of juvenile crime in the country was women school teachers. I had never heard it put down to that. We might as well say that juvenile crime exists because of mothers. One of the causes of juvenile crime is under-employment and another is over-employment. When you get really fagged out and tired, you are much more desperate than when you are well and fit.
    There are 700,000 children who work in these unregulated trades, and we are legislating for 400,000 to-day, and they will have to work a 52-hour week for the next two years. I do not see any reason for that, any national necessity. The traders have had fair warning, and I do not see why we should not say, "You must make arrangements for this change by Christmas." I am perfectly certain that it could be done. If the Betting and Lottery Bill had been brought forward earlier there would have been no trouble, the Government could have passed it through at once; but we waited for a couple of years, and in the interval a vested interest has grown up and is now working against the Members of this House for all it is worth. When there is something to be done we ought not to put it off but to do it at once. If we delete this Clause and say that these juveniles are not to wait for two years we shall really be helping the Government. I want to do nothing but help the Government. We are grateful to them for all they have done.
    370
    The Government have carried far more social reforms in two years than any Government that I have known in 20 years; but they do need a little more punch at the Home Office. For years I have been urging that they should have a woman official in the Home Office. As the Home Secretary knows, I have never pressed for things for myself. One has only to look at any Front Bench to have hope of anybody getting there, but I am too much interested in social reform to think of myself, and I am convinced that anyone who is interested in bringing about a reform has more chance of success if hot looking for a job. We have the best Government we have ever had—I mean that, from the bottom of my heart—but they are timorous on this question of juvenile employment. They have listened to suggestions of compromise, not from those traders who are doing what is right towards juveniles but from those who are doing wrong. I beg the Government not to force me to vote against them, because I do not want to do it, but I cannot conscientiously vote for a delay of two years in the case of a reform which could be brought in at the end of six months, and with the country behind us. I pray the Home Secretary will not press this Clause.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I do not know that I can go quite so far as my noble Friend and say that I think this is the best Government this country has ever had, but I join with her in regretting the decision which the Government have come to on this subject. The Home Secretary rightly said that this is not a controversial Measure, not a party Measure, and I think it is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), when he was Home Secretary at the time when this Government was really a National Government, took the first steps to initiate the discussions which have since developed into this Bill; but that only goes to show that for a considerable time all those concerned have known that something of the kind was coming forward and have been put on their guard. The mere fact that this is a non-party Measure ought to have insured the Home Secretary treating the decision of the Committee upstairs in a different way. There was a large majority of Government supporters

    371
    on the Committee and nearly all of them were present during the Debates and heard the arguments. There was no smoking-room to which they could retire, and those who voted voted on the arguments as they had come before them; yet these faithful, loyal, devoted supporters of the Government defeated the Government and, contrary to the wishes of the Government and of the Home Office, decided that the Measure ought to come into operation at once. Surely that is pretty strong ground from which to start.
    I can understand the Government saying that they cannot go so far as to accept the proposal that the Measure should come into operation immediately, but there is a great deal to be said for accepting the compromise, as they have compromised on several other matters in the Bill, and allowing the Measure to come into operation in one and a half years' time. I hope that even now the Government will feel able to make such a concession. But even if we have to wait two and a half years the Bill is very well worth waiting for. If it were really necessary that there should be this delay one would not object to it, but is there any real necessity? Is it not better that all concerned should have to face up to the situation at once? They will in any case have to face up to it in two and a half years' time. They will have to make transitional arrangements for a short period, and I should have thought the trade would have felt that it was better to make the change at once and get the new system into operation rather than be left wondering what they are going to do at the end of the period. I do not think any case has been made out for a delay of two and a half years. My Noble Friend says that the traders have, in a sense, had eight years' notice, and they have certainly had two years' notice as a result of the activities at the Home Office; and in the interest of the traders themselves it would be better to deal with the case now rather than delay matters for another two and a half years.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am sorry the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is not now present, because I have a question to put to him, but perhaps another hon. Member on the same side who is connected with the
    372
    co-operative movement can supply me with information. I understand the hon. Member for Westhoughton now takes the view that some transitional period is necessary.
    Mr. THORNE: As a compromise.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is no reason why he should not divide against the Government's Clause if he is opposed to a period of transition. He has evidently come to the conclusion that a period of transition is necessary, because he has declared that he will not divide against the Clause. He can vote againt the Clause and if the, Second Reading is carried he can then move an Amendment to alter the date. But in the first place he could challenge the Clause, and he has said that he is not going to do so, and if that means anything it means that he is in favour of a transitional period, presumably as a result of the numerous representations which have reached him, as they have reached every other Member of the House. I do not know how many I have had, but there have been more on this Bill than most, and in the main- they have come not from great institutions making enormous profits but from organised bodies of small shopkeepers. They say they want a period of transition; whether they are right or wrong I am not sufficiently acquainted with the conditions of the retail trade to determine. Now that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has returned I will put my question to him. He said that he does not propose to divide against the Clause, that what he wants to divide upon is the period of transition. If he is not going to divide against the Clause that indicates that he is in favour of some period of transition, and I am not surprised, because of the representations which have come to us.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If I were not in a spirit to compromise on this very important issue we would vote against the Clause as it now stands, but we have appealed more than once to the Home Secretary to get a decent compromise. That is the only reason why we are not voting against the Clause.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member thinks there ought not to be a period of transition his obvious course is to vote against the Clause and, if he is defeated

    373
    on that, then to move to insert a new date. That is the logical course to pursue; but for other reasons he has chosen not to pursue it. He has stated that there ought to be no difficulties about making the change, because the co-operative societies have had a 48-hour week for many years. I am going to suggest that the co-operative societies are not working a 48-hour week, as this Bill means 48 hours. I am going to say that in the co-operative societies they have allowed, over and above the 48 hours, for a quarter of an hour a day for cleaning and tidying up, in other words, for a 49½hour week. The hon, Gentleman was not intending to deceive, but inadvertently he deceived the House when he said they were working a 48-hour week.
    Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member talks of 15 minutes for clearing up the shop. He must really understand that it does not take 15 minutes every evening to clear up the shop, and consequently his statement is not correct.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Under this Bill, when it comes into full operation, the maximum hours will be 48 per week, and any clearing up will have to be done within that period.
    Mr. DAVIES: For the young persons.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But under the cooperative arrangement they have a 48-hour week and a further period, of a maximum of 11 hours, for cleaning up, and, therefore, the maximum period under the co-operative societies is not 48 hours but 49½ hours. We ought to be quite clear about that. The next item is that there are no restrictions regarding the number of hours of overtime in the co-operative agreement, and, therefore, it may well be the case that when any difficulty arises in a co-operative shop though they normally work a 48-hour week—really a 49i-hour week—they are free to work overtime in a sense which will be forbidden by this Bill.
    Mr. DAVIES: With extra pay.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: We are talking now about the number of hours. The question of reorganisation is not what is to be paid but whether they should be permitted to work the extra hours. That is the administrative point, and in the circumstances I suggest that the hon. Member's
    374
    argument, based on the co-operative arrangement, is not a valid argument. I had not come here with any decisive view about the period of transition. I am satisfied from what I have heard that a period of transition is needed, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman accepts that view, though he calls it a reasonable compromise. It is a recognition of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of small shopkeepers—they may be muddlers, they may be unorganised, they may be anything you like—who are profoundly convinced that they do need a period of transition. It is their point of view and we are entitled to give some weight to it. There is not one of us who does not object to juveniles being worked unduly long hours, but it is obvious that some of the things which juveniles do are done at the beginning of the day and others at the end of the day, and it may be that when we have introduced this system there may be mechanised methods of doing those things which will eliminate some of that juvenile labour. That involves thought, and also the outlay of capital expenditure, and the process will vary from trade to trade. Anyone with an experience of managing a business knows that the introduction of such changes is attended by some difficulty.
    It is no good saying that the trade have had eight years warning. Nobody regards the setting up of a Royal Commission as a warning. I can remember the Royal Commission on the Poor Law being appointed, when the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was a Member of the Government, and I remember the night its report came out. "Bumble to go," was the comment. That was in 1908 or 1909, and "Bumble" is only departing this year, with the passage into law of the Unemployment Bill. That is the end of "Bumble" as we understand the term. Therefore it is not fair to say that the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, or the existence of an agitation, is a warning to people in any industry that something is to happen on a certain date. From the practical point of view, the only effective warning is when a Bill is passing through Parliament with reasonable certainty that it will become law. Their warning therefore dates from the Second Reading of this Bill.
    I shall vote for this transitional Clause, but I want to hear arguments as to the

    375
    period of transition. Up too now we have not heard arguments as to any particular date; certainly the arguments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton were not on any particular date. The arguments of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) referred almost entirely to the Second Reading of the Bill and did not deal with the subject on which I want information—What, from the business point of view is a desirable length for the transitional period? Some hon. Members have practical experience of the distributive trade, and I hope that they will advise us from their knowledge; I hope also that those who are actively associated with shop assistants will give us their point of view, not from the controversial aspect, but in order that other Members of the House may come to a fair judgment upon a somewhat technical matter.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) seemed as though she might depart from the attitude which she adopted upstairs, but I was pleased to note that before she finished her speech she returned with all her eloquence to the attitude which she adopted in Committee. It is right that it should be so, because she speaks, I think, for organisations which have laboured very heavily for the proposal which is now before the House. She will however, appreciate that social organisations do not run businesses. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was quite right in dealing with the matter in the way in which he put it before us. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in answer to the hon. Member's direct questions, has explained his position. I have not with me the specific agreements covering the co-operatives and the trade unions, but there is no burking the fact that there is a provision for the working of an excess of a quarter-of-an-hour. It is specifically laid down that that may be worked, if necessary, in order to clear the shop of customers. Upstairs in Committee, a letter was read with special reference to overtime. In that communication was the specific suggestion that the co-operative movement considered
    376
    that 48 hours was an adequate period in which to work. That is borne out—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: That was not what I was arguing. The hon. Member for Westhoughton urged that a transitional period was unnecessary because the co-operatives were already working 48 hours, and I was pointing out that his statement did not represent the full facts.
    Mr. LEONARD: The point I have just put before the House covers that interjection. I fail to appreciate the difficulty that prevents any private trader or anyone running shops—the co-operative movement run small shops as well as large aggregates—from operating this Bill at once. I would like details as to the problem which an employer will have to solve immediately the Bill becomes law, and which will take him till the end of 1936 to settle. That is a point upon which I have not yet been given satisfaction. Modifications in matters of detail may have to take place. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has been quite generous in his attitude. Until he gets more detailed guidance in this matter, he thinks that the end of next year is ample time to cope with any problem, and I share his opinion. I hope that in the course of the Debate some light will be thrown on this point. The Bill was introduced to deal with a specific evil. Why is it necessary, after all the preparatory work, the discussion, and the periodicals and circulars which we have received, that we should wait until the end of 1936? Upstairs the spokesman of the Government tended to lean on the guidance given by the Select Committee, and time and time again we were told that the Select Committee had recommended this or the other thing. To-day the Home Secretary, in moving this new Clause, stated truthfully that the average working time was 54 hours per week, but he might have added that the Select Committee had stated that many retail shops in this country were working from 80 to 90 hours per week.
    I do not want to deal with the cooperatives again, except to say that there are 250,000 employés already enjoying the advantages for which, under the Bill, other employeés will have to wait until the end of 1936. We should not put back all the work and agitation

    377
    in that way. The Home Secretary rightly stated that he wanted this matter considered apart from party issues, but if it is to be delayed for another two years, agitation may start again during that period, and there may be an endeavour to make this a political issue. I agree that it should not be looked at as a political issue. If the employers and employes in the industry were sensible enough to organise themselves, they need not trouble us with this matter at all; they could deal with it on their own initiative. They are using the political machine to do what they could have done for themselves. Why have we to wait until the end of 1936 before we give to great masses of people who are giving good service in the shops, conditions that 250,000 employes are already receiving in this country?
    5.55 p.m.
    Colonel GOODMAN: The new Clause, read in conjunction with the Schedule which it is proposed to put at the end of the Bill, completely restores the old Clause 2 which imposed a transitional period of two years before the Bill comes into full operation. I was a Member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill upstairs, and I supported an Amendment to omit the Clause. For what I did then I have been described as a sentimentalist. In the opprobious sense in which the epithet was applied, I have asked myself arid members of my family whether I look as though I were given to sentiment, and in every case the answer was in the negative. If one uses the less-known definition of the words "personal experience," I must admit to being a sentimentalist. I am moved by my own personal experience as a boy of being sent out to work at 10 years of age. I have done, and I intend to do, everything that I can to prevent boys and girls of to-day undergoing the same hardship that I had to suffer as a youngster.
    I regard this Bill as a good Bill, but I cannot say the same about the Clause. I regard the Bill as so good that I wished it to come into operation without Clause 2, which set it back for two years. My vote to omit that Clause was governed by that consideration and I only wish that the Minister could see his way to accept the decision of the Standing Committee. It is not sufficiently appreciated that the Bill does not attempt to regulate, restrict or deal in any way with, the hours of
    378
    adult labour. It only provides for the hours permitted to be worked by juveniles and young persons of from 14 years of age to 18 years of age. I have been charged also with describing those young persons as children. I hardly think that was a fair or accurate interpretation of my statement. Members of the Committee will know that I was speaking at the time of boys and girls of from 11 to 15 years of age, and I challenge hon. Members to describe them other than as children. If the Clause is added to the Bill, those boys and girls will have to work 52 hours a week, and that is much too long for young, growing people. Those of 16 or 17 years of age, even when the Bill comes into full operation, will have to work 48 hours a week plus 50 hours a year overtime. I commend that fact to hon. Members who are at present agitating in favour of a 40-hour adult week, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition —whom we wish could be in his place—who is at present advocating a 36-hour working week. If this Clause is passed, the Bill will not come into operation for two and a-half years from now, so I can hardly regard it as a revolutionary proposal.
    In spite of all the warnings that we received upstairs of the great upheavals which would follow the Bill being put into operation, I am still unconvinced that the distributive trades are so dependent for their prosperity upon the labour of boys and girls that it is impossible for them to operate this Bill at once and reduce the hours of labour for juveniles to 48 hours per week plus overtime. If that proves to be the fact, all I can say is that the prosperity of the distributive trades has been built up upon a very uncertain foundation. I have been given to understand that, owing to arrangements which have been come to, the Government will not proceed with the Bill unless this Clause be accepted. If that be the case, I shall be compelled to reverse the vote I gave upstairs. I would not like to do anything to jeopardise the passing of the Bill, which will reduce the permitted hours of juveniles not only from 74 per week but, as I know from my own experience, from 85 hours per week in some cases, to 52 or 52½ hours.
    I should very much like to see the transition period left out, but, if that is not possible, I suppose we must take

    379
    what we have got as gracefully as we can. I am fairly satisfied myself, inasmuch as my right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill during the discussions upstairs went a considerable way to meet the view that I hold regarding the hours of labour of these young persons, in the Amendment which prohibited the working of overtime by young persons of 14 and 15. I can only say that I am very grateful indeed for that concession, and I feel sure that, if my right hon. Friend could have done so, he would have agreed to the wider proposal, upon which the majority of the Committee decided, to delete Clause 2. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment which follows this Clause on the Order Paper. I shall not vote against the Clause, but I hope he will accept that Amendment in the spirit of compromise in which it has been put down. The Bill is a good Bill, and the sooner it comes into operation the better for everyone.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. THORNE: I am very pleased, Captain Bourne, that you have given the House the opportunity of discussing this Clause and Amendment over a very wide range, because it would be rather difficult for some of us to keep within the four corners of the Clause and the Amendment. I want to supplement what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman). He has said that he was compelled to go to work at 10 years of age, and that he made up his mind that at every possible opportunity he would try to prevent young children having to work so many hours a week. I was in an even worse position than the hon. and gallant Member, because I was compelled to start work before I was seven years of age, in a rope-walk in Birmingham, and, ever since the time when I was able to think about anything at all, I have been determined that, so far as I was concerned, I would never allow young children to go to work for the long hours and very small pay that I had. I cannot understand the persistence of the Government in not putting this Bill into operation before the latter part of 1936. Since the time when I first came into this House, in 1906, many Bills have been passed, but I do not know of any Bill the operation of which has been delayed for two years and a half.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Yes; there was the Widows' Pensions Act, 1925, one section of which did not come into operation until 1928.
    Mr. MABANE: There was also the Easter Act, 1928, which has not even yet been brought into operation.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: And the Temperance (Scotland) Act, which did not come into operation until 1920.
    Mr. THORNE: I admit that there may be one or two exceptions, but, generally speaking, all the Bills that have been passed through this House have come into operation within a very short period after being passed. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has been saying that it is necessary to have a transition period, but in connection with the early legislation on such matters no such arguments were used, although revolutionary changes were made in the factory laws in those days. In the early part of the nineteenth century, there was a Ten Hours Bill which made a revolutionary change in factory and workshop life, but, although the employers pleaded for an extension, they did not ask for such a very long delay as this. I would remind the hon. Member that in 1889, in the industry with which I am connected, there was a revolutionary change in all parts of the country, the hours of labour being reduced from 12 to eight per day, and all that the employers then required was three months to put the change into operation. I am firmly convinced that there is no need for this long delay, and I think that the shopkeepers and the owners of multiple shops would be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, if this Bill is not going to be put into operation until December, 1936—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It does not say that.
    Mr. THORNE: The 48-hour week, anyhow, does not come into operation until 1936, and I am under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that before then there will be a big change in this House. If there is such a change, and if a Labour Government is fortunate enough to get in with a huge majority such as the National Government now have, the employers will not get the same chance as they have now. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Ply-

    381
    mouth (Viscountess Astor) complimented the Government upon many things that they did, but she did not compliment them about the bad things that they have done, and they have done some very bad things. In fact, I do not know of any good things that they have done. I hope, however, that they w ill make this concession, because I feel convinced that there is no need at all for the delay. The question of reducing the hours of labour of shop assistants and juveniles has been talked about in this House for many years, and the Government have had the time and opportunity to accept a compromise which I think would be satisfactory to all Members of the House. I think my hon. Friend made a bit of a "bloomer" when he said that we were not going to vote against the Clause. Personally, I think that we should have voted against the Clause, in order to show our determination, and then we could have had an opportunity of voting for our Amendment, which I hope will be carried.
    6.9 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two facts which may help hon. Members to see why the transition period has been introduced into this Bill, because we have been listening for a long time to general statements by people who appear to have taken no trouble to find out anything about the conditions of the trade of which they are speaking. It would be a good thing to discover, first Of all, what number of juveniles are likely to be affected by this transition Clause. It has been stated by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that the retail trades have been making such large profits that they could very well accede to the request which they jointly made; but that has nothing to do with this problem at all, because I think I am right in saying that not a single one of the juvenile employés of the large distributive concerns in this country works at the present moment more than 48 hours a week. These concerns, making, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton said. 15 and 20 per cent. per annum on their capital, provide conditions for their employés which are well beyond those of this Bill. The hon. Member himself, in the early part of his speech, said, quite'
    382
    rightly, that the large department stores and chain stores, and a good many of the other retail distributors in this country, have conditions that are well beyond those of this Bill. Who, then, are going to be affected by the transition period? A very limited number of juvenile employes, and those almost entirely people in the employ of small, one-man retail establishments.
    Why is there a reason for this transition period? It is in order that this House should not put out of business at once a very substantial number of these small retailers. The large retail organisations would be very glad to see this transition period wiped out altogether, because it would weight the scales still further on their behalf against the small man. Hon. Members know very well that the small man to-day is having a very hard tussle to keep his head above water; the encroachment of the large department stores, chain stores, and co-operatives, is making it very hard for him to continue. If you are going to make his conditions even worse, you must recognise that you are going to put him out of business. Is this House prepared to do anything of that sort? I really do not think it is. At any rate, I cannot believe that most of the supporters of the National Government would desire to do anything that would operate in a penal manner against these small shopkeepers. Therefore, I suggest that it would he far more sensible to adopt this transition period, in order that these small shopkeepers may make some effort to adjust their businesses—and they are very few in relation to the total—so that they may be able to carry on against the competition with which they' are faced, or, if they cannot, make suitable arrangements for going out of business. Supposing that the House were going to introduce penal legislation which would force a substantial number of the smaller shopkeepers out of business, that would put juveniles out of employment, it would interrupt the continuity of employment, and it would destroy a certain number—not a substantial number. I agree—of small capitalists—
    Viscountess ASTOR: Has not that argument been used every time a Bill to regulate hours has been introduced? Has it not always been said that industry could not stand it, and that people would go out of business?
    Mr. MABANE: I am not using any argument of that sort at all. I am saying that retail distributors in general would probably be greatly benefited if this transition period were done away with, but it would put out a very few small shopkeepers. If you want to do that, do it, and face the consequences. The retention of this transition period will not affect more than 5 per cent. of the total retail distributors. Is the House prepared to drop it, and put out of business even this small minority of small shopkeepers?
    6.13 p.m.
    Miss WARD: I, also, regret that I find myself in opposition, so far as this Clause is concerned, to my right hon. Friend, because I, too, welcome the Bill. I had not the advantage of being a, Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I have read the whole of the Debates, and I am still rather at a loss to understand why the Government have insisted on keeping this very long transition period. I have been at some pains to look into the records to find when the first Bill was introduced dealing with the regulation of the hours of young persons, and I find that a Bill on somewhat similar lines to the Bill which we are discussing to-day was introduced in the Victorian era, in 1892. I find that the Royal Assent to that Bill was given on 28th June, 1892, and that the Bill had to come into operation on 1st September, 1892, so that therefore there was no transition period provided for in the Victorian era. It seems a little queer to me that in this age, when we are particularly proud of the advancement that we have made in social legislation, we should find ourselves going back behind the Victorian period.
    Mr. RADFORD: The last words in the Bill are that the Act shall come into operation on 31st December, 1934, so that there is no more delay than in the case that the hon. Member has quoted.
    Miss WARD: I thought I had made it plain that in the Bill introduced in 1892 there was no provision for a transitional period, and it is a Bill of the same class as this because it regulates the hours of young persons in and about shops to 74 per week. I have looked up the record of that Debate, 'and it is extraordinarily interesting to find that, though in those
    384
    years there was not quite as much attention paid to social legislation as we pay to-day, there was a great deal of fight put up by certain interests against the introduction of the Bill, but I cannot find that anyone advanced the argument that there should be a period of delay. Curiously enough, the main argument against the Bill was that it would mean the displacement of female labour in favour of male labour. That is an extraordinarily interesting point to remember in 1934 when our main difficulty with regard to unemployment is in relation to finding work for unemployed boys.
    I should very much like the Government to say definitely how much negotiation took place between them and the interests concerned before they agreed to put in this transitional period. On looking back to these old records, it seems to me that the point of the transitional period was never suggested, and, consequently, it did not become a matter of dispute on the Floor of the House. I think it is a very great pity that the Government introduced it at all. It is true that there would have been a great deal of pressure, probably, from certain interests against the Bill as a whole. That, of course, is what happened in 1892, but I think it is a little hard that the Government should have found it necessary in these days when, after all, legislation is much more easily acceptable than it was in the Victorian era, to introduce something which was not thought necessary in a period when it must have been much more difficult to accommodate legislation to the particular happenings of the times.
    I congratulate the Government sincerely on the Bill, but I find myself placed in a very awkward position in that they have made plain that, if they are defeated on this Clause, they will withdraw the Bill. I try to be perfectly genuine and sincere in voting, and I do not particularly like being placed in that awkward situation. I shall have to think extremely carefully before I make my decision on the subsequent Amendment. I hope the Government will give us a very real reason which will satisfy all of us who are only too anxious that the Bill shall receive all the success that it deserves as a really sound social measure.
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. LEVY: I should like to be allowed to give my view as to why this transi-

    385
    tional period is necessary. Juveniles can be divided into two classes. There are the 14 to 16 and the 16 to 18 categories. In the first, no overtime will be allowed at all, but it will be allowed in the second. Only 50 hours per year will be allowed. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has extolled the virtues of the co-operative societies, but Mr. A. V. Alexander wrote this letter:
    " We therefore urge that the limit of 52 hours overtime in a calendar year, and not more than three hours in any week, should be the maximum for young persons, subject to suitable provision being made for abnormal conditions."
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Member read the declaration in the same letter to the effect that the co-operative movement was urging a 48-hour working week?
    Mr. LEVY: I am reading the letter that was read out in Committee.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Read it all.
    Mr. LEVY: I have read all that is in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not think it can be disputed that Mr. Alexander definitely asked for these extra hours for overtime.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In a 48-hour week.
    Mr. LEVY: The Bill is going to allow 50 hours' overtime, and the co-operative society definitely asks for more. It is obvious that, if the Bill came into operation at once, a number of the 14 to 16 category would be put out of employment at once. I believe that these young people who have taken up this vocation as their walk in life should be allowed to continue in the vocation which they have adopted. The 14 to 16 class will grow up into the 16 to 18 category and, therefore, the Bill under the transitional period will be no hardship to them but will be to their benefit. Hon. Members opposite want all these extraordinary re- strictions for juveniles. They would like to see juveniles from 14 to 16 prohibited from working at all, and, if they could prevent their employment, they would be able to say, "There is nothing for them to do except walk the streets. Why not keep them at school?" These young people are in this particular employment, and we do not want to see them discharged from it.
    I want to see this transitional period until 1936 when they will have grown
    386
    out of the first category into the second, and those who come into this class of employment afterwards will know the position in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that employers will bring in mechanisation. They will bring in light motor delivery, vans to do the work, probably, of four or five of these errand boys. A number of young people who are now employed will not be employed if the Bill comes in at once. I ask the Government to stick rigidly to the Amendment and I hope I have shown the need for the transitional period. It is not a question of the shopkeepers themselves requiring a longer period to put their house in order. No one could believe that. I want to give time for these young people to grow out of the 14 to 16 into the 16 to 18 category.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I have sat here and listened with amazement at the arguments that have been put forward from the other side, and my mind has gone back 42 years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), I am going to speak from experience. In those days I never saw daylight in the winter except on Sundays. I went down the pit in the morning in the dark and came up in the dark, and from tea time on Sunday until the following Saturday late in the afternoon I never saw any daylight. The same arguments were put across the Floor of the House when we wanted shorter hours in the mining industry as have been put across to-day.
    I have not heard the Home Secretary say that, if this Clause is defeated, he will withdraw the Bill, but he must have told some of his friends. He said this was not a party Bill, but it was a social Measure. If it be a social Measure and is necessary, it is necessary now. If there be an evil in the industry, why do you want to cuddle it for two and a half years? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is alarmed about the small trader and argues that he must have time to get ready. That is all bunkum. The small trader can get ready to-morrow morning if he has only one employé. It is the big trader who wants to get ready if anyone does. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) says that, if you put this into operation now, there will be a great industrial collapse.

    387
    You cannot afford to put it into operation at once, he said, because of the small trader. All social legislation in this House, when it has meant progress, has always been met by the bogey of the widow and orphan, and the same sort of thing has been put across the Floor of the House to-day.
    Mr. MA BANE: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that I said that if the Bill were put into operation at once this industry would collapse? I said nothing of the sort.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Gentleman made a statement that some of the small shopkeepers would not be able to carry on, and if they were unable to carry on would not that be collapsing? The small trader does not collapse because of the co-operative societies, but because of the multiple shops. The majority of small traders are themselves members of co-operative societies. If the Whips were not put on—and I see that there is a lot of running about here—I believe, in view of the arguments which have been put across the Floor by supporters of the Government, hon. Members, if they voted according to their conscience, would again vote for the deletion of the Clause. The hon. Member for Plaistow said that he was prepared to compromise at 1935. I am sorry that there is any possibility of compromise. I make no bones about the fact that electors in my division asked me to support the Bill. They said, "George, back the Bill as far as you can, and get it on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible." I am only one in the House, but I hope to vote according to my conscience. My vote will count as much as that of the Home Secretary.
    I hope that the Home Secretary, when he replies, will not turn a deaf ear to the Members of his own side. The hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) said that in his heart and conscience he was free, and that he hoped to vote against the new Clause. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) states definitely that she is going into the Lobby to vote against the Government. I wish she always did so. I think that when the noble Lady threatens to go into the Lobby against the Government she almost always turns into the Government Lobby. She has
    388
    threatened to go into the Lobby against the Government to-day, and, if there is a Division, I hope that she will carry out her threat, and that the Clause will not be carried.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: We have been sitting here for nearly two hours, and there has been one speech against the Clause. We have had a certain amount of dialectics. Hon. Members above the Gangway have been dealing with certain arguments about the cooperative movement which I do not think have very much bearing upon the Clause. The only speech against the Clause was made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). He is really conducting the Bill unofficially from a certain point of view, and he put forward the argument that the only people who are to be affected by the Clause 'are a few small shopkeepers in the country. It really does not affect the co-operative movement and the large retail and departmental stores. The reason why he and his friends are so anxious about this matter is because of their solicitude for the small shopkeeper. I remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member said, I think rather unwisely, that it was a Bill to kill the small shopkeeper, or, at any rate, he said that it would be interpreted as such. Let us know exactly where we are. If that is the main and substantial reason why a number of us are to be asked to vote in favour of putting back the operation of the Bill for 2½ years, it is not a good enough reason. If, on the other hand, the Government have made arrangements with various parties conditional upon those 2½ years, that may be a good reason. If they have made such an agreement, we ought to know all about it.
    I have not taken a sudden interest in this Clause. I have been interested in this problem for the last 12 years. Among the things we care about is the dovetailing of continuation schools into the ordinary working hours, and there is an overwhelming opinion in this country at the moment, not particularly for raising the school-leaving age, but for dovetailing work and education between the ages of 14 and 18. Certain big firms are doing this already, and they would like to see others doing it. You cannot

    389
    put that into operation if you retain this Clause. Something might be said for the provision if it had relation to the steel industry, and it took that industry 2½ years to reorganise and to close down work, say, in Scotland and open other works, or to a big industry such as the -cotton industry, but it is a question of a few small employers. I know that in East London they employ young people for long hours. They are a comparatively small number of employers, and therefore why put off the good for a period of 21 years because of this small, bad element? Unless we can have a little more justification or really good reason given, I am sure that many of us who are only too anxious to see the Bill pass into law will find it very difficult to vote with the Government on this occasion.
    6.39 p.m.
    Sir J. GILMOURI: I think that perhaps the House is now ready to come to a decision on this problem. I have listened to the Debate with close interest. and I want to say at once that I have been guided, in asking the House to reintroduce this Clause, mainly by the fact that the Select Committee which inquired into this problem indicated that, in their judgment., the period should certainly be delayed. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) inferred that I was going back to the pre-Victorian age, and she quoted from an Act which was passed in 1892 dealing with a similar kind of problem to that with which we are dealing at the present time. May I remind the hon. Lady, and I think it is right to remind the House, that all that the Act of 1892 did was to make permanent what bad been passed in 1886. They were not on that occasion imposing directly on the industry concerned something to which the industry was not already accustomed and knew that they would have to operate.
    In a problem of this kind the House will realise that when we are making a fresh and a very far-reaching improvement, affecting industry and the youth of this country, in which we ask for the cooperation of a great number of varied interests, it is desirous that we should carry with us all the goodwill that we can in order to have the least possible
    390
    friction in administration. But when people talk to me as if this Bill is to be totally postponed for two years, what nonsense it is. The great, main principles and matters of importance come into operation at once. Hon. Members must admit that when they talk about the excellent position of the big co-operative societies and the good employer, there is nothing by reason of this postponement which will prevent the continuance of that position, and their example being followed by other people.
    On the other hand, what are we doing? It has been stated more than once that in this matter it is not a question of 50 hours, but of 80 and 90 hours, and under this Bill at once all those hours come down to 52. I think that in those circumstances the Government, having had for a long time the closest negotiations with all those interests—though I will not admit for a moment that I gave any direct undertaking to those people—realise that there is such a thing as good faith in the method with which you carry on negotiations with people with whom you are dealing. I beg of the House to believe me when I say that, anxious as I am, and as is every Member of the House, to see this advance made, it will be to the ultimate advantage of every one with whom we are concerned, that this House should consent to a postponement for two years, and I must ask them so to do.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Clause be rejected, the Bill will be dropped? Is that so?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, to leave out "twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six," and to insert "twenty-eighth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."
    According to arrangement, I move the Amendment without speaking upon it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
    The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 59.

    Division No. 328.]

    AYES

    [4.50 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Peake, Osbert

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Pearson, William G.

    Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Penny. Sir George

    Asks, Sir Robert William

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Petherick, M.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst's)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hartland, George A.

    Potter, John

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Radford, E. A.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Rankin, Robert

    Bernays, Robert

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Blindell, James

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hornby, Frank

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Rickards, George William

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Robinson, John Roland

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Runge. Norah Cecil

    Burnett, John George

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffieid, B'tside)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rutherford. Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Knight, Holford

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Scone, Lord

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Selley, Harry R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Law Sir Alfred

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Slater, John

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Levy, Thomas

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lewis, Oswald

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Stones, James

    Davison. Sir William Henry

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyons. Abraham Montagu

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Dickle, John P.

    Mabane, William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Doran, Edward

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Drewe, Cedric

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Todd, Lt.-Cot. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Eimley, Viscount

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Tree, Ronald

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wayland, Sir William A

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wells. Sydney Richard

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Horsing, Adrian C.

    White. Henry Graham

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nunn, William

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Graves, Marjorie

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grimston, R. V.

    Patrick, Collin M.

    Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.

    NOES

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    West, F. R.

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 329.]

    AYES

    [6.43 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pearson, William G.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Penny, Sir George

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Petherick, M.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist's)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Potter, John

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Procter. Major Henry Adam

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bo on)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Radford, E. A.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Rankin, Robert

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Hornby, Frank

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Reid. William Allan (Derby)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

    Renwick. Major Gustav A.

    Blindell, James

    Hume. Sir George Hopwood

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Rickards, George William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Bracken, Brendan

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, west)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Leckie, J. A.

    Scone, Lord

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Leech. Dr. J. W.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Levy, Thomas

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Christle, James Archibald

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Slater, John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Mabane, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Stones, James

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    McCorgundale, M. S.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Crossley, A. C.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Doran, Edward

    Magnay, Thomas

    Thorp. Linton Theodore

    Drewe, Cedric

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Duckworth, George A. V

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Train, John

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Dunglass. Lord

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurest

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Munro, Patrick

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Nunn, William

    Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Goff. Sir Park

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Major George Davies and Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Banfield, John William

    Buchanan, George

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Berneys, Robert

    Clarke, Frank

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    392

    393

    Cove, William G.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Crippe, Sir Stafford

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Curry, A. C.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Dagger, George

    Janner, Barnett

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dickie, John P.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Dobble, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    West, F. R.

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    White, Henry Graham

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wilmot. John

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Milner, Major James

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Clause added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Hours of employment.)
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:"
    "(5) In determining for the purposes of this Act the normal working hours for which a young person has been employed about the business of any shop in any week in which occur statutory, customary, or other holidays but so as not to include the weekly half-holiday as provided for in Section nine of this Act he shall be deemed to have been employed for those hours which but for the intervention of the afore-mentioned holidays would have been worked on those days, and the hours which would have been worked on those days shall be deemed to be the average hours worked per day during the preceding four complete working weeks."
    This Amendment is for the purpose of making sure that when a young person is called upon to work during a week that is broken by a holiday other than the weekly half-holiday fixed by the Shops Act, the time worked shall not be so arranged as to compel him to lose the benefit of the half-holiday in that week, or to work an unreasonable number of hours in a comparatively short period. The underlying idea of the Amendment is fairly common in industrial practice. It is our custom in holiday periods to arrange with the employers that the hours shall be averaged, generally speaking, over a fortnight, in such a way that the day's holiday shall not be included in the number of hours so averaged, that is to say, if you have a 48-hour week and there is a holiday period in that week, the time for the averaging of the fortnight, instead of being 96 hours, is only 88 hours. We want to see to it by this Clause that a young person, having received the usual statutory holiday or holidays that may be customary in the locality, shall not be called upon to work, say, 52 hours on the other five days of
    394
    the week, or to lose half a day simply because he has had the day's holiday.
    This is one of those cases in which, I suppose, 90 per cent. of the employers who employ young persons would say:
    " We have no intention of doing anything of the kind, but the fact remains that we have to safeguard the position of young persons against those who are shamelessly exploiting them." We feel that this is a matter which should not be left at a loose end. I am not hard and fast about this particular thing, except to say to the Under-Secretary that I feel—and I think that a good many other hon. Members who have had experience of the exploitation of young persons will feel—that in a Bill of this kind it is necessary, as far as possible, to tie up as tightly as possible the conditions under which young persons may be employed. In doing that you are doing no harm whatever to the decent employer, but you are helping him. My experience in these matters has been this. The decent employer has said: "If you can get those people to come into line, we are prepared to do even better than we are doing now, but if you cannot get them to come into line you must be content with what we are doing, because we are doing considerably better than our competitors, and there is a limit to what we can do in competition." The underlying motive of the Clause is to protect the young person and to help the decent employers against unfair competition. In this Bill we are dealing only with the young persons, and in many instances they represent a small number on the staff. We are not laying down laws, regulations and rules to cover the majority of people employed, but only that section of young persons from 14 to 18. If there is any provision

    395
    which we can make to ensure that the purposes of this Measure shall be carried out, we ought to be willing to do that.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I aim afraid the Amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member is trying to produce. He said that one of its objects was so to arrange matters that the young person should not lose his holiday. He might very well lose his holiday if any provision of this kind were put into the Bill. As this Amendment now reads, he is to be deemed to be employed during the holiday for the hours which are the average for the previous four working weeks. Incidentally, this Amendment is drafted the wrong way round and- could not possibly he accepted, because it is actually nonsense as it reads. It says:
    " The hours which would have been worked on those days shall be deemed to be the average hours worked per day."
    It should read, of course:
    " the average hours shall be deemed to be the hours worked on those days."
    I do not mind about that, but if you deem an employé to be employed on the holiday, which, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment, the employer might quite well get over that provision by telling the employé to come for an hour during the holiday itself, and then, instead of having eight "deemed" hours, he would actually have one hour's work. This would abolish the whole benefit of the averaging suggestion which the hon. Member makes. That is a possibility which he has overlooked, and the result might be that, instead of having a clear holiday on the customary day, an employé might find himself employed instead of getting a holiday.
    I see what the hon. Member and his friends have in mind. Obviously they want to avoid the difficulty that the young person may be employed for his full 48 hours plus overtime on the other days of the week and not on the holiday, and therefore—as it appears on the surface—would be working on five days or four days a great deal longer than would otherwise be the case. That, again, is not in accordance with the facts. At present there is no limit laid down by
    396
    Statute to the hours during which a person can be employed per day. The Bill lays down the general proposals of the Government on a weekly basis. It is therefore quite possible, holiday or no holiday, to get in the statutory amount and overtime in the five days. The words "other holidays," moreover, do not necessarily mean a statutory holiday; the holiday might be one which the employer wanted to give his employés from time to time. He might think twice about giving a holiday to young persons who wanted, for in stance, to go to a cricket match if they had to be deemed to have worked seven or eight hours. He might say: "It is hardly worth while giving them the holiday if I have to do that," and the hon. Member would therefore deprive the young fellows of a holiday which they might otherwise get.
    A real difficulty would arise at the rush period—for example, the Christmas holiday period. The practical difficulty arises, of course, when Christmas comes on a Thursday or a Friday. That is probably what the hon. Member has in mind, that it is here that it is really necessary to try to safeguard the position of the young employé in the three or four days before the holiday. This provision would not, however, have the desired effect, because there is the great difficulty that if the employer had to "deem" hours on Christmas Day and Boxing Day then, when the Bank Holiday is on a Friday and they shut up the shops on the Saturday, as recently happened, it would be necessary to "deem" half a week, and therefore the employ would probably only be able to be employed for about 24 hours in the first three days of that week. Those are exactly the days of the rush week when the employer wants, and can reasonably be expected to want, to employ his assistants as long as possible. That is a real, practical difficulty which the hon. Member may not have envisaged.
    We are making very novel provisions for restricting overtime which I cannot go into at this moment. The hon. Gentleman will, however, agree that the actual effect of his Amendment might well be entirely contrary to what he wants. Instead of guaranteeing a holiday, it might very well lead employers to be rather less anxious to give huh-

    397
    days, and even on statutory holidays to get their employés to work for a short time in order that they may not be deemed to have worked the average number of hours. That is apart from the general case against the Amendment, that it is drafted the wrong way round.
    7.6 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Member (has made a splendid criticism of the Amendment of the hon. Member behind me. Let us put it this way. Suppose that the shops in a town close on Monday and Tuesday in the same week, as is often done in some towns. I do not think it is the intention of Parliament that the young person who has had those two statutory holidays should be called upon to work 12 hours on each of the next four days in order to get his 48-hour working week in that period. In several parts of the country —in Manchester, for instance—all the shops are closed for most of Whit week
    on the whole, the shops are not opened for more than two full days. It would be monstrous if the law provided that the young shop assistants could be called upon to work, as indeed they could in some cases, to make up the whole of the 48 hours in the week after having most of the week as holiday. This is very largely a new point in the form in which it is now put. It is not the intention of the Government that what we are suggesting can take place, should prevail. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether it is not possible to draft a provision in another place to meet the case that we have put forward. That is the only possible way of dealing with it. Before we decide exactly on our attitude towards this Amendment we would ask the Home Secretary and his deputy whether they can hold out some hope that when they have looked into this problem they may put the point right in another place.
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: Is it not necessary to remind the hon. Member that this Bill originated in another place and has come down to us, and we send it back with certain Amendments? We cannot send it indefinitely to another place to introduce quite fresh ideas. This point was discussed in Committee, and the reply of the Government was that the eleven-hour interval was the effective protection of the child. It is impossible to get 48 hours
    398
    into three days, because the necessary 11 hours of leisure cannot then be provided on each day. I, therefore, anticipate that the effect of the leisure interval will be very materially to lessen the evil that the hon. Member and his friends are seeking to abolish.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will it not still be possible, with an eleven-hour interval of rest, for the young person to make up the 48 hours in four days?
    Mr. DENMAN: Yes, that is so. Amendment negatived.
    7.9 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:
    " (5) Any young person employed in or about the business of a shop for overtime hours shall be entitled to corresponding holidays calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, and if at the date of the determination of his employment or at the end of the year, whichever first occurs, default has been made in granting to Lim any holiday to which he is entitled under this section the young person may recover as a debt due from the employer for every day's holiday in respect of which such default has been made a sum equal to one-sixth of the highest weekly rate of wage paid to him in respect of his employment in or about the business of a shop during the year or part thereof during which he has been employed therein."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to do everything we can to discourage the working of overtime. Hon. Members will be well aware that as the Bill stands it permits 24 hours' overtime in a year to the end of 1936, and 50 hours thereafter. Everybody will agree that wages paid to shop assistants are wages for what we will call a normal working week, and the normal working week until December, 1936, will be 52 hours. We admit that that is less than what is being worked in many cases at present. The principle has already been stated that in certain circumstances overtime may be necessary, but there is nothing in the Bill which says that the employé shall be paid for overtime. In the Committee stage we were expressly precluded from moving an Amendment to that effect. We now take the alternative course of suggesting in this Amendment that if overtime is worked, compensation should be given to the employé in the form of equivalent holidays, or in default of equivalent holidays:

    399
    " a sum equal to one-sixth of the highest weekly rate of wages paid to him in respect of his employment in or about the business of a shop during the year or part thereof during which he has been employed therein."
    Hon. Members will see at once that our purpose is, by making it necessary for some compensation to be paid for overtime, to discourage the employer from working shop assistants overtime at all.
    The Select Committee definitely recommended that overtime should be paid for at a rate of not less than one-and-a-quarter times the rate for normal hours of employment. Behind that recommendation was the idea which I am trying to stress, that if it is compulsory to pay for overtime—or, as we here suggest, if employers must give some compensation—there will be a general tendency to discourage the working of overtime. I do not know why the Mother Country should not be in advance of the Colonies and Dominions, which are supposed to copy our good example. In many ways they are ahead of us. I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in Victoria, Australia, the current awards by the wages boards fix the normal working week for all employés at 47 and 48 hours with overtime payment at the rate of time-and-a-half. In Western Australia a 44-hour week is in operation for those under 16 years of age, after which time-and-a-half is paid with a minimum of 6d. or 9d. an hour and an allowance of is. 6d. meal money. We have agreed to the principle in this Bill that in certain circumstances overtime may be necessary. The Bill, however, does not make it incumbent upon the employer to pay for that overtime, and the Amendment is moved in this form because we want to make the employer give the employé some compensation if he requires him to work overtime.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept this Amendment. In replying to a statement made on the last Amendment he pointed out that he was resisting it because he thought that it would have the opposite effect to that which my hon. Friend desired. There can be no question of the effect of this Amendment. It would be what the Select Committee advised should be done; that if overtime working were permitted to young persons at all,
    400
    it should be discouraged by attaching to the provision the obligation to give some compensation for overtime. The reason the Committee gave for snaking this recommendation was quite clear. They said:
    " In making this recommendation as to overtime your Committee trust that the enforcement of the higher rate of pay will have the effect of restricting the amount of overtime to what is absolutely essential to the business concerned."
    The House, I am sure, is desirous of restricting the amount of juvenile overtime to what is absolutely necessary, and I see no way by which that restriction can be enforced except by attaching to the overtime of young people some sort of penalty, some discouragement. The Amendment gives an alternative form of compensation, and in doing so it is in line with the most advanced forms of agreement between employers and employed. It says that if the employer finds it necessary to work young people overtime he shall give them an equivalent number of days or hours. If he is not able to give them the time that he shall give them a money payment of time and a quarter. It is an essentially reasonable Amendment. It is designed to carry out the purpose of the Bill, and I find it difficult to see any good reason why it should not be accepted. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that juvenile overtime is thoroughly undesirable and that it is only in exceptional circumstances that it becomes necessary. The good employer avoids working young people overtime; it is the bad employer, the incompetent employer, the inefficient, the muddling employer, who does not know how to arrange and conduct his business in such a way as to give a square deal to his employés, who will take full advantage of the provision and employ his young people the maximum amount of overtime, because he is too lazy or incompetent to arrange his staff problems properly. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to accept the Amendment which carries out the spirit of the Bill.
    7.19 p.m.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment, and for these reasons. Neither in the Committee nor in this House has any section of opinion faced up to the terrible automatic robot

    401
    system of trading which is springing up throughout Europe and the United States of America. The problem has not once been faced by hon. Members of the Labour party. You cannot go into a shop in Paris or in Lyons, or in any of the great provincial centres of France, you cannot go into any large shop in Germany or Italy without noticing that the use of this automatic robot method of trading is springing up everywhere as the means of supplying goods to consumers. It is the same in almost every town in Spain. In this country we have built up our shop trade by training apprentices. I do not believe that the
    shopkeepers.of this country are endeavouring to exploit young labour in respect of their services and trade, and I ask hon. Members of the Labour party to remember that they must be interested in the education and training of these young apprentices, for they also are traders. In some of our schools they are being taught the best method of salesmanship, and I say that if this carping and improper suggestion, that employers are exploiting their apprentices, is to be made it will put the clock back in respect of the training of apprentices in the arts of salesmanship, which should be the ideal of every English and Scottish shopkeeper.
    I want my hon. Friends when they are dealing with the apprenticeship of shop assistants to remember the very high standard of technical training which is now being attained and support to the full those of us who are endeavouring to push forward the idealism of both salesmanship and supply, and to lift the system of apprenticeship to a higher grade by carefully worked out time table of work, study and recreation and thus do away altogether with what will be a menace to our trade, not only as regards the private shop-keeper but also as regards the co-operative shops—namely, the menace of the robot, the automatic machine, the "help yourself" system, the slot methods of salesmanship. I hope therefore, that the Under-Secretary will obtain support from all sides of the House in his endeavour to enable the good employer to permit an employe to go for three or four hours a day for some technical instruction either in college; or institution. Certain sections of our Universities for example are helping. The new Universities of Birmingham, Manchester
    402
    and Leeds are now specialising in the art of salesmanship, and hon. Members of the Labour party when they suggest that this extra half an hour or an hour and a half spent in experiment or an hour in some system of sales test is some kind of sweated labour are very far from realising the practicalities of the case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand fast land believe that the shopkeeping fraternity and those who lead them have ideals other than the exploitation of their employés, that they have ideals of apprenticeship which include careful training and good feeling, and a desire to offer their goods not in the same fashion and manner us many people on the Continent. by the robot, the automatic machine, the 6d. in the slot mechanism or the 1s. box slot method, but by the same arts of good salesmanship and careful thought for the needs of the British people which have characterised them in this country for years past.
    Mr. C. BROWN: Does the hon. Member really suggest that the employment of young people overtime would prevent the mechanisation of industry in this country?
    Sir W. SUGDEN: I want my hon. Friends to realise that their Amendment is the thin end of the wedge, that is, if the Amendment is carried to its logical conclusion.
    7.24 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not think that I need go into the argument respecting the robot and the automatic slot machine. Hon. Members opposite say that by their Amendment they want to discourage overtime in shops. This is common ground. They have surely overlooked the provisions of Clause 1. The amount of overtime which can be worked is now extremely restricted, but, judging from their speeches, one would think that there is no such provision as Clause 1 in the Bill. Under that Clause o overtime at all is possible for those under 16 years of age, and for those between 16 and 18 years of age it is limited to six weeks in which it can take place at all, to 12 hours in any of these weeks, and to a maximum of 50 hours during the whole year. We have really gone a long way to show where we stand on the question. of overtime, and I am rather sorry that hon. Members opposite should make it

    403
    appear as if we had not done anything about it. My hon. Friend opposite said that it was possible for young people to work 24 hours overtime. That is not so. It is not possible for young people to work 24 hours overtime in one week under the Bill. Let me refer them to the provisions of Clause 1, which says:
    " no young person shall be employed overtime about the business of the shop in any year after he has been employed overtime about the business of the shop for fifty working hours in that year;"
    There is no 24 hours overtime, and there never was, but it is just as well to clear up that point. As regards the suggestion that if overtime is worked the employer should be responsible for paying a corresponding increased wage, the Bill has not dealt with the wage question at all so far, and I deprecate it being introduced in an Amendment on Report stage, because it raises a considerably larger issue than can be dealt with now. No analogy can be drawn from the provisions of the 1928 Act. The provisions of the 1928 Act, with regard to payment for holidays, envisaged circumstances quite different from those with which we are dealing here. The provision for overtime under Clause 1 is merely part of the normal arrangement, but in the 1928 Act the question of holidays arises when there has been an order made in a certain place altering the normal closing hours, and as a compensation for that there are special provisions for holidays with wages. There is no analogy between the 1928 Act and the present Bill, and that is A good reason for rejecting the Amendment. I hope the House will realise the very severe way in which the working of overtime of those between 16 and 18 years is already safeguarded in the Bill, and that it will not be necessary to press the Amendment.
    Mr. WILMOT: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when we say that the employer should give compensation for overtime by increased wages it was put in as an alternative to allowing time off on another day. The analogy with the 1928 Act surely is that in that Act compensation for a breach of a special order was made by allowing time off during some slack period.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I regret the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State. When
    404
    I saw the Amendment paper, I came to the conclusion that the intention of the Government was that 48 hours per week was sufficient for any young person between 16 and 18 years of age to work, but that if there were exceptional circumstances, such as busy periods, they would agree that these young persons should be permitted to work for a limited number of extra hours per week. It appeared to me that the view of the Government was that 48 hours was a normal legitimate working period for young persons. I thought further that if in exceptional circumstances they were compelled to work longer it was reasonable to expect that the employer should in some way compensate them for that overtime.
    The Government's own Fair Wages Clause for adults compels an employer to pay or to give some compensation for overtime work. Are we to take it that the Government and this House are less considerate in dealing with young persons than they are in dealing with adults who are organised? Are we to assume that because these people are young and have not the opportunities of organisation, they are to be treated worse than adults would be treated 1 Is it unreasonable to say to the fathers of children, that the conditions which they make for their young persons between 16 and 18 shall be at least as good as the conditions that they insist on for themselves as adults? I think that, if anything, we ought to be more considerate to young persons, but it appears from the very surprising attitude of the Government that because the young persons are weak and unorganised, and unable to take the measures of protection that adults take, the Government will not give to them the consideration which is given to adults under the Fair Wages Clause. I hope that in the interests of young persons we shall register our protest by going into the Lobby in support of this proposal. I know we shall lose, but at any rate we shall demonstrate that there is a small body of people in this House who are concerned with the lives and happiness of the young.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 216.

    Division No. 330.]

    AYES

    [7.34 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee. Clement Richard

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grundy. Thomas W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cove, William G.

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Curry, A. C.

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dagger, George

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Grimston, R. V.

    Munro, Patrick

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Beaumont, Hon. B.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

    Harbord, Arthur

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Belt. Sir Alfred L.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A

    Bernays, Robert

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Pearson, William G.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Penny, Sir George

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Petherick, M.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hornby, Frank

    Potter, John

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsay, T. B. W (Western Isles)

    Christle, James Archibald

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Clarke, Frank

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Rankin, Robert

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Collox, Major William Philip

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rickards, George William

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Robinson, John Roland

    Cooke, Douglas

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Leckle, J. A.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Cross, R. H.

    Levy, Thomas

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Crossley, A. C.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Russell, Hamer Field Sheffield,B'tside)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Dickle, John P.

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Scone, Lord

    Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)

    Mabane, William

    Selley, Harry R.

    Douglass, Lord

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Slater, John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    406

    407

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Stones, James

    Train, John

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Tree, Ronald

    Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction on night employment.)
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), proposes to leave out lines 12 to 17, the proviso to Sub-section (1). In putting that Amendment, I shall have to save Amendments which are on the Paper in the name of the Minister. There is an Amendment on the Paper also in the name of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), in line 17 to leave out "or newspapers." Perhaps it would be convenient if that Amendment were included in the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 17.
    This is a matter which has created a great deal of discussion in this House and in the country. The purpose of the Amendment is to delete from the Clause the title to employ any young male person, 16 and 17 years of age, in the collection or delivery of milk, bread and newspapers, as from 5 o'clock in the morning. Behind this provision there is a story that is worth telling. When the Bill was introduced by the Government the Government did not think it worth while to include provisions for the delivery and collection of newspapers, and all that we had then was that the young male person, 16 and 17 years of age, should be allowed in law to be employed in the collection or delivery if milk and bread only. That was because bread and milk are food and perishable. If there is any argument for the delivery of anything early in the morning, it is an argument in favour of including those two commodities. That was the reason why we did not criticise this provision as strongly as we would otherwise have done.
    When the Bill was sent to a Standing Committee the. newspaper Press and the
    408
    newsagents had been canvassing Members of Parliament, and I was rather amazed that it was a lady Member of this House who moved the insertion of this very reactionary new provision, to allow the employment of young persons, 16 and 17 years of age, in the delivery and collection of newspapers as from 5 o'clock in the morning. The hon. Lady to whom I refer is the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mrs. Copeland). I was astonished, too, that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) being an educationist voted in favour of the new provision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as an educationist, he ought to have known better. As far as I know the National Union of Teachers to which he belongs wants to raise the school-leaving age to about 16, and if the policy of that organisation were translated into law, then this proposal would mean that children would be kept in school until they were 16, and at that age, having been accustomed to go to school at 9 o'clock in the morning, they would suddenly be asked to begin work at 5 o'clock in the morning. That would be a preposterous state of affairs. Let me argue the case against the employment of any young persons at all at 5 o'clock in the morning. I am glad that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is here, because this is a problem which affects the mother in the home. A young person cannot be got out to work at 5 o'clock in the morning unless his mother gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning to rouse him and prepare food for him.
    Colonel GOODMAN: No.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that statement? Let me tell him that that is the experience of the mothers among the working folk whom I know. My mother had always to get up about an hour before the time at which I had to commence

    409
    work and I was as good a riser as anybody. A boy may have to go to work a distance of three or four miles from his home.
    Colonel GOODMAN: The hon. Member is describing an extreme case. A boy who is delivering newspapers at 5 o'clock in the morning will probably go back to his home for breakfast at 7 or 7.30 o'clock.
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman's information but my information is different. We have to face the facts that the custom and practice in connection with the delivery of milk, bread and newspapers will vary in different parts of the country. Where I live I have never seen young persons delivering milk, bread or newspapers in the morning. It has always been done by adults there. We do not want to prevent the delivery of milk or bread or newspapers at 2 o'clock in the morning, if people want such things at that hour, but we object to boys of 16 and 17 being called upon to do that work. It may be said, "Let them earn a few shillings." Surely there are older people who would like to earn a few shillings. I am very sorry that the new provision was inserted in the Bill in Committee. I have never understood that it would be impossible for our civilisation to proceed without newspapers. I am not so sure whether our civilisation would not be of a higher quality if it were not for daily newspapers, especially some of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—like those read by hon. Members opposite. I think we might be better off without some of them. While we are taking these two Amendments together we propose to have two Divisions. We shall challenge first a Division on the question of removing all reference to the delivery of bread, milk or newspapers. If we are defeated, as I fear we may be, on that issue we shall then take a Division on the question of the deletion of the reference to the collection and delivery of newspapers alone.
    I appeal to hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies too in this House to remember one thing. When they vote in favour of sending these youngsters out at 5 o'clock in the morning, they are determining the labour conditions for other people's children—not their own. I do not think there is any Member of this House who would care to see his or her own child
    410
    getting up at 4.30 o'clock in the morning in the winter time to go out to work and I object to hon. Members voting in favour of such conditions of employment for other people's children. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have something to tell us which will meet the case I have endeavoured to put before the House. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in his place. Perhaps he may do something to soften the hearts of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. Their hearts need softening because they have not conceded even one inch of ground during all these proceedings. If they are not prepared to meet us, we shall press all the more vigorously our own point of view.
    7.52 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: It would be just as well perhaps if I made it clear, straightaway, that we canont accept this Amendment. I do not expect that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies) will be particularly surprised at that fact. To hear him speak one would imagine that as a result of this provision every young person in the country would be compelled to do this kind of work. I should think it very probable that, other things being equal, those young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are already doing this kind of work will continue to do it. If a number of those who work in connection with the collection and delivery of milk, bread and newspapers at present, are between those ages, I very much hope that we shall enable them to keep their jobs and that they will not be dismissed—which would be the inevitable result if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted. I know that hon. Members opposite say that the work would be done by somebody else but that does not alter the fact that the young person would lose his job and that is not a very desirable thing in itself. We are not doing anything very outrageous in this provision. It is a permissive Clause and I would remind hon. Members opposite, who are always so anxious that we should take part in international conferences and sign international conventions and other instruments of that kind, that the Convention dealing with the hours of employment of young people in industry allows for the starting of work in certain cases at 5 o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: But is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that that proposed Convention relates to industry and does not touch distribution?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I said that it referred to industrial employment, but I do not see that there is any material difference. If it be a terrible thing that somebody should have to get up and start working at 5 o'clock in the morning to deliver milk, bread and newspapers, it seems to me that it must be equally terrible to get up at that hour of the morning to start any other kind of job. It seems to me that 5 o'clock in the morning is much the same, whatever the job and whether the person concerned is aged from 16 to 18 or has attained the age of my hon. Friend or myself. We have to admit that we cannot by this Bill—and we do not want to do so—upset the existing procedure with regard to distribution in this country. We are in the Bill very largely safeguarding the conditions under which young persons can be employed, particularly with regard to overtime, but it is essential as hon. Members opposite have more or less admitted, that milk and bread, being perishable commodities which are required in the early morning must be delivered at these early hours. It may be said that it is a matter of opinion whether a newspaper is a perishable commodity or not. It is, anyhow, ephemeral and there is not much good in getting a daily newspaper at an unduly late hour, at least as far as the great mass of our fellow-citizens are concerned. This matter was well discussed in the Committee and the Committee agreed to include newspapers and, taking all things into account, both the practical requirements of the various industries concerned and also, I hope, the commonsense view of the matter, my right hon. Friend proposes to ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I am at a loss to understand why the proviso as to the hour of 5 o'clock in the morning, should be inserted in the Bill in connection with the delivery of bread. I have been connected with baking all my life. I worked at the trade for 25 years and I do not think there is anyone in this House who has ever had to get up regularly, earlier than I had to in those days, because
    412
    2 or 3 o'clock in the morning was the hour prevailing in my time. For 20 years I have been an official of the bakers' union and I, therefore, can claim some experience of the industry. I submit that there is no necessity for having boys of 16 and 17 at work at 5 o'clock in the morning for the delivery of bread. Bread in fact is not delivered at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the morning. In Scotland it is the custom to deliver rolls very early in the morning but even there the delivery is round about 7.30 o'clock in the morning. South of the Border the delivery of bread does not start until at least 8.30 o'clock in the morning and in many towns not until 10 o'clock in the morning. Whoever advised the insertion of this hour in the Bill for the delivery of bread must have been misinformed.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. He may not have noticed that we propose to insert the word "collection" as well as delivery. That would involve work preliminary to the actual delivery.
    Mr. BANFIELD: With all dup respect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand anything about the trade. There is no collection previous to delivery. The men have been at work all night in the baker's shop making the bread. When the young person comes there in the morning it is not necessary that he should go round collecting bread. The bread is there ready in the racks. My point is that it is an impossibility for the employer to send a- boy out to commence the delivery of bread at 5 o'clock in the morning. Imagine a boy coming to a house with a basket of bread at 5.30 o'clock in the morning, knocking up the household and demanding, "How much bread do you require to-day?" He would be told in most cases, "Go. away! Fancy waking respectable people at this time of the morning!" This provision as to the collection and delivery of bread at 5 o'clock in the morning was put into the Bill and the newsagents immediately used it as an argument for the inclusion of the delivery of newspapers. The newsagents at the commencement of this business raised no objection to the time being fixed at 6 o'clock in the morning. It was not until very late in the proceedings that they realised that as the bread and the milk boys could commence work at 5 a.m., they could demand that their boys should commence at 5 also.

    413
    I have been a bit concerned about this question of boys in the baking industry. No one knows better than the Home Secretary the rather bad conditions which exist in bakeries to-day so far as juveniles are concerned. There are prosecutions all over the country, and the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention drawn to the matter, to such an extent that he himself is conducting an inquiry. Up to now it has not been the practice to have boys in the bakehouse until at least 6 a.m. In Scotland permission has to be sought for boys to go into the bakehouse at 5 a.m. I asked a question about it the other day, and I was told that permission could be granted, but you are now making it a general rule, because, in spite of the fact that it is said that boys are to go to the bakehouse to collect or deliver bread, in practice once they are there, they are put to work in the bakehouse until 8 or 8.30 a.m., when the bread is ready for delivery.
    If there is a weak point about this whole Bill, it is the question of bread. It is all very well for my hon. Friend opposite to say that bread is perishable. That is true, but perishable things ought to be delivered at reasonable times. It is not the same as in the case of milk, where you can leave a couple of bottles on the doorstep and steal quietly away before waking anyone up. Bread is different altogether, and I hope the Government will make some reply to the case that I am making that bread should be excluded from this provision altogether. Six o'clock in the morning is plenty early enough for boys to go to the bakehouse, and in spite of all that my hon. Friend opposite has said about his experience, the fact remains that if a boy has to be at work at five in the morning, it means in the vast majority of cases that someone has to get him up, and for that purpose has to get out of bed just turned 4 o'clock. I put it to this House that it is unreasonable to fetch these young children out of bed so early in the morning. After all, they are but children, between 16 and 17 years of are and the children of hon. Members of this House at that age are still at school. I know it may he said that you must employ the sons of the working classes, but I suggest that we who are really in earnest in trying to do something to better the conditions of work, to make things happier and give a brighter future for the young people of this country, may
    414
    reasonably ask that they should not be required to commence work before six in the morning.
    Let me take another point. We want to give children of 16 and 17 years of age the benefits of our excellent technical education. We in the bakehouses want to send these boys to technical schools, to such excellent places as the Polytechnic, to make them workmen and craftsmen, and to give them pride and joy in their work. How are you going to teach these boys, whom you have dragged out of bed at four in the morning, and give them the benefits of technical education? Even if they finish at five in the evening, they are tired out and cannot grasp what you are trying to teach them. Some hon. Members of this House talk about the craftsmanship and workmanship of the British workman, and we want to give these young people a chance to be craftsmen, but they cannot get a chance if they have to get up at four in the morning and go to the bakehouse to start work at five. I wish the Under-Secretary of State would come with me and go round some of the hake-houses in London to see where these boys are condemned to start work at this unearthly time in the morning. I wish he could understand the conditions which operate in the baking industry in this great city of London. I am not asking for mercy for the adults in the industry, but I am pleading for the young people coming into the industry, that they may have a decent chance to acquit themselves as craftsmen and workmen in the profession that they have undertaken to follow.
    I hope the Under-Secretary of State will recognise that there never was a case for including bakeries in this provision for starting work at 5 a.m. Whoever it was who persuaded the Home Office that bakers should be included must either not have understood the trade at all, or been one of those old chaps who think that the earlier you start them to work, the more you will get out of them. As a matter of fact, the earlier you start them to work, the less you get out of them in the long run. I am positive of that. From my own experience as manager. foreman, workman and craftsman, I know that these early starts take all the energy, all the grit, all the enthusiasm out of these young people when it is repeated morning after morning, week after

    415
    week, year in and year out. I hope we may get some reconsideration of this point, at least so far as bread and newspapers are concerned.
    8.8 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Under-Secretary of State will reconsider this question and make the hour 6 instead of 5 in the morning. I think this is a real case, and certainly no case has been made out for a o'clock. I have had experience about some of these boys working in the morning, and it is not that they are there to deliver bread. If they get there at 5, they have to clean up the shop, and it is not for the convenience of the people outside that they have to start at such an early hour. Even if people do want bread delivered at 5 or 5.30 in the morning, I do not think it is right to ask juveniles to do it. As the last speaker said, 5 in the morning is extraordinarily early. I do not know whether all parents get up early so as to send their boys off to work—some do, if others do not—but I am certain that 5 o'clock is too early for any juveniles to work. It really is, and it would not be a great inconvenience to the public to disallow it. It might upset some few people, but to say that it is necessary to deliver bread at 5 in the morning is all bunkum.
    I am sure of that, and I am sure that if the Under-Secretary of State went into the question more thoroughly, he would find it so himself. You will not find a single social worker who has had to do with these juveniles who wants them to begin work at 5 in the morning, if they are to do anything later in the day. I have seen it with my own children. 1 do not care how much rest they may get during the rest of the day, if they get up very early in the morning, it has an extraordinary effect, later on, on their vitality and on their interest; and children who get up at 5 in the morning do not do half as much as those who get up at 6 or 7. This is not sentimental but practical, and I believe the whole House would be very grateful if the Home Office would make the hour 6 o'clock.
    It seems to me, with regard to the newspapers, that if people did not get their newspapers first thing in the morning, it might not be such a bad thing for them, and they might start out better
    416
    able to judge of things in a right way. I know that I get my mind filled with more stable things if I want to do any good during the day, and I do not believe in this idea that you must start off first thing with the newspaper. There are better things to read in the morning than the newspapers. I am not mainly concerned with that question, however. My chief concern is with these children, and if the Under-Secretary of State would only promise to look into the question and go to the bakeries to see these children cleaning them out at 5 in the morning—
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The Noble Lady does not quite appreciate what the Clause does. This proviso is merely in connection with the collection and delivery of bread, and if boys cleaned up the shop or did something else that was not in connection with those things, they would be contravening the provision.
    Viscountess ASTOR: if you get these boys there at 5 in the morning, how many people will have their bread delivered at 5.30 or even 6? The hon. and gallant Member will find that there is a very small number of people throughout the country who want their bread delivered at 6 o'clock. There are not many who want to be aroused at 6 by the bread arriving. I know about this matter, and if the Under-Secretary of State will look into it himself, he will find that I am right. He is new to this job, and I have every confidence in him, because I know that he is a practical man and interested in social questions. That is why many of us welcome him in his new appointment, and I am convinced that if he had more time to look into this question for himself, he would delete "five" and put in "six," which is quite early enough for any young person to start work. I suppose it is no good making a plea about the mothers—the mother of a large working-class family. Goodness knows, her life is hard enough anyhow, and if she has to get up at 4 o'clock in order to get her boy off to start work at 5—well, I plead with the Government to give us this small concession, and I am sure that the country would soon get used to this change, which, after all, would not be revolutionary.
    8.14 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: The last two hon. Members who have spoken have

    417
    fallen into the error of speaking of the towns and of forgetting the country. They also made the error of presuming that a delivery of newspapers can be done in about five minutes. I can speak from personal knowledge' of the country. A boy has to go to the station to fetch the newspapers at five a.m., and he takes them back to the shop. They then have to be sorted, and it takes the boy three hours to get round the countryside delivering the papers. If we put the hour at six o'clock, the last customer would not get his paper until nine. The same thing applies in the case of bread. I know nothing about the bread trade, but all I can say is that a country round will take three or four hours, and sometimes five, whereas a town round will take only one and a-half hours. That is why I, speaking from a countryman's point of view, think it is necessary that the hour should be as early as five a.m.
    It is absurd to talk as though the employment of young people at five a.m. is inimical to their health. A farm carter's boy has to be in the stable at five a.m. every morning. He cannot be there later. He has to help get the horses clean, fed, and ready, so that they can start to plough at seven. If he started work at six, ploughing could not start until eight, and that would be rather late to start. The health of these lads is not injured in the slightest, nor is that of the farmer's men. I remember that as a young chemist I had to get to the chemical works in London at 5.45 a.m. and work until six p.m. In order to do that I had to leave home at 4.30, for I lived nearly six miles away. I do not think it has injured me. All this nonsense about early hours injuring young people is a sheer bogey as long as they are not employed more than a certain number of hours during the day.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: Those who have listened to. the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) will say that he has had no experience and has no knowledge of the subject about which he is talking. The baking industry has been spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who has been connected with the industry all his life, and it. is unnecessary to say much more about it except to say to the hon. and gallant
    418
    Member for Canterbury what I feel ought to be said to people who make speeches like his. There was an interjection from this side early in the Debate asking whether hon. Members would allow their own sons to get up at this time in the morning. One or two hon. Members on the other side appeared to be very upset that that kind of remark should be made. I suggest, however, that that is the practical test. Would they desire their own children to be at work at 5 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of supplying a newspaper to somebody living in the next street? I resent the sheer impudence of hon. Members who, because they are fortunately situated themselves, suggest that other people's children are not as good as theirs. That is the suggestion behind this Bill. Not a Member in the House would choose for his own boy of 16 or 17 a job where he had to start at 5 o'clock in the morning. It is pure impertinence on the part of any Member to suggest that the children of other people are less important than their own. I resent the suggestion very much.
    I want to tell of my own experience of this newspaper business, and it is probably the experience of everyone who knows what happens in connection with newspapers. The newspaper trade never thought of this proposal. There was not a solitary newspaper seller in the country who made the slightest move towards getting this Clause inserted in the Bill until it was suggested by a newspaper that circulates among the newspaper selling trade. The circular that every Member of the House has received is printed, and on one side of it is an article from the newspaper that circulated it. Because that newspaper which circulates through the retail trade sent the circular to Members of the House, the retail trade and the Government have become frightened of the newspaper trade, and they are asking that the children of other people should get up at 4.30 in the morning in order to get to work at 5. An hon. Member opposite seemed surprised when somebody said that mothers must get up early in order to get their children to work at 5. I have had a pretty long and varied experience of getting up early. I am not boasting about it nor am I proud of it. I was glad to get away from it, and so would anybody else who had had the same experience. Because

    419
    I have had that experience and know the effect of it on myself and those associated with me, I do not want to inflict it on other families. To say that mothers do not get up to get food for their children who are going out early is to say that mothers have no regard for their children. There is scarcely a mother who would allow her boy to go out early in the morning without making some provision for him in the early hours.
    What is the need of making the hour so early as 5? There is no need for newspapers to get round at that time. We should perhaps be better if we did not get newspapers until 5 o'clock in the evening. We would certainly lose nothing if we did not get them at 5 in the morning. Three people sent to me the circular I have mentioned. It began, "As one of your constituents," but only two of them lived in my constituency. The other did not, though he thought he did. He had so little knowledge of his own local circumstances that he did not know the constituency in which he lived. Two other people who are my constituents approached me personally on the matter and begged me to do what I could to stop this Clause going through. They said they employed adults. There must be dozens of newspaper sellers in that area, but only two of them want the change which the Government are forcing on the baking trade and the newspaper industry. There are dozens of others who do not ask for it and do not want it, and at least two went out of their way to beg me in the interests of the decent newspaper sellers not to support a Clause which would force boys to go to work early in the morning. They said that it meant playing down to the worst sweaters in the business.
    Until a very recent date, when the newspaper to which I have referred implored the newspaper retail trade to take this matter up, the trade was not interested in it and did not want it. The matter has only been raised because of the issue of this circular to Members of the House. Why do not the Government leave the Bill as it was? Why was there any need to introduce newspaper sellers into it at all, and to give the worst people in the trade an opportunity to sweat these young people to a still greater extent? I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary say that these young people might
    420
    lose their jobs. It would be a good thing if they did and if adults took their place. We are asking the Government to make this a job for adults. Would the Under-Secretary himself, or any Member of this House, refuse to follow the practice which, I understand, prevails in many parts of Scotland, and possibly in other places, of paying ld. a week for the delivery of the newspapers in order to enable adults to be employed instead of young people? This Clause means a definite worsening of conditions, and I hope the House will support the Amendment, and give the Minister some cause to think things over and an opportunity to make the necessary alteration in another place.
    8.26 p.m.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: May I appeal to the representative of the Home Office to tell us at whose instigation bread was included in this Clause? I have been connected with the bread trade for the whole of my life, and I can see no reason for bread being collected or delivered at five o'clock in the morning. As a, matter of fact, there is no collection of bread in the sense in which that term is generally used; it is not collected at railway stations like milk, but is made by the bakers themselves. As to delivery, who on earth wants bread at five o'clock in the morning or before six o'clock? The hotels do not need it, the shops are not open to receive it, private households do not want it, and it cannot be left on the doorstep as milk can be left. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) talked about starting work at five o'clock in the morning, and I have had similar experience, but times have changed and public opinion is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago. The whole of the Lancashire factories used to start at six o'clock in the morning—indeed, they used to start at four o'clock in the bad old days, and later at five o'clock; but the opening hour was six o'clock for 30 or 40 years. No factory, foundry, bleach works, or similar works opens at that hour now.
    Everybody gets up later now. Whether that is a change for the better or the worse we are not here to discuss. We are here to look facts in the face, and, speaking with a lifetime's experience of the baking trade, I say there is no reason whatever for the collection or delivery of

    421
    bread before six o'clock in the morning. I appeal to the Under-Secretary, who cannot know everything about every trade, to say that if he cannot accept this Amendment he will at least go into the whole question and find out why this Clause was inserted, and at whose instigation. I am sure it was not at the request of the master bakers or the operative bakers. I would like to emphasise one point, and that is that all the sympathy with the workers is not confined to the Labour benches. I do not say that Labour Members have ever made that claim. Some of us are as keen about the conditions and hours of labour as any hon. Member on the Labour benches. When one looks through the whole of the social legislation of this country, one finds that it redounds to the credit of the party to which I have the honour to belong, and when the Under-Secretary is introducing commendable legislation I do not want a blot of this character upon it. I appeal to the Home Office to go carefully into the question, and to be assured by a representative here of the operative bakers, and by another who knows the inside of the trade from the master bakers' point of view, that there is no need for bread to be included. I do not feel competent to express an opinion on whether it is necessary to include newspapers, but I do feel competent to speak about bread, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary to leave bread out.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. LEVY: This question was discussed very fully in 'Committee upstairs and a vote was taken upon it, and I think I am right in saying that only three Members voted for the deletion of this Clause. It is quite obvious that, if we are to have newspapers delivered in time to be read at breakfast, the employés who meet the trains, take the newspapers to their offices, sort them and deliver them have got to start work at five o'clock in the morning. Some people say that stale news is worse than stale bread, and I believe it. I think it is true to say that the whole population would be up in arms if they were told that they could not get their papers until it was too late in the morning to read them.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that it was not until after the Committee was sitting that hon. Mem
    422
    bers received correspondence from certain newsagents about this matter—not until after something had been published about it in one of the papers of the newspaper trade? They had not thought about the matter till then.
    Mr. LEVY: I have no knowledge about that. All I know is that there was an Amendment upon the Paper, and that it seemed to be one which ought to have been included in the Bill. It was discussed in Committee and was voted upon, and it was agreed to include it, and I sincerely hope the Minister will stick to his guns and not take it out now. The hon. Member for Bolton, (Sir J. Haslam) said, very rightly, that hon. Members on this side of the House have as much sympathy with, and as much interest in the welfare of, young people as the Members on the Labour benches, who have no monopoly in that direction. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) made a personal reference to my hon. Friend sitting behind him telling him that he did not know what he was talking about. To appeal to passion, emotion and sympathy instead of to logic and reason is no argument. I say that it is logic and reason to allow the young people who have got these jobs to keep them, and that it is not a hardship for them to start at five o'clock. It is agreed that at 14 years of age they can start at six o'clock, but at 16 years of age they cannot start at five o'clock, and that is illogical, and I hope the Minister will not give way to the argument.
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I think the Under-Secretary will regret having made so early and hasty an intervention in this Debate, because there have been so many speeches from supporters of the Government which cannot fail to have interested him. I want to express my sincere disappointment that he turned down so summarily the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) which incidentally involves the Amendment referring to newspapers to which my own name is attached. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) dealt so faithfully with bread that I will confine what I have to say to newspapers. I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Way-

    423
    land). If he thinks it is just and proper to do so, he can denounce us on the ground that we use sentimental and humanitarian arguments; but to make his case good, he must prove that it is economically necessary to employ young persons at such an early hour in the morning under modern conditions.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: I can easily do that.
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member says that he can easily do that. I dare-say, if he had the opportunity to speak again, that he would put a case, but I suggest that there is plenty of labour available, not of young persons, but of persons to whom it would do no injury to rise at this early hour in the morning. Economically, it is absolutely unnecessary to employ young persons at such an early hour.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: May I ask the hon. Member what he would do, if he were a farmer, with regard to the training of young people, especially in the training of a lad to be a carter?
    Mr. BROWN: Training young lads to be farmers has nothing to do with the Bill, and I do not understand why the hon. Member has used that illustration. The Bill deals with young persons employed in shops. It may be necessary for farmers in certain circumstances to employ young people at early hours in the morning, although I do not think it is. The agricultural industry should be so reorganised as to employ older men to do the essential work; the young men could come in at a later hour, especially now that such splendid assistance is being given to agriculture by His Majesty's Government. There we will leave that point.
    The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has proved that there is no necessity for early employment in regard to the delivery of bread, and it is sought to get out of the difficulty by inserting the words, "collection and delivery," to make the case good. That has already been disproved. The provision as to newspapers was not in the original Bill, because the Government did not think it necessary, but an Amendment, moved in Committee was accepted, I think very hastily, by the right hon. Gentleman who was at that time the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I thought that he accepted it without
    424
    proper consideration. Since the Committee Stage of the Bill, we have conducted an investigation in the matter of the delivery of newspapers, and just as it has been clearly shown by the hon. Member for Wednesbury that there is no need of the provision in the Bill in regard to the delivery of bread, so the facts that we have collected show equally conclusively that there is no need for the provision in regard to newspapers.
    I will give the House certain of the facts which we have collected, and I will name certain places. In Bath, the ages of the lads employed are between 14 and 15 and the hours are from 7 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. In Bristol, the hour is 6.30 a.m. In Crewe, probably because it is a very important railway junction, the hour is 4.30 a.m. In Eastbourne, it is from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. In some parts of London it is only 7 a.m. In Nottingham—I have some interest in Nottingham because I represent a Nottingham constituency—young persons up to school-leaving age are prohibited at an hour earlier than 7 a.m. In some cases there are local by-laws to that effect. The result of the investigation shows that there is no necessity to bring newspapers under this provision between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. That is not clone now in most instances, and all that this proposal is doing is to hold out a bait to the worst form of employer and to say to him, "Within the provisions of this Clause you can, if you like, employ young persons as early as 5 o'clock in the morning." Although that is not done in the majority of instances now, some hon. Members seem to want to encourage it. I cannot understand why such a blot should be left on the Bill which is, in many ways, a progressive Measure and does things which are wholly admirable. The provision in regard to newspapers was an afterthought, and all the facts go to prove that there is no necessity for it. I ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the statement which he has made, and, if he cannot accept the deletion proposed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, let him at any rate accept a proposal to delete the provision as to newspapers.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I feel very strongly on this proposal because I look upon it as retrograde. I have personal knowledge of the fight that we put up to depart from

    425
    the 6 o'clock start and to substitute 8 o'clock for adult industrial workers. The proposal now made considerably perturbs me. I regret the suggestion that our attitude is one of mere sentiment. It is not mere sentiment, although I am never ashamed of being sentimental on matters such as this. I regret that I was unable to put this point during the Committee stage. The Under-Secretary of State drew my attention to the proposal which he was going to make for the inclusion of the words "collection and delivery of." I have not thought the matter out, but I am not sure that we ought not to divide against that also, because it is widening the original provision. If the provision is to be applied to bread and newspapers, as suggested, and is to cover collection, why should it not include meat, vegetables and all things in the market?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman is now anticipating a later Amendment.
    Mr. LEONARD: I was enđeavouring to combat the proposal to widen the scope of the Clause, but I see that I was going beyond the bounds of the discussion. I have had experience in this matter, as I have delivered bread in Scotland and I have delivered newspapers and milk. That was in the days when the hour at which it was customary to start was 6 o'clock. The people to whom I had to deliver those commodities were never out of bed. We have now departed from the 6 o'clock start, and the 8 o'clock start is general. Therefore, I do not look with pleasure upon the proposal for a 5 o'clock start. It has been stated that the young people will go outside into the open air. Yes, out before 5 a.m. in all weathers, winter as well as summer. In my own case I was reasonably well clothed, but others were not so well clothed, when going out in the early morning to deliver those commodities. It is not fair to relate such conditions of employment to those experienced upon going into industry as the Under-Secretary has done. An early start in industry means indoors or under shelter—far different conditions from out in cold wet weather. We are entitled to take up the attitude which we have adopted.
    8.45 p.m.
    Colonel GOODMAN: I do not desire to detain the House for more than about
    426
    two minutes, but I should like to put as briefly as possible the case for the early delivery of newspapers. So far as I can see, no case has been made out for the early delivery of bread, but I would point out that, while the collection of newspapers may take place at five o'clock, or possibly somewhat later, because the young person employed may have to go to the shop and get an order, by the time he returns to the shop it is somewhere between five and half-past, and the papers have then to be sorted out and handed to those who are going to deliver them. An average round in London and the suburbs —I speak from experience—takes about two hours, and, if the papers are got ready by a quarter to six, it is a quarter to eight before people living at the end of the round get their papers. I would ask hon. Members to consider the 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people in London and Greater London who have to come from the suburbs into London, and who want their papers by seven o'clock or a very little later. I yield to no one in my desire to look after the young people, but I believe that the early delivery of newspapers has become a necessity for people living in London and its suburbs; I cannot speak for other great towns in the North. If the hour is put forward to six o'clock, it will mean that the papers are not delivered until half-past seven, eight, or even half-past eight, and that would be a great inconvenience to people living in London and the suburbs.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: The hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) has spoken as though at the present time it was the practice for young people to start work on the delivery of newspapers at five o'clock in the morning, and as though, if our Amendment were carried, that practice would be upset. But the case is quite different. There are no young people starting work at five in the morning to deliver newspapers to the great population in London to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers. The earliest time of which we have any evidence is six, or half-past six, or seven, and the greater part of the work is done at seven o'clock and later. That is why we are so opposed to this retrograde step of advancing the time when there has been no demand for it and it is not done now.
    Colonel GOODMAN: With all respect to the hon. Member, I must say that my experience is that in the great majority of cases delivery of papers in the suburbs of London now commences shortly after five, and in only a very few cases as late as half-past five.
    Mr. WILMOT: There seems to be a difference between us on a matter of fact, but the figures supplied to us by those best qualified to speak for the workers in this industry are as has been stated. I myself live in a working-class suburb of London, and I know that, if I have to be away particularly early in the morning, I have to go without my newspaper, for it is not customary to deliver newspapers at that early hour.
    Colonel GOODMAN: You must be at the end of the round.
    Mr. WILMOT: If this Amendment be carried, it will not disturb the existing practice, but it will prevent the encouragement of the employment of young people at a still earlier hour than is now the case. The hon. and gallant
    Member spoke as though, if the Amendment were carried, it would not be possible to deliver newspapers at five in the morning in the special ease of the particularly early morning worker who wants to read his "Daily Herald" on his way to work, and he would be deprived by our Amendment of getting that tonic with which to start the day. That is not the case, because the newsagent who wishes to supply this special class of worker can employ a person over 18 to do the work, and I am sure that no one would complain if somebody over 18 got a job on this work instead of a boy who really ought to be in bed. It is a retrograde step for the Home Office, in a Bill of this kind, to make the hours at which young people are permitted to start work still earlier than the current practice. It will act as an encouragement, and it is entirely unnecessary.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to ' in ' in line 16, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 331.]

    AYES

    [8.55 p.m

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Albery, Irving James

    Elmley, Viscount

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Aske. Sir Robert William

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Leckle, J. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lees-Jones, John

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Goff, Sir Park

    Levy, Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Bicker, Sir Reginald

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Lindsay. Noel Ker

    Boulton, W. W.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harbord, Arthur

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)

    Mabane, William

    Carmen, Arthur Cecil

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Christle, James Archibald

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hepworth. Joseph

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hornby, Frank

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Conant. R. J. E.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Cook. Thomas A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Manning ham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Courthops, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hume. Sir George Hopwood

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Cross, R. H.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jennings, Roland

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Morning, Adrian C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Doran, Edward

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Munro, Patrick

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Pearson, William G.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Penny, Sir George

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp')

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A..J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Potter, John

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Todd, A. L, S. (Kingswinford)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Train, John

    Pownall, Si Assheton

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Radford, E. A.

    Scone, Lord

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ranosbotham, Herwald

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Slater, John

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Ranki. Robert

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Ray, Sir William

    Somerville, D, G. (Willesden, East)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Rickards, George William

    Stones, James

    Robinson, John Roland

    Strauss, Edward A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Sutter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Rathhone, Eleanor

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thmess)

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Bernays, Robert

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Thorne, William James

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clarke, Frank

    Jenkins, Sir William

    West, F. R.

    Cove, William G.

    John, William

    White. Henry Graham

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Dickle, John P.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Edwards, Charles

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR TEM NOES.—

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Milner, Major James

    Amendment made: In page 3, line 16, after "employed" insert "during that hour."—[Captain Crookshank.]
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after "the" to insert "collection or."
    This is merely to clarify our intention. It has always been intended, in the case of some newspapers particularly, to mean going to the station, getting them from
    the train, taking them to the shop and beginning the delivery.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "or newspapers."
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 52.

    Amendment made: in page 3, line 17, leave out "during that hour.— [Captain Crookshank.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Special provisions as to the catering trade.)
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This is really a drafting Amendment consequential upon the new Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.10 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the beginning, to insert:
    "If the occupier of any shop gives notice that he elects that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable to that shop then, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, the said provisions shall not be applicable thereto, but as respects business carried on at any shop to which the said provisions are not so rendered inapplicable."
    This is a very much more complicated matter. This is the first of a series of Amendments, none of which makes sense taken by itself, and they will have to be taken together. If with your assent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can explain their general purport on the present Amendment, it might perhaps help to clear the situation. They would inevitably be unintelligible in a very technical Bill if taken separately. The Clause has to deal with the special case of the catering trade, which obviously, from its very nature, cannot be exactly on all fours with other sections of thedistributive trade. For the benefit of hon. Members, I would remind them how the matter in regard to overtime stands in the Bill. For the youngest section up to the age of 16 there is no possibility of overtime at all under the provisions of the first Clause. Between the ages of 16 and 18 the provisions for overtime are that there may be, with the 48-hour week—I am not complicating the matter by dealing with the temporary provision for the two years but with the Act as it will be, I hope, in its final form-50 hours during the year as the maximum, 12 hours as the weekly maximum, and also overtime can only be worked in six weeks in a year. That is the normal case.
    With regard to the catering trade, the Clause at present grants two different kinds of privilege. First of all, we say that for 12 fortnights in a year, by exhibiting a notice in the shops, it is possible to average the hours of employ-
    434
    ment. The 48 hours, instead of being a weekly limit, becomes twice 48 hours, or 96 hours in a fortnight. The proviso there is that if they elect to have an averaging system of that kind no week can run to more than 60 hours. Therefore, if for reasons of their own business they find it necessary to employ up to 60 hours in the first week, in the second week they cannot possibly employ for more than 36 hours. In those particular fortnights-12 fortnights in a year—there can be no overtime. It is not allowed. That is the effect of the present Clause.
    Secondly, under the Clause as it now stands the catering trade is exempted from the other provision of the first Clause, which is, that overtime can only be worked in six weeks. The catering trade, by the Clause as it stands, are exempt from that provision with regard to overtime. Therefore, in the remainder of the year, apart from the 12 fortnights, they can use their overtime as they like. That is the effect of the Clause as it has come down from the Committee. I hope that I have made the point clear.
    The effect of all these Amendments is, first of all, that the 12 fortnights are left as they are. The trade can average to give 60 hours in one week, but they cannot employ for more than 60 hours in one week, and cannot have overtime in those fortnights. These Amendments make an alteration with regard to overtime. The condition is made that if they have exemption from the six weeks' limit., that is to say, that if they do not take the overtime in only six weeks in the year, they can take it whenever they like, but with this further proviso, that they cannot take more than eight hours overtime per fortnight. That is a very great advantage, because if you take eight hours in a normal fortnight, it means obviously 48, plus 8, equals 56 as the most that can be worked in the first week, and there cannot be any further overtime in the second week of that fortnight. [Interruption.] I am very glad that everybody has understood so far.
    The second alteration which we are proposing at this stage is this, that as a condition of exemption, if you are exempt from the six weeks limit of overtime and agree to take your eight hours in a fortnight, it is only fair, in cases which we do not think will be frequent, that if the employer does

    435
    not want to take advantage of that he should notify the local authority and say that he will stick to the general conditions of the first Clause, and so remain under the six weeks arrangement. If he wants to opt in that way, he must give notice to the local authority. Whatever the shopkeepers do about overtime, they can still use the averaging arrangement if they like by putting up a notice in their shops. But in the 12 fortnights of which they have given notice in their shops they cannot have overtime at all. Overtime, therefore, so far as the catering trade is concerned is either confined to six weeks, or to a maximum of 12 hours in a fortnight with in either case the overriding provision of the first Clause that there must not be more than 50 hours overtime in the whole year. By giving notice they can take the overtime in six weeks, or if they like they can take it to the extent of not more than eight hours in two weeks. Under the new provisions of the Clause, as amended, it will be impossible to use up the 50 hours overtime allowed for the whole year in a less period than three months. The reason for that is that we know that the catering trade is a seasonal one and that just before the big holidays, or in holiday seasons, there is a rush, and we wish to give the maximum amount of latitude to the caterers, without infringing upon the fundamental principles of the Bill. We anticipate that the giving of notice with regard to the six weeks, which will be at the beginning of the year, should hold good for a considerable period. We do not want the giving and withdrawing of the notice to be going on all the time. The catering employers will have to give notice, and they will have to say whether they expect to use their overtime in any fortnight, or under the arrangement made in the first Clause. I do not know whether that is a sufficient explanation to start with;
    I hope it is. I would remind the House that none of these provisions apply to persons under the age of 16, because under the first Clause they cannot have any overtime. The provisions apply to the group between 16 and 18, and the intention is to make it as easy as possible for the catering trade to deal with the demands made on them by the public.
    Mr. MABANE: May I inquire to which Amendments the Under-Secretary was referring?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: All the Government Amendments.
    Mr. MABANE: What has happened to the provision to be substituted for Subsection (7)?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: We have not arrived at that point yet.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
    " if other business is carried on in the shop the overtime employment of persons in relation to whom -this sub-section applies shall not he taken into account for the purposes of the application of the said proviso in relation to other young persons."
    This Amendment is an answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). This takes the place of Subsection (7), the omission of which I shall move later. It deals with the problem of multiple shops.
    Mr. MABANE: It appeared to me that Sub-section (7) dealt with conditions beyond overtime, and I wondered whether there was anything in the subsequent Amendment of the Government, on line 44, that would cover the provision made in Sub-section (7).
    Captain CROOKSHANK: We are now dealing with the Amendment on line 40. This deals with the case when there is another business being carried on. The gist of our Amendments on this point is to get over a difficulty with regard to the word "department" which was in the Clause when it was brought down from the Committee. There was a difficulty in defining "department," and we have met the point in a way which makes it impossible for any difference of opinion to arise.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 44, at the end, insert:
    " Provided that while the provisions of this sub-section are applicable to a shop, section one of this Act shall, in relation to any young person so employed in connection with the business aforesaid, have effect as if in proviso (b) to sub-section (2) thereof there were inserted the following additional paragraph, that is to say—

    437
    (iii a) in any period of two consecutive weeks so that be is employed overtime about the business of a shop for more than eight working hours in that period.
    (4) A notice given under the last foregoing sub-section with respect to any shop, and a notice withdrawing any such notice as aforesaid, shall be given in such form, in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the local authority whose duty it is to enforce the foregoing provisions of this Act within the district in which the shop is situated, and any such notice shall take effect on such date after it is given as may be prescribed."
    In page 5, line 22, leave out Subsection (7).—[Captain, Crookshank.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles and cycles.)
    9.26. p. m
    Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out "there is carried on," and to insert "the business carried on is wholly or mainly."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that this special provision, applying to businesses where customers are served with supplies or accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles or cycles shall be confined to those businesses in which the business is wholly or mainly of that nature. If the Sub-section be passed in its present form, then clearly any large department store or similar establishment that stocks any commodities, however few in number, that come within the category here laid down, would be covered by this provision. I would point out also that in my Amendment in page 5, line 40, I am asking for the same words, "wholly or mainly," to be applied to people employed in these shops. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that these Amendments of mine do no more than bring this Clause into line with the Clause with which we just dealt. If hon. Members will refer to Clause 4, page 4, line 7, they will see that there the words "wholly or mainly" are applied to the people whose employment is to be covered by the provisions of that Clause. There is no need for me to elaborate the point; it is perfectly simple, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will see, his way to accept this Amendment, which may be a little more than a drafting Amendment but which is no more than is necessary to make the Clause do what I am perfectly sure is the intention of my hon. Friend and the Government.
    Mr. LEVY: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    9.28 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: This point is actually covered by our Amendment in page 1742 of the Order Paper, which is not quite in the same words but which would have the same effect. Under that Amendment we deal with the question of a place where two or more retail trades —that is a multiple store—are carried on and where this is not the principal retail trade. Perhaps it would be well if on this Amendment I surveyed all the Government Amendments. My hon. Friend would then see that we have done our best to meet the points which he has raised not only to-night but in correspondence.
    This deals with the case of garages which provide supplies or accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles or cycles sold for immediate use. Here it is the question of dealing with an industry which is not quite on all fours with the general run of distributive trades. I would remind the House again of the fundamental provisions of 50 hours' overtime in six weeks, with only 12 hours' overtime per week for those between 10 and 18. In the Clause as it comes down to us from Committee we have, again, two privileges for the garage trade. The first is rather on the lines of the privilege given to the catering trade by which they may average their 48 hours. We give the garage trade the privilege of being allowed on giving notice to the local authority in the manner prescribed to average their periods of work over a three-weekly period instead of a fortnight as in the catering trade, and instead of the normal week in the other distributive trades. So for garages the 144 hours which are available can be distributed into three weekly periods as they please, provided that no individual week can exceed 5.4 hours. That is the normal way of dealing with their hours of employment. Unlike the catering trades, in this particular case they may work overtime in the three weekly periods, but there is the over-riding maximum that no week may be longer than 54 hours. They can therefore take their overtime if they like, but if they do not the three weekly average still remains

    439
    and the maximum in any case is 54 hours.
    The second privilege which the garage businesses have is that they are exempt, from the maximum limit of six weeks in which they can have overtime. The first Clause says that you may only have overtime in six specific weeks. The garages, however, as the Bill is reported from Committee, have exemption; they can take their overtime when they like, though the over-riding maxi-Mum still remains. We want again to make it as easy as possible, while safeguarding the position of the young employed person, to conform to what is the practice so far as we can ascertain it in this section of the business world, which has to deal with customers in a rather different manner from that of the ordinary shops.
    So the gist of the Government Amendment is that first of all, when they are averaging their weeks of work so that they take 144 hours in three-weekly periods, they can then work 12 hours overtime in the three weeks, but none of the weeks can be over 54 hours. That is their normal way of dealing with overtime. If, however, they are not averaging, then their exemption from the six-weeks limit which is provided for in the first Clause is conditional on their not using more than 12 hours' overtime in three weeks. That is the effect of the second block of Amendments which we are making at this stage. We say that if they do not want that exemption from six weeks—that is to say, they prefer not to spread their overtime in little quantities throughout the year but wish to stick to what is allowed to all the trades in the first Clause of the Bill, namely, to take 50 hours' overtime but not more than 12 hours a week in six definite weeks—they have to give notice to the local authority that they are going to do so.
    In the Amendment Which we are actually discussing, the hon. Gentleman deals with the question of a shop of the multiple class. A multiple shop may have a department—though we are not using the word "department" in the Bill—where their business is to sell retail accessories or supplies for aircraft, motor vehicles or cycles. We are dealing with this in the last paragraph of the Amendments to this Clause: we make
    440
    the test there whether it is or is not the principal retail trade or business. That is not "wholly or mainly quite in the way the hon. Member puts it, but hon. Members will see that this follows. Our object there is that, if there be a motor department. in a big store, then these conditions of averaging should only apply to the employés in that department and should not be taken advantage of by the employers to deal with the overtime of their other employés who may be in other departments. In the ordinary garage, however, where the principal retail trade or business carried on is this business of motoring, we think that it is all right for averaging to apply to those who are employed in direct connection with that business, because in that kind of shop there is a certain possibility of a young fellow who is dealing with the sale of motor accessories being also at other times used in minor repairs in the same business.
    That is the way in which we have dealt with that question. Notice will have to be given to the authority, and in that case my right hon. Friend proposes to take that opportunity of putting this provision, and those provisions which relate to the catering trades, in language which will be intelligible to all employers of labour in these particular industries. I do not think that anyone who is not an expert can possibly understand the Clause, but the explanation is what I have given to the House. If it is not clear, we propose to make it clear to those people mostly concerned, that is, the employers and their employes. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
    Mr. MABANE: I cannot say that the hon. and gallant Member has quite satisfied my point, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 5, line 31, leave out from "use," to the first "that," in line 36, and insert "gives notice."
    In page 6, line 10, leave out "paragraph," and insert "paragraphs."
    In line 13, at the end, insert:
    " (iii b) in any period of three consecutive weeks so that he is employed overtime about the business of a shop for more than twelve working hours in that period."
    In line 14, leave out Sub-section (2).
    In line 18, leave out Sub-section (3).
    In line 24, leave out Sub-section (4).
    In line 34, at the beginning, insert:
    " If the occupier of any shop gives notice that he elects that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable to that shop then, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, the said provisions shall not be applicable thereto, but as respects business carried on at any shop to which the said provisions are not so rendered inapplicable."
    In line 38, leave out from "and," to the end of the Clause, and insert:
    " if other business is carried on in the shop the overtime employment of persons in relation to whom this sub-section applies shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the application of the said proviso in relation to any other young persons."
    In line 43, at the end, insert:
    " Provided that while the provisions of this sub-section are applicable to a shop, section one of this Act shall, in relation to any young person employed in connection with the business aforesaid, having effect as if in proviso (b) to sub-section (2) thereof there were inserted the following additional paragraph, that is to say—
    (iii b) in any period of three consecutive weeks so that he is employed overtime about the business of a shop for more than twelve working hours in that period.
    (6) A notice given under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (5) of this section with respect to any shop and a notice withdrawing any such notice as aforesaid shall be given in such form, in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the local authority whose duty it is to enforce the foregoing provisions of this Act within the district in which the shop is situated, and any such notice shall take effect on such date after it is given as may be prescribed."—[Captain Crookshank.]
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
    " (G) Where two or more retail trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop and the business of serving customers with supplies or accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles, or cycles sold for immediate use, is not the principal retail trade or business carried on in the shop, the provisions of this section shall apply only in relation to young persons employed about the business of a shop who are wholly or mainly employed in connection with the business of serving customers with such supplies or accessories as aforesaid."
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: I should like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he
    442
    has done in trying to meet the points I have raised. The word "Department "in this Clause and in the previous Clause has been deleted, and quite properly, because there is no definition of the word "Department," and the whole interpretation of the Clause depends on the word being defined. I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he really has made it any easier by inserting the words:
    " Where two or more retail trades or businesses are carried on."
    It is no less difficult to distinguish between two retail trades as it is between two different departments of a business, and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept my much easier form of words, "wholly or mainly," and distinguish shops of one kind from another by discovering whether the business is wholly or mainly of one particular character or not. I should like to ask how the hon. and gallant Member proposes to define a retail business. If in the same shop is carried on the sale of bicycles, the sale of aircraft accessories, the sale of wireless sets and the sale of lawn-mowers, is it one retail business, or two, or three, or four retail businesses? I think he is giving himself a problem which is not easier than the problem of solving what is a department. If he is going to put words into an Act of Parliament which depends for their interpretation on these nebulous words, he is making a mistake, and I would ask him to reconsider the matter, and also express the hope that he will find my words really easier from the point of view of definition than the words he proposes to introduce.
    9.43 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Surely the word "department" is a word which everybody understands. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) went into a shop with a, young lady 20 years old she would probably ask for a particular department, and there would be no doubt as to where she would be taken. She would be taken to the proper department. I think the hon. Member would do well to accept the words proposed in the Amendment.
    9.44 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: We have gone most carefully into this matter with our legal advisers and they are satisfied that this is a far better way of dealing with it than the way originally proposed

    443
    in the Bill. It is generally clear, in a case where two or three retail trades are carried on in the same shop which is the principal retail trade. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) instanced a shop where wireless business and other retail trades were carried on, and I should think it would be comparatively easy for anyone to decide which was the principal retail trade. At the moment I cannot promise that these words will be reconsidered, because they have, only just been reached after a. great deal of consideration.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to sanitary or other arrangements in shops)
    9.46 p.m.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, after "shop," to insert:
    " other than any premises upon which intoxicating liquor is sold under a justice's licence."
    This Amendment is moved as a protest against over-inspection of a trade which is now very well inspected. I am happy to think that the licensing trade employs practically no young people, but it is inspected from morning to night; first of all by the brewers, who have their own inspectors; secondly by the magistrates, who see that the slightest alteration has to receive their approval; and, thirdly, by the local authority. We are a long way from the time when young people were employed in public houses. To-day, practically no young people are employed at all. Some of us remember the time when the pot boy used to go out with a string of cans on a pole and deliver his beer from house to house. But that day is past and the licensed victualler's premises to-day are very different indeed from what they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is a legitimate trade. It is a trade which some people look down upon, but it has every reason to range itself with any other trade in the country. I am not sanguine enough to think that the Amendment will be accepted; I shall not be very disappointed if it is not, and I do not intend to press it to a Division. My whole object was to bring before the House the fact that this trade is inspected from morning to night and does not require any further inspection, and that in justice it should be left out of
    444
    the Bill because it employs practically no young people.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the Amendment seconded?
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Unfortunately, my Seconder is not present.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then the Amendment falls.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after the second "shop," to insert "with the permission of the occupier."
    In Committee an undertaking was given that by Report it would be discovered whether the insertion of these words was necessary. This Sub-section provides that:
    " Where persons employed about the business of a shop take any meals in the shop, there shall he provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of those meals."
    If any employé takes meals without permission would that impose on the occupier the obligation to provide suitable facilities?
    Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The Amendment does not seem to the Government to be necessary, because it would rather infringe upon the functions of the employer. We are not dealing with young people here at all; we are dealing with the health provisions of workers; and one of the requirements is that suitable and sufficient facilities should be granted. That is further defined in the definition Clause, "having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting that shop or part." I think the point of the hon. Member is that, supposing there were no meal facilities and someone was found eating something there might be the possibility of the employer being penalised for something for which he has not given permissiion or for which there were no facilities. The facilities have to be provided, according to the Bill, only if meals are taken.That is surely within the discretion of the shopkeeper. If he does not provide facilities and he finds people disobeying him it is for him to look after them.
    Mr. MABANE: There will be no obligation on him?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: That is so, and the hon. Member's point, I think is covered. It is dealt with under welfare orders in factories and we have never had any trouble.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out from "shop" to "unless," in line 28.
    This relates to certificates. The Amendment is one of a series to Sub-section (6), which provides that shops may be exempt from the requirements where a certificate of exemption is granted by the local authority. The argument has been used that we ought to make some provision to prevent a local authority withdrawing such a certificate unless there is an alteration in the circumstances affecting the shop. It is possible that a case may occur where local authorities want to withdraw a certificate on the ground that the grant of it originally was unreasonable. We have considered that difficulty, and we suggest Amendments which provide that if the occupier shall be aggrieved he can take the case to the county court; if he thinks the local authority has unwarrantably withdrawn a certificate there is a method of appeal. We must assume, however, that local authorities will act in a reasonable spirit. The fact that there is a, provision for appeal should satisfy the hon. Member.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: I would thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for going as far as he has gone in trying to meet me. Would he consider a further point that is of substance? This proposal may affect the value of property really seriously. Suppose that a shop is in occupation and it is covered by a certificate of exemption, as provided in this Sub-section, and the owner or occupier desires to pass on the occupancy of the shop to someone else, he cannot at present pass on any security with that shop that the certificate exempting it from the provisions of this Clause will remain. I want the certificate to remain in force as long as the conditions on which it was granted remain unaltered. Apart from the additional element of security that that would give to the occupier, it would provide that the value
    446
    of the property would not be depreciated by the insecurity of the certificate by reason of the fact that it might be withdrawn at the whim of the local authority. Therefore, while thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for what he has done, I should be glad if he would consider the matter a little further and see whether it would not be in the interests of good administration and the maintenance of the value of property, to adopt the words which I suggested in the Amendment appearing earlier on the Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 29, leave out "for the time being."
    In page 10, line 35, at the end, insert:
    " and, subject as hereinafter provided, a certificate in force with respect to any shop shall he withdrawn if the authority at any time cease to be so satisfied as aforesaid:
    Provided that if the occupier of a shop is aggrieved by the withdrawal of such a certificate he may appeal to the county court for the district in which the shop is situated and that court may make such order concerning the certificate as appears to the court, having regard to the matters aforesaid, to be just and equitable."— [Captain Crooloshank.]

    CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment of 2 Geo. 5. S. 3.)
    9.57 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, to leave out "post a notice hi the shop" and to insert:
    " in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form give notice."
    This Amendment has reference to the provision regarding seats for female shop assistants. It has been pointed out that the insertion of these words "post a notice in the shop "would not necessarily be the most efficient way of doing what we want to do. Therefore we propose to substitute the words indicated in the Amendment. Possibly it might be better to hand a notice to the employé on first coming into the shop to the effect that she would be expected to make use of these seats whenever possible, or to give notice in some other form. I think these words get over a difficulty which some of my hon. Friends have raised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 43, at the end, to insert:
    " always providing that nothing in this section, or in the prescribed notice, shall be deemed to infringe the right of the occupier of the shop to be the sole judge as to whether the use of such seats does, or does not, interfere with the work of the assistants using them."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment appears almost to negative the Clause, but I am prepared to hear the hon. Member's reasons for it.
    Mr. MABANE: The object of the Amendment is to raise what appears to me and to some of my hon. Friends a very important point of principle. It will be observed that in the Clause the words occur:
    " and it shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to permit the female shop assistants so employed to make use of such seats whenever the use thereof does not interfere with their work."
    The point which I want to raise is one of jurisdiction. Who is to decide whether the work is being interfered with or not. I have been advised that under the Clause as it stands it would be the duty of a court of law to decide whether the work was being interfered with or not. It would not be the duty of the employer, and it seems to us that that is a serious infringement of the right to the employer to manage his own business in his own way and that it introduces a principle which has never been introduced before, as far as I can discover, in our industrial legislation. While this is a very small Clause we fear that it might provide a very dangerous precedent if a Government were ever in office again composed of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    We feel that in this Clause the present Government are introducing a serious new principle which might be used by future Governments to lay down when an employer shall and shall not give certain orders definitely concerned with managerial functions. In 1922 there was a serious industrial dispute on this point, and the engineering employers fought to the bitter end for the right to manage their own business in their own way. I therefore felt that I was not going
    448
    beyond what was permissible on the Report stage of the Bill in putting down this Amendment in order to raise that important point and so that the House might know what it is doing in accepting this Clause as it stands.
    Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I sincerely trust that the representative of the Home Office will not accept this Amendment. I think that the Mover of the Amendment is trying to destroy the wording of the Bill in this respect as it was settled in Committee upstairs. He desires to give the employer the right of saying whether the work is going to be interfered with or not, but he knows full well that there are some employers who will say that the work is being interfered with if the girls sit down in the shop, whether work is really being interfered with or not. These seats were provided by law in order that the girls might use them when there was no work to be done, but it has turned out that the girls are not allowed to sit down even when there is nothing to be done, on the ground that it would appear to customers in other parts of the shop that they were not ready for the task of serving people, just because they were sitting. In the end the seats are provided according to law but hardly any of the assistants can make use of them. If this Amendment were carried the position would be worse than it was before. I was pleased at the Government's attitude towards this problem in Committee, and I trust they will not accede to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's request.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As this is a non-party matter, the House may take it that the reply of the hon. Member for.Westhoughton (Mr. Davis) covers my reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane).
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Enforcement.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 22, leave out "(as extended by section four of this Act)."—[Captain Crookshank.]

    NEW SCHEDULE.—(Temporary modification of references to working hours.)

    Provision of Act.

    Subject matter.

    References for which substitution is to be made.

    Substituted references.

    Section one

    Hours of employment

    48 working hours

    52 working hours

    50 working hours

    24 working hours

    12 working hours

    8 working hours

    Sub-section (1) of section four

    Special provisions as to the catering trade

    96 working hours

    104 working hours

    Sub-section (3) of section four

    Special provisions as to the catering trade

    8 working hours

    4 working hours

    Sub-section (1) of section five

    Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor-vehicles, and
    cycles.

    48 working hours

    52 working hours

    54 working hours

    58 working hours

    144 working hours

    156 working hours

    12 working hours

    6 working hours

    Sub-section (5) of section five

    Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor-vehicles, and
    cycles.

    12 working hours

    6 working hours

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    10.4 p.m.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    There are some occasions when it falls to the duty of a Minister to introduce to this House a Bill which commands universal interest and universal support and I should like on this occasion to express my appreciation of the services which Members in all parts of the House have rendered in making this Measure one which I hope will be regarded as of immense value to the welfare of our people as a whole. I wish also to express the thanks of the Home Office and myself to those bodies both of employers and employed who have co-operated with us so wholeheartedly in this matter. From time to time there come into this House Measures which touch in the closest manner the well-being of our people young and old, and I am happy that it has fallen to the lot of the Home Office during my tenure of office to be associated with this Measure, which I commend to the House.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I would like to add a few words with regard to what is, after all, a very admirable Measure. It takes us a long way indeed towards the goal towards which some of us have been working for years past. In one very important respect, the Bill is better now that we are dealing with it on Third
    450
    Reading, than it was when it came before us on Second Reading. There are still one or two small blemishes in it, but I hope that with the experience of years we shall be able to find out exactly how this Measure will operate in actual practice. Might I be allowed to say how much I wish personally that one man above all men were alive tonight to see the achievement of this task, and that is the late R. A. Taylor, a Member who did so much work in framing some of these proposals?
    10.6 p.m.
    Miss WARD: I want to raise one point in relation to a short argument that we had during the Report stage of the Bill. My right hon. Friend, when I referred to the Act of 1892 as having made no provision for a transitional period, pointed out that that was purely an amending Act, and I think the House was left with the impression that as the practice had already grown up of employing young people for 74 hours, there was no need to insert a transitional period in that Act. My right hon. Friend referred to the original Act, as I understand it, of 1886, and I felt absolutely obliged to look up that Act, which I understand was the original Act regulating the hours of young persons. I find that that Act received the Royal Assent on the 25th June, 1886, and came into operation on the 1st November, 1886, so that even in that original Act there was no transitional period. I would also point out that that Measure was only a

    451
    temporary Act for two years, which is almost the period in relation to the argument that we have had over whether or not it is wise to have a transitional period of two years. I felt that I must take this opportunity of, so to speak, consolidating my position, in order to prove that my point was not altogether unwise, but having done so, I wish to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to say that I hope the Bill will provide for the young persons whom it seeks to help a very successful outcome in their employment in the future.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: It would be ungracious if one who has harassed the Home Secretary and his Department for a great period of time in regard to this Bill did not join in thanking him for carrying it through to its Third Reading and, I hope, into law. I am in profound agreement with one remark that he made this afternoon. He asserted that he had achieved this Bill by the method of agreement with those who were chiefly engaged in carrying on the businesses concerned, and I am quite sure that such an agreement is vital. A Bill of this kind would be hardly administrable if one tried to administer it in the face of the opposition of those who had to work it, and a worse Bill that carried universal agreement would be far better than a somewhat better Bill that was not universally agreed. I thank the right hon. Gentleman heartily for carrying this Bill through.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I wish to have it on record that I am utterly opposed to this class of legislation, which, in my judgment, is doing so much to aggravate and extend unemployment in this country. In conversation with many of my hon. Friends in this House, I find a large measure of agreement with me in that view, but noblesse oblige, and we feel, as supporting the Government, that we cannot pursue a too aggressive attitude, and that we must, if necessary, go into the Lobby with the Government. I wish it to be on record that this class of legislation has done a great amount of harm. I am not surprised at the support that it has received from the Socialist Front Bench. I quite expected that they would support this. It is
    452
    natural and proper that they should, and I respect them for pursuing their opinions, but I have not the same respect for those on my own benches who persistently seek to put Socialist Measures on the Statute Book in the hope and belief that, by so doing, they will be able to continue in power. I think they will find ere long that the very Measures which they have supported to maintain them in power will prove to be the means of their destruction.
    10.12 p.m.
    Sir J. HASLAM: I support this Measure, as a good Conservative, most heartily, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the attitude that he has adopted in connection with it. He is following in the footsteps of a man who is tremendously respected in Lancashire, the late Lord Cross, who as Home Secretary, introduced legislation of far-reaching character and whose name is revered to-day throughout the whole of the English-speaking race. I am proud to testify that a Conservative Home Secretary has introduced and passed through legislation of this description. I do not want it to go forth that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) was expressing the views of the Conservative party as a whole. The Conservative party in the past have passed legislation for the benefit of the working classes of this country, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is following in the right tradition in introducing and passing through a Measure of this description.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS, 1931 AND 1933.
  10.13 p.m.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move:
  " That the Amendment of the Hops Marketing Scheme, 1932, which was presented to this House on the 12th day of February, 1934, be approved."
  This is a, piece of work which, owing to the length of time that it has been before the House and the very thorough examination which it has had, should not prove unduly contentious. The Amendment to the Hops Marketing

  453
  Scheme was laid before the House several months ago, and I found then that there was a feeling among the users of hops that there was a danger of these provisions being used to their great disadvantage. It appeared to me that it was desirable to delay it, if possible, until agreement could be reached, because it was inadvisable that the power of a majority should be used to steamroller through legislation which was obnoxious to those who felt that they had a fair case which was not being heard. I think that point of view was shared in many quarters of the House. We got the growers and the users together, and they both indicated that they were willing to continue their conversations. We, therefore, appointed a joint committee with three impartial members, to whose work I should like to pay a tribute. They were Sir John Chancellor, Mr. Francis D'Arcy Cooper and Captain Oliver Lyttelton. They sat for many days, and went exhaustively into the matter.
  I am more than delighted to find that they were able to present a report signed by all the members, both hop growers and brewers and the impartial members, without any reservations. It is true that thereafter the brewers placed on record the view that on the whole they thought this method—the method of the individual quota—was not to the advantage of the growers, and would not be to the advantage of the trade. The hop growers thereupon placed on record their view that it was a pity to start the controversy again, and that they were sure both sides would work loyally. Whereupon the Brewers' Society further wrote that they agreed to that and would do their utmost to see that the scheme, having been signed by both sides, was made a success. This represents, therefore, a very interesting further departure in a marketing scheme. It is a proposal which has drawn down the wrath of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), who usually sits with us, but on this occasion finds it necessary to differ. They are representatives of a party which has pressed upon us on every occasion the necessity of organisation and planning, and they now march
  454
  out against us when we have not only an example of organisation, but an example of organisation under an Act which they themselves supported.
  Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: We opposed the 1933 Act.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am not complaining of their opposition to the 1933 Act. The Hops Marketing Scheme is under the Act of 1931, which they supported. I agree that one of the features of this scheme is a board of control, which they fought against in the 1933 Act. I make no complaint about that, but an organised market and the principle of organisation which they have so long maintained in and out of season in this House find a striking example in the amended scheme which I have the honour to submit for the approval of the House.
  We are well acquainted with the special points of the hop industry. It is a specialised industry. The plants take three years to come into full bearing, and once in full bearing the plants continue to yield fully for 10 to 12 years. Therefore, if a high price market is established, a great danger immediately comes upon the industry. There is the danger of overproduction which in three years will not show itself at all in the weight of the product upon the market, but which, once established, will continue for 12 years unless the capital which has been put into the establishment of hop gardens—and a great deal of capital must be put into them—is to be destroyed. Clearly that is a process which none of us would defend. There is, of course, only one market for the hops, namely, the brewing industry, and this country is practically self-sufficient in hops. Although a certain import of hops takes place, it is counterbalanced by a certain export of hops.
  We are, therefore, dealing with a production for a constant, or nearly constant, market as between one year and another, but a market which has undergone a great shrinkage in recent years. The consumption of beer in this country, which was 32 gallons a head in 1900, was 10 gallons a head last year. Clearly, when such a shrinkage has taken place—a shrinkage which, I may respectfully remind my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, they would be the first to applaud, having done their best to bring it about—some shrinkage of the hop market must also take place.

  455
  The industry has declined. Between 1929 and 1931 the area was reduced by one-third, and in spite of that, owing to the unorganised market, it was very difficult to get anything like remunerative prices for the hop growers. It is doubtful whether any advantage came to the consumer from these exceptional prices, and even the growers themselves found that when a small increase in demand Arose the reduction of acreage had been so great that they were caught on a rising market, and last year prices undoubtedly rose to a high level. It was said on that account that hop growers had been profiteering, but when that was looked into by the committee of investigation, a committee of men of all parties, presenting an impartial view, it was found that profiteering had not taken place, although it was true that hops had reached a high price level. But that high level had succeeded to a period when, for three years, from 1925 to 1928, no less than £2,500,000 worth of hops had been thrown away or used for manure because there was no market for them. Of all the foolish ways to spend the private money of Englishmen, and of the farming community in particular, to spend £2,500,000 on producing something with which there was nothing to be done except to throw it away or leave it to rot was the most foolish. There, in a nutshell, is the case for further organisation.
  The 1932 marketing scheme was incomplete, and the case for the quota may be put simply as follows. The industry has now arrived at the turning point of the circle. If things are left to drift, high prices will undoubtedly encourage hop growing beyond the market's requirements, and then will follow a period of falling prices and of losses to the producers. Many will be forced to give up, and the surviving ones will again, begin the circle with rising prices. Those who complain and say they find no opportunity for new growers to enter the industry must realise that in such circumstances the new grower is the hardest hit man. He knows least about the industry, he has been tempted into it by high prices, the slump comes, he has not the same reserves behind him as the long-established grower and he is forced out of business, And before he is forced out of business he drags down the whole of the
  456
  conditions of the industry and, very probably, drags down the older established men as well.
  If at this moment, with the lessons of the past before them, the hop growers do not take the opportunity of themselves organising and themselves asking the House to consent to measures designed to obviate that cycle, who would be more eloquent in condemnation of them than my hon. and right hon. Friends below the gangway when, two or three years hence, they came before the House in a state of bankruptcy and despair and asked for assistance from this Chamber. They would say, "Why did you not take advantage of the opportunities we offered? There was placed on the Statute Book an Act designed to obviate these difficulties, but you did nothing. You sat back and believed the good times would go on forever. Now the bad times have come upon you. Self-help. Why did you not do something when things were good? "I have heard those words time and again from my hon. and right hon. Friends below the gangway. Now, because the growers come before despair is upon them and disaster is knocking at their door, my hon. and right hon. Friends say, "Is it not foolish of these people to come when there is not any danger this year or next year? Why should these people look ahead and try to avert dangers which may not come for nearly two or three years? "We cannot have it both ways. Either we must look ahead and plan or else we must be prepared for the hard luck story which bankrupt producers will bring before us. I do not wish to enter into an explanation or justification of the details of the scheme. If hon. Members and right hon. Members have points which they wish to put, I shall be very glad to see what I can do to deal with them at the end of the Debate, if the points have not all been answered by Members who are infinitely better acquainted with the technical details of the industry than I am.
  There is certainly a case for organisation. No one denies that. A most meticulous investigation has been made, not by a partisan body but by impartial people, who have had the opportunity of sitting in Committee for months at a time and of hearing all sides of the question. At the end of that time this

  457
  agreement was come to. It obviates a continuance of the high prices which the hop growers received last year, and which I am informed they would receive this year also, if it were not for the agreement, which has been drawn up for a price on the basis of £9 a cwt. for five years. The price would have been double that which is embodied in the agreement. The hop producers, if they chose not to agree on the long term plan, would have to take what the market might send this year, and to trust to luck for the year following. In these circumstances, it would be a thousand pities were the House to turn down the scheme. Accusations have been brought against us that this will create a monopoly for existing growers; that cannot be maintained unless one were willing to maintain that there is about to be a vastly expanded market for the product which they grow. I am sure the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would not maintain that proposition.
  We are told that this is a gold mine for existing landlords. I do not think that the price of £9 will create any gold mine for existing landlords. We are told that the inefficient grower may be protected at the expense of the efficient. The loss of efficiency in a hand-to-mouth, slipshod existence, is a feature with which all who have any knowledge of industry are very well acquainted. It is stated that the board will underestimate the demand, so as to create an artificial shortage. That is dealt with in the agreement, which was worked out by both parties and by the impartial members also. We are told that the market demand may be underestimated. It is estimated here by the Joint Committee, and not by the growers alone. Regulation of imports is only to take place if the import exceeds a certain permitted percentage, and even so it is only to take place at the request of the permanent Joint Committee, which is to say at the request of the independent members, and not of the producers alone.
  Finally, We are told in the Amendment that we ought to refer the matter to a Select Committee. I beg the House to consider that this scheme has had statutory notice; there has been the hearing of objections by the impartial commissioners at a public inquiry; it has
  458
  had consideration by the Minister—by myself—after consultation with the Board of Trade; it has been placed before both Houses of Parliament, and it has already been agreed to in another place without even a Division. Under those conditions, to suggest that the whole thing should be referred back again to a Select Committee is the sort of attitude which has delayed so many admirable projects in the past, and which has had something to do with reducing the Liberal party to the relatively small proportions which they occupy in comparison with the great place which they used to take in the State.
  One word in conclusion. This may seem to be a relatively small matter, yet the industry is a great industry. The whole House took an interest in the new Cunarder. The whole House was interested in the opportunities for employment which it offered. The whole House rejoiced when, owing to facilities given by the House, the Cunarder was to be brought to completion. Yet, at the outside, the Cunarder employs 5,000 men for three years, and it is possible that the addition which has been given to employment by the recent Government facilities does not amount to more than 3,000 or 4,000 men for perhaps one year. The hop industry employs 10,000 men every year. The values of its products are very great. The products which it turns out are enjoyed, not by millionaires, as the Cunarder will be, for no working man will ever set foot in that ship save as a, servant to those who ride in it. The Cunarder is not going to be of anything like the same service to the community of this country as a whole as the industry which we are now considering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I do not think that that is denied by anyone. I shall be very interested to hear it seriously challenged from any quarter of the House.
  Mr. WALTER REA: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend that that ship is going to be occupied in carrying nothing but millionaires?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I would like to ask my hon. Friend another question. Does he know of any working man in this country who will ever be able to afford the price of a passage to America and back out of his wages in 40 years?
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Who was responsible for the Cunarder scheme? The right hon. Gentleman's own Government.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I should say that the man who was more responsible than any other for the pressing forward of the Cunarder was an hon. Member who is not, and is never likely to be, a member of my party—the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). He pressed forward day in and day out his demand for the Cunarder, and he is certainly not a member of the Conservative party. The big industries of this country are not all to be found in the great factories or the shipyards. The industries of the countryside themselves employ thousands of men, and their products are used by many thousands more. I say that an industry which employs 10,000 men directly, and many more indirectly, is worthy of the consideration and attention of this House. When these schemes were brought forward, they were brought forward with a realisation by all concerned of the necessity for organisation, combination, and possibly rationalisation. Here is a scheme which has been carefully examined, which has been thoroughly canvassed, which has been passed without a Division in the other House of Parliament, and I think it is reasonable to ask that this House should allow it to go forward and allow this organisation to be thoroughly tried out under favourable conditions, before disaster has come instead of after.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey by his last few observations. It would, however, be interesting to know whether he was condemning the Cunarder scheme, or whether he was merely complimenting it in commending the other scheme to the House. While it may be true that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) constantly pleaded for some financial assistance, I think he did so without the support of the party of which he is supposed to be a member. I hope we were no parties officially to this huge subsidy for a super-luxurious liner which will carry none but millionaires. This hops scheme is a very remarkable innovation. While the hop growers and the
  460
  brewers have reached absolute unanimity with regard to the scheme, the brewers found themselves in a cleft stick. They were confronted with the possibility of being thrown to the wolves and charged £20 or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, £30 per cwt. for their hops or they could agree to a scheme which reduced the price to £9. They are not unwise men and they preferred £9 to £15. Therefore, I do not attach a lot of significance to the fact that the brewers have entered into an agreement with the hop producers. After all, the brewers are not consumers. The beer drinker is the consumer, although I understand that hops do not play a big part in the make-up of a glass of beer. It is true, therefore, to say that the hop producers have been in Queer Street for quite a number of years and without some centralised marketing scheme there was no hope of prosperity for the hop growing section of the agricultural industry. But it has required Parliament to come to the aid of the hop growers before they themselves showed any wisdom. Had not Parliament come to their aid with the marketing scheme of 1931 plus the 1933 Ad, upon which the scheme is more or less based, there would have been no scheme at all.
  This Amendment not only provides centralised marketing, but provides for a quota, and to that extent provides producers with absolute monopolistic power. It provides them with guaranteed output, guaranteed sales, guaranteed prices, guaranteed profits of 20 per cent. or more or less—or at least an average of 20 per cent. on the cost—and they also have virtual import control over hops, on top of which, of course, there is the duty of £4 per cwt. on the commodity. The scheme implies—hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in particular ought to get this deep down in their minds—that once and for all, as the Secretary of State for War said in another place, the old law of supply and demand has gone by the board. Competition is no longer a word in their economic vocabulary. They have just moved forward at as rapid a rate as they tried to do in Russia or are hoping to do in Germany or anywhere else. According to the Minister of War, competition is a spent force and to some extent, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we agree with him on that. Parliament, however, has not attempted to

  461
  give such powers as are given in this amended scheme. It is true that railways have statutory powers, but people need not travel by rail. Electricity undertakings have statutory power, but we need not buy electricity. Gas companies have similar statutory power, but no one need buy gas, because electricity is available, and also coal. It may be argued that mineowners have certain power, but no one need buy coal, because they can purchase either gas or electricity. But with regard to this hops scheme, if it passed, as I presume it will, the brewers will be obliged to buy hops whether they want to or not, and they will be obliged to pay the price specified in the scheme, namely, £9 per cwt. for the next five years.
  These are extraordinary powers. We ought not to forget what we are doing in passing this Scheme to-night. The right hon. Gentleman said, as did the Secretary of State for War in another place, that it must be a good scheme, because no fewer than 98 per cent. of the producers agree with it. Who would not agree with a scheme which guarantees him his output, his sales and his profits for a period of five years? If all employers in all industries could have similar guarantees, what a happy and prosperous nation we should be. We agree that marketing is essential, and also that there must be some relation between supply and demand. We have never agreed with the tendency to increase output so as to knock the bottom out of price levels at the risk of the bankruptcy of those engaged in industry. The ups and downs of industry have always been the bane of the working man; in work to-day and out of work to-morrow. The reorganisation which is taking the place of the old order, where there was never any certainty for any section of the community, least of all for the workers, may be such that we can afford to support some part of the scheme. We recognise that any alternative scheme to the one produced by the right hon. Gentleman would be extremely difficult. I have seen one or two alternatives recommended, but I am not sure that they are any sounder than the scheme which is before the House tonight.
  This scheme at least has left a small number of people thoroughly dissatisfied. It shuts out forever those who are not in love with it. They are only a small
  462
  number. I am glad to know that the Noble Lord has now reached the stage when he does not mind confiscation without compensation as long as it satisfies the particular scheme in which he is interested. Certainly the scheme has caused some injustice, and no compensation has been paid to those who have been turned out and, no doubt, have lost money. The House ought to understand that for a period hop growers lost considerable sums of money, and they have my sympathy because they have lost money. It seems to be rather unfair that this arbitrary period of five years should be selected because certain people had to reduce their production of hops for a certain period of time, and that now, because they have reduced their production, we should have protection for all time.
  It may be extremely difficult to find an alternative scheme. In this scheme we are giving statutory approval to an extraordinary development, and once a body of employers are guaranteed 20 per cent. profit year by year for five years, it may be more or it may be less, the State is entitled to pay some little attention to certain potential developments. For instance, under the scheme the growers of hops will find the value of their land rising, and during the five years the scheme is in operation it is not unfair to suppose that certain people may take the opportunity to sell their land at enhanced prices. I am willing to concede to the producer a fair value, and I am willing to stand by the consumer to see that he obtains a, fair deal, but if by Statute we confer upon a small number of people such tremendous power, the State is entitled to confiscate any socially-created increment having socially provided the producers with such extraordinary guarantees for a period of time.
  This is an extraordinary scheme. A Noble Lord in the other place said that in so far as it coincides with Labour policy to that extent we shall be obliged to support it, but in no case could I concede to 1,100 people the guarantees embodied in this scheme without at the same time the State, through its Ministerial representatives, having something to say about the socially-created value of the land where the hops are going to be grown through that period. The right hon. Gentleman can rightly tell me that we are supporters of marketing, that we are

  463
  supporters of organisation in every industry. We are also supporters of nationally owned land, and it is only because we place nationally owned in the forefront of our policy that all these schemes for organisation normally and naturally follow the lead of land nationalisation. If we are to confer upon producers guarantees of this kind the State ought to come in, and the benefits accruing as a result of the appreciation in the value of the land ought to come back to the State.
  10.46 p.m.
  Sir F. ACLAND: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add the words:
  " this House declines to give its assent to a scheme which limits production by fixing quotas for individul producers. There by giving them a monopoly of production, and which is to be supported by further quotas to he applied to imported supplies in addition to the heavy ad valorem duty; it is moreover of opinion that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee before further consideration is given to it by the House."
  It is very difficult to criticise these marketing schemes, which are invariably put before the House so clearly and fairly by the Minister of Agriculture, and particularly because they always come on the last thing at night. I find that particularly difficult, because my temptation, after a very hot and tiring day, is to go to sleep during my own speeches. There is a great deal of uneasiness about this scheme in the country. I shall try to make as fair a, case as I can and to get through it as quickly as is reasonably possible, and I hope that I shall not fail to interest the House in showing that there is a case to be considered and met in regard to this matter. Part of my case depends upon the history of the matter, and that history was put in an admirably clear article by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) which he wrote in the "National Review" of March last year. I should like to quote a few sentences from that article, to lead up to one of the points that I wish to make. The Noble Lord said that last year, after the Hops Board's first season —this is interesting in view of the development now proposed—the price fixed for the first year was £8 5s., which was
  464
  only a little above the price of £7 16s., which was the average during the period of voluntary control which operated previously. The Noble Lord added, quite rightly, and he was perfectly justified in claiming it, that:
  " There had never been any suggestion that the favourable selling conditions existing for the sale of the crop of 1932 were used to hoist the prices in a manner unfair to the industry."
  The Noble Lord was quite correct in that statement, but it is pertinent to bear in mind that he was a little previous, because in the next season, when hops did not come in from America, the board skied the price up to £15. That is a rather interesting commentary on what is said with regard to these marketing schemes, that they will only be used to give a moderate, reasonable, stable profit to the producer. I know the excuse is that they might have made the price 2i2D if they had liked, but it is as difficult to accept that as the argument that we sometimes use about the baby being only a little one.
  What is regarded as a moderate, reasonable profit for hops? We have that in the figures for the first year. We are told in the White Paper which embodies the scheme, that the moderate figure, the reasonable figure of profit should be 20 per cent. That was the figure which the Hops Controller worked out, and I do not question its reasonableness, for reasons which have already been put before us as to the time which the crop takes to come to maturity.
  The point I wish to make is that the price of 5s. was worked out as a satisfactory price, and therefore presumably gave that profit of 20 per cent.; it gave in that year a profit of £1 13s. per cwt. But the price of £15 fixed for the next year gave a profit on that figure, not of 20 per cent., but of 127 per cent., which would give, at a normal average production of hops—and I have worked out the average figure for the last 12 years—a profit, at 12 cwt. to an acre, of £100. I believe that as a matter of fact the crop was poor, so probably a few growers only made that profit. Still, a man who had 50 or 60 acres of hops must have made a very considerable sum in that year. It cannot he wondered at if the good will which the Noble Lord stated had been established by the first year's working when the price was £8 5s.

  465
  was a little disturbed when the price was skied to this 127 per cent. profit in the second year. To use the Noble Lord's words again:
  " The operations of the Board in the first year should convince consumers that the Board's professions of good will have been translated into action…which should lead to closer and more friendly relations."
  And, as I said, we cannot be much surprised if the relations were not quite so friendly when the profit had been skied up. The Noble Lord went on to say—and this is presumably the reason why the proposal has been brought forward:
  " Now growers needed to entrench their position for fear the brewers should let them have a bit of their own back when they got a chance some day, in return for the extraordinary increase of price last season."
  It is this scheme now before us which entrenches the growers so tightly against any possible retaliation. The right hon. Gentleman did not make it quite clear that the entrenchment is only possible because of the extra powers given under the Marketing Act, 1933, over the Act of 1931. It is pertinent to remind the House very briefly what a Noble Lord—Lord Astor—wrote about this as to the difference and as to the bearing of this second Marketing Act on the question. The Noble Lord said:
  " The first Marketing Act, 1931, in essence sought to encourage co-operative marketing. It contained powers for determining quantity and grades of produce sold by farmers. It was a measure designed to increase the efficiency of agricultural marketing and to give farmers greater bargaining power."
  It was brought in by hon. Members above the Gangway and supported by their friends here. He goes on to say:
  " The second Marketing Act, 1933, brought in entirely new principles, including the power to restrict production and to determine the quota a farmer might sell by reference to his output at some previous time."
  It is, of course, the powers in the second Act which are used in this extraordinary scheme and which involve the very dangerous principles which we are trying to criticise to-night.
  Returning for a moment to that last quotation from the article of the Noble Lord, he wrote something as to the future, and I do not think that when he wrote he quite foresaw how this Act would play into his hands and how he
  466
  would be able to shape the future by reason of the Act of last year. He wrote:
  " Some defects were already apparent in the scheme. Services which a board can render are by no means limited to regulating supply to demand. Organisation has opened a vista of rationalisation hitherto closed to farmers. The time is not far distant when the growers in other commodities will take a leaf from the hop-growers' notebook."
  The keynote of that passage is rationalisation, and rationalisation, if it means anything, means eliminating the output and encouraging the development of an industry in places where and by those by whom it can best be conducted. I suggest that to give every one, however, inefficient, who happens to be producing at a certain date a perpetual guarantee against the competition of others and cut down any power to develop anywhere is the very reverse of rationalisation. If the Noble Lord had said that rationalisation would create a vested monopoly he would have been much nearer the mark, but it would not have looked quite so well. It is partly because I agree with his prophecy that the proposal here may be used in other branches of agriculture that I think it necessary to make all the protest I can.
  I must show how tight this quota is and how tight the monopoly will be in actual working. A man's quota for a year will be a certain proportion of the demand for that year; it will he that proportion of that demand which corresponds to the proportion between his basic quota and the total basic quota, and he will only have a basic quota if he was registered in September of last year as growing hops in 1932, and it will be the average annual quantity grown during the five years ending 1932. Let the House admire the comfortableness of the family arrangement which is brought before us here, and how nice and friendly it is for those inside. The man who grubbed his hops in response to the appeal of the hop controller is not allowed to start again, and he is permanently left out in the cold. The man who grubbed some of his hops is at a disadvantage compared with the man who did not make any response to that appeal and kept on his full hop acreage. The whole of the estimated demand is to be divided every season solely among those who have these basic quotas, and no others; but if there is any unexpected demand above what the

  467
  brewers have estimated it will be provided from long quota hops. It was stated in another place on behalf of the Government that the non-quota hops would be open to the ordinary outside grower. Not a bit of it. The only people who can supply them will be the people who have already a quota and who, therefore, are the holders of the original monopoly. The outside dogs who dare to grow hops but who were not growing them in 1932, will not be allowed to pick up the crumbs from the table.
  The only chance anyone else will get is if the quotas exceed the basic quotas by more than 10 per cent. that is if the demand in any year exceeds the normal supply, not the supply estimated for that year, but if it exceeds the supply from the acreage of 1932 by more than 10 per cent. One would have thought that some attempt would be made to let other people in if the estimated demand exceeded the estimated supply. Not a bit. If a pestilence attacks the hop field and the supply goes down, there will still be a tight monopoly for the 1932 man. It might be that all the hops in a certain part of the recognised hop fields would be suffering from infection and that hops in another district would be free. Would the people from that district be allowed to come in? No. However much the estimated supply went down, there would be a monopoly for the people supplying in 1932. The only way in which new men can come in is if the net quota exceeds the basic quota. The basic quota has nothing to do with the estimated supplies of the year; the basic quota is the figure for 1932. That is how I read the scheme. But suppose the demand does increase and extra basic quotas have been allowed.
  As far as I can see it is bound to be still an absolute family party. In some parts of the scheme there are provisions for certain things to be done by impartial persons, and in some parts of the White Paper; but nothing is said about any impartiality as to allotting these further basic quotas. There is a provision, for instance, with regard to arbitration under Clause 46 (c) of the amending scheme, when there is any difficulty amongst the family party; but there is no provision for anything. of that kind under Clause 46 (h), which refers to the allotment of additional basic quotas. Applications
  468
  have to be made before certain dates, and preference has to be given, as far as practicable, to those who offer to make the highest payments, but there is no provision at all that the tenders shall be opened on the same date or that, as when you open tenders for a loan, those who offer the highest will get their tenders accepted in full or in part. Of course things again will be kept in the family, who will be able to freeze out those who want to come into this extraordinarily profitable industry. That is an example of rationalisation up to date. It seems to me to be simply a ramp for the people who are already lucky enough to be in the industry, and I hope it will not be adopted either for this scheme or any other.
  A few more words about the history, because hon. Members may naturally say, "What is wrong with all this if the brewers are willing to put up with it, as they seem to be from this trading agreement? "People might say," Are the Liberal party and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) suddenly become the friends of the brewers "No. We are fighting this because we believe that it is a thoroughly bad basis for any marketing scheme, whoever is concerned. But there is something in this agreed scheme to which I must refer. We notice, of course, that the brewers get down, for the next five years, the unconscionable price of £15 of last year, to £9, and we notice too that that will give the growers, not the reasonable 20 per cent. profit that they got in 1932, but about 50 per cent. extra on that, which means a profit of about £2 8s. a cwt., or £36 per acre per annum—a very nice sum. On 50 acres for five years that will give the grower £7,000 clear profit. It makes one's mouth water as a landlord connected with other industries and not with hops.
  This is what emerges: The Minister of Agriculture presented this scheme with his approval already attached to it at the end of last year. It was on the Order Paper several times in February. It was then withdrawn, and we all thought and hoped it was withdrawn to meet the criticisms directed against its monopoly provisions. We find now that that was not so at all. The provisions as to monopoly were not referred to the Joint Committee at all. The committee was set up, not to consider the scheme, but to try to

  469
  arrive at a trade arrangement under it. The brewers had to accept it. Of course, they made the best of a bad job, and of course they will try to work it loyally. But it is clear that they are accepting something under compulsion, and that they dislike it. They were not allowed to reconsider the scheme, but they did say in that letter to which the Minister has already referred what they thought about it. They made three points in that letter. First, they were opposed to the limitation of production by means of quotas for individual growers. Secondly, they were opposed to the difficulties put in the way of new entrants, which conferred a monopoly on existing growers. These points relate to the scheme, but they make a third point, which is interesting and which relates to what they did agree to in the White Paper They contradict what they had agreed to, and that shows how the element of compulsion on them is inherent in the matter. In the White Paper they agreed to a quota on foreign hops in Addition to the duty, which is 45 per cent, of the agreed price, but in the letter their third objection is this:
  " Brewers are opposed to the limitation of the import of hops, as they believe that since the imposition of the £4 per cwt. duty, the use of foreign hops has never materially affected the English hop industry."
  That makes their meaning clear. Surely when people, in an agreement which they have been forced to make, accept a duty and immediately write a letter saying that they object to the duty, it shows that they are acting under compulsion. They know that the Minister, not having referred the scheme to them, was going to put the scheme through whether they came to an agreement or not and also that if that very tight monopoly was given to the growers, then the growers, as the Minister has already suggested, would be able to make the price anything they liked and therefore that they, the brewers, had better agree, while any agreement was possible, however much they objected to it.
  This scheme affects only 1,100 men, 20,000 acres of land and £2,000,000 worth of produce per year. But it seems to me that to give that absolutely tight monopoly to the present producers is the sort of thing which gives the industry of agriculture a bad name. That is why we think it necessary to challenge it. When
  470
  one finds that' the processers have had to accept a trading agreement but have immediately made it clear that they do not agree with the principles on which it is based, it shows their fear of extortionate profiteering, a fear which they are justified in entertaining, because the Minister has made it clear that he is going to put the scheme through, whatever they say about it. My last point is, "What ought to have been done?" I hold that this was bad and that we should be justified in objecting to it whether there had been an alternative or not, but it is right to consider whether we cannot proceed without this extraordinarily tight monopoly to a, set of very favoured individuals who are going to make very large profits out of the scheme.
  It is worth mentioning that Professor Orwin, of Oxford, has suggested two alternative methods of dealing with the matter and we all know his practical concern with these questions. He suggests that if this scheme was not working as well as it was said to be working in 1932, if it really needed amending we should follow the analogy either of the Wheat Scheme or the Potato Scheme. I think probably that of the two, the Wheat Scheme is the better. I cannot help thinking if that really could be applied to this question fairly easily -the brewers would have to guarantee—as the Government guarantee practically is under the Wheat Scheme—to pay a certain sum say £2,000,000 a year subject to gradual variation according to the variations which would occur, and you would get what you are gradually getting under the Wheat Scheme, namely, fresh growers coming in and the prices and profits coming down, no doubt, and the marginal producer being squeezed up, whether he happened to have been in the lucky position of being a producer in those five years or not, and other people who can produce better, no doubt, coming in, as they have done in the case of wheat, and, finally, the hops being grown, as we shall find with wheat in a year or two, by those in the best position to grow them, and the fact that it takes three years to establish a hop crop shows surely that there would not be any excessive rush of producers, unless, as I suggest, the profit is altogether on an unreasonable basis.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that any such thing as the phenomenal expansion in hops is going on in the case of wheat?
  Sir F. ACLAND: The wheat matter is already tending to cure itself. There was a large expansion in order to get a share of the glut, but the marginal man is being squeezed out. The glut is having to be divided over a larger number of people. Those who were attracted by the glut found that a large proportion of their wheat, if it was not up to good quality, was only fit for poultry food, and they will tend to drop out and take on other things which are more economic, but you will by that means get a balance in the industry between supply and demand, and it seems to me that although there has been rather a rush in wheat, which many people have taken to in one year, the fact that hops take such a long time to bring to maturity will deter people from making a gamble in hops. But if you get rid, as you would if you adopted something like the wheat scheme, of the brewers playing one grower against another and pushing the price right down, if the brewers guaranteed to put up, say, £2,000,000 a year and divide that among the growers, you would get an element of freedom combined with a guarantee to the grower that his price would not be pushed down by playing off one man against another, as it was in the old days.
  I am approving the scheme of 1932. It is this monopoly element, entrenching the present growers in the new scheme, that I cannot help criticising. Then, if that is not possible, there is a third alternative, which was put forward by the "Times" newspaper this morning, involving less disturbance of the men now in the industry. It was suggested by Mr. Eric Macfadyen, who says he is a hop grower, that the quotas be revised periodically on the basis of a three or five years' moving average, so that you would then be able slowly to scale up the man doing his work best. I believe such a scheme, combined with some relaxation of the present practical impossibility and prohibition of new entrants, might be found to work very well. At any rate, I think the House ought to expect that possibilities of that kind should be carefully considered before we accept permanently, as the "Times" newspaper
  472
  suggested we should this morning, the motto "Beati possidentes " as the last word in regard to hop growers.
  One final word as to my Amendment. We have chosen the wording carefully. It is not anything which arises from our despised Liberal economic principles or anything based on our own special knowledge. We are using other people's language, and our Amendment simply puts into one sentence the three objections in the brewers' letter which I have quoted. They, after all, know. They are experts. They know how the shoe pinches. They were not given a chance of considering this scheme officially, but they did so unofficially and looked at it very carefully. My Amendment embodies the three objections which I have already quoted—the objection to the monopoly, the objection with regard to the impossibility of any new man coming in, and, thirdly, the objection with regard to the agreement that they have been forced to come to as to a very heavy quota against foreign importation on the top of the heavy duty. With reference to the desire which our Amendment expresses for a Select Committee, that method is rather out of fashion, but it is a way of securing an impartial consideration by selected Members of the House. There cannot be any great hurry in this matter. I have never seen any suggestion that it was necessary to get this thing through in a certain number of weeks or months. It has been hanging about since last December, and clearly nothing that could be done between now and October, when we might expect the Select Committee to
  report, could upset the scheme. Although it was said in another place that the scheme was only to last five
  years, that is not true. I have looked through it, and there is no date at all. It has apparently to last for ever. The trade agreement is only to last for five years, but it will be essential for the brewing industry to agree to a further extension of it, because if that tight monopoly is kept at the end of five years, the growers could put up the price to anything they liked owing to the favourable trading position they would be in. As we are contemplating a scheme apparently for all time, it ought to be looked into carefully before we settle down to such extraordinary new principles.
  We have made mistakes already through rushing these marketing schemes.

  473
  I do not claim that this scheme has been rushed, because it has been before the country many months, but it was not referred, as we hoped it would be, to the brewers and others concerned. It is put before us as it was put before the Minister. We have, however, rushed the milk scheme, and I hope we shall avoid making similar mistakes here. We really believe that the scheme is bad in itself as between the hop growers and the brewers, and that the brewers have been forced into it and cannot help themselves in regard to it. It is not the kind of marketing scheme such as some of us have been hoping against hope would come out of this Government in their agricultural policy. It is mainly for that reason that we are opposed to this tight monopoly in one of these agricultural marketing schemes.
  11.19 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Many curious things happen in this House, but I never thought to hear the case put on behalf of the Liberal party based on a memorandum which has come from the Brewers. Early in the Debate we heard a speech from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who said that this was an innovation in agricultural marketing schemes. It is an innovation, because it costs the Exchequer nothing. Nor does it cost the ultimate consumer anything. I should be inclined to risk a small wager that the Minister of Agriculture only hopes we may do as well out of the Beef Scheme and the Milk Scheme and the Beet Sugar Scheme as we shall out of the Hop Scheme. I congratulate him on having brought forward this scheme, and I congratulate him on having got growers and brewers to agree. Believe me, it is no mean feat to get growers and brewers to agree on a certain price for an article which is produced by the one and consumed by the other.
  This Debate takes me back a good many years. It is nearly a quarter of a century since I made by maiden speech in the House on the situation in the hop industry. At that time we were being deluged with imports from Czechoslovakia and America, which were driving our growers out of business. We appealed
  474
  to the Liberal party, which was then all powerful, to give some help to the industry. I need not say that we did not get the slightest help; not the slightest interest was evinced by them. If I mistake not, the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was in the House in 1910. It did not matter then what happened to the industry as long as we could have free imports into this country.
  Sir F. ACLAND: They were not doing so badly then.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he knew but little of the hop growing industry, and what he has just said has convinced me that he was right. We were also told about the huge profits made last year, but nothing was said about the losses of previous years. That seemed to have escaped his memory. To come back to the scheme as we have it now: hop growing has been looked upon in the past as a gamble. It was a gamble. Years of glut and low prices alternated with years of scarcity and high prices, and some of the growers rather enjoyed the gamble. They thought it was rather a sporting effort, and occasionally things came off well. Now they have come to the conclusion that that is not a very wise way in which to manage their business and that it is far better to have a moderate and regular profit than years of high profits and years of low prices, with many growers going bankrupt during the periods of glut. When the Liberal party were in power in the days gone by they did nothing. I think there are at present in the House some seven or eight Members who are remnants of that once powerful party, which shows that their want of interest in the producers of this country has met with a fitting reward.
  It was said by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall that there was no stimulus to efficiency, but there will still be such a stimulus, because the man who grows clean hops of good quality will still get a higher price for them. It is ridiculous, too, to talk about the hop growers being out of date. Anyone who goes to Kent or Worcestershire will see where vast sums of money have been spent in bringing the gardens up to date

  475
  and will see new developments in every direction. Another argument which has been put forward is that this scheme will mean very hard luck for those who have gone out of the industry. That is a most fallacious argument. The great majority went out because they could not stay the course. Some have gone into fruit and mushrooms and other horticultural produce. They have succeeded in what they have undertaken. To say that it is bad luck on them, is to present an untrue picture.
  We want to avoid the sudden rushes, to get a steady price, not to have an overstocked market, and not to encourage ambitious young men, who may think that they may get rich, to come into this industry. We want to discourage them. We want a steady flow, and not more than the industry of brewing can absorb. It is for that reason that I welcome the scheme.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. HOROBIN: I apologise to the House for rising at this hour, but it was in response to a recent Private Notice Question of mine that this matter was brought forward. The matter is of considerable importance. I do not intervene because I am primarily an agriculturist—although I have some interest in agriculture—but because all these schemes are part of a connected whole, and they show how a certain way of looking at economic problems is gradually leading from one step to another. Their possible importance as precedents, not only in other branches of agriculture, but in other branches of industry is also interesting. I should like to ask the Minister if he will put us right on one point that has been raised. I hesitate to differ from a Member who knows infinitely more about agriculture than I can claim to do, but it is important that we who are opposing the scheme should not overstate our case. Perhaps in one respect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) misread the scheme and overstated the extent of the monopoly. My objection is primarily that a monopoly is in effect produced, and I do not want the objection to be spoiled by overstatement. I think it is correct that anybody can become registered, and, if he be registered, nobody can prevent him from growing non-quota hops.
  Viscount WOLMER: Hear, bear!
  Mr. HOROBIN: I see that I have the support of an acknowledged expert. The objections which I am submitting are not the general objections which on other occasions I have made to these agricultural marketing schemes. Only about a week ago I had an opportunity on the Third Reading of the Milk Bill of going at some length into some of the general objections which apply also to this scheme. The fundamental objection to this scheme is in regard to the belief that you can fix, by some bit of accounting, the cost of production and, adding to it some arbitrary fair profit, can then say that that shall be the price at which the product shall be sold, and that you can continue your market indefinitely on that basis. Anybody who has read the report of the committee will see that it rests entirely upon that assumption. All experience shows that such pools, all over the world, have led to disaster and to the same kind of disaster. I read to the House the other day a very interesting extract from the report of a commission in the Dominion of South Africa who had come to the same conclusion.
  I want to make a few remarks specially confined to the scheme itself, but I must say a word about the correspondence which has already been referred to. It is needless for me to say that anything I shall say implies no kind of suggestion of bad faith on the part of my right hon. Friend, but it will be within the memory of the House that I raised this matter the other day, and that, in response to a supplementary question as to whether all matters of principle between the contending parties were disposed of, my right hon. Friend said in effect that that was so, and the matter was now agreed. That, of course, is not the case. According to my right hon. Friend's information at the time, it was a, perfectly fair statement, as we should expect, of what he understood the position to be, but at that very moment there was, as we now learn, a letter in the post which later came to the knowledge of his Department. I had at that time no knowledge of that letter, any more than my right hon. Friend had, but I was very surprised, knowing the vital objections that were taken. to the scheme, to hear that they had been overcome; and, from an answer given to a question in another place, it turned out

  477
  that all the objections which were held to this scheme in principle, and which caused its withdrawal nearly a, year ago, were and still are held by the brewers, that is to say, by one of the two interests principally concerned in the agreement which is the basis of what we are discussing to-night.
  I do not want to speak further of the brewers, but I must say a word about what I can only call a somewhat unfortunate letter which was included in the correspondence, namely, the letter of the Hops Board. What happened, as I think will be gathered by hon. Members who read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place, was that when the brewers' letter finally came to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend he very properly forwarded it with a covering letter, which, incidentally, we have not had. If it is possible for my right hon. Friend to do so in his reply, it might be of interest, purely for completing our knowledge of what took place, if he would give us an indication of what was contained in his covering letter. I am assuming for the sake of argument that it was merely a request for the views of the board. They sent in reply a letter which was somewhat peculiar. I can attach no meaning to it if it was not a request not to allow the brewers' letter to be made known. It said:
  " We think it right to call attention to this danger "—
  that is to say, the danger that the brewers' letter might be made known—
  "and we desire to assure you"—
  and so on. They were warning him of the immense danger—that is the only meaning I can attach to it—of this House and the public being informed that the brewers were not in agreement with the scheme, that they held to their original objections, but that pressure was put upon them not to include them in the report, though they insisted on putting them in the correspondence. Why did the Hops Board and others not want it to be too widely known that these objections were still held by the brewers? Again, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—I repeat that I make not the slightest imputation of bad faith—wrote a letter to the "Times," in which he used these words:
  " The Hops Amending scheme has been brought forward, and has been approved by
  478
  every authority to which it has been submitted."
  That simply is not the case. The brewers now say they do not approve it. They insist, in spite of pressure, that they hold all their original objections. All we know is that, with magnificent self-sacrifice, the people who are obtaining this 20 per cent. profit in perpetuity approve it. That is hardly surprising. It is simply not the case that this is an approved scheme. That is not a conclusive argument against it, but the House is to understand that the only people who have placed themselves on record as approving the scheme are not the brewers, not the impartial people, no one, in fact, except the beneficiaries. I could give correspondence which has come to my knowledge from the hop merchants but I do not want to take up time.
  Reference has already been made to one very curious section of the scheme. Having built up this little monopoly, which I admit is not so cast iron as the right hon. Baronet suggested but is almost cast iron, the cast iron monopoly of the people who happen to be in possession, there is one set of circumstances in which new people should be allowed in, namely, if the 10 per cent. increase in demand comes about, and we then have a provision in the scheme which I really think must be explicitly put before the House because it is one of the most extraordinary proposals I have ever seen.
  May I remind the House what this board is? We talk about the Hops Board and some of us get into the way of thinking that it is some Government body. In effect, it is simply a ring—a statutory collection of hop growers. I am not saying it may not be quite legitimate for them to have a ring, though most people in the House are suspicious even of unofficial rings. There are rings in the building trade, and we dislike them. We must not be carried away by any idea that this Hops Board is some kind of public utility society, that its dividends are limited, that there is a sliding scale or anything of that kind. It is simply another name for a ring of producers who are now trying to entrench themselves. In effect, these are the only people who are likely ever to be able to dispose of their crops because, to use the nearest analogy in a very complicated scheme, those on the basic quota are preferred

  479
  shareholders. The others only come in in effect as deferred, and it is very unlikely that there will be anything left over for the deferred or the unsecured creditors. Here you have a statutory ring, and under one sole set of circumstances they are compelled to allow other people in on equal terms with themselves. They are to put the right of participating in that extremely valuable monopoly up to auction, and in effect to secret auction, and the proceeds are not to go to help the Government, not to help the right hon. Gentleman to pay for the milk loans, the pig loans and the meat loans. They are to divide them among themselves. In effect, the sums that arise from putting this up to auction go to the board. Really is this House without thought to set a precedent in which you first give statutory power to a ring of producers and then allow them to put up to auction for the benefit of themselves the right of anyone else to come in?
  May I deal with the precedent that is set up in this scheme of individual quotas to producers. Such a scheme is, in the first place, bound to lead to immense complications. The nearest analogy of which I can think is the coal quota. We had originally a hops scheme without individual quotas, and it has now led to individual quotas. Is this going eventually to lead to some sort of Hops Reorganisation Commission, with all the troubles such as Sir Ernest Gowers had, with perpetual quarrels with producers and correspondence politely telling him to go and mind his own business, in a vain endeavour, having given these individual quotas, to guard, in fact, against the evils which they inevitably produce in the way of safeguarding inefficiency. If you once give an individual quota, practically nothing will get rid of it. You will have here what you have had with regard to coal. You will have to set up some further complicated machinery in order to get over the difficulty which you yourselves have produced.
  The scheme starts under the objection that it is unfair to those who have recently left it, and the longer it goes on the quotas fixed on production at an arbitrary date will, as the years go by, become more and more unrelated to the realities of the industry at the time. You have difficulties beginning which, in 10 or 15 years' time,
  480
  if the scheme becomes permanent, will become fantastic. If someone who was growing hops 20 years ago is to have a quota, and if somebody else somewhere else did not grow hops is not allowed to grow them unless he pays a heavy blackmail to a ring of entrenched monopolists, it will be one more step along a very dangerous path. Even with the greatest good will in the world, it is putting a very great strain on the willingness of many Members of this House to follow the lead of the Minister of Agriculture. We all know that he entered upon this method of treating the matter with the intention of doing his best, and he has done more than any other Minister of Agriculture in this country for the good of the industry. Nothing that I have said on this or on any other scheme is to be taken, or will be taken, as any criticism of his efforts in an attempt to do his best. The longer we see these schemes the greater we must all of us feel to be their danger to the finances of the country and to the general desire of most Members of this House to get back to a state of affairs in which private individuals manage their own business in their own way without Government support in money and Government interference as to how they should manage it.
  11.44 p.m.
  Viscount WOLMER: Although it is very late, as my name has been referred to and the Hops Board of which I am a member has been criticised, I ought very shortly to reply at any rate to the more important points which have been made to-night. I am depressed that this scheme has evoked so much wrath from the Liberal party. In a moment of light they supported the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931.[An HON. MEMBER: "Which you opposed."] No, we improved it. We made it operative, and the greater part of the policy which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is carrying forward is being carried out by his having made the Act of 1931 effective. The Liberal party, having voted for the Act, having given powers to the marketing boards and placed responsibility on the marketing boards, appears to have repented of that action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said that this scheme, or the agreement under it, is not rationalisation. I submit that it is. I think you have reached a very

  481
  high state of rationalisation when you get the growers of any crops selling their entire product for five years ahead to the consumers, up to the consumers' requirements, at an agreed price. That is a very remarkable development in agricultural affairs. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who took an active part in supporting the Act of 1931, visualised that in such a short time we would reach such a pitch of organisation, that we would have producers able to sell their commodities, not through a middleman, but direct to the consumers for five years. A five years' plan in fact; I should have thought that. would have appealed to the hon. Member, and the price is one which the brewers have accepted as reasonable. That is something new in agricultural organisation and a very definite and important advance in rationalisation.
  But my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall says, "You are conferring a monopoly on existing hop growers." I wish I could get the Liberal party to think of the hop industry as it would think of any other industry. If you consider any branch of agriculture as one industry, which is what organisation means, you at once see how silly it is to produce more than can possibly be consumed. Of course hops are an extreme case, because there is no by-product. But the same is true of all agricultural products. Glut is the greatest source of waste and loss and expense. The first problem that any organised industry will desire to overcome is the
  elimination of unnecessary waste. No one. would think that a railway company was acting sensibly if it ran twice as many trains as its traffic required. For the hop industry to grow twice as many hops as are required is obviously great waste. If you can eliminate that waste by any arrangement, you have certainly taken a big step forward in rationalisation.
  After all, you are simply town-planning agriculture. You can say that it is making inroads into individual rights. This House is always doing that; it is always making new inroads into individual rights, and, of course, we have to be careful that the inroads are justified. What the Labour party did in 1931 was to start the town-planning of agriculture, and one of the things necessary
  482
  in such town-planning is to try to prevent the production of material for which no market demand exists.
  I should also like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the whole of this is done under the 1931 Act, for which he and his party voted. The 1931 Act laid down the principle that every Marketing Board should have the power to control the quantity of any regulated product that might be sold. If my right hon. Friend demurs I would remind him of the following facts. When the original hops scheme was introduced in 1932, it contained quota provisions very much like these provision which are now before the House. Those provisions were deleted by the then Minister of Agriculture, because he thought that they required improvement in detail. The only substantial point in which they differed from these proposals was that the quota was allotted on the 1932 figures instead of on the five-year average. To show, however, that I am right in my contention, I would recall to the right hon. Gentleman that the late Sir Walter Berry challenged the legality of that scheme; he went on that point to the Court of King's Bench and thence to the Court of Appeal, and both those courts decided that the scheme in its original form was within the ambit of the 1931 Act. These powers to control output were therefore promised to boards under the original 1931 Act. When Dr. Addison framed that Act he very properly saw—as everybody who considers this problem must see—that in certain circumstances it is necessary for a Marketing Board to have power to control output. These are the only powers that the Hops Board is seeking under this scheme.
  Hon. Members opposite and a Noble Lord in another place have made great play about the people who used to grow hops, who went out of hop growing and who will not be allowed to grow hops under this scheme—or rather, who will not be allowed to grow quota hops. As the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Horobin) said quite correctly, anybody may become a registered producer under the scheme and anybody may grow hops, but a newcomer cannot offer his hops for sale—or rather, he cannot be paid for them—until the quota hops have been sold. It has been said here and elsewhere that a great injustice has been done to such men, and

  483
  I think my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) talked about the "dispossessed" hopgrowers. He accused me of being a party to confiscating their property. I never heard such a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. What are the facts? There were a certain number of farmers who for their own reasons, which no doubt were perfectly good, some years ago gave up growing this particular crop. During the period of distress nearly all hop growers reduced their acreage because their losses were so heavy that only the very richest men could stand them, but there were also others who deliberately went out of hop growing, who ceased to be hop growers because it was so unremunerative; and no doubt they saved themselves a great deal of money by doing so. But they have not been dispossessed at all; they left the industry of their own free will.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the Noble Lord will not disagree with me that even in 1932 he himself attended at least one meeting where growers were recommended to decrease their output of hops, but the Noble Lord did not decrease his output.
  Viscount WOLMER: On the contrary, I decreased my acreage from 100 acres to 60 acres.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely the Noble Lord did not decrease from 100 acres to 60 acres between 1928 And 1933? Indeed, the Noble Lord must admit that he did not decrease at all, but rather increased his acreage.
  Viscount WOLMER: On the contrary. I am glad the hon. Member has raised the point because it has been mentioned publicly by Lord Astor in an extraordinary letter in which he insinuated that I had rigged the hop scheme to suit my own farm, or suggested I had started hop growing in an unfair manner. Let me tell the hon. Member the facts. I was growing 100 acres of hops; I now grow 57 acres. In 1930 I grubbed one hop garden and replanted it in 1931. Lord Astor knows so little about hops that he did not appear to realise that hop growers are always doing this because the life of the plant is only some 10 or 12 years, and those people who want to grow hops efficiently and get
  484
  the most out of the soil are always grubbing their hop gardens and replanting them. I propose to grub another hop garden next year and to replant it. The people who asked hop growers to reduce their crops were the voluntary union, called E.H.G. That was during the great slump, and I think that nearly all growers responded. The people referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley are those who have long gone out of hop growing. They went out for their own reasons, and in the vast majority of cases have gone in for other crops. They have planted their land with fruit or vegetables.
  If hon. Members doubt the accuracy of that statement I will give them the proofs. Hon. Members who have criticised the scheme do not seem to realise that it has been submitted to an impartial authority. It has had to go through the elaborate procedure laid down by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. It was the subject of a public inquiry last September, when it was examined by the Commissioner, Mr. Russell Davies, one of the gentlemen who gave the Milk Award. The pros and cons of the scheme were argued by counsel, and witnesses were heard on every side. At that public inquiry the opponents of the scheme were the Brewers' Society and five other gentlemen. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, anybody has the right to appear at the inquiry or write to the Minister of Agriculture stating that he objects to the scheme. All the details of the scheme were published in newspapers specified by the Minister of Agriculture. There was absolutely full publicity of all the details of the scheme in every hop-growing district, and only five persons besides the Brewers' Society appeared in opposition. Not a single one of these persons was a farmer who had once grown hops and has now ceased
  to do so. They were all existing hop growers, who were not satisfied with the quota allowed them under the formula under the scheme.
  Mr. HOROBIN: Am I to understand that the case of the Noble Lord is, first, that only the rich people had remained in and should be allowed to become permanent producers, and that the poor people "who were forced out

  485
  will not be allowed to come back? Secondly, that those people who were forced out of the scheme but who have planted other crops do not want to come back. In that case, why prevent them doing so?
  Viscount WOLMER: I did not follow the first point that was made by the hon. Member. In regard to the second point the danger is caused not only by new growers coming in, but even more by the possibility that existing growers would unwisely increase their output. It is quite clear that if you have made a contract with the brewers for a price which is based on the cost of production plus a profit which they consider reasonable, you have contracted with the brewers to sell them all the hops they want; but you have not contracted to sell them all the hops that you can grow. If you are going to encourage—that is what the hon. Member is asking us to do—people to grow hops which the brewers do not want, are the brewers going to pay for those hops? Certainly not; they will only pay for the hops which they want. If the hops which they want in any year are in excess by 10 per cent. of what the quota scheme provides, then the board is bound to issue new quotas. The procedure to which the hon. Member objects so much is precisely the procedure with which every water company, every gas company and other statutory companies have to comply. That is where the precedent comes from.
  I have kept the House too long. There is only one further subject with which I should like to deal. Some of the critics say that this does not matter in the case of hops because the brewers would never be parties to any agreement with which they were not satisfied; but they have added that they would deprecate this scheme being used as a precedent. I sincerely hope that it will be used as a precedent. I think we could do very valuable work in agricultural organisation if we could get an arrangement whereby the plum growers and the raspberry growers had a five years' agreement with the canners, the Consumers' Council being brought in to say what the retail price ought to be, so that there may be a regulated price for raspberries and plums. Would not that be better than the spectacle we have seen of plum crops being allowed to rot on the ground
  486
  every third or fourth year, and gigantic waste taking place? Is not there room for further rationalisation of agriculture by long-term agreements between the producers and processors being used, as well as in connection with hops? I believe that we could advance on those lines and by that means we could do two things. We could give security to the farmer and reasonable prices to the consumer. The prices to which hon. Members opposite object are prices which the consumers have accepted; they may be mistaken, but they have accepted them. cannot see why the Liberal party should object to a scheme which gives the consumer an opportunity of saying whether the price fixed is fair or unfair. If the consumer or his appropriate representative accepts the price, surely you have done something to eliminate waste and prevent overproduction by making these long-term contracts. The brewers have been able to get a price which is in large part due to the economies that have been made by avoiding the enormous waste which used to take place, which resulted in millions of pounds worth of hops being thrown into the sea, because there was no demand for them. All that waste has been eliminated and the result is that the brewers are able to get hops at £9, whereas last year they had to pay £15. They will pay £9 for five years, and the hop growers will have an assurance that they will not be left with an unsaleable product in the near future.
  12.5 a.m.
  Colonel GRETTON: Everyone who is interested in this hops scheme has been heard during the Debate except the brewer and I have a few words to say in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), whose remarks had really little to do with the actual arrangements made under the agreement. The agreement was come to by the brewers under compulsion and they do not regard it as a good agreement. They have registered their objections to the scheme and to the principles of the scheme and the reservations which they have made to those principles have been emphasised. The Noble Lord put his claim too high when he spoke of having sold the whole crop for five years ahead. We have done no such think. The agreement which has been

  487
  made is in respect of 66⅔ per cent. of estimated requirements. The price of the hops is to be £9, plus 10s. per cwt., which levy is to be used to enable the Hops Marketing Board to dispose of surplus hops, or unmarketable hops or any other hops which are left on their hands. The broad criticism of this scheme is that it creates a tight monopoly for the existing growers. Who is going to lay down a crop which takes three years to develop, on terms of this kind? Registration, if an outside grower could get it now, is of no value on the terms stated.
  The brewers must have a supply of hops of a certain quality, but what means has the Marketing Board under this scheme of dealing with the question of the quality of the article The only way in which they can differentiate is by the graduation of prices, and I call
  that a very insufficient way. There ought to be some provision for maintaining a high quality in the article produced. In this scheme, as I say, there is no provision of that kind except the grading of prices, for all the produce, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, has to be bought and paid for. There is no public advantage to be derived from the scheme. It creates the tightest monopoly we have ever seen in this country, with no provision that that monopoly is going to produce an article of high quality. As regards importation there is a quota restriction on foreign hops as well as English hops. I cannot vote for the Amendment because of the condition which has been added to it in regard to a Select Committee. A Select Committee would be futile. All the facts are known. There is nothing further to
  be discovered. Those who wish to understand the case will find that all the facts are available. In my opinion this is a bad arrangement. It is an arrangement made under pressure and it is not a businesslike arrangement or one which will help the brewer or the hops industry in the long run.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. WILMOT: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) in his lyrical praise of the Minister and his criticisms of the scheme or the Noble Lord the MemberforAldershot(Viscount
  488
  Wolmer) in his astounding argument that this kind of monopoly which creates an artificial scarcity, which brings prosperity to the farmer and starvation to the towns, ought to be applied to every kind of agricultural produce. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said that everybody interested in this scheme had already been heard in the House, but there is one great body of people who are interested and who have not yet been heard from in this Debate. I refer to the workers in that industry. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot will agree that in many places the conditions under which the hops are harvested by casual labour leave much to be desired. The sanction of the Legislature is now being sought for the creation of a monopoly ring, designed to give high profits to those engaged in the production of hops, and it is to be hoped that the Minister will take the opportunity of doing something to regulate and improve the conditions of employment in the industry. We are conferring the benefits of a statutory monopoly on this industry, and as public representatives it is our duty to safeguard the interests of those workers who are not in a position to protect themselves and who are forced by extreme poverty to do this labour as the only means they have of getting a little fresh air and sunshine. They live in many cases under conditions which are almost indescribable, when they are engaged in this work. The Minister will be lacking in his public duty if he does not take this opportunity of making such regulations as are necessary to secure at any rate tolerable conditions for these people who are an indispensable factor in the production of these big profits.
  12.12 a.m.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: The speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) has blown sky-high the argument that this is an agreed scheme between the brewers and the producers of hops. He has made it clear that the brewers surrendered to the inevitable and made the best bargain they could, recognising that some scheme on these lines would be insisted upon. If any further argument were required for our Amendment, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) supplied it when he

  489
  claimed this as a precedent which should be followed on every opportunity, for the creation of producers' monopolies, without adequate safeguards for the public. It is unfortunate that a revolutionary scheme, creating a monopoly on a new scale, and on new principles, should have to be discussed after midnight, but we had no alternative. We make our protest, and we believe that our action will be justified in the future. This will be recognised as one of the worst administrative actions of the present Government. We only hope that public opinion will be aroused to the danger of the other monopolies with which we are likely to be faced in the future.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. STRAUSSI am diffident about intervening in this Debate. We have heard a great deal about monopolies, and most of us dislike monopolies, because of the relationship between monopolies and exploitation, but in the strict sense of the word this is not a monopoly. Any brewer who choosss can grow as much hops as he likes, for his own use. As a matter of fact a number of large firms of brewers grow hops on a considerable scale, and knowing brewers as I do, I would say that if they thought there was any danger of exploitation, they would not have agreed to the scheme.
  There is another matter in the White Paper which is a very important feature in working out this scheme. It contains certain Clauses which must have been drawn up by gentlemen who know very little about the trade. Some of these Clauses, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, are absolutely unworkable. Unless they are amended, brewers will be unable to get the same quality of hops as they have had in the past, if they want them. I hope that wisdom will prevail and that the White Paper will be amended. I recognise that this has nothing to do with the Motion before the House, but it is very important. I have had 14 or 15 years experience, and being a hop-grower is not all beer and skittles. To be a successful hop-grower one must not be simply an ordinary farmer, but an expert specialising in growing hops. You must have sufficient capital in the initial stages for the plants,
  490
  and so on, and must not be afraid of spending considerable sums in the process of development. The only fear I had was that some growers might be tempted to grow as many hops as possible, and sacrifice quality for quantity. That could be overcome if those entrusted with the valuation would not make it too profitable for those who grow inferior crops and would reward those who tried to grow the right quality that the brewers require. I hope the points in the White Paper to which I have referred will be amended, and that in the long run everyone connected with the trade will be satisfied with the result.
  12.18 a.m.
  Sir W. WAYLAND: I want to say a few words as a Member representing a, hop-growing district. Of course, this scheme creates a monopoly. Everything created. under the Marketing Act of 1931 is a monopoly, and every hon. Member who voted for the 1931 Act cannot possibly withhold their support from this scheme now. As regards profits and the suggestion that 20 per cent. to the hop grower is exhorbitant, it is not a high profit considering the danger of getting two good crops and a bad one in three years. The hop growers have had such a time that during the bad years many of them went bankrupt, certainly in the Canterbury district. My people have complained that the price of £9 is not high enough. If the brewers look at it in the right light they will consider that they have made a very good bargain to get their hops at an average price of £9 per cwt. over a period of five years. At the end of that time, if they are dissatisfied with the bargain, they can combine together and become bop growers themselves, and become independent of the hop growers as a whole. Therefore, they are not bound to a monopoly. They enter the arena free agents. They have agreed to a fair price and a fair deal.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I think that the Debate to which we have listened, much of it technical, calls for a word or two in reply, though no more. It is fair to say that we have been interested and it is also to be noted that no party lines have been followed to-night. Unusual associations have led, no doubt, to unusual points of view being put to the House, and that is all to the good. These matters are not

  491
  to be discussed on party or any other dividing lines. They are concerned with the new organisation of an industry and will, no doubt, call forth criticism from both sides, from those who are about to sell and from those who are about to buy, as in any other business arrangement. I do not think any reason has been put forward why the House should now reject this scheme. We have heard the correspondence between the brewers and the Ministry, and while the brewers reserved, as they were entitled to do, their right to state their position, I feel they would say that they did not wish this Amendment to be brought forward. They did sign the report, and according to the views they put forward these are fair methods by which such a scheme can be worked and they are prepared to abide loyally by the proposals and work them. That having been decided I think it is clear that no unfair advantage has been taken of the brewers. Nobody compelled them to sign the agreement, and it would have been quite possible for them to say, "We will not sign it, but we will go down to the House and throw the whole weight of our advice against it and take the risk of convincing the House that the scheme is unjust and unfair."
  But that was not the course adopted. The course adopted was to sign the agreement unanimously, but to reserve their position by saying that they thought that experience would show that on the whole this was not the most advantageous way to produce hops and to sell hops from the point of view of the industry as a whole. They have appealed to the final test of experience. There are plenty of safeguards in the machinery of the Act if injustice should arise. Only by experience shall we find out whether any of the evils prophesied by many of my hon. Friends occur. After a year or two of experience we shall be far better qualified to speak than we are now. I would say that the brewers, in a final letter to me, said that they hoped that in my statement to the House I would make it clear that the hops marketing scheme would be carried out in the spirit of the agreement. I am very glad to give that assurance. Those who say that nothing has been added to the scheme since it came before the House are in error. A very important thing has been
  492
  added. A joint permanent committee has been set up, which includes not merely trade members but representatives of the public in the impartial members. They will watch over and interpret the working of the agreement. The objections made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss), whose experience in this matter we all recognise, may prove to be true, but in that case opportunities for amending the agreement will arise in the experience of the joint permanent committee.
  All the arguments have now been fully threshed out by both sides, and there is no longer any argument or fact to be brought forward. We must wait for experience to give us the further evidence to go upon. I ask the House to allow this test of experience to be made, and I am sure they will not regret doing so. They will find, in the joint permanent committee, a body perfectly capable of watching over the interests not only of the trade but of the public.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) as to whether any regard is to be taken of the hop pickers?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am more than willing to answer the question. I should have thought that the greater experience of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) as well as of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would have enabled him to answer the question for himself. Everyone knows that the responsibility for those working in the area is upon the local authority. Nothing could be more foolish than an attempt by the Minister of Agriculture to step in as a sort of extra. It may be very necessary, but that means a reform not only of the Ministry of Agriculture—and that is not the question which is before the House to-night—
  Mr. McENTEE: Is it of no interest to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself when argument is being conducted, it would no doubt shorten our discussions. Of course,

  493
  it is of interest to me, and it is of interest to him, and he has no right to assume that it is only hon. Members on that side who have a monopoly of interest in such matters. Those of us who are spending a great deal of time on the maintenance of the industry care about it as much as any other Member, but they are not responsible for the conditions of those who work in the industry, since without the industry those who work in it would not find the ample opportunities for employment which the industry affords. The machinery for dealing with these matters is not within the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture. There is a well- established method, in the ordinary administrative machinery of the country, for dealing with those matters. If there is a stable, settled and, as we hope, a prosperous industry, it may be that demands could be laid upon it which could not be laid upon an unstable, shifting and unprosperous industry. The surest way of improving conditions, as I am confident the hon. Member for East Fulham realises, is to make certain that the industry is regulated and settled. We shall be able to ensure, not through the Ministry of Agriculture but through the ordinary administration of the country, that the housing and working conditions are such as we would like. To insert those conditions into a contract upon hop growing is not the way in which they can mot reasonably be attained. I would say no more than that.
  We are asking the House to trust the experience of the official spokesman in the other House of the Opposition, when he- pledged the support of himself and his party to the scheme in so far as it carried out the agricultural policy of his party. He indicated no way in which he dissented from the proposals brought forward. When we are criticised by hon. Members opposite it is reasonable to observe that we already have the official opinion of their party on the matter and that when these proposals were being considered in another place, that opinion did not lead that party into the Lobby against them.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sorry to have to detain the House a moment in view of
  494
  what the Minister has said about his responsibility as regards those who are engaged in this industry. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should enter a protest. He disclaims any responsibility at all for them. I agree that, if he were not asking us to guarantee the profits of those who employ them, we could not guarantee that they would be employed, unless they gave them work. But surely now he has some responsibility to see that their conditions are improved—conditions which are known in many areas to be bad to-day. He has now an opportunity, when we are gratuitously promising these profits to the industry, to insist on better conditions for the employés, and surely he is not going to get out of his responsibility by saying that the Minister of Health will do it. He should see that the Minister of Health does it.
  Mr. ELLIOT: It is a very strange doctrine, surely, to say that it is my business to see that the Minister of Health does his job. What would the hon. and learned Member have said if someone else in his Government had told him how to administer his position?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: There is ministerial responsibility—I was not a Member of the Cabinet—on the part of the Cabinet. The Minister of Health is in the Cabinet. The responsibility arising out of this matter is the Cabinet's responsibility to the employés in the industry. The fact that this happens to be brought forward by one Member of the Cabinet does not discharge the Cabinet from that responsibility. It is sufficient to say that one such person in the Cabinet is charged with that responsibility. If the House is being asked to do this for the employers in the industry, there ought at the same time to be care taken to see that the conditions of the employés are improved. Time after time the Minister comes forward with these doles for agriculture, and we protest that he and the National Government refuse to take any safeguarding steps whatever for the conditions of the employés.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 36.

  Division No. 332.}

  AYES

  [9.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cross, R. H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Crossley, A. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Christle, James Archibald

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Clarke, Frank

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Doran, Edward

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Drewe. Cedric

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Boulton, W. W.

  Collox, Major William Philip

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Edmondson, Major Sir James

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Bracklebank, C. E. R.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Eimley, Viscount

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Rickards, George William

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Ropner, Colonel L

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Mabane, William

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Greene, William P. C.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  McLean, Dr, W. H. (Tradeston)

  Sandernan, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Scone, Lord

  Harbord, Arthur

  Making, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Selley, Harry R.

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Slater, John

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Martin. Thomas B.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Hellgers. Captain F. F. A.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Satheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Hornby, Frank

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

  Stones, James

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Sugden, Sir Wllfrid Hart

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Munro, Patrick

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Thompson, Sir Luke

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Jennings, Roland

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Peake, Osbert

  Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Pearson, William G.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Penny, Sir George

  Train, John

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Perkins, Waiter R. D.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Potter, John

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G H.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Pybus, Sir Percy John

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Knox. Sir Allred

  Radford, E. A.

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Lees-Jones, John

  Rankin, Robert

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Leighton. Major B. E. P.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Levy, Thomas

  Ray, Sir William

  Liddell, Walter S.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Captain Austin Hudson and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Mallalleu. Edward Lancelot

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Mliner. Major James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bonfield, John William

  Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Batey, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Bernays, Robert

  Groves. Thomas E.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

  Cove, William G.

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Thorne, William James

  Dagger, George

  Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Lawson. John James

  West, F. R.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leonard. William

  White, Henry Graham

  Dickle, John P.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Dobble, William

  Lunn. William

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Edwards. Charles

  Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Wilmot, John

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  Division No. 333.]

  AYES

  [12.34 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Harbord, Arthur

  Palmer Francis Noel

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Albery, Irving James

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Peake, Osbert

  Anstruther-Gray, W.

  Hangers, Captain F. F. A.

  Penny, Sir George

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Pybus, Sir Percy John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hornby, Frank

  Rankin, Robert

  Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Blindell, James

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Boulton, W. W.

  James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

  Rickards, George William

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Jennings, Roland

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Johnston. J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Carver, Major William H.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Spencer, Captain Richard A

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Liswellin, Major John J.

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Stones, James

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Tate. Mavis Constance

  Cross, R. H.

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Mabane, William

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Drewe, Cedric

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Train, John

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Tree, Ronald

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Edmondson, Major Sir James

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Ford. Sir Patrick J.

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Vomersley, Sir Walter

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Graves, Marjorie

  O'Donovan. Dr. William James

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and Major George Davies.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Bernays, Robert

  Janner, Barnett

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Cape, Thomas

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  John, William

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Leonard, William

  White, Henry Graham

  Debbie, William

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Charles

  Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  McEntee. Valentine L.

  Wilmot, John

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Milner, Major James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Mr. Rea and Mr. Mallalieu.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Amendment of the Hops Marketing Scheme, 1932, which was presented to this House on the 12th day of February, 1934, be approved."

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Sir G. Bowyer.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Bowyer.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISION OF DEBT].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour."—(King's Recommendation Signified)—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It would be improper if I did not say a few words in explanation of this Bill, which is noncontroversial and is simply designed to facilitate the work of the Trustee Savings Banks. As anybody acquainted with that work will be aware, it is divided into two departments, the ordinary department, where deposits are made and a fixed rate of interest is paid, and also a special investment department, which is allowed by Statute to make investments in a very narrow and clearly prescribed field. The object of the Bill is slightly to extend the margin of that field by allowing them to invest in municipal trustee securities maturing in 15 years,
  498
  and in British Government securities maturing in 30 years. Even this extension is limited to 40 per cent. of the total sum invested in the department, and is under Treasury control. The percentage that goes to each of the municipal and Government loans is controlled, and the investment has to have the approval of the National Debt Commissioners. The Bill also gives them the right to open accounts for ordinary business purposes at ordinary commercial banks, a right they already exercise but on which there has been some doubt whether it is legal for them to do so. The Bill is brought forward in response to a demand from the Trustee Savings Banks, and has the approval of the Association of Trustee Savings Banks.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Bowyer.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven o'Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve Minutes before One o'Clock.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE' (FUEL).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE' (FUEL).
  RIVER FORTH (FERRY SERVICES).
  RIVER FORTH (FERRY SERVICES).
  IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT.
  IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT.
  TUBERCULOSIS (STATISTICS, WALES).
  TUBERCULOSIS (STATISTICS, WALES).
POST OFFICE.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, SEASON RESORTS.
  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, SEASON RESORTS.
  COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  COASTGUARD SERVICE.
NORTHERN IRELAND.
  INCOME TAX, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  INCOME TAX, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  GRANTS.
  GRANTS.
  EDUCATION (KINDNESS TO ANIMALS).
  EDUCATION (KINDNESS TO ANIMALS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD BINGHAM.
George Charles, Earl of Lucan in the Peerage of Ireland, K.B.E., C.B., having been created Baron Bingham of Melcombe Bingham in the County of Dorset in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD HIRST
Sir Hugo Hirst, Baronet, having been created Baron Hirst of Witton in the County of Warwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD WAKEHURST.
Gerald Walter Erskine Loder, Esquire, having been created Baron Wakehurst of Ardingly in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Tredegar—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (INTERIM FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
CHAILEY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROL LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BASLE TRADING COMPANY.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN had given Notice that he would draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the present position of the claim of the Basle Trading Company, Limited, to the restitution of their property situated in India confiscated by the Indian Government contrary to International Law and common justice six months after the Armistice; ask if His Majesty's Government will appoint two impartial persons to advise on the company's claim, and as to what should be done with a view to an equitable settlement of that claim being arrived at, as was done in the case of the company's similar claim with regard to their property on the Gold Coast which resulted in the restitution to them of that property; and move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we criticise very freely the Governments

461
of other countries for seizing the properties of their citizens, but it were well to keep our eyes on the British Commonwealth of Nations, for I wish you particularly to note that the Government of India, six months after the Armistice, seized the property of friendly neutrals. I speak of the property of a Swiss company, the Basle Trading Company, which, seized in May, 1919, was transferred in 1920 to the Commonwealth Trust. I do not propose to weary the House with the whole history of this case, for I have given the full details here more than once. But I do earnestly wish the House to realise what a crying scandal this matter is. Secure in the justice of their claim, the Basle Trading Company have for years been pressing the India Office to have the case referred to the arbitration of impartial persons. This the India Office refuse to do. Why? May it not be that they fear the verdict of the arbitrators? And do they not thereby tacitly acknowledge their consciousness of the injustice from which the Basle Trading Company is suffering?
This Swiss company has, indeed, had much to endure at the hands of Britain. Other property of theirs, situated on the Gold Coast, was, in the madness of war time, also seized, and many weary years of negotiation passed before it was restored to them. But in the end His Majesty's Government was compelled, not only to restore the property, but to pay a considerable sum for compensation. There is even more reason for doing, in the case of India, what was done in the case of the Gold Coast, since the property in India was seized after the Armistice, when the world was supposed to be at peace. Do not imagine, however, that the Basic Trading Company is making any excessive or enormous demand. That is not the case. What they ask for is arbitration by impartial persons such as was provided in the case of the Gold Coast claim. There is one question which arises on the claim of the Basle Trading Company for the restitution of their property which I consider is extremely serious, and that is that there seems to be a flouting, nothing less, of Magna Carta. What does Magna Carta say? It says very distinctly, "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse justice or delay right or justice." Now justice delayed is justice denied. I have been at this ques-
462
tion for ten years and have only now succeeded in getting to the stage at which we have arrived. However, I hope that some day I shall see daylight.
The injustice complained of is the confiscation of the Basle Company's property contrary to the accepted doctrine, as stated in an opinion given by Sir John Simon, Mr. (now Mr. Justice) Maugham and Mr. F. T. Barrington Ward on May 21, 1919, that such confiscation
"is incompatible with the accepted doctrine that property of neutral persons situate in a friendly country is immune from confiscation."
The justice of the claim was admitted by His Majesty's Government in 1928, when they returned to the Basle Company, in somewhat similar circumstances, that part of their property which was situated in the Gold Coast. The doctrine referred to, I am sure your Lordships will agree, applies in the case of the Basle Company's Indian property equally as it did in the case of the Gold Coast property. It was, indeed, confirmed in 1931 by Sir John Simon, K.C, and Mr. Gavin. Simonds, K.C, with specific reference to the confiscation of the Basle Company's Indian property as follows:
"In our opinion the protest made to His Majesty's Government against the seizure and confiscation of this company's property on the Gold Coast may be made with the same reason and force against the seizure and confiscation of its property in India. It appears to us that the action taken by the Government in regard to the property of the company in India was contrary to the generally accepted principle of the law of nations that the property of neutral persons is immune from confiscation.
"But this action is not in our opinion open to attack in any legal proceedings by petition of right or otherwise either in this country or in India. For, contrary though it might be to the canons of International Law, it was expressly validated by the Act No. XXXV. of 1920, which was passed under the then existing Indian Constitution by the Indian Legislative Council and received the assent of the Governor-General on the 9th September, 1920. It is not in our opinion open to the company to challenge in any municipal court the validity of acts which have thus received competent legislative sanction."
The second paragraph of this opinion clearly indicates the difficult position in which the Basle Company have been placed as a consequence of the course which has been taken by the Government of India and adopted by the British Government.
The Right Honourable L. S. Amery, then Secretary of State for the Colonies,

463
in a Despatch of July 31, 1928, to the Officer Administering the Government of the Gold Coast, stated:
"…. I took the best legal opinion available to me and was advised that the action taken in 1918 had in fact amounted to seizing without compensation the property and the buildings of citizens of a neutral State, and it was therefore impossible to justify in a legal action or arbitration regarding it as a war measure on the ground of the enemy association of the former owners."
The opinion of Sir John Simon and others, and the action taken by the Government in 1928, is simply, as far as I can see, entirely ignored by the India Office. The request of the Basle Company to the India Office was answered by the offer of a return of the property subject to conditions impossible of acceptance—namely, that the property must be taken over with unknown liabilities, and an intimation, in effect, that "either you accept what we offer you or you have nothing," and this notwithstanding that the confiscation took place six months after the Armistice. The Indian Government themselves had doubts about what they had done, and passed what I understand is called a Validating Act, in 1920.
Owing, no doubt, to some misapprehension, a statement was made in Sir Samuel Hoare's letter to me of May 21 that the directors decided to recommend to their shareholders that the India Office offer should be accepted. I made inquiry as to this, and am definitely informed that it has been made clear, throughout, that the directors were not prepared to accept an offer which included a condition involving acceptance of unascertained liabilities. In such circumstances, they could not, of course, recommend acceptance. Let it not be said abroad, I implore you, that England cares not for any wrong she has done, provided those whom she has wronged are not in a position to compel her to make restitution. I have here the correspondence on which I rely and I shall be happy, if called upon, to produce it.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I understand that the proposal of the Basle Trading Company, made through my noble friend Lord Templetown, is to refer this long-drawn controversy to arbitration. I have read all the papers available on the subject, and I venture to say,
464
for what my opinion is worth, that that is an elementary and reasonable proposition. Put shortly, the facts are these. The Basle Trading Company was, and is, and always was, a neutral company. It owned these properties in India, amongst others, and also in the Gold Coast. The property in India was estimated to be worth £400,000, besides a large amount of cash, and the property in the Gold Coast was also extremely valuable. The Government of this country have admitted that the claim of the company to the Gold Coast property, which is in all material respects precisely the same as the present claim of the company to the Indian property, was valid, the truth being that the property in India, and the property in the Gold Coast, were confiscated, the one by the Indian Government, I suppose with the sanction of the British Government, and the other by the Gold Coast Government, no doubt with the sanction of the Colonial Office.
Both those confiscations were absolutely and entirely illegal. It is contrary to the law of nations to confiscate, either in war or at any other time, the property of a neutral, and that view was sustained, as my noble friend has said, by such eminent lawyers as Sir John Simon, Lord Justice Maugham and other eminent King's Counsel. I do not think that in law there is any answer to that. I feel confident that my noble friend who will reply for the Government will not controvert the justice of that view. The Government of this country have admitted that that view is right, because when the question of restoring the Gold Coast property came up before the Colonial Office the Colonial Secretary of that date, 1928, admitted that the claim was perfectly just, and could not be resisted with any decency or any honour by the Colonial Office or the British Government. They consequently restored the property to the Basle Company and paid them a very large sum, something like £250,000, as compensation.
In those circumstances you would have expected that the Indian Government and the Government at home would have acted upon the same view and made a similar unconditional restoration of the property of the company in India, with such compensation as the company were entitled to for the wrongful taking of their property. That was not so. As Lord Templetown has said, discussions went on

465
almost interminably, until at length the Government of India and the Government of this country were bound to accept the views put forward by the Basle Company to this extent, that they were bound to admit that they were wrong in seizing and confiscating this Indian property; but, instead of making a similar proposal to that made in the case of the Gold Coast property, they put forward proposals of a very different kind—namely, the restoration of the property with conditions which it was quite impossible for the company to accept, in regard to the Indian property.
I will not trouble your Lordships with those conditions at length. The substance of them was that the company were to take over this Indian property, of which they had been deprived for something like eleven or twelve years—now something nearer fifteen years—without any compensation for the long deprivation of the property of the company. When that condition came to be examined it was found that they were to take over this Indian property after this long period of deprivation without knowing how the property had been treated, what were the assets, and so on. The Government did give them some information, which proved wholly inaccurate. So inaccurate was it that when the proposition made by the Government came before the shareholders, it was practically unanimously rejected as not being a fair mode of dealing with the matter.
My noble friend has told us that a petition of right would not lie, according to the views of Sir John Simon. No doubt that is right, because there were certain Indian Acts of Parliament validating the illegal proceedings, which stood in the way. Therefore the company now come to the Government and make what appears to me a very reasonable offer. The Government admit an injustice has been done. No way of remedying that injustice has yet been discovered, and the company say: "Appoint two arbitrators who would deal with the matter fairly as between the two parties in controversy." That is the proposal which your Lordships have to consider. I sincerely trust that the Government will find it possible to assent to that proposal, and thereby not only do away with this long-drawn-out dispute, but do what appears, to me at any rate, to be justice for an act admitted to be illegal.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this matter has been before your Lordships' House on several occasions, the last occasion being November 28 last, when I had the honour of replying to my noble friend Lord Templetown. I need not, I think, trouble your Lordships with any details of dealings with the Basle Trading Company before November, 1929. As I stated in my speech on that occasion, in November, 1929, the company were informed in writing, after oral communications, of the conditions on which the Government of India were prepared to deal with the question of restoring their former properties to the company. My noble friend Lord Danesfort has referred to those conditions. He said they were very unfair, but the Government do not agree with that description, and I think it necessary, as I did not state what the conditions were in my speech last November, to tell your Lordships of what they consisted.
The first was that the return, subject to the verification of title of the Indian business as a going concern, should be accepted by the company in full satisfaction of all claims that they might have against the Government of Madras or the Government of India. The second was that the company should keep separate accounts of their operations in India and that all profits on the Indian business, above a fixed percentage—five per cent, was suggested—on the capital invested in India should be devoted to missionary and cither philanthropic purposes. The third condition was that the company should retain the services of the employees of the Commonwealth Trust in India, subject to their good behaviour, at least until they could find other suitable employment. As regards the second condition, I should explain that it was provided by the statutes of the Basle Trading Company that any profit exceeding five per cent. on the capital was to be handed over to a committee of trustees in order to serve the purposes of paragraph 2 (b) of the statutes. I will quote from the paragraph:
"Furtherance by financial and other support of evangelical endeavours for the spreading of the kingdom of God."
The Government thought, and still think, that those were very fair conditions to make. The offer made to the company in 1929 has since been under discussion. The negotiations have been very pro-

467
tracted, and I regret to say that this is to a great extent explained by the fact that three persons who were in personal charge of the negotiations on behalf of the company have unfortunately died during the interval—namely, the late Mr. Palliser, Sir George Craik, and Mr. Lawrence Jones.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Sir George Craik never had anything to do with the Basle Trading Company.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: No, I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. Sir George Craik was engaged in the negotiations, but not on behalf of the Basle Trading Company.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: He was always connected with the Commonwealth Trust.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The noble Viscount is quite right, but he had a certain amount to do with the negotiations, and on his demise his loss was very severely felt. Another contributory cause was the natural desire of the Basle Trading Company—which everybody can understand—for information as to the position of the business they would be taking over if they accepted the offer. The Government in India had no information about the business beyond what is in its published reports and balance sheets, and, in order to furnish the company with further information, it was necessary to ask the Commonwealth Trust to supply it. The Commonwealth Trust made no difficulty in answering numerous questions bearing on the present position of the business. To other questions put to them at the request of the Basle Trading Company they have returned no answer, generally on the ground that they related to the past history of the business, and not to its present position.
Negotiations continued, and eventually on December 30 last, one day before the expiration of the time limit, the directors of the Basle Trading Company formally accepted the offer of the India Office contained in the letter of November 28, 1929, subject to the approval of their shareholders. The Secretary of State agreed to hold open his offer until January 20, 1934. On January 20 of this year the Basle Trading Company informed the India Office that their shareholders were not prepared to accept the offer made to them. That is how the matter now stands. As regards the sug-
468
gestion that His Majesty's Government should appoint two impartial persons to advise on the company's claim, I am instructed to say that the Government see no advantage in this course, and do not propose to take it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, with reference to a point raised by the noble Lord as to profits being divided, all that the Basle Trading Company want is that the same course should be pursued, in definition of how profits were going to be divided, as was followed quite satisfactorily in the case of the Gold Coast settlement. There is no difference between those two cases. The company were quite prepared to accept that. With reference to the directors having recommended the shareholders to accept the offer, I am the recipient of a letter from the Secretary of State for India saying that the directors of the Basle Trading Company had recommended their shareholders to accept the offer. I had better tell your Lordships at once that there was not a letter which passed between the solicitors and the India Office of which I did not get a copy at once. Though I am not a negotiator and never have been, there was not a meeting that took place but what it was reported to me in writing verbatim at the earliest possible moment. Therefore I know it is perfectly impossible that the directors of the Basle Trading Company could have recommended acceptance to their shareholders.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I very expressly did not say they recommended it to their shareholders. What I said was that they accepted it subject to the approval of their shareholders, and then when the meeting took place their shareholders would not have it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I shall read the letter which I received from Sir Samuel Hoare. Here it is:
"Mr. Baldwin has passed on to me your letter of 17th April regarding the Basle Trading Company. As you know, the company were informed in August last that unless the offer made to them in November, 1929, was accepted in toto by 31st December, 1933, it would be withdrawn. The directors decided on 30th December, 1933, to recommend to their shareholders that this offer should be accepted, but as you are aware the shareholders at a meeting held on the 17th January, 1931, decided that they could not accept it. This being so, I am afraid there is nothing for me to

469
say in. reply to your letter except that the offer must now be regarded as withdrawn."
If I am wrong as to the directors and shareholders I shall withdraw and apologise, but I do not think I am wrong. In reply to the noble Lord I have only to say this, that I very much regret his reply. It disappointed me immensely, and it only confirms me in the belief that this battle must go on being fought until it is won. Until you do the thing that is right you will never settle it, and I am not going to stop my efforts until it is finished in the right way. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking with regard to the raising of the school-leaving age in the near future; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is over three years since your Lordships saw fit to reject the Education Bill brought in by the Labour Party of that day, and the subject of the raising of the school age, as far as I remember, has not been discussed in your Lordships' House since that time apart from the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his important speech on the Unemployment Bill about a month ago. The rejection of the Labour Party's Bill has, of course, meant delay in the reorganisation and development of our educational system, and it has also, I think, had unfortunate results for the children of this country. What has it meant? It has meant that for three years something like 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 children have been sent away from school at the age of fourteen and have either plunged into industry or been left to find what jobs they could. Large numbers of them have failed to find any work at all, and have suffered all the demoralisation and deterioration that come from idleness and uncertainty as to the future. Many children suffered in that way, children who would have been far better at school.
Then again the reorganisation of our educational system has been delayed and held up. That has been unfortunate. In 1924 the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education was invited by the Board to draw up a scheme with regard to education up to the
470
age of fifteen. There was an inquiry which lasted nearly two years, and the result was a Report, known as the Hadow Report, which recommended a new scheme which came to be known as post-primary education, and which advocated that children should be treated differently after the age of eleven or eleven plus; that all children should go on for a form of secondary education from the age of eleven to the age of fifteen. This Consultative Committee was not a body of educational cranks. They were serious people, experts on educational matters, and they did not draw up this Report of their own accord. It was deliberately asked for by the Board of Education. For some years a beginning was made with this new plan of giving post-primary education to children from the age of eleven to the age of fourteen, although the Hadow Committee distinctly laid it down that an essential feature of the plan was the raising of the school age to fifteen, as it had to be a four-year course, and they laid it down that a three-year course was unsuitable because the education required could not be obtained in that time.
The education thus given was largely wasted. A beginning was made. A good deal of reorganisation took place with regard to this post-primary work although it could be carried on only to the age of fourteen. Then the Labour Party brought in their Bill of 1930 which proposed to raise the school age to fifteen, and if that had passed, of course, this scheme could have been carried out completely instead of only partially. Your Lordships rejected the Bill, and then came the so-called economy campaign, and the thing since then has really been held up. No advance has been possible owing to what I cannot help calling false economy. I never did believe that the ground of economy was an adequate ground for throwing out that Bill. I do not believe it now, and I think I shall be able to show later on in my speech that the raising of the school age cannot be refused at this time of day on the ground of economy. The educational grounds for the raising of the school age are stronger to-day than ever, and I do not think I need to argue them over again at any length. There is no doubt that the years from fourteen to sixteen are very important years in the lives of boys

471
and girls. That is admitted by all the psychologists and the medical profession and by almost all educationists who have really done any teaching at all or know anything about the ways of boys and girls.
I have spent a good deal of my life in teaching, and perhaps I may be allowed to mention my own experience very shortly. I taught young men and women most of whom had left school at fourteen, but there were a few who had left at fifteen and a very few who had been able to stay at school until they were sixteen, and the difference between the two sets was most marked. It was, indeed, most extraordinary. The children who had had most schooling had not necessarily better brains than the others, but they had learned to understand the work that they had done before, and they could acquire knowledge more quickly and could make use of books better, and understood better how to study, than those who had left at an earlier age. There is not the slightest doubt that children after the age of fourteen begin to become much more mentally alert than they are before that age, and are much keener on learning. It is recognised by the parents of the classes other than the working classes that the age of fourteen is important. That is just the time when the children of the classes other than the working classes are sent to public schools or elsewhere to obtain a more advanced form of education.
I never can see why the advantages of education up to eighteen or later, which are obtained by people who can afford it, should be denied to these poorer classes merely because their parents cannot afford it. It used to be said: "Oh, the children of the working people are needed in industry; they must go to work." But that can hardly be argued at the present time. Looking back we know that it was found possible to carry an industry without the aid of little children of five and six in the factories and little children of seven or eight in the mines. It has even been found possible since 1918 to carry on industry without children under fourteen, and when we are now constantly told that we are suffering from over-production, and when we have over 2,000,000 adults unemployed to say nothing of 100,000 or more juveniles, it can hardly be argued that industry will suffer if children of fourteen are taken
472
away from industry. Again, when it was suggested that the school age should be raised, it sometimes used to be said: "Oh, the children don't need it; the working class children go into industry, and do not need more education." Or it used to be said that they are not capable of benefiting by education. I do not think any of your Lordships really hold that old-fashioned, obsolete, and unreasonable view to-day. I might point out that that was never an argument used with regard to the children of other classes than the working class.
The educational argument for raising the school age is, I think, unanswerable, but, quite apart from the educational argument, owing to the condition of the country to-day there are economic arguments which make it still more necessary that the school age should be raised. I refer to juvenile unemployment. Speaking for myself, and, I think, for my noble friends behind me, supposing all the boys and girls in the schools of the age of fourteen could obtain immediately permanent work with good wages, I would still say keep them at school. I believe the Hadow Report was perfectly right when it laid down that the school and not the factory is the proper place for children of fourteen. I need not spend a great deal of time on the question of juvenile unemployment and the figures connected with it because the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his speech on the Unemployment Bill, dealt very thoroughly and very ably, if I may say so, with that subject. But, as your Lordships know, there has been for a long time a great deal of juvenile unemployment amongst boys and girls of from fourteen to eighteen years of age. That unemployment has greatly increased in recent years, and it is almost certain to increase very much more in the years to come. At the end of 1933 there were about 100,000 juveniles between fourteen and eighteen who had failed to get work, and if you take the unregistered juveniles I believe there are a good many more, something like 130,000.
According to the Ministry of Labour figures, that number will greatly increase because of the high birth rate in the years immediately after the War. There will be more children coming out of the schools at the age of fourteen and onwards, and

473
it is said, I believe correctly, that by 1940 there will be 167,000 more juveniles seeking employment than there were in 1933, and that in the year 1937, which, it is estimated, will be the peak year, there will be no less than 143,000 more children seeking employment than there were in 1933. It is impossible to imagine that all those children can be absorbed in industry. Even the most sanguine optimist would not maintain that industry is likely to expand to such an extent as to absorb that number and, therefore, there will be a great deal more juvenile unemployment. I do not say that none of these children will be employed, because some of them no doubt will find work, especially if industry does expand. I believe rather more have found work this year than was the case in 1933, but there is not the slightest doubt that there will be an enormous number of children seeking employment between this year and 1940—a much greater number than hitherto.
I personally think that all children should be kept at school till they are fifteen or sixteen, and even after that age in the case of children who are able to benefit by education. Children who are likely to benefit from it should be able to carry on their education even to the University. Some of your Lordships will probably not agree with me in that, but I think most of your Lordships will agree that juvenile unemployment is a very serious matter and that if we can get rid of it we ought to do so. Most of it can be got rid of if you raise the school age. If you keep children even one more year at school most of the children now unemployed, I will not say all of them, could be absorbed into industry. Each year you would have this age group of fourteen to fifteen kept out of the labour market which must ease employment conditions for other juveniles. It is pretty certain that most of your juveniles could be absorbed into industry if you raised the school age one year.
It may be said that the Unemployment Act has made provision for juvenile unemployed between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. That, question was also dealt with by the Archbishop of Canterbury but, if I may, I will just summarise the position. An arrangement has been made between the Ministry of Labour and the local authorities by which power is
474
given to local authorities to set up juvenile instruction centres for unemployed children between the ages of fourteen and eighteen and power is given with regard to compulsory attendance. I think there is no doubt that that is quite impracticable mainly for the reason of the impossibility of devising satisfactory courses of study for constantly changing groups of children. No continuity of study would be possible. Then there is the difficulty of finding teachers, and there are other difficulties as well. I have never heard any one greet the proposal with enthusiasm and I cannot think that it appeals very strongly to the noble Viscount, the President of the Board of Education. The Archbishop of Canterbury asked certain questions about the scheme and they were answered by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, so I do not think I need argue it any further, but I will say that whether the scheme in the Unemployment Act be good or bad it cannot be in any sense whatever a satisfactory substitute for raising the school age.
Now as to the demand for the change. There is not the slightest doubt that there is a great demand for this change. Six local authorities have made the change themselves by by-laws, but exemptions are allowed and it is not altogether satisfactory. In the last few months resolutions have been passed all over the country by hundreds of local authorities and by the Association of Education Committees, which I believe represents all local authorities in the country, demanding this change. Resolutions have been passed by large conferences in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, there is a demand for it from the London County Council and from a large conference of Greater London authorities. There is no doubt that there is a great demand all over the country for this change. I do not think there will be any opposition on the part of the parents of children, especially if adequate maintenance allowances are granted, because of the difficulty they have in finding work for their children. Moreover, I think people are more and more realising the importance of education for their children.
Then I come to the question of how it can be done. There are two ways in which the school age can be raised. It can be done through the local authori-

475
ties by by-laws—that is to say, it can be done piecemeal. But the difficulty about that is that there are progressive local authorities and there are backward local authorities; there are rich local authorities, or comparatively rich local authorities, and there are poor local authorities. Even if they obtain the necessary grants from the Board I do not think the5r would all undertake the change for a long time to come. It would be very difficult for many of them to do so. Think of the difficulty of the local authorities in the depressed areas raising the school age of their own accord! And it is in the distressed areas, of course, that the change is most needed. Maintenance grants would be essential and the local authorities would not be able to provide them. I doubt if the change could be made satisfactorily in that way.
Even if it could be done there is the further difficulty that you would have border lines between various districts. You would have one local authority raising the school age to fifteen and a neighbouring local authority not raising the school age. Children in one town would go to school until they were fifteen and children in another town a short way off would leave school at fourteen. One set of children would have educational advantages over the other set of children, while the children in the town where the age was not raised would have advantages with regard to employment over the children who were kept longer at school. That would not be very fair. To some extent that difficulty might be avoided by getting local authorities to raise the age over large areas, but you would still have the trouble of border lines. If the London County Council raised the school age children living just outside London would be at an educational disadvantage and at an advantage with regard to obtaining employment, which would be very unsatisfactory. If you have to do it over large areas by getting groups of local authorities to raise the school age by means of by-laws, why not do it nationally? It would be much better to go straight at it and treat the problem nationally. That is the second way of making the change, by Act of Parliament.
I come now to the question of cost. I said earlier that you could not refuse to raise the school age on the ground of economy at the present time, and I
476
think that is the case. I do not know what the actual gross cost would be, and I am not sure whether anybody knows. I have not heard of any data. Very possibly the noble Viscount when he replies will tell your Lordships what the cost would be. But I think I can say that the net cost will not be a very heavy burden on the country, because there will be several offsets which can be put against the gross cost. For instance, if you keep children longer at school you will have to spend less on evening schools. You will save the expenditure on the juvenile instruction centres which are to be set up under the Unemployment Act. It is estimated that that will cost something like £1,100,000 for 100,000 children. That amount of £1,100,000 will be saved if the school-leaving age is raised because it will not be necessary to carry out the scheme provided for by Sections 13 to 15 of the Unemployment Act. That, of course, will be a saving to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and not directly to the Exchequer, but none the less it will be a national saving. Then again there will be a saving of unemployment benefit if fewer children fail to find employment; and I am sure that many fewer will fail to find employment. There will be considerable savings which can be set off against the gross cost, and I do not think that the alteration in the age will involve a very heavy burden on the taxpayer.
As to the question of teachers and accommodation, it is quite certain that the difficulty of providing teachers and accommodation would not be anything like so great as it would have been even three years ago. There are at the present time a considerable number of teachers unemployed. I have heard it stated that 16 per cent, of the teachers trained in the training colleges during 1933 had not found employment by February, 1934. There should be no difficulty in finding teachers. Again, with regard to accommodation, in spite of the economy campaign a certain amount of building has been carried out—not as much as is required, but there are extra buildings now. But more important than that, there will be fewer children in the schools in the years to come. While the ages from fourteen to eighteen years will be inflated during the next few years, the ages from fourteen years downwards will be deflated. There will be fewer younger

477
children coming into the schools. In fact it is said, and I believe correctly, that in 1937, the peak year, even if you raise the school-leaving age to fifteen years there will still be only 60,000 more children in the schools than there were in 1933, so that there should be no great difficulty about accommodation. Of course more and better accommodation is badly needed all the time, and more teachers are needed because classes ought to be much smaller than they are. I do not say that we have got enough teachers or satisfactory accommodation, but I do say that with the accommodation which we have there is no justification for delaying the raising of the school-leaving age on the ground of inadequacy of teachers or of building accommodation.
I think I have put most of the points with regard to the necessity of raising the age. I have tried to show that the educational arguments for the change are overwhelming and that there are additional economic arguments which make it still more desirable that the age should be raised. I have shown that the scheme under the Unemployment Act is quite inadequate and I have shown that the accommodation and the teachers can be found for the new system. I also have tried to show that the cost would not involve a really heavy burden, but only a very slight burden, on the country. After all, we are constantly told that owing to the marvellous work of the National Government trade is improving, wealth is increasing, and apparently the country is becoming more prosperous every day. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the children of the working men and women, without whom that increased wealth could not have been produced at all, should be given a share of the increased prosperity. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell your Lordships that His Majesty's Government have decided to raise the school-leaving age to fifteen, with adequate maintenance allowances. I hope he will also hold out a promise that in the course of two or three years the age will be raised to sixteen years. I think I am asking for a very modest reform, but I do believe that that change would bring incalculable benefits, not only to the children, but to the future well-being of the nation. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord who has just spoken has brought this matter before the House, for this is a question of quite vital importance to the future of the nation, and the noble Lord through his educational experience speaks on this matter with special knowledge and authority. I rise to support the plea which he has addressed to the President of the Board of Education. This is not a Party question, and I hope it never will be a Party question. Educationists belonging to very different Parties are almost unanimous in their desire to see the age of compulsory education extended. They may differ, and they do differ, as to the particular form which education should take in the additional year or years, but I think there is practical unanimity amongst educationists in the desire to see the time of compulsory education extended. Certainly on this matter I am not speaking from these Benches for myself alone. I know that the great majority of the Bishops would support this demand that the age of education should be extended.
I do so mainly on educational grounds. I believe it is quite impossible for anyone to receive education if he has to leave school at the age of fourteen. There is no member of this House who would be content with his son receiving education which ended at fourteen, and I think, if most of us were frank, that by now we should have forgotten almost everything we learnt at school if we had had to leave at fourteen. The reorganisation of education in this country has been largely based upon the assumption that the age of education would be extended. When, some seven years ago, the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education recommended that the compulsory age should be extended to fifteen, it was thinking not only of an additional twelve months, bat rather it was thinking of children, from the age of eleven, receiving practically four years of secondary education, and educationists are agreed that it is very often the last year of education which sees the fruit of much of the teaching that has gone before. A child at the age of twelve or thirteen is often in a state of considerable mental flux and uncertainty, but at the age of fifteen he is able to grasp much more clearly what before he had only apprehended very slightly.

479
I would like to give the House one quotation from the Report of the Hadow Committee:
"In education, as in industry, there is a law of increasing, as well as of diminishing, returns. Too often it is the sad experience of the teacher to lose his pupils at the very moment when his earlier efforts are about to bear fruit, and when powers which have seemed for long to lie dormant are on the even of bursting into life. The addition of even a few months to the present school life may not seldom enable him to kindle into flame the spark which, but for them, would have been extinguished."
I believe that in the next few years there will be in this country very great social and economic changes. There is nothing more dangerous for a civilisation than an uneducated or imperfectly educated democracy. Democracy has power through the franchise, which is almost universal, which it has not yet learnt to use if democracy is uneducated. Through education you have the most effective safeguard against the despotism or autocracy of a dictatorship, whether from the Right or from the Left. It is only the educated democracy which can decide for itself questions put to it, and criticise the rhetorical utterances of would-be dictators, or the propaganda which often falls from the Press. We shall never get the educated democracy that we desire while the greater part of our children leave school at the age of fourteen.
It is not only on educational grounds that I support the plea which has been addressed to the President of the Board of Education. I also support it on the ground of relieving the pressure of juvenile unemployment. I do not want to repeat figures which have already been given by the noble Lord, but there is one so significant that I must repeat it. In May of this year there were 94,000 boys and girls registered as out of work, a smaller number than last year, but we shall see almost immediately the effect of the so-called bulge, which will flood the labour markets with boys and girls over the age of fourteen. It is estimated, and these figures have received a certain amount of authority from the Minister of Labour, that in 1935 the number of boys and girls available for employment will exceed the number for 1933 by 115,000, and in 1937 by 443,000. What will happen to all those boys who are poured on to the labour market? It is true that with
480
improving trade a certain number of them will be absorbed in industry, as a certain number have been absorbed already, but in what kind of industry will they be absorbed? A large number of these boys are engaged in work which leads nowhere, in work which is temporary and commonly described as "blind alley" employment, sometimes working exceptionally long hours, longer hours than their older brothers or parents are allowed to work, and almost inevitably at the age of sixteen these boys will be thrown on the labour market without having had any kind of adequate training for their future work. There is also the danger to-day that with improving conditions in industry the army of the unemployed juveniles may be reduced at the cost of the army of unemployed adults. The boys will be undertaking work which some time ago was only undertaken by men.
When these boys have been absorbed in industry, when a certain amount of work has been found for them in different ways, there will still remain a large number of boys with no work whatever. Any one who has had anything to do with boys knows that the worst thing for their characters is a long period of unemployment. I have seen myself the characters of boys deteriorating through long spells of unemployment. They lose hope and vitality, and they deteriorate in physique as well as in mentality. Many of them drift from the ranks of the unemployed into the ranks of the unemployable. Some of them drift into a life of crime. The statistics of crime already show that juvenile crime is on the increase, and it is from these juveniles who have never had any permanent employment that there will be drawn those who will take part in riots when there come days of dangerous unrest and unsettlement. I cannot say how strongly I feel the wastage that goes on in human life through these juveniles who have left school having to spend months and sometimes years without gaining any kind of permanent work.
I know it will be said, undoubtedly, that a great deal can be done by juvenile unemployed centres. I have the greatest admiration for the work which has been done and is being done by these centres. I have visited some of these centres, and I know some who have worked in connection with them. The work done has

481
been quite adequate, but it suffers from two defects. One is that the teaching has to be discontinuous, and the other is that the school itself is fluctuating. How can you expect boys to learn very much when they are wondering whether they will be in work next week, when all their thoughts are turning round whether they will get work or not? How can you expect the keenest and most capable of teachers to give really satisfactory teaching when he knows that next week he will find that his class has very largely changed in personnel? I hope;, of course, that the Government will do everything they can to support the juvenile unemployed centres, but they are not really a solution of the whole problem, and I believe the only solution of the problem is KO raise the age of education.
Only by doing this, will you give these boys the education which they require, and only in this way will you reduce appreciably the army of the juvenile unemployed. We are sacrificing human character and human intelligence when we take from the security of the schools these tens of thousands of boys and girls and plunge them to struggle in the river of unemployment. I hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory and favourable answer to the question which has been addressed to them. I believe that if the age of education is extended you will give a better chance to a very large number of these juveniles, and you will enable them in later life to fulfil more worthily their responsibilities as citizens of one of the few nations of the world which still retain order and liberty of thought.
LORD TRENT: My Lords, in rising to give general support to the raising of the school age to fifteen, I should like to draw the attention of the House to one particular aspect of the question, and that is one which offers considerable scope for economies in expenditure, both to the Exchequer and to the local authorities, I refer to the question of day continuation schools. I know that that will not entirely cover the whole problem. The last figures I have been able to get relate to some years ago. At that time there were seventy-five schools dealing with 25,000 children, and in my opinion that figure is capable of a great deal of expansion. It seems to me that the real justification for raising the school
482
age is that fourteen is too young an age at which to leave a child without any guidance in education, and if fourteen is too young it seems to me that fifteen is also too young, because from such inquiries as I have been able to make it seems that it is when children reach the age of sixteen that they really get the greatest benefit from the education received at school.
If, educationally speaking, the crux of the matter is guidance in education, then surely it would be better from every point of view to seek the solution of the problem in some such system as the extension of the day continuation schools. When a child goes out to work, and has a certain amount of discipline in works or factory, it realises more clearly what the lessons are that it is learning at school. I think the two react in a way very beneficial to the child—the education going on simultaneously with the job which it is trying to do in the factory. On this question of day continuation schools I have had some fourteen years experience, and I know that when the particular school that I have in mind was started there was the keenest suspicion, first on the part of trade unionists about the curriculum. After they had inspected the curriculum carefully those suspicions were removed. There was also a great deal of scepticism on the part of the management. With regard to that, I can only say that a few years later, when trade slumped badly and the most drastic economies had to be made, there was never any suggestion that this school should be curtailed in any way. I think that shows that the management really favoured the work done in that school. We know from very many letters received from parents that they are wholeheartedly in favour of some such system.
There is one great advantage to my mind in a school system carried on at works, and that is that it allows the closest co-operation between the doctor, the person responsible for engaging young people and the school teacher. A great deal can be done to improve the health of the young people if they are under the constant supervision of an efficient medical man. It may be said that small firms cannot carry out any such programme as that, but, as I understand it, the local authorities, at any rate in our city—and I should like to pay a high tribute to the great assistance

483
we have received from our local education authority—would be only too willing, if several small firms joined together, to give facilities to work some form of day continuation school. In my view it is not enough to adopt the attitude adopted by some of the largest and most efficient firms, in this country, and used to be adopted by a great many firms on the other side of the Atlantic, which was to pay in some cases tremendously high wages and then think that their responsibility to their work people was finished. My own experience has been that, once reasonable wages are paid, it is the spirit of labour and the spirit in the factory which make more difference to the workers than the enormously high wages; and in getting a good spirit in the factory the school can be a vital factor.
One of the big problems, and I suppose probably the cause of the greatest waste in England to-day, is the problem of sick absenteeism. I am told by medical people that that is very largely a psychological matter. In some firms a man can go away with a broken arm and be back in three or four weeks. A similar accident in another firm or in another part of the country might take a couple of months. It is all a question of the mental outlook of the man to his accident or sickness. In the aggregate the amount of time lost through absence from work runs to an enormous number of hours, and involves industry in tremendous waste. If anything can be done to obtain a satisfactory school spirit—because that is what it comes to, it is the same for factories as it is for a school—that figure falls in a very remarkable way. My own opinion is that the very low figures we have been able to get through that particular form of waste are very largely attributable to the work done in the school. The school to which I refer has not been able to put in a full number of hours as laid down in what is commonly known as the Fisher Act. The children attend for half a day a week, and that means that one-tenth of the children are constantly at school, which does help this question of unemployment mentioned by the noble Lord who raised the question this afternoon. Firms supply the buildings, the work is done during hours without any reduction of pay, and the local education authorities supply the teachers.
484
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a letter from the headmaster of this school:
"It is continuity of education up to years of stability that matters, and the break that usually occurs results in collapse … If it became a choice between raising the age to fifteen or instituting continuation schools I believe the latter would be far more effective, especially as the most optimistic reformers do not believe that raising the age to sixteen is practical politics… The local authorities must tackle the problem by co-ordination between the juvenile employment bureaux, the school clinics, and the day continuation school."
Figures have been given in the newspapers referring to the cost of this grant for maintenance. I do not know whether they are correct, but it seems to me that if some scheme is adopted whereby most of the expenditure for the buildings is undertaken by the firms and the boys and girls are in employment the necessity for a maintenance grant would be very largely done away with. I humbly suggest to the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government that he might consider this problem of juvenile unemployment from the angle of the day continuation school.
LORD NORTHBOURNE: My Lords, this being the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity of addressing the House, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships. The various aspects under which this question can be looked at have been very fully dealt with in many ways, both in speeches and writings—the economic aspects, the educational aspects, and the social aspects. These I propose to leave entirely aside. I have yet to hear any sound refutation of the arguments based on those grounds in favour of raising the school-leaving age. All I wish to do this afternoon is to refer to this matter briefly from the administrative side and from the point of view that what is really necessary at this moment to those local authorities who are engaged in administering the education of this country is an early decision of this question. I think the decision of His Majesty's Government should be in favour of the raising of the school age. It is clearly a matter which cannot be left over for local option, as has been so clearly expressed by the noble Lord who raised the subject this afternoon.
There are three main reasons, I think, why an early decision is important. One

485
is that the local authorities are entrusted with the duty of providing these junior instructional centres. The cost of this task has been estimated. I think the difficulty of spending that money effectively has often been under-estimated. These centres will require an entirely new technique and an entirely new kind of staff. It will take years to find out how to run these centres and to train the staffs that will be necessary. The local education authorities are facing their task bravely, but perhaps not in all cases as hopefully as one could wish. If these local authorities bad the certainty that within a given period a whole age group was going to be taken away from the employment market, I submit that that knowledge would reduce one of their most troublesome uncertainties at the present time. Moreover, it would avoid what is very likely to happen—namely, over-provision in the matter of junior instructional centres in the first few years of their existence.
Secondly, as we all know, the school population of this country is falling. I think that provides an unanswerable administrative argument for the raising of the school age in the near future. Unfortunately, there are a number of districts in this country where large movements of population have taken place, chiefly in the form of expansion from big towns into suburbs. These movements have the same effect administratively and economically as increases of population, because they necessitate entirely new provision for the children moving into new districts. Even in these cases die task of local authorities would be greatly simplified, and they would be able to administer more effectively, if they knew one way or the other whether the school age was going to be raised or not within measurable time. They are, rightly or wrongly, anticipating that at some future date they will have to deal with an entirely new age group, but they do not know when. Lastly, I would like to urge, the fact that the reorganisation of our elementary education on the lines of the Hadow Report has not yet been completed, and is still in a state of being deferred almost indefinitely.
I believe, taking the country as a whole, it is little more than half completed. Neverthelsss, where it has been completed and where the authority has succeeded in carrying out in full the spirit
486
of the Hadow Report, I think everyone will agree it has been a tremendous success and justifies completely the wish, of the Committee that it should cover the full four years. Local authorities have gained the experience necessary in the last few years, and I believe they are ready to complete the scheme. The present position is an impossible one. The scheme is half completed. The raising of the school ago would bring the completion of the reorganisation of elementary education in its train. Both together could be carried out as one scheme. They are naturally one, because for both some new accommodation is necessary. Where it is necessary to provide for reorganisation you can provide at the same time for the increased age group.
The country is committed to reorganisation. It is inevitable that sooner or later the school age must be raised together with the planning and the organisation. To do that separately would be unwise and unbusinesslike. I suggest that this is a time when it is necessary to avoid all possible waste of money. There is only one way to do that and that is by really careful planning ahead. No form of wastefulness is more certain to occur and none is less easy to detect, less easy to analyse and avoid in advance, than that which is caused by bad planning due to uncertainty, or by continual revision of plans which must by their very nature be long-range plans and made to cover many years ahead. Whether they are justified in their feeling of uncertainty or not I do not say, but I submit that local authorities at present are living in a state of very serious uncertainty on this question and that thereby alone great wastage is occurring. I submit that the removal of that uncertainty is a matter of urgency for His Majesty's Government.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX):My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester spoke, I thought, very truly when he said that there was no one better qualified to introduce this subject to your Lordships' House than the noble Lord in whose name the Motion stands; and I am quite sure that the whole House will Join with me in a feeling of gratification that one result of the noble Lord's Motion should have

487
been to induce the noble Lord who spoke last to make his first speech in your Lordships' House and to leave with all your Lordships who heard it a feeling of hope that he may find many other occasions on which he will be prepared to place at the service of your Lordships an informed judgment and great administrative experience.
I would be naturally the first to recognise the importance of the subject with which this debate deals. It is quite true, as the noble Lord who moved the Motion said, that it is a subject that is exciting at the present time no small measure of public interest. I have myself received an important deputation on the matter from Lancashire. The subject, as your Lordships are well aware, is one that has been considerably agitated in London, in the West Riding of Yorkshire and elsewhere, although I think that the noble Lord who moved the Motion fell into some exaggeration when he said, if I heard him correctly, that some hundreds of local authorities had passed resolutions in the sense of his Notice. But that is not a material point. I do not wish, indeed I conceive it is hardly my function this afternoon, to discuss the abstract merits of whether education should cease in our schools at fourteen, or fifteen, or sixteen. I go the whole way with the right reverend Prelate when he draws your Lordships' attention to the importance in these days, and in this country, of an educated democracy. I imagine that there would be no one of your Lordships who would differ from the broad proposition that the more complete your democracy the more educated ought that democracy to be, and I should be prepared entirely to associate myself, as I imagine would all your Lordships, with that judgment. But I conceive my duty this afternoon to be rather, if I may, to discuss for, I am afraid, a slightly longer time than it is usually my habit to occupy your Lordships' attention, what are the practical considerations that necessarily assert themselves in the consideration of the reform to which this Motion invites us.
I take note with much interest of what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Trent, and I need not assure him that everything that he said will be very present to my mind when these matters are under consideration. I think, however, that he
488
would not disagree with me when I say that the particular aspect of the problem to which he directed our attention, however important it may perhaps become, is at present limited in scope, and that I could best serve the convenience of the discussion of this matter by addressing myself to the general arguments that have been used in connection with the Motion, many of which, indeed, are common from whatever aspect of the problem we may choose to approach it. The right reverend Prelate said that this was in no sense a Party question. That, I think, is also a great truth, and in no sense as a Party question should I wish to treat it. The matter is too important, and I think that the facts on which judgment must be based are not facts into which it is profitable to import Party prejudice or any deflection of sound judgment that that Party prejudice might create.
The first fact that I want to emphasis is that it is sometimes assumed that it is possible to raise the school age almost by a stroke of the pen. That, of course, is not so. I need not remind your Lordships that if and when this reform were undertaken it would involve the preparation and the passage of legislation that I am afraid past experience suggests would almost inevitably arouse some controversy of difficulty, and would necessarily engage some measure of Parliamentary time. Your Lordships are well aware that Parliamentary time is heavily mortgaged for some period ahead. It would also involve a considerable interval for the preparation first of all of buildings. Reference has been made by several of those who have taken part in the discussion this afternoon to the fact that with a fall in population the problem of buildings would be very much less difficult. That no doubt to some extent is true, but it always has to be remembered that the fall of population is not uniform, as I shall have occasion to show in a moment, owing to the change of distribution of the population in new housing estates, and the like, which very closely affects the problem, and I am advised, and on such information as I have I believe it to be true, that there is no area in the country to-day where the raising of the school age and the inclusion of additional numbers would not in fact create a considerable difficulty in relation to buildings.

489
Delay would also be imposed by the fact, as I imagine the majority of your Lordships will agree, that there is really very little profit to be extracted from keeping children at school up to the age of fifteen until your reorganisation has progressed so far that you can be reasonably sure that the education to be given to the children is for their advantage. It is quite true at the present moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne said, that re-organisation has proceeded about half way. It has been held up, as we all know, during the last two or three years, by reason of finance and by reason of other considerations, to which I will make reference in a moment, which are independent of finance. Therefore, the conclusion of any impartial investigator, however enthusiastic as an educationist he may be to see the school age raised, will be, I think, that it is impossible to put the raising of the school age into operation under a period of, say, three or four years—that is to say, supposing you decided on it to-morrow, somewhere about 1938.
I stress that point for this reason. The right reverend Prelate laid great stress upon that which 13 indeed I imagine uppermost in most of your minds, the concern that we feel in regard to juvenile unemployment consequent upon what is called the bulge in the older ranks of the school population at the present time. It is thought that by keeping the four-teen-to-fifteen-year-olds in school you will make a substantial contribution to the reduction of unemployment and that the fall of the bulge will make it easy and cheap. The bulge, I think, has encouraged a great deal of arithmetical calculation of not always equal value. I therefore will attempt to give the broad facts to your Lordships with what accuracy I may. I am not sure that I followed completely all the figures given either by the noble Lord who introduced this matter, or by the right reverend Prelate, but I have no doubt they drew them from authentic sources. I merely give the broad picture as I believe it to exist.
There is no dispute that the number of fourteen-to-fifteen-year-old children leaving school recently was very low. It was lowest in the year 1933. There was then a large and sudden increase in 1934 and there will be a further increase
490
in 1935, after which there will be a steady decline. Your Lordships will observe that the effect of that is two-fold. First of all the effect is to cause a large increase in the fourteen-to-fifteen group during this year and next year, and the second effect is to cause a cumulative increase in the whole fourteen to-eighteen-years group up to 1937. From 1938 the increase in the fourteen-to-eighteen-years group is overtaken by the decrease in the fourteen-to-fifteen-years group which has been operating from 1936, and after 1938 the fourteen-to-eighteen-years group itself begins to decline. I trouble your Lordships with that argument to make this broad conclusion, that the result of that argument is that the fourteen-to-fifteen-years group is only a fraction of the whole problem of the fourteen-to-eighteen-years group and that after 1935 it is a diminishing fraction. Therefore I think it is important that that should be stated in order that we may get the fourteen-to-fifteen-years group problem into something like its right perspective in relation to the whole thing.
I confess I was very much astonished, if I heard aright the noble Lord who introduced this subject, when ho said that most of juvenile unemployment could be got rid of by raising the school age to fifteen. With all respect to him and his ordinary lucidity of thought and expression in this House, I am bound to say that I think on the information open to me that in making that statement he fell into grave error. There is this further consequence. If my particular argument is right, as I am convinced it is right on educational grounds, that the introduction of this reform would take three or four years, that in no circumstances could practical effect be given to the raising of the school age before 1938—that is, before the members in the fourteen-to-fifteen years age group will already for two years have been declining—I think that it is evident that the value of it as a contribution to juvenile unemployment can very easily be, and very often is, over-estimated. I felt it necessary to say so much to correct what is in many quarters a great misapprehension of the true relation borne to the whole juvenile unemployment problem by the problem of this fourteen-to-fifteen years age group.
I need hardly assure your Lordships that for years past, when they saw this

491
bulge appearing and looming large and close, the Government gave most careful consideration to the effect on juvenile unemployment during the next three years of these increased numbers to which the right reverend Prelate referred. I agree with him. I do not think it is easy to be definite about the precise effects. It is not easy to forecast the effect and the range of improvement in trade. He quoted the figures for May. I have had supplied to me the figures for June, a month later. At the present moment the number of boys and girls of from fourteen to eighteen years of age registered for employment is 77,000 against 87,000 in June, 1933. That is not quite so good, I agree, as the May figures on paper but I am advised that in fact they may turn out on investigation to be rather better owing to the large number of children who have been absorbed.
He will be aware that the problem, though it is in the truest sense, as he said, a great national problem, does exhibit most startling and extreme local variations. There is, I believe, no juvenile unemployment in London and in certain areas of the Midlands. There is bad juvenile unemployment in areas on the North-East coast, as one would expect, in certain parts of Lancashire and in South Wales, and I have no doubt it is true that to withdraw the age group fourteen to fifteen from employment, if it could be done at this moment, would avoid any unemployment of that group in areas where they might otherwise be unemployed; but it would also, I am advised, cause considerable embarrassment in other areas where there is a positive shortage of juvenile labour to-day or where there is much adult labour dependent upon juvenile labour. We have, of course, need to remember that juvenile labour is not nearly as mobile as adult labour, for reasons which are very obvious to us all. Therefore it is not because I under-estimate in any sense the gravity of the problem that I feel bound to take exception to some of the observations which have been made in regard to the alternative method of dealing with it which His Majesty's Government have up to the present time adopted.
There are, I think, only two methods of dealing with the whole of this juvenile unemployment problem. There is first of
492
all the method of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, of raising the school-leaving age to fifteen; there is secondly the plan proposed under the recent Unemployment Act: the establishment of junior instruction centres. I hope I have said enough to show that the plan of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, touches only a fraction of the problem. It does not, of course, profess to deal with the three age groups of fifteen to eighteen, and whatever its other merits may be it does give very little help, as I have endeavoured to show, for a situation of which time is of the essence, because it does not begin to operate for a substantial period of time. On the other hand under the second method the junior instruction centres do grapple with the whole problem, from fourteen to eighteen, and they get going, as we hope, at once, before the next winter.
That brings me to what must naturally be in the minds of all your Lordships, who I can well imagine would say that that argument may be legitimate if the junior instruction centres are in fact any good. I am well aware that they have been subjected to plenty of criticism, not always very well-informed criticism; but I am satisfied that the event, in this as in some other matters, will prove the critics wrong. The right reverend Prelate spoke in most moving terms of the experience which he had had of watching the characters of boys deteriorate through periods of unemployment and of general relaxation of the anchors of life. I have no doubt that every word that he said in that respect is true, but was he not speaking of a state of affairs which had fallen within his experience before the junior instruction centres had been placed on anything like the permanent basis upon which they will be placed under the new Act? I am for my own part satisfied by the investigations which I have made that those schools can and will do most useful work in protecting boys and girls from the very evils which the right reverend Prelate deplored, by providing them with practical training and by developing their general employability.
The one criticism to which those junior instruction centres stand exposed, which at first sight I agree might seem to have considerable force, is one which I think

493
fell from both the noble Lord who moved this Motion and the right reverend Prelate—namely, that attendance would be less regular than whole-time and continuous attendance, in school. I am bound to differ, however, from the noble Lord who moved the Motion when he says that on that account these centres will be quite impracticable. I would ask him to examine the position a little further. Is it not the case that that criticism loses a good deal of its weight if it is remembered that whore periods of unemployment are short and where therefore the risks of deterioration are the most limited, it will be there, if anywhere, that in-and-out attendance will be the greatest? On the other hand where unemployment is worst—take as an instance the North-East coast, where unemployment is what all of us unhappily know it to be—and where therefore the evils of deterioration will be the greatest, those will be the exact places where, owing to lack of employment, the in-and-out-attendance objection will operate over the smallest field.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I think also spoke as though he were much impressed with the administrative difficulties of getting those junior instruction centres going. He speaks with greater administrative experience from the local point of view than I can claim, but I was greatly impressed the other day by the considered observations of the Director of Education for Durham County, a man who after all is entitled to speak from practical knowledge of the blackest and worst of the problem. Your Lordships may have observed that at a meeting of education committees he felt called upon to rebut with some warmth the suggestion that these junior instruction centres had not been, and would not be, of great value. I have had the opportunity of seeing the scheme which he—and I take him as typical—has worked out, showing in great detail how he would propose to tackle the problem arising in that stricken area practically and very comprehensively.
I have ventured, my Lords, to make rather long observations upon the unemployment side because that is a side which has excited considerable interest throughout the country when this problem has been before it, but your Lordships
494
will, I think, expect me and I hope will permit me to say something also, as I feel bound to do, upon the educational side, to which the noble Lord who moved this Motion made considerable reference. He will not misunderstand me if I say that advocates of the raising of the school-leaving age not infrequently ignore the practical questions which are involved, and assume it to be a very simple matter. I do not discuss what may be held to be the wishes of the majority of parents. That after all must be a matter of individual judgment. The noble Lord opposite did refer to it. A great many reformers never refer to it at all, and indeed speak as if they thought that parents were the last people of any who need be consulted on a matter of this kind. I must at once plead guilty to being sufficiently old-fashioned as to think that in this matter the parent has really a great right of audience. From the representations reaching me from, parents whom I do not know in various parts of the country since this discussion was set afoot in the newspapers, I rather doubt whether parents are as anxious as they are sometimes represented to be, until we have so reorganised our educational system as to be able to give good value; in the extra year, to see their children retained at school.
Then there is the problem, on which I must say a word or two in a moment, of the voluntary schools, and there are all the questions arising from what I may call the social and educational arguments for raising the age, which I think quite clearly depend upon there being no exemptions. I do not profess to speak positively as to whether the country as a whole is ready for raising the school age, with no exemptions in prosperous and non-prosperous districts, and in all forms of unemployment, and if there are no exemptions what is to be the policy pursued about maintenance allowances. The noble Lord who introduced the Motion did speak about maintenance allowances, but he suggested that the cost of the reform, including maintenance allowances, was not likely to be a heavy one, because it would be offset by so many related savings. Now I do not deal at greater length with the questions to which I have referred because I must show now, in as short an argument as I can make, that the over-ruling considera-

495
tion in this matter, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, is finance.
I have had an estimate supplied to me, that if maintenance allowances are given the cost of doing what the noble Lord suggests will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000 a year. Some, I am well aware, say that that estimate is too high.
LORD SANDERSON: Is that with the offsets?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I will come to that in a moment. Others say that that estimate is too low, but I was interested to observe that the local education authorities expect a greater part of it to be borne by the Exchequer. I can quote some words from the retiring President of the Association of Education Committees. Speaking on behalf of the Executive he is reported as saying:
"Parliament must not deny the consequential allowance of maintenance grants where necessity demands it. The allowances must be made by the State and not become an added burden to the already overloaded ratepayer."
That may be right or wrong, but it is only one of the very many competing claims on educational funds at the present time. In fairness to my own position, and to the position of the Government, may I remind your Lordships what some of those claims are?
I have to find every year, at the present time, an increasing charge for the pensions of teachers. This year that sum is £6,750,000, £1,000,000 higher than three years ago, and under Statute that charge continues to grow for some time at the rate of £250,000 a year. I also receive constantly, and I hope I try to deal with them sympathetically, many claims arising out of our present system and commitments. All the noble Lords have referred to the completion of reorganisation, a completion which many education authorities would think ought to proceed further before you make the reform for which the noble Lord asks. There is the plea for the reduction in the numbers of large classes, and I have referred myself to the demands made upon the Exchequer by new housing estates, consequent upon the transfer of population and the clearance of slums. I have figures showing that in Essex, in Barking and Ilford, the numbers of children in elementary schools have increased
496
from 85,000 to nearly 140,000, and in Middlesex from 40,000 to nearly 60,000. Those increases, where they are going on, impose large charges upon public funds, and the end of that process, I am glad to think, is not yet in sight. Then there is the whole, field of secondary and technical education, to the further provision of which many people again, no doubt rightly, attach the greatest importance from the point of view of industry.
Lastly, I am free to confess to my mind the most important of all, there are the claims that may fall under the heading of health services. Your Lordships are aware of the projects for the extension of the provision of milk, admirable as I believe them to be. You will also have present to your minds all the possibilities of remedial or better preventive action to check much deplorable waste of human material which is now going on by reason of the failure to tackle defect and disability among children in the earliest years of life. I do not hesitate to say, without in any way trenching upon what is the proper responsibility of parents, that there is a great field for development here. Very great work has been done, but there is very great work still there to do, and I believe there is not one of your Lordships who will disagree with me when I say that one of the hardest consequences of poverty, as opposed to wealth or affluence, is the case where poverty denies to people the opportunity in time of getting remedial, preventive treatment for the ailments of their children.
It is those kinds of consideration which I am bound to balance in my mind against other reforms for which the noble Lord may plead. I could go on indefinitely. There are the claims of orthopædic schools. Many members of another place are constantly pressing me to introduce nursery schools where housing and social conditions are bad, and I mention these things in order to remind your Lordships that they all involve many millions of pounds. I frankly say that I should be very tempted, if I were a dictator, to give priority of claim to some of these health services and objects to which I have alluded, rather than that for which Lord Sanderson has pleaded. It is, however,

497
impossible to view the educational expenditure of the country except in relation to the general financial position of the country. It is quite true that that position is much better than it was three years ago. That is much to the credit, I think, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was very glad to hear Lord Sanderson say, if I understood him correctly, that the financial improvements of the country reflected credit, although I was not quite certain upon whom.
LORD SANDERSON: I only said I was told it had improved.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Lord may take it from me that it has improved. I am sure he will be very glad to think that his rumour is confirmed, and that it has also formed the subject of much envy among foreign nations, that the National Government has succeeded in improving our financial position to such a degree. It of course is still only convalescing, and perhaps this is the ground of the noble Lord's hesitation. We must not assume that the financial invalid is completely cured. Quite apart from any other necessities for which provision may have to be made, £50,000,000 are required to carry out the expressed intentions of the last Budget. Therefore I should not, I think, be frank with the House or with the country if I did not make it quite plain that these financial facts—the large cost of raising the school age, the competing claims, many of them just as strong, of other educational services and development, and lastly the general financial obligations to which we are already by general consent committed—prevent His Majesty's Government at the present time from considering the raising of the school age as practical politics.
And that general conclusion, I am afraid, is not affected by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that there are savings to be made so important that they can be set off against this increased expenditure, and make the burden, in his words, "not a very heavy one." I think he mentioned the saving through the reduction in juvenile unemployment, firstly in the fourteen-to-fifteen-years group, and, secondly, indirectly in the older age groups which might step in, I suppose, to the places that the fourteen-to fifteen-years group
498
might otherwise have occupied. The amount of saving on that head, as he will recognise, would necessarily be highly speculative, and, as I think he recognises, the main part of the saving would accrue, not to the Exchequer but to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He then spoke about substantial savings to be effected on the juvenile instruction centres. There again the amount is quite uncertain, but it may safely be hazarded that it would not be very large, because he seemed to forget that, however much you withdraw the fourteen-to-fifteen group, you are still left with the necessity for juvenile, instruction centres for the fifteen-to-eighteen groups, and half the cost to central funds involved by those centres is being met out of the Insurance Fund, to which, of course, in consequence, half the savings again would necessarily accrue.
Lastly, there was the saving that might be anticipated from the fall in the numbers of children. Well, there again I have no precise estimate to give to the noble Lord, but I can assure him—what indeed his own experience will readily suggest—that at the best the savings to be expected on t/hat head would be nothing like proportional to the fall in the numbers of the children. Your overhead expenses of many kinds would still, of course, continue. The noble Lord referred to the possibility of local authorities raising the school age by by-law. I am well aware, of course, of all the objections that he stated to exist to that way of advance, and indeed for those reasons I should not anticipate that many authorities would wish so to proceed. If they do, their proposals will be considered on merits, and on merits of the relevant factors: that there is adequate and suitable educational provision, that the employment conditions justify it, and that the financial aspects can be adjusted and are not prohibitive.
Although, for the reasons that I have felt it my duty to give, the problem is to-day, in the view of His Majesty's Government, not one of immediate practical politics, I think it necessary shortly to revert to the problem of the voluntary schools, because it is a very fundamental one, and one that is constantly ignored or pushed aside by the supporters of the raising of the school age. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite made any

499
reference to it in the course of his observations. I would recall in a sentence or two what happened when the Bill of the then Labour Government was before another place. An Amendment was carried on the Report stage by a member of the Labour Party against the Government inserting a provision that the Bill should
"not come into operation until an Act has been passed authorising expenditure out of public funds upon such conditions as are necessary to meet the cost to be incurred by the managers of non-provided schools in meeting the requirements of the provisions of this Act."
That, as we all know very well, was no sudden or catch decision. Indeed, on the contrary, I believe that the fundamental importance of the question of the effect on voluntary schools had become abundantly plain as soon as Sir Charles Trevelyan had introduced his first Bill twelve months earlier, and during the whole of the intervening twelve months he had been engaged in quite continuous, but also unsuccessful, efforts to secure an agreed settlement of the voluntary school question which the problem raised.
And it is quite certain, especially, I think, in the light of reorganisation, that if at any time a fresh attempt were made to raise the school age without at the same time dealing with the voluntary school problem, the attempt would suffer exactly the same fate. This is not surprising when it is remembered how large a part the voluntary schools still play in the elementary school system of the country. Roughly, one-third of all the children in elementary schools are in voluntary schools, and the proportion, high as it is, is in some areas higher still. Thus, taking together the forty-five authorities in the geographical area of Lancashire, the proportion is not less than fifty per cent., and in Manchester and Liverpool together there are not fewer than 110,000 children in voluntary schools, representing nearly half the school population. I have said so much and I mention those figures because I think that side of the problem, like finance, is constantly overlooked, and in my judgment it is very important that all who wish to see an advance of the kind for which the noble Lord has pleaded—an advance which, assuming that finance was no obstacle and that educational provision for the varying needs of children were satisfactory, many of your Lordships with myself
500
would, I doubt not, regard as a natural development of our educational system— should, in preparation for that, examine these correlated problems and make an attempt to find a solution of them.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long, but for the present, and as immediate means of dealing with the urgent question of juvenile unemployment, the new Government Act must hold the field. It has been deliberately drafted not to embarrass future legislation in the sense desired by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and it in no way bars that road when it may be found possible to take it. On the contrary, I think that junior instruction centres, now to be set upon a permanent basis, may and will be found to afford a most valuable guide to the types of instruction that can best be given to the juveniles of older ages. I for my part am confident that the machinery there created is one of real power and real potential value, and that local authorities will, without exception, use their best endeavours to take full advantage of it. It is not necessary for me to say that they can count upon the ready help and co-operation in whatever way we can most usefully give it, of both my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and myself, and I have no doubt that if we can all work together at this problem with determination and with good will we can achieve results of which in years to come we shall have no cause to be ashamed, and which will be the means of bringing real benefit to those future citizens of this country whom today, I fancy, most of us have had in mind. With regard to the noble Lord's demand for Papers, I am afraid I have no other Papers to lay than those which have already been made public.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount very much for his reply and also for the very kind reference which he made—misled, I suppose, by the kind reference made by the right reverend Prelate—to my competence to raise this question. I am sorry to say I am not so competent as he and the right reverend Prelate imagined, as I have completely failed to persuade the noble Viscount to do what I asked him to do. I must not at this time begin arguing again with the noble Viscount, but I should like to do so very much on many of the points he has raised. With

501
regard to the two corrections he made to my statement, it was perhaps an exaggeration to say hundreds of local authorities, but I was rather thinking of the numbers represented in large conferences and especially in the Association of Education Committees; I suppose there would be almost hundreds represented there. Then again, with regard to the figures he gave as to future juvenile unemployment, I have not had time to consider them carefully yet, but I shall do so. I said most of the juvenile unemployment could be removed if the children were kept another year at school. That may have been a slight exaggeration, but I still think that if you keep a whole age group a year longer at school, if you keep something like 300,000 children another year at school, you must relieve very greatly the amount of juvenile unemployment in the country. Each year it must be considerably less, and I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that the raising of the school age would effect a considerable reduction in juvenile unemployment.
With regard to the provision made for juvenile instruction classes under the Unemployment Act, I am afraid the noble Viscount has not at all convinced me. They may not be quite so bad as I thought, but they are still pretty bad, and they are no substitute for the raising of the school age. I am sorry to say the noble Viscount's speech is a very great disappointment to me, and I know it will be a very great disappointment to numbers of people all over the country. However, we shall try again. I have been advocating the raising of the school age for the last twenty years, and I have not done yet. In conclusion, I should again like very much to thank the noble Vis-
502
count and ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name, which is in pursuance of the promise given to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, last week. The names of the noble Lords whom I suggest should form the Committee have been discussed and approved through the usual channels, and I do not think we could have a body more apt to discharge the duty we are asking them to perform.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Standing Orders of the House, with a view to any amendment or revision of the same which may result in a saving of expense, having particular reference to the daily reprinting and recirculation of Motions or Notices which are left for considerable periods on the Order Paper.
That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Lucan,

L. Stanmore,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition I have to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for so quickly and adequately responding to his request.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
From Minutes of July 11.]
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with. Amendments.

CATERHAM AND WOLDINGHAM AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertakings authorised by the Caterham Electric Lighting Order, 1900, and the Woldingham and District Electricity Special Order, 1924:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SAFFRON WALDEN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Saffron Walden Electricity Special Order, 1923:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WEST USK ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Usk in the County of Monmouth:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.