Sitting of 21 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords],
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage District) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Amendments are only alterations of date, the effect of which is to bring this Sewerage Board into existence a month earlier.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939).
Estimate presented, — of the further numbers required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March 1940 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 163.]

BILL PRESENTED.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,
"to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

POULTRY INDUSTRY BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.
    Adjourned at Four Minutes after Four o'Clock until Monday next, 24th July

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.

      CLASS III.
      HOME OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £ 722,561, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and contributions towards the expenses of Probation." —[Note. — £ 500,000 has been voted on account.]
      11.7 a.m.
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £ 100.
      I move this reduction principally in order that I, along with my hon. Friends, may draw attention to the hours of work of juvenile labour in this country, especially in relation to Sections 70 and 71 of the Factories Act, 1937. I think it is a good thing that we should turn aside for a moment from the vast preparations we are making in order to protect ourselves against aggression from without, in order for a moment to consider how we can protect ourselves against aggression from within— how, in other words, we can safeguard those small social advantages that have been won during the last few years. My hon. Friends are of the opinion that many of these advantages are being attacked, or are in serious danger of being attacked, and this morning I wish to draw special attention to an attack that is being made on the youngest section of our wage-earning population.
      We move with leaden feet in these matters. The 10-hour Act is nearly 100 years old, and yet to-day, with all the tremendous advances that have been made in technical productivity in the world, all the abundant resources in the world that can give us more food than we can eat, more clothes than we can wear and more houses than we can live in, if we have the will so to organise things, the most
      908
      we can do is to give an ordinary 8-hour day to children of 14 years of age. When the Factories Bill first came to the House, its provisions appalled me, not because of what the Bill proposed to abolish, but because of what it proposed to sanction. I suppose I was all the more appalled by the provisions because I was made aware, for the first time, as were perhaps many other hon. Members, of the employment conditions in a field of industry about which previously I had only the most slender knowledge. That was especially so as to the hours of employment of young persons, in what was then Clause 68 of the Bill, particularly as that Clause related to young persons between 14 and 16 years of age.
      I should like to remind the Committee of the original provisions of the Bill. Originally it provided that these young persons could be allowed to start work, at 14 years of age, at 6 o'clock in the morning. They could be allowed, at 14 years of age, to work a 9-hour day and to have an 11-hour spread-over— or, in other words, could be required to be about the premises for 11 hours a day— and to work in all a 48-hour week. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I protested against those provisions, as did other hon. Members, and, therefore, the Home Secretary of that time, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had ample time, if he so desired, to put down Amendments on the Committee stage to meet the more serious criticisms that had been made on the Second Reading of the Bill; but in fact, I am bound to make this point, that what is now Section 71—the 44-hour Section— was put down in the Committee stage of the Bill at the very last minute, when the Home Secretary himself was most anxious to get the Bill back on to the Floor of the House, and when in fact, as my hon. Friends who were in the Standing Committee will remember, we had spent three or four very hard and fatiguing months in considering the Committee stage of the Bill.
      In the Committee stage the original Bill was modified in two directions. First, the 6 o'clock start became a 7 o'clock start, and, secondly, there was a new Clause added, the present Section 71, which concedes a 44-hour week to all young persons between 14 and 16 with powers to the Home Secretary to increase

      909
      the hours up to 48, if, after inquiry, he is satisfied, as to any particular industry, that he should do so. He may then make regulations for that purpose, and it is about the very wide use of that power, which I think was entirely unexpected and unanticipated when the Clause was agreed to in Committee and in the House, that my hon. Friends are very seriously concerned. Perhaps I may be allowed at this stage to point out one reason why we thought it necessary to raise this matter in this fashion. It is because of the modus operandi of the Act itself. The Act concedes a 48-hour week for all women and young persons from 1st July, 1938. It concedes a 44-hour week for young persons from 14 to 16 as from 1st July, 1939; but where an application of the type I have indicated is made under Section 71, the 48-hour week continues until the Home Secretary has given a negative decision, or unless and until regulations laid by him on the Table of the House have been negatived by the House.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): May I correct the hon. Member, as I would not like a misunderstanding to exist from the outset of the Debate? The hon. Member said that where an application has been made the status quo as regards hours continues until the Home Secretary's decision is given. I think it ought to be made quite clear that it is only where an inquiry has been ordered by the Secretary of State that the status quo continues.
      Mr. Ridley: I do not want to quarrel with the Under-Secretary, but I hardly think his correction was worth while. The position is that where an application has been made, unless it is turned down by the Home Secretary, the 48-hour week continues. If it is not turned down, that is obviously because the right hon. Gentleman orders an inquiry, and in those circumstances the 48-hour week continues. On 29th June, according to a Parliamentary reply, 17 applications had been made.
      Mr. Peake: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but 17 is not the number of applications. It is the number of inquiries ordered, which is a very different figure.
      Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the Under-Secretary will allow me to complete my sentence. I have read this Act very carefully, and I was about to say that 17 applications have been made, which were subject to inquiry. Three of them at that date had been recommended, three were not recommended, two had been withdrawn and nine were then proceeding, of which some, I believe, have since been subject to recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman, in any event, has issued draft Orders as to the cotton, woollen and carpet industries covering 38,000 young persons. These orders must be in draft for 40 days and must be laid on the Table of the House for 28 Parliamentary days, but they cannot be laid until after the Summer Recess, because the 40 days during which they must be in draft, will not be completed until then. When we come back, owing to what will be called "pressure of business," we shall only be able to pray against them after 11 o'clock at night. That will be, perhaps, next November.
      Suppose the House disapproves of the regulations. It may not be the same House of Commons next November; in fact, if a General Election intervenes, nobody supposes that it will be. The Under-Secretary smiles, but does he suppose that if an appeal were made to the country at this moment the result would be a repetition of the swollen, exaggerated majority which at present with unexampled docility— except on occasions like the night before last— helps this Government to push through its legislation. Suppose, in any event, that the House exercises its right to disapprove of the regulations, then the employers in this case will have had a 48-hour week covering 38,000 young person for between four and five months—to which they may be legally but are not morally entitled. Indeed, I can well believe that some employers delayed their applications under Clause 71 in order to have, in any event, the advantage of the negative provisions, of the Clause.
      I turn to one or two reasons why the Home Secretary should not vary the standard provisions of Clause 71. In Committee there were two outstanding-Debates. One was on the age of entry into industry, which we desired to raise from 14 years to 15 years. The other was on the 40-hour week. It is not without

      911
      significance that on both points we had the support of every responsible organisation that communicated with us, including the National Union of Teachers, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the National Council for Equal Citizenship, the Committee on Wage-Earning Children — which one hon. Member opposite did not always represent effectively on the Committee, although he is associated with it— the Save the Children Fund and the Workers' Educational Association. Despite that considerable body of responsible support we failed on both points, for two reasons. We failed on the age of entry because of the beneficial employment Section in the Education Act, and because the then Home Secretary would not advise the Committee that employment in a factory at the age of 14 was not beneficial to the child.
      It is remarkable, however, that in this matter the wheel has come full circle and that most local education authorities, certainly most enlightened authorities, are now considerably in advance of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. Most of them have laid down conditions, in regard to hours and terms of beneficial employment for young persons which are better than anything included in the Factories Act. The Amendment in favour of a 40-hour week was defeated, because it was urged that it would destroy the economic foundations of industry. I can still hear, ringing in my ears, speeches made upstairs two years ago, reminiscent of a state of mind which existed 100 years ago. In the end we squeezed the 44-hour provision out of the Government. In my view it is a bad provision because, although it may shorten the working week, it makes no compulsory provision for shortening the hours of employment over all, unless the Home Secretary makes regulations. Employers can still, despite the 44-hour week, work a young person 11 hours a day. The employer may comply technically with the Section by lengthening the meal interval with no advantage to the child, unless the Home Secretary, by regulations made under Sub-section (4), otherwise prescribes.
      I raised this matter on the Report stage. The then Under-Secretary said it was a point of substance, and although I was not satisfied with what
      912
      he said, I withdrew my Amendment because of his assurances. I would like the Home Secretary to say what regulations have been made under this provision whether they have been made in all cases or in some only, and what is the nature of those regulations. By the regulations which the Home Secretary proposes to lay, and drafts of which are already in circulation, in this case alone 38,000 young persons are being thrown on to the 48-hour week to which every responsible person and organisation, education and medical, is unhesitatingly opposed. A young person may be required to work nine hours in a day and to be about the premises for 11 hours.
      I invite the Committee to consider this case which is permissible within the terms of the Act. Suppose a girl of 14 lives half-an-hour away from her work and her work commences, as the Act permits, at 7 o'clock in the morning. She must leave home at 6.30 a.m. She must be up by 5.45 a.m. She can be required to be about the premises where she works until 6 p.m. She is home at 6.30 p.m. She has washed, dressed and had her meal by 7.30 p.m. She has then only 10¼ hours before she is compelled to be up again to go back to work. If, as frequently happens, not only London but also in the Lancashire cotton industry, the young person is living an hour away from her work, the interval is only 9¼ hours. I recognise that a child may be hardly any better off on a 44-hour week than on a 48-hour week if no regulations are made under Sub-section (4), but I contend that the smaller the advantage to the child the meaner it is to deprive the child of that advantage.
      I emphasise the fact that the Act permits conditions of employment for young persons of 14 which requires them to rise at 5.45 in the morning, when they are still drugged with sleep. I have a youngster, but I would not dream, for all the money that the world could provide me, of engaging in the process of ruining that child's health, winter and summer, by compelling her to wake for an arduous and fatiguing day's work at that hour in the morning, and I invite those who contemplate that sort of thing with equanimity to read the terrible story of young Darius Clayhanger, in Arnold Bennett's famous novel. Our children will be bigger and stronger because they

      913
      will both sleep and play more than the children in the Lancashire cotton industry, who will be governed by these proposed regulations. By these regulations the Home Secretary will deprive 38,000 young persons of both sleep and recreation, and I invite the Under-Secretary of State to observe that although the Employment of Young Persons Act, passed last year, was in many respects a very unsatisfactory and bad Act indeed, it did lay down a 44-hour week for young persons from 14 to 16 from which there can be no exception and as to which the Home Secretary can allow no varying regulation.
      Many of my hon. Friends are taking part in a fitness campaign. I invite the Under-Secretary of State to say in what way these youngsters, working 48 hours a week, getting up before six in the morning, too tired at the end of the day's work to either cycle or swim, can take part in a great fitness campaign. How can we hope to build from them a nation worthy of modern civilisation? The Clause provides that as to these regulations three conditions shall be satisfied. One is that the extra hours
      "would not be likely to be injurious to the health of young persons."
      Will the Under-Secretary of State dare to say that to deprive these youngsters of four hours' sleep or four hours' recreation per week, to deprive them of 200 hours per year of either, will not be injurious to their health? Nobody dare say that, and nobody could justify such a statement, even if they attempted to make it. I relate this question of health to the question of physical fatigue. It is an unfortunate thing, for which I blame nobody, that the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1938 is not available for us to-day, and so I have to go back to the report for 1937, on page 37 of which I read the following:
      "It seems evident that not until there is a far greater change in the outlook of employers and managers generally with regard to problems appertaining to the employment of young workers will there be an appreciable reduction in the number and gravity of accidents. … Many persons in responsible positions are slow to realise the great change in young people's lives when they begin work in factories and enter into new and strange spheres of activity of which they have no knowledge or experience and where the rules of conduct are very different from those of, say, the playground. … They cannot be ex-
      914
      pected to have the stability and reasoned judgment of people of mature age. A common reason given for an accident is—" who could have expected him to do such a silly thing," whereas, often enough, the so-called "silly things" are just the actions that might be expected from one unaccustomed to machinery and inexperienced in its possible dangers."
      On the Second Reading of the Bill an hon. Member said that young people under these provisions should be taught to be much more careful in the handling of machinery, as though at the age of 14 we are to rear a stern-faced set of grown men, treating machinery with very great care so that their fingers are not injured in the process. The two years covered by these draft regulations are dangerously important years in child development, and we may by improper feeding, by lack of adequate sleep and air, leave physical marks on them for the rest of their lives. It is a happy thing that more and more of our people are turning to outdoor recreational life with enormous benefit to the community, but we are now proposing by these regulations to deny to 38,000 young people all the opportunities that the children of most Members of this House will be able freely to enjoy. The Lancashire cotton operative has endured 150 years of the worst form of capitalist exploitation, and the annals of this House are crowded with efforts to meet the consequences of such exploitation. The physical marks of it are on them now, and we propose to perpetuate it in their children.
      I have had the opportunity of reading the statement of evidence given by the United Textile Factory Workers' Association to the Commission of Inquiry. The Union was emphatically opposed to the application of the employers, despite the grave economic pressure on the Lancashire cotton operative to find earnings and money wherever he can. I was impressed, as others would be if they had the opportunity to read it, by the quiet, unexaggerated strength of the arguments put forward. As to health, the statement said:
      "It is hardly likely that even the employers will claim that life inside a cotton mill is extremely healthy and that the longer one stays therein the more healthy will one be. Cotton operatives are not remarkable for an unduly healthy appearance, and we submit that the more hours that are spent by them inside a cotton mill the less healthy will they be, and to that extent increased working hours are injurious. Work in cotton mills is arduous and fatiguing, is carried on particularly in spinning rooms, where the temperature

      915
      is high and the atmosphere humid and far from being such as to warrant more being spent therein than is absolutely necessary."
      We should not confine these youngsters, but we should liberate them, for health and education, and for all the pursuits that are natural to my youngsters and that ought to be just as natural to those of everybody else. Evidence was given before the inquiry by two doctors on behalf of the employers. One said that four more hours per week in a cotton mill would not be injurious to the health of a child of 14, and the other said that 48 hours would not be harmful. I do not like to think of doctors prostituting themselves or their profession in this way, and I hope that before this debate is over we shall discover that there are more enlightened members of the medical profession in this Committee than that.
      Mr, Tomlinson: May I point out that there is not a medical man in Lancashire with a child in a cotton mill?
      Mr. Ridley: There is another condition which has to be satisfied, and that is that the employment of these young persons is necessary, owing to the condition of the industry, and I suppose that the Home Secretary is so satisfied with the argument that all employers have used for over a century, that the greatness of a nation depends on the weariness of its little children. That is the language, the philosophy, against which Shaftesbury and Owen so magnificently rebelled, and so must we rebel. The unions themselves say that the industry could adjust itself to the necessary change, and in that connection I must draw attention to what seems to have been the opinion in Committee upstairs of the then Home Secretary. These are very important words. In moving the Clause upstairs, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
      "There will have to be adjustments. At the Home Office we have steadily maintained the view, which I stated in the Committee, that the mere fact that there would have to be adjustments or some inconvenience to industry was no reason for not making a necessary and justified change. That has been received in very good spirit by those with whom we have been dealing. In the cotton industry, or in certain branches of it, and the woollen industry, for instance, many young persons are largely employed as members of a team, and there will have to be a very considerable amount of reorganisation." —
      916
      [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 27th May, 1937; cols. 914–5.]
      Those words could only convey the impression to Members of the Committee upstairs that there would be no variation of the standard provision in the Clause in connection with the industries mentioned that in fact exceptions from the standard provision would be exceptional and would not become so general as to cease to be exceptional altogether.
      There is a third provision about which I want to say a word, that is, that the industry must be particularly suitable to young persons. The unions do not deny some suitability, but they do deny particular suitability. On the contrary, they assert that wages and hours in the cotton industry at the moment are so unattractive that juveniles avoid it rather than accept it, and that the position in the cotton industry would be aggravated by the proposed regulations. So far from worsening the present conditions, they are in need of drastic improvement. As to the necessity for familiarising the young person with the processes of the industry, which is another condition, no one can contend that, if a young person of 14 cannot become familiar with the processes in a 44-hour week, a 48-hour week will make any difference. Another point is that many local authorities, including the Lancashire County Council, prescribe, as to beneficial employment in the Education Act, no young person between 14 and 15 shall be employed for more than 36 hours a week.
      I ask the Under-Secretary to examine the cruel ironic inconsistency which will now be created. A young girl of 14 leaves school at the end of this summer term. She goes into a cotton mill. If these regulations are imposed, she will commence to work a 48-hour week and, if the regulations are approved, she will continue to do so because she will have been employed at the operative date of the regulations. If her cousin becomes somewhere in the middle of November she will not be allowed to go into a cotton mill at all, not because the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough so to frame his regulations that they will not apply to young persons between 14 and 15 who are not now in the industry, but because the Lancashire County Council has laid it down that they will not even tolerate 44 hours. They insist on 36

      917
      hours. They have more morality in the matter to the extent of 33⅛ Per cent. than appears to be in the possession of the Home Office.
      We are dealing with children. You cannot change the characteristics of a child merely by a clever piece of legal terminology in an Act of Parliament. You do not by statutory provision change a child in a night to a young person, no matter how many capital letters you may use in spelling the two words. Many Members are familiar with "Acquisitive Society." In that great book Tawney
      says:
      "In England a new race of nearly 900,000 souls bursts upon us every year and if, instead of rejuvenating the world, they grind corn for the Philistines and doff bobbins for mill owners, the responsibility is ours, into whose hands the prodigalities of nature pour life itself, and who let it slip aimlessly through the fingers that close so greedily on material riches."
      I move to reduce the Vote in order to give the Committee a chance of saying what it means by a good society. Do we believe in a society which deliberately and diabolically exploits some of its children in this fashion, or a society which provides ever-expanding opportunities for health and education? The draft regulations cannot be justified morally or economically, and this House ought to express its complete disapproval of the proposal to impose on other people's children conditions which we would not tolerate for our own.
      11.40 a.m.
      Sir Cyril Entwistle: I am sure we have all listened with very great sympathy to the hon. Member's eloquent and sincere speech. There can be no question that every Member of the House is desirous of reducing the hours of work of young persons, but in this country we obtain our reforms by adjustment and by alterations which can be practically achieved without causing such injury to industry that the benefits of reduced hours for young persons would be lost through the disadvantages that it imposes on the industry as a whole. I am rising only to deal with an industry which affects my own constituency, and to deal with the regulations as affecting the cotton textile industry. We all want to reduce the hours of labour to the maximum extent that is practicable without greatly prejudicing the industry concerned. It is true that the trade unions in the industry
      918
      did oppose the application for an inquiry under this Act to extend the 44 hours, which is the standard number of working hours allowed for young persons, but the employers' associations put forward this application on the ground that it was of vital importance to the industry that these regulations should be made.
      It would not be quite obvious from the hon. Member's speech that the Factories Act started with placing the maximum hours for young persons at 48, and it was in Committee that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer conceded the Amendment which reduced the hours for young persons under 16 to 44. That was contained in Section 71 (2). But an essential condition of the Amendment was that, if certain conditions were fulfilled as regards the class or description of factory, there should be an extension of the 44 hours to 48. Those conditions were very carefully laid down, and the Amendment was accepted only on those conditions being incorporated in the exceptions. [Interruption] I do not say that every Member agreed to those conditions, but it was on those conditions that the reduction from 48 to 44 was inserted. They were by no means light conditions which can be easily complied with. They were conditions of a very stringent character, and it had to be shown that they were vital to the industry. The first condition that had to be satisfied was that the industry in that class or description of factory is so dependent on the employment of such young persons that it would be seriously prejudiced unless the hours were permitted to be increased. The hon. Member quoted from the Chancellor's speech to indicate that he gave no suggestion that an application applying to the textile industry would come within the exemptions provided in this section.
      Mr. Ridley: I do not want to misrepresent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially when he is not here, but if the extract from his speech which I have quoted is carefully read, it will be found to convey the impression that regulations would not be made in the case of the industries quoted, and that exceptions would be exceptional. My hon. Friends hesitatingly accepted the Clause for that reason.
      Sir C. Entwistle: I really cannot accept that as a fair interpretation of what the

      919
      Chancellor of the Exchequer said in Committee. I have his words here, and I think they give exactly the opposite impression. In consenting to the Amendment reducing the hours from 48 to 44 he made it quite clear that exemptions should be permissible on the grounds with which I am dealing, and in illustrating the need for exemptions being possible, if those conditions are satisfied, he illustrated the cotton industry. He used these words:
      "There are industries— my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) knows this very well, as do others, particularly the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. Brooks) — in which there is a very close interdependence between the different classes of labour— what has been called "team work" by one or two people. I need not give illustrations, since they are known, but they are extremely important and cover, in the case of the textile industry, a very large part of the work." — [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B) 20th April, 1937, col. 1295].
      In giving that illustration he was indicating the class of case which would be entitled to exemption as complying with the conditions on which exemption can be granted, so I suggest that, so far from the Chancellor of the Exchequer having given the impression when the Factories Act was going through Committee that an exemption could be granted to all the spinning and weaving factories, as these regulations provide, he expressly indicated that that was the type of case in which exemptions would be granted. The first condition was that the industry is dependent upon the employment of young persons, and that it would be seriously prejudiced unless the hours were increased. Why can it be said that in the cotton industry this condition is peculiarly satisfied, probably, far more so than in any other industry that could be selected? It so happens that in the Lancashire cotton industry there are machines on which young persons are employed either in preliminary processes on those machines or in assisting the adults who are working on those machines, so that if the young persons who were not so employed the whole machine would stop.
      Mr. Watkins: Must those young persons be 14 or 15 years of age? Could they not be older?
      Viscountess Astor: Could they not be 16?
      Sir C. Entwistle: Apart from young persons who were already engaged at the date of the regulations coming into force the exemption which was recommended by the committee of inquiry and which is now contained in these regulations applied only to young persons of 15. Exemption is not granted to young persons of 14 unless they are actually in employment at the time the regulations come into force. [Interruption.] The raising of the school-leaving age would mean, in practice, that young persons of 14 would not be available for these processes in the cotton industry.
      Viscountess Astor: What will the cotton industry do then?
      Sir C. Entwistle: If you remove all the young persons of 14 that is an additional reason for allowing the young persons of 15 to be engaged on these processes if their non-engagement will be seriously detrimental to the employment of adults.
      Viscountess Astor: Is the hon. Member telling us seriously that the cotton industry could not just as well engage children of 16 as 15? Does he really mean that children of 16 would not do the work as wel1, or even better? I do not believe that to be so.
      Sir C. Entwistle: Many factors arise in connection with the employment of young persons. There is, no doubt, the question of the costs of production, if the industry is to survive. Everyone will admit that the cotton industry is having a harder time than any other industry in this country. A committee which spent five days hearing all the evidence put before it was satisfied that the processes on which young persons are employed in the cotton industry are not injurious to their health. Furthermore, there is the third condition. I have been trying to deal with the three conditions but have been interrupted in the process. The second condition is that it is not injurious to health that these young persons should be so employed.
      The third condition, and it is an important one— [Interruption] — I said that this committee of inquiry, which was composed of independent persons and heard evidence for five days, found as a fact that the employment of young persons in these processes is not injurious

      921
      to their health. It is true that no employment in a factory can be good for anyone, adult or young person, and it is much worse of course for young persons than for adults. We should all be better if we spent all our time in the open air. All these matters are, of course, relative, but it was found that the processes on which these young persons are employed are not arduous in the sense of being heavy manual labour or imposing a strain upon them. They involve, rather, skill and technical proficiency, which these young persons rapidly acquire. And on the whole these factories are large, airy and well ventilated. In so far as conditions of labour must not be injurious to health, that provision is satisfied by the cotton mills as well as it reasonably can be satisfied. That was the second condition.
      The third condition that has to be complied with is that the work is particularly suitable for young persons— and that the committee so found— and that their employment on such work would help to train them for permanent employment in the industry. In the cotton industry these young persons are employed as piecers, tenters, doffers and reachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) has spent all his life in the cotton industry and knows much more about these occupations than I do, and I think he will admit that a ring doffer eventually becomes a ring spinner, a reacher becomes a twister and a tenter becomes a weaver. Those are natural graduations. The young people are employed on the same machines as adults, and in course of time become qualified for the work for which adults are employed, and the important point is that so interdependent are these processes that if the preliminary processes are not kept in balance with the other processes it has a very direct effect on the wages of the adults.
      It may be asked why adjustments cannot be made to reduce the hours of employment of these young persons. If they are to be employed for 44 hours a week and the adults for 48 on the same machines, clearly only two alternatives are possible. Either additional labour must be employed for those four hours a week, and it is an impracticable thing to engage people to work for four hours only, or we should have to double
      922
      the number of young persons and let them work for 24 hours a week. That would be the much preferable alternative.
      There is no doubt at this point of time that the overwhelming argument against that second alternative would be a question of cost of production, but there is another argument. It is that you tend to lose efficiency in the working of these machines if the adult has two sets of young persons employed, one set for half the time and the other for the remaining time. These are real difficulties in the working of the particular processes of the Lancashire cotton industry, and I submit that they are not present in other industries. They peculiarly satisfy the very conditions in the Act and the condition on which the Section reducing the hours to 44 was approved by this House.
      References have been made to the shortage of juvenile labour in Lancashire. That is a condition very much to be regretted, and it is no doubt due to the depressed state of the cotton industry; but the very fact that there is a shortage of juvenile labour when such labour is so essential in the present conditions of organisation of the cotton industry is a ground rather for introducing these lower hours gradually and of exempting young persons of 15 years of age from the strict provision of the 44-hour week, in view of the various factors which I have pointed out.
      I have put as fairly as possible the points which the employers' associations put before the committee of inquiry. The committee was an independent one and it made a very long investigation, lasting over five days. It found, as a fact, that these conditions, which all would admit, if you are to have any exemption, are stringent but reasonable, had been complied with. I would remind the Committee what those conditions were: That it would be gravely prejudicial to the industry as a whole if those young persons were not permitted to engage in this particular employment, that it would not be injurious to their health and that their employment in such processes tends to train them and secure their employment in after life. On those facts, I would ask the Committee to approve of the regulations, of which a draft scheme has been laid before the House.
      11.58 a.m.
      Mr. Tomlinson: Never did I listen to two Debates in the course of a single week which ran so directly parallel to each other as that which took place the other night on the minimum for agricultural labourers and that which is now taking place. The characteristic feature of the Debate on agricultural labourers and their minimum wage resembles what I see is the characteristic feature of this one. The young people about whom we are speaking this morning are to receive exactly the same treatment as the agricultural labourers received. The committee agreed in principle with the desire to do well by these children and said, in effect: "We all have sympathy with them, but, owing to the circumstances of the case, we are bound to inflict these hardships upon them," I am not impelled to follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle), because he has endeavoured, much more fairly than did the employers in the cotton industry themselves, to set out their case for the exemption of these children from the application of the Factories Act in Lancashire. I am glad, in a way, that the first draft regulations being laid are with regard to the cotton industry, because that industry has always been regarded as dependent to a great extent upon the labour of young people. Always, when changes have been contemplated in the law, the difficulties because of the employment of young children have been pointed out.
      Let me give an illustration which should prove this conclusively. This is not a question of argument but of facts from experience. My father went into the cotton mill at eight years of age. At that time the employers in the cotton industry were convinced that he could be made into a much better cotton operative by going into the mill at that age than he could possibly be if he went in later, because his fingers were nimble and he could be trained. He was trained from the age of eight. His height was five feet, four inches. I went into the mill— the same mill and the same factory in which he began— at 11 years of age. I went half-time. The employers in Lancashire were so liberal at that time that they thought it to the advantage of young people to spend half their time in the factory and half in school. I have in my possession, and I would not part with it for worlds, a certificate issued by
      924
      the local authority telling the world that George Tomlinson, at 11 years of age, had put in so many thousand attendances in the course of seven years at school and now, on the authority of the urban district council of that district, had received beneficial employment.
      As I look back upon it I think of the days when I attempted to find my way to work on the arm of my father, finishing my sleep as I went through the fields which divided the factory from the home in which we lived, and I wonder how people could manufacture such phrases as those of which my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) spoke, and such as "beneficial employment." Beneficial to whom? There was only one reason why I went into the mill at 11 years of age. Make no mistake about it. I know the reason. It meant 2s. 3d. a week in the home, in which, at that time, were seven people with an average wage coming in of 26s. per week. The 2s. 3d. per week made it easier for my mother to come somewhat near to balancing the family budget. That was the only beneficial aspect of that employment to which I was sent. My fingers were nimble at 11 and my father's were nimble at eight. I have a girl now 22 years of age. Had I not had experience in the mill and been a little better placed than the majority of mill operatives, she would have gone into the mill at 14 years of age. Her fingers were nimble. Let us get out of our head this idea. There is nothing in it at all. In modern industry nimble fingers are not required. Nimble feet are required in order to keep up with the pace of the machine, but the argument about nimble fingers does not enter into it.
      In that respect I would like to take the hon. and learned Member to task, not in any spirit of animosity, with regard to the actual facts of juvenile labour in Lancashire at the present time. He-proved much more conclusively— to himself at any rate, but not to me—than the employers did in that inquiry. I have read the evidence of that inquiry, and I have before me now the findings of that independent Commission. It was held in Manchester. The findings state definitely that although the Committee had come to the conclusion that the employers proved their case to the extent of being allowed the extra hour, they did not particularise, and it was only in

      925
      general that they agreed that the withdrawal of these young people would be prejudicial to the industry. I want to point out that there are less than 5 per cent. of these juveniles in the cotton industry at the present time, and not a single employer who went into the box to give evidence would answer the question, deliberately put to him by the representatives of my trade union, to whether it would be necessary for him to close down in the event of this regulation not being allowed. They said it would interfere.
      The hon. and learned Member for Bolton used one argument with respect to the possibility of the change-over of children, of having, rather than one period of 48 hours, two periods of 24 hours each. I have heard the argument many times before. He said it would have the effect that there would be less efficiency in the working of these machines if two sets of employés were engaged. That argument has been used by the Lancashire employers for quite a long time. I want to give the secret behind it. It is not a question of less efficiency; it is a question, very often, of bringing to book the individual who is responsible for any faults that may happen in a given time, and, if there is an interruption at a given place, there may be difficulty in finding who is the culprit that is responsible for a bit of cloth that has been spoiled or some twist that has gone wrong. But whenever any employers in Lancashire receive an order from the Government in connect with rearmament, where it is necessary that more hours of labour should be put in than before, they attempt to introduce, and often succeed in introducing, the shift system. What happens then? The very machines which cannot be entrusted to two sets of young people are entrusted to two sets of adults, and the same difficulties arise, but the machines are kept going, because the production is required in that particular factory.
      Again, the suggestion is made that there is a shortage of young labour in Lancashire. Of course there is a shortage of young labour in Lancashire. What is the reason? It is the very reason that I pointed out in the debate on the wages of the agricultural labourer. It is not the old agricultural labourer who leaves the land; it is the youngster who grows
      926
      up and sees all that has taken place with regard to his father and mother, and the conditions they had to put up with. That is what is happening in Lancashire. Who are the children that go into the mill? Two doctors gave evidence. It is not often that I show animosity towards my fellow men; I like to think kindly of them; but I hate to see people in good circumstances come along and suggest that it is not detrimental. Who are the children who go into the mill? Who are the children that we can recruit for the mill?
      Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the hon. Member say what the doctors said?
      Mr. Tomlinson: The doctors said in evidence that it would not be prejudicial to the health of the children if they were employed in these large airy mills— I hope I may be forgiven this reference to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton— which I do not recognise. I have lived in Lancashire for a long time, and I am dealing with a point of fact. I know most of the mills in Lancashire, and, with very few exceptions, I should not recognise them under the description that was given by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton.
      Mr. Wakefield: Did the medical evidence deal with the length of time worked? Was it just prejudicial to the factories, or was evidence brought in with regard to hours?
      Mr. Tomlinson: The same thing applies. If it is prejudicial for them to work 44 hours, it is prejudicial for them to work 48 hours. It is all a question of degree of prejudice. You do not say that, because a man can withstand poison for 23 minutes, but would die in 25 minutes, therefore the poison is good for him for 23 minutes. It is all a question of degree, and the doctors were answering questions that were put to them in connection with the inquiry, so that it was a question of hours— whether it would be prejudicial for them to work 48 hours as against 44, and that was the evidence they gave. But this is the point that aggravates me. I say unhesitatingly that there is not a son or a daughter of a medical man in Lancashire in the mills to-day— not one. Why? Because it is not worth while. That is the one reason alone.

      927
      As for the question of recruitment, who are they? The only children who go into the mill— make no mistake about it— are the children who do not get the opportunity of going to a secondary school. In the first place, you have creamed off a section of the community in Lancashire, and have said to them, "We will give you the opportunity of a better education in the future. You can go to the secondary school until you are 16." The creaming off process has begun there. There is another section, those who are 14 years of age, which is the school leaving age at the present time. The children of 16 do not go into the mill for the simple reason that very often the impetus to the parents to send them to the secondary school is just in order to qualify them not to go into the mill. Because of their experience in the cotton mill, they want to keep their children away from it. The sacrifices that I know are being made by parents in Lancashire to send their children to the secondary school are in the main due to the fact that they want to keep their children out of the cotton mill. Therefore, there is a restricted field.
      There are the children of 14, but even these children, many of them are attending our new modern central schools, where they get a better type of education than has ever been given before. The one thing in the minds of the mothers and fathers in Lancashire, when they send their children to the central school and see these new developments, is that they may acquire sufficient skill with their fingers and brains to enable them to escape the mill. It would not be possible to recruit labour for the Lancashire cotton mills at all at the present time if it were not for economic circumstances. Make no mistake about that. The only children in Lancashire who are going into the mill are the children of parents who cannot afford to see them walking the street and cannot afford to send them anywhere else. They drift into the mills; they do not go into the mills to-day. Throughout the history of the cotton trade— because this has been the experience for the last 50 years; it is not something that has just come upon the cotton industry; it is not just related to the slump that has taken place in the industry— throughout the history of the cotton trade for the last
      928
      century the tendency has always been to drive the children away.
      I suggest that this House, and particularly the Home Office, not only from the point of view of health but, I would suggest to the employers, from the standpoint of the industry, could have been doing something to make this industry-attractive to the young people. Reference has been made to what is being attempted through the Education Act when the new school leaving age comes into operation, and I realise the value of the provision that has been made by the Committee for not allowing these draft regulations to apply to children until they are 15 years of age, and for determining the date oh which the school leaving age comes into operation. I think that that was the only logical thing to do. What is the position, and why were they driven into that position? The answer is here. They say quite definitely that they were compelled to recommend this because the employers had made it clear that, whatever happened with regard to the 44 or 48-hour week, they would not employ young children on the basis laid down by the Lancashire Education Committee as necessary to qualify for beneficial employment— in other words, that they would let the machines stop or find some other method of keeping them running if a 36-hour week was enforced, either by the Lancashire education authority or by any other educational authority. Therefore they said it must not apply to children until they reach the age at which under the Exemption Clauses of the Act of 1936 they would be coming into the open market. So we have got practically a 12 months' release for these children under the draft regulations that are put before us. There is one other thing that I want to ask the Under-Secretary to do in that regard, and that is to see to it that in every other industry where draft regulations are drawn up this same Clause is inserted, because, unless that is done, the anomaly will be created in those districts which it has been sought to avoid in Lancashire by the reference to the cotton, woollen and other industries.
      Every month that is rescued for the children, every month that the children are saved from attendance in these places, is a month to the good. Although I realise that the Committee were driven to that position by a county council

      929
      that is more Conservative than the National Government from the standpoint of political complexion, yet the Committee saw the necessity, and many of them are cotton employers. Why? These people who are interested in education have been carrying on also the business of the cotton industry, and they have definitely come to the conclusion that unless in some way they can make the industry attractive to the young people the death-knell of the industry has been sounded, not from outside but from inside; the seeds of destruction are there because of the treatment that has been meted out to the children. I do not want to quarrel with the composition of the tribunal. I have read the evidence and the conclusions of the Committee, and I cannot help feeling that they paid more attention to the needs of the industry than to the needs of the children. In my judgment that is the wrong way about and conclusively a case ought to be proved for an industry before you begin to sacrifice children's lives to it. For these reasons I shall support the reduction of the Vote. I had not the advantage of being in the House when the Factories Act was passed, but I have read the evidence and the report of the Standing Committee. It seems to me that to include in an Act a certain standard and then to allow regulations to be made so that that standard will be administered out of existence, is a wrong principle.
      12.18 p.m.
      Viscountess Astor: I regret that the House is not full of Members to-day, for, to my mind, there is nothing more important before the country than the question of the treatment of our young people. I am convinced that it was the wish of this House that young people under 16 should not work for more than 44 hours a week. That was the wish of the whole House of Commons, and in my opinion it is still the wish of the House of Commons. Those of us who are here to-day wish, before the time when these regulations come in, to arouse the House of Commons, and if we cannot arouse the House of Commons we want to arouse certain sections in the country and make them arouse the House of Commons. I never heard the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) speak with so faint a heart as he did to-day. It was quite obvious
      930
      that he was speaking for a certain section of his constituents. But he did not make out a case. If his own child were affected he would not dare to bring forward such arguments. I am sorry he spoke as he did, although I understand that sometimes we have to speak for our constituents. But I say to the hon. and learned Member "Go home and tell them that you never spoke in this House with so faint a heart, and never made out so bad a case."
      What was the case? I missed the first point of it, but perhaps the hon. and learned Member will tell me what it was. I remember his second point. It was that the cotton industry could not get on without these children. I want to say here and now that every one who has been in this House for the last 10 years knows that there is something radically wrong with cotton. The reason is largely that it is an inherited industry. Old men start it and leave it to sons and grandsons, finally it gets into the position in which we find it to-day. Every one knows that. That is one of the reasons for the present condition of the industry. It needs reorganisation. It is said that the industry depends on the children of 14 working 48 hours a week. No one dare say that in this House. Reference has been made to the statements of doctors, and to the contention that it was good for children of 14 to work in the factories 48 hours a week. It is time to protest against statements so outrageous. They are the same old arguments that Shaftesbury heard, the same arguments that we always hear when it is proposed to reduce the hours of labour. It can be proved that industries that have reduced the hours of labour, not only for juveniles but for older workers, are making bigger profits to-day than they made when the hours were longer and the industries were not organised. It is interesting to note that well-organised industries are not asking for such regulations as these. The hon. and learned Member's third point was that this work was good for the young people. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) has spoken with authority and knowledge on this subject. While he was speaking I was thinking to myself "My goodness, had I been in this position, had it been me or had it been my child going into the factory under those conditions, the red

      931
      flag would not be red enough for me; no red flag would be red enough."
      I beg the House to rise in protest and not allow the Government to do that which was never intended when the Act was passed. There was not a single Member of the Standing Committee which considered the Factories Act who wanted children to work 48 hours a week. There is still time to stop this proposal. We have been told to-day that there are fewer children in Lancashire going into the cotton factories. The hon. Member for Farnworth said that they would not go unless driven there. That is the tragedy of it. Only the poorest children go into the factories. The cream of the young people has been taken off by other occupations. I am proud of the Lancashire Education Authorities. They are helping to save us. The same thing is happening all over the country, and we ought to be very grateful. I often wonder how in this House and in the country we can talk about the nation keeping fit and about children's clubs, and then consider even for a moment that any child up to 16 years of age should work 48 hours a week. I have evidence here which is most interesting, from the trade unions, and from Miss Adler, who has gone to every one of these inquiries and has done yeoman work. What an absurd House of Commons we shall be if, after we have passed millions to keep children fit, we allow children to work 48 hours a week in the factories. The hon. and learned Member said something about those who start as tenters and doffers and twisters. Then they become M.Ps. If we do not take action now it will look as though we are twisters.
      Another reason why fewer children are going into the cotton industry is that fewer children are being born. Of all countries that ought to look after its juveniles, we are the chief. We have a falling birth rate, and, instead of talking about how we are to get the birth rate up, I wonder whether Members would not do better to think of preserving those who are born; seeing that they are fit, and that they grow to manhood. Go into any of the industrial areas, or even into the hotels here, and look at the pitiful little specimens we have got. It is an insult to bring forward these regulations. I am convinced that the Home Secretary will
      932
      not pass them when he sees them. He has shown great courage and vision in connection with his Criminal Justice Bill. I think his social record is very good; and the social record of his party, so far as young people are concerned, is extraordinarily good. This party has done more for young people in the last 25 years than anybody.
      Mr. Cove: Is it not the Home Secretary who has made the regulations?
      Viscountess Astor: The Home Secretary makes regulations every day. If he passes these he is going to make it impossible for thousands of young people either to get exercise or to attend educational courses. This is one of the most reactionary proposals that have ever been brought before the House. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has looked at this. Have the Cabinet passed it? Is it just something which has been forced on them by the employers? It cannot be the policy of the Government. We are talking of having an election in October. Are we going on the cry that industry needs children of 14 to work 48 hours a week? That is not possible. Even expediency will prevent that. Ask any social worker about this. Do not ask those two doctors. I would not ask doctors at all. What do doctors know about people who are well? They never see anybody but sick people. Ask the mothers. If it is said that it is not injurious to the children's bodies, what about their minds? I do not think there is anything more tragic than to see children of 14 compelled to work. We have heard pleas on behalf of the refugees, the children of China, Spain, and other countries. We ought to have more pleas made on behalf of the children here. We get the House crowded for something that seems of vital importance, yet when it is a question of these young people there is hardly anyone here. Of course, it is Friday; but even if it were Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday there would not be many Members here.
      There is no sacrifice that would be too great to make to keep our young people out of the factories, certainly until they are 15; and I hope that some day we shall keep them out until they are 16. Of all the periods of life this is the most important. You do not find the totalitarian States overworking their young people. In Russia they will send women down the

      933
      mines, but they take great care of their children. Italy, Germany and Russia are wise enough to know that, not from a spiritual point of view but from a purely material point of view, it is madness not to take the greatest care of their young people. I beg every hon. Member to look into this. If the cotton industry or any other industry say that they have to have children of 14, ask them to try the children of 16. It is nonsense to say that the little hands, the nimble fingers are essential. What we need is trained minds. Look at what Rugby has done. That is the only town in the country which has adopted the whole of the Fisher Act, and it has never had any juvenile employment problem. The position there is magnificent. Instead of passing these regulations we should insist that the whole country should put the Fisher Act into effect. Then this problem would not come up.
      Nothing is more pathetic than the way in which opportunities have been wasted, because of the blindness that has been shown. One saw that blindness in 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, when we were fighting for the Fisher Act. If we had had it put into effect we should have had no juvenile employment problem at all. I appeal to hon. Members, and I appeal above all to the young men. I know their hearts are in the right place, and I hope they will start a rebellion. It would be a very good thing for the Government if you had a quiet little rebellion. You need not tell the papers about it, but you could go to the Government and say that you are young at heart, and that— [An Hon. Member: "Your boss is there."] I am certain the Chief Whip would not want his boy to go into the factory at 14, and work 48 hours a week. I ask the Chief Whip, who is all-powerful, to look into the matter.
      Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lady to address somebody who is standing outside the House?
      The Deputy-Chairman: I was going to draw the Noble Lady's attention to the fact that she is not in order in addressing somebody outside the House.
      Viscountess Astor: The Chief Whip ought to come inside. Parliament has power to turn down these Regulations.
      934
      If we do not, it will be an everlasting disgrace that at this time of national crisis we did not do our best, not for a section but for the whole country, by guarding the lives and health of our juveniles.
      12.34 p.m.
      Mr. Owen Evans: We have had two extraordinary speeches, which impressed me very much. I do not pretend to know anything about the conditions of work in the cotton industry in particular. It is refreshing to have speeches made here which certainly show a clear knowledge of the subject with which they are dealing. Speaking as one who is engaged in industry on an extensive scale, I cannot help feeling that the House of Commons would not have accepted Section 71 if they had really believed that there would be wide use made of it. I believe that most of those who are engaged in industry are amazed at the number of applications under this Section which have been disclosed to-day, and I would like the Undersecretary to give us more definite information as to the nature and scope of the applications that have already been made. If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, there have been 17 applications in respect of which inquiries have been ordered, and the Committee would like to know how many other applications have been received, in respect of what trades, and how many people are affected?
      Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that no applications have been received from his own country?
      Mr. Evans: Certainly no application has been made by any industry with which I am concerned, and I do not think that there is any important industry in this country which, if properly organised in its production, need take advantage of this particular Section. We may pride ourselves that some progress has been made even since the time when the Labour party were in office and introduced a Factory Bill, as the provision made in this Section is a little in advance of what was suggested a few years earlier. Therefore, I think it can be said that public opinion is progressive and more conscious of the necessity of doing something drastic in regard to the employment of juvenile labour.
      It is true to say that the health of young persons employed in industry has

      935
      improved enormously during the past 20 or 25 years, and that that is due very largely to careful medical supervision and inspection not only with regard to the health of the individual, but also with regard to the conditions and atmosphere of the factories and the conditions affecting employment. Figures have been published of the medical examination of young persons of 20 and 21 in connection with the Military Training Act, and I must confess that I have grave doubts with regard to those figures and the slovenliness with which the examination may have been conducted. I do not believe that it is possible in five minutes to make a thorough medical examination of any individual. I am glad to give the information to the Committee that in one of the industries with which I am connected there were 35 young persons due to undergo training, and I had them thoroughly medically examined, including X-ray and an examination of the heart, and the report of the medical officers was highly satisfactory. It is amazing that there should be a big industry desiring to take a retrograde step. It really must have become old-fashioned due to hereditary reasons, and it wants some new blood in it in order to reorganise it.
      I also want to draw the attention of the Committee— and I would like the Under-Secretary in the course of the debate to give some information on this matter— to another very important section of the Factories Act. I refer to Section 11. I put great important upon that Section, which deals with power to require medical supervision in factories. The cotton industry is not the only industry in this country which is an old and languishing industry. The greatness and prosperity of this country in the future will depend not so much upon these old industries as upon the establishment of new industries in the country, including particularly industries of a chemical nature. In all these industries problems of great gravity arise which cause uneasiness and worry to those concerned with the management, and I ask the Under-Secretary to state whether progress has been made in establishing medical supervision in factories as contemplated in Section 11 of the Act, as I regard that as one means of improving the health of the workers and the conditions of labour in factories.
      12.42 p.m.
      Mrs. Tate: I believe that every speaker, with the exception of one, has been in agreement as to the undesirability of working juveniles for 48 hours a week. I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) is no longer in the House, as I would like to deal with his argument, which was that it was in the interests of the cotton industry that these juveniles should be employed for the longer hours. No one who cares for the employment of our people can be disinterested in the welfare of the cotton trade, but I, personally, feel that, if the welfare of a trade depends upon the over-working of young children, then, the sooner it is wound up the better. And I do not believe it is true to say that the cotton trade is dependent upon these few children working for these extra hours. As the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, it is the old argument which has been heard on every occasion when any effort has been made to ameliorate conditions or to progress. When we passed the Factories Act, which we did with pride and with pleasure, and on which we congratulated the Government, most of us truly believed that in future it would be the rarest possible thing for a child of 16 to work more than 44 hours per week, but if these regulations are passed, I am afraid that it will no longer be a rare thing, and vast numbers of children will have to work 48 hours a week.
      With regard to the argument as to whether or not it is bad for the children's health, what two doctors said in regard to their physical health leaves me absolutely cold. I was told 14 years ago by three doctors that as long as I lived I could never hope to be on my feet for more than an hour a day. Upon what do they judge health? Surely, it is rather reactionary to judge the health of a child on the health of the body alone. Have we not learned that true health is health of mind as well as body, and can a child have a healthy mind who has to go to work for 48 hours a week and has no time for recreation and for the extension of its education? In every industry where there has been facility and encouragement of after-care and after-education, the industry itself has developed.

      937
      One hon. Member said that there was a scarcity of juvenile labour. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth that you will go on having a scarcity and having an appalling birth rate if you treat the child at the age of adolescence in a way that is unwise. These girls who go into industry at the age of 14 are the future mothers of the nation, and whether they will be physically perfect for motherhood depends, perhaps, more than anything else on how they are treated from the age of 12 to 18. Therefore, it is very undesirable that these girls should be doing anything which in any way will fatigue them in a degree that will be detrimental to their after life. They must be fatigued if they are to be at work for 48 hours a week. The same argument applies to the boys.
      I beg the Government to reconsider these regulations. I shall vote for a reduction of the Minister's salary. I realise that we are going through difficult times, but this is the wrong way in which to economise, and the wrong way in which to save an industry. One hon. Member spoke of the excellent central schools. It is a farce to spend large sums of money on better education if the whole of that education is to be wasted by children going into industry at too early an age and working too long hours. Part of the education we give to-day is of an unpractical nature. In many instances we are spending so much money on building central schools which in some cases we are not able to afford. I know that in the West Country are are spending money in building central schools. I speak particularly of Frome, when we could very well have utilised the admirable schools in the villages, which would have been infinitely better for the health of the children and for the purses of the ratepayers. Let us have a more practicable idea of the way to spend our money. Do not let hon. Members come to this House and say that the welfare of the cotton industry is depending upon overworking our young people. That is a pitable suggestion. The Government who have so admirable a record in what they have done for the health of the nation and the welfare of the young people, ought not to undo their good work by these ridiculous regulations.
      12.48 p.m.
      Mr. Woods: Those of us who were on the Standing Committee which dealt with
      938
      this Bill felt when we had finished the Committee proceedings, although we were not very happy about them, that by reducing the hours of juvenile employment from 48 to 44 we had at least achieved something that justified us, and gave us some satisfaction for having spent so much time upstairs. But when we learned that there was to be an inquiry into the conditions in the cotton industry and that the result of the inquiry might be that the Home Secretary would give his consent to an increase of the hours of children of 15 to 16 to 48 per week, we felt that we were going back again and that we had been swindled. We feel to-day very strongly that a tremendous injustice has been inflicted upon thousands of young people.
      Those of us who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) felt that there we had the authentic voice of the people of this country, and when we listened to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) we felt that we had the echo of the reactionary voice that has been speaking throughout the centuries— an echo of that same voice which has contended that it was necessary for the father of the hon. Member for Farnworth to be sent to the mill at the age of eight, and for the hon. Member for Farnworth to go into the mill at 11. All along the line there has been no progress in that regard. When I hear hon. Members opposite who belong to a Party which has persistently endorsed that retrograde voice, a Party which has embodied the policy of that voice in legislation to the detriment of the people of this country, claiming to be progressives, all I can say is that this Committee has an opportunity to-day of reversing that policy by supporting the reduction of the Vote.
      The issue is very simple. We have to decide what is the major claim upon the interest and attention of this House, whether it is the interest of industry or the human interest, whether it is the process by which profits are made for the few, or whether it is the health, the happiness and the education of our people. I maintain that the only way of achieving a satisfactory industry is by subordinating industrial processes to human needs. There is no economic prosperity unless it is reflected in the lives of the people.

      939
      The question of the health of the people is our main consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton has put the point that at the inquiry it was shown that the cotton industry needs this juvenile labour to work extra hours. His second argument was that this is not detrimental to the health of the young people. The only evidence that we have had so far is that of two doctors. I shall not be quite so harsh on the medical profession as the Don. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). There are good, bad and indifferent doctors, just as there are good, bad and indifferent Members of Parliament. If an effort had been made to secure the representative voice of Lancashire medical men, especially those who have practised among the poor people, who are the operatives in Lancashire, or the school medical officers who know these children before they go into industry and have to deal with them after they have gone into industry, I am sure a very different opinion would have been given.
      The third point, which was not developed, was that here is a justification for the extension of hours, because it is preparing and equipping these young people for permanent employment in industry. Those who know the conditions in Lancashire know the pitiable results there of permanent unemployment for a considerable proportion of the population in every town and village. How can we justify the employment of these young people for these long hours in Lancashire on the ground that it is qualifying them for permanent employment, while their own parents are walking the streets looking for jobs? There seems to me to be no argument for it. One realises the ultimate futility of these children coming from school and being sent into the factory and made to work these long hours in these circumstances. Why should we not give their parents a chance of work? I am not very happy about the inquiry that has taken place in regard to the cotton industry. From what I can gather, there was very little time for preparation for the inquiry, which was held at short notice. It was more or less a hole-and-corner inquiry. The whole of the evidence so far as the employers were concerned seems to have been taken from one federation. It is well known that in the cotton industry the Federation of Employers that exists does not represent
      940
      the whole of the employers and that when it speaks it speaks only as a majority opinion.
      I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what effort was made to secure the evidence of employers in the cotton industry who were prepared to insist on and to apply the 44-hour week for these juveniles. Was any effort made? I can give him the name of employers, owners of textile factories in Lancashire, who are anxious to apply a 44-hour week for juveniles. If one employer or a group of employers in any industry are satisfied that they can make this step forward and discontinue the employment of young people for 48 hours a week, it should be the standard and we should not legislate in the interests of those who, because of incapacity or greed for profit, are anxious to perpetuate the bad old system. I am not interested in the cotton industry but I am interested in certain other industries, and I can see in this a very bad precedent. The aspirations which we entertained by the passing of the Act will be wiped out if we do not make a stand on this matter. Several other inquiries are going forward, and it is because we see the possibility of many thousands of young people being robbed of their legitimate opportunities for enjoyment and recreation that we appeal to the Minister to review this matter and to hon. Members of this House to assist us in improving the conditions of employment for young people in this country
      12.57 p.m.
      Mr. Denman: I am grateful indeed to the Opposition for raising this important matter this afternoon and giving the Committee an opportunity of putting pressure upon the Government and on public opinion in favour of a reduction in the hours of young persons. I am grateful for the speech of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), and I have only one small point of difference with him which I will deal with at once. He blamed the Home Secretary. I do not think that was fair. The people who are really to blame are ourselves and public opinion at large. If he had moved to reduce our own salaries by 10 I could go into the Lobby with him, but I cannot go into the Lobby to reduce the salary of the Home Secretary, because it is we who are responsible for the posi-

      941
      tion in which the Home Secretary finds himself. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) seemed to refer to 48 hours as the pre-Act standard and to imply that by Section 71 we had reduced it to 44 hours. In fact, the pre-Act standard permitted hours up to 60.
      Mr. Woods: I am aware of that, but the assumption was that when the Act came into operation the hours would come down to 44 instead of continuing at 48.
      Mr. Denman: That is a happy assumption, but I am afraid the majority of the Committee had no such optimistic feeling. A 48-hour week was an improvement on the existing law. We fought for 40 hours, and we obtained 44, with possible exceptions, and I for my part never under-rated the dangers of that possible exception, nor did I ever imagine that there would not be cases in which that exception would be applied. Our duty is to see that the application of the exception is reduced to as small an area as possible, and to make it clear to the Home Secretary that this House would not stand for an administration of the Act which in fact would mean 48 hours as the normal working time for children under 16.
      Mr. Ridley: How can the hon. Member make that clear to the Home Secretary unless he votes for the Amendment?
      Mr. Denman: I think we shall make it sufficiently clear by debate. By voting for the Amendment we should be blaming the Home Secretary who as far as I can see has done nothing unfair in the administration of the Act. I think we should encourage the Home Secretary in resisting any pressure to administer the Act to the disadvantage of children.
      Viscountess Astor: Does not the hon. Member think that it is a good way to show our disappointment with the Home Secretary in allowing so many exceptions, which will affect thousands of young children, by voting for the Amendment? Is it not better to go into the Lobby and show our disapproval? The vote is more powerful than the tongue.
      Mr. Denman: I do not think on this occasion that a Vote is anything like as powerful at the tongue. I am sure that the Noble Lady's vote will exercise far less influence than her most interesting
      942
      speech. We must realise the simple fact that the Home Secretary is bound by Statute. Contrast has been made between the action of the Home Secretary and the action of the Lancashire County Council. Both of them have to administer an Act. The Home Secretary has to administer the Factories Act and the Lancashire County Council has to administer the Education Act. I rejoice that education authorities throughout the country are making use of the Education Act, in a way which I hoped they would, in so limiting the hours of children entering industry as to make something like a small revolution in this matter. I am extremely pleased to see that so many large authorities are insisting on hours not exceeding 36 or 40. If we gave the Home Secretary the Education Act to administer he could have done the same, but we gave him this Section 71 instead in which he is obliged, if he administers it fairly, to have inquiries, and he is in a semi-judicial position in relation to these inquiries. I want us to put the utmost pressure upon the Home Secretary to administer the Act for the benefit of these children, but we must admit that it was our own action that has put him in the position of having to administer Section 71.
      Having said that, I want to return to what is a far more important matter, and that is the complete agreement between hon. Members on the necessity for shortening the hours of these children. Forty-four hours was a compromise, it was not what we wanted, but we are rapidly, under the leadership of the education authorities, coming to see that 44 hours is excessive. All the old arguments cut no ice at all. There is the argument that they are necessary for the industry. The hon. Member for Finsbury pointed out that there are textile firms in Lancashire who can manage on 44 hours and even less. There is the well known case of Tootal Lee and Co. where children are allowed to take off seven hours a week for education. It is, therefore, quite clear that 44 hours a week is a possibility in that industry. Of course, the evidence that these long hours are injurious is overwhelming. The admirable reports of the factory inspectors show that again and again. The 1937 report of the Chief Inspectors of Factories has already been quoted, and I will quote another passage from it:

      943
      "The incidence of accidents to young workers under the age of 18, in proportion to the numbers in employment, is greater in frequency and sometimes in severity than to adult workers of the corresponding sex."
      It is obvious from the figures that the majority of the cases occurred during the first two years of employment. Clearly, in those first two years there must be shorter hours if the risk of accident is to be lessened. It is clear, moreover, that these children suffer fatigue, and not on1y is that fatigue a cause of accidents, but it prevents the children from having that reasonable development of mind and body which we expect our children to have in these days. I think we often look at this problem from a wrong point of view when we argue for shorter hours merely on the ground that long hours are injurious and unnecessary. The point of view from which we should look at the problem is the more positive one that we must provide such conditions of employment as give the best possible chance of development and training to children. If instead of seeking to prevent injury, you alter your outlook and say that employment in industry for children is tolerable only if it is such that it enables them to attain, not perhaps the best possible development, but the reasonably best development of which they are capable, then you have a more constructive outlook from which to approach the whole problem.
      Is a given employment consistent with the best use and development of the brains of the children? I cannot believe that 48 hours in a factory is really the best way of developing any child. To put a person to a machine, to make him mechanically-minded, to destroy so much of that natural human enjoyment, which necessarily is the result when a person is made part of a machine, cannot be a good beginning at the ages of 14 and 15. I think we ought to attempt a positive line of advance. In Committee we cannot suggest legislation, but fortunately, there is on the Statute Book already the Fisher Act, which enables us to proceed with adult education in part-time classes. On those lines, we can make the entry into industry partly educative in a general sense, and consistent with good physique, and also give initial training in the technical work of the job in question. That mixed system of education and work in the factory I believe
      944
      to be the real solution of our problem. It is on those lines that I trust we shall steadily advance.
      1.9 p.m.
      Mr. Sexton: It is indeed interesting this morning, even in this sparsely attended Committee, to get away from the uttermost parts of the earth and to look at the problems right on our own doorsteps. At about this time last year there was developing an international crisis. An attempt was made to solve that crisis by a policy of appeasement. I think the question before us this morning, the sanctioning of these Orders, is an attempt to carry out appeasement to the Hitlers at home, who are demanding that boys and girls in industry shall be employed up to 48 hours a week. It is true that there have been great improvements in factory and mining laws during the last century, but from some points of view, the aspect is still a sombre one, and there are many pressing problems to be solved.
      The excellent reports issued by the factory inspectors and the Commissions that have inquired into hours of labour are interesting and informative documents, and they are arresting in some of their details. The 1937 report of the Commission of Inquiry into the hours of labour of young people in unregulated occupations is a volume which every Member and every employer of labour ought to read. Out of it came the Act that was passed recently, and which made some attempt to reduce the hours of work. There was need for that reduction, for we were told in that report that there were 4,170 van-boys working up to 54 hours a week, 1,295 working up to 60 hours a week, 205 working up to 66 hours a. week, and 63 actually working over 66 hours a week. Those hours were exclusive of meal times, which were estimated at six hours per week, bringing the total time the boys were away from home up to 60 hours and even 90 hours. What chance have these youngsters of going in for further education, when they are away from home from 10 to 15 hours a day? They have all too little time left even for sleep, let alone recreation or further education.
      The story told of the errand boys, messenger boys, porters and warehouse boys was pretty much the same— 2,431 working from 48 to 54 hours a week, and 230 working more than 54 hours a week.

      945
      excluding meal times. As regards pages, lift-boys and attendants in hotels, the same story was told, boys were working from 66 to 72 hours a week, and 334 were working over 72 hours a week. The committee stated that a definite need existed for the registration of the hours of those young persons in the occupations reviewed. The evidence received by the committee was given by three main bodies— first, the Committee on Wage-earning Children, which in their evidence recommended that the hours of work should be 40 hours a week; secondly, the Trades Union Congress, which recommended hours not exceeding 40 a week; and, thirdly, the National Union of Teachers, of which I am proud to be a member, which recommended 34 hours a week, with a total altogether of 40 hours a week, the remaining six to be employed in education and organised recreation.
      As I have said, the recommendations of that committee led to the Act which was recently passed. Unfortunately, the 40-hour week proposal was not incorporated in that Act. Reference has been made by many speakers already to the loopholes which have been left by the Act and I will not pursue that point. Something more drastic is needed in the interests of these young people and of the nation. The nation is concerned at present with the decline in the birth rate and the high rate of child mortality, and we must, therefore, take all the greater care of those children who remain. The Registrar-General last year reported that 55,687 children under 14 had died. How many Rachels were there, weeping for their children because they were not? The Chief Inspector of Factories tells us that fast year 72 young persons were killed or died as the result of injury and 35,769 young persons were injured in industry.
      "It is unmeet To shed on the brief flower of youth The withering knowledge of the grave."
      These young people who were done to death or mutilated by industry have had a very early introduction to the knowledge of the grave. The masscre of the innocents which is going on in our factories and on the roads, and as the result of disease, must cease. In the report already referred to, Mr. S. R. Bennett points out that the importance of this subject has not
      946
      been fully realised in industry generally, and reference is made to the gravity and number of accidents to young people. I was particularly interested to find on page 442 two graphs showing the accident rates among young people when they enter industry. These graphs are for the years 1936 and 1937 respectively. The 1936 graph showed that boys during the first six months at work had the high average accident rate of 30 per cent. In the second six months at work it was 18 per cent., and after 3½ years in employment the accident rate fell as low as 5 per cent. In the case of girls, the accident rate during the first six months of employment was 38 per cent., and in the second six months it was 22 per cent., and after 3½ years in employment it fell to 3 per cent. The 1937 graph showed that the boys' accident rate during the first six months was 44 per cent. —an alarming increase. During the second six months it was 25 per cent. — another increase—and after 3½ years it dropped to 3 per cent. In the case of the girls the accident rate during the first six months of employment was 58 per cent. — more than half— and it was 25 per cent, in the second six months of employment, and dropped to 2 per cent, after 3½ years employment.
      If hon. Members look into the ages of these boys and girls they will find that, generally speaking, the first six months employment refers to boys and girls of 14 years; the second six months, to those of 15 years, and that those who have been 3½ years in employment are generally 17 or 17½ years. We know that the length of time that the young person has been at the job is a factor in reducing the accident rate, but I submit that the major factor is the increase of age. Surely this is a potent argument for a later entry into industry, and a powerful reason for keeping boys and girls at school until the age of 15 as the Education Act permits and raising it later to 16. Modern industry makes a greater demand on the worker and those who are going into industry to-day require to be more highly educated than their predecessors. In the "Times" of 15th July, Mr. Harold Butler, Warden of Nuffield College, is reported as saying:
      "Modern industry was growing constantly more complex and, accordingly we needed more highly educated men in all ranks … and for that we needed more secondary education."

      947
      What educational opportunities have these boys and girls who are compelled to work at the ages I have mentioned? Even if the opportunities were available, is it not physically impossible for them to avail themselves of those opportunities and to indulge in that recreation which is necessary if they are to keep fit? To me it is indeed disappointing to find that some children will have their hours of work actually increased by these orders from 44 to 45, and even to 48 hours. It is true that the 48 hours will apply only to the 15-year olds. I remember that it was a Government of the same type as the present Government which increased the mining hours not many years ago, and now we find this Government actually allowing an increase in the hours of children.
      Whose bairns are these? We have heard some references already to the children of the doctors who reported that this work would not be injurious to the health of the children. But whose children are concerned in this? They are not children of Members of this House. They are the children of the workers— the people who are forced by economic circumstances to allow their boys and girls to go into industry far too soon. We, in this House, value education far too highly to allow that in the case of our own children. We do not condemn our children to the absence of educational opportunity which these orders will involve. We do not put them to what is sometimes called "beneficial employment." As the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) pointed out, it may be beneficial to the child's parents to have two or three shillings a week added to the family income, but it is far more beneficial to the employer to employ the children, or he would not do so.
      We spend money on school medical inspection; we improve the environment of the children by providing better houses and schools; we teach the children to appreciate beauty. Then we allow them to be flung into industry at this age, in many cases to work very long hours, and deny them the opportunity to continue with that music, art and literature which in the schools we have taught them to enjoy. After a day in the quagmire of the quarry, or in the inferno of noise
      948
      in the factory, or amid the din and danger of the mine, these young people are in no mood to continue their studies. We should remember that the mass production of present-day industry is monotonous, but monotony does not signify ease. We must beware of the danger that mass production may produce mass minds, and tend to destroy individuality.
      At present the entry into industry is at the age of 14 to 15, which is a most critical time. The bud is just beginning to open and unfold. What parent is there who has not watched anxiously the unfolding of that bud? What parent is there who has not given all possible shelter to that bud during those critical years? Physical and emotional changes are taking place, character is being formed, and how we shelter our own during those critical times. An old proverb says, "Youth and white paper take any impression." By lessening the hours of work and giving more time for healthy recreation and further education, the impressions received will be more wholesome and a more perfect maturity will be attained. Let us see to it that Shakespeare's declaration, "He wears the rose of youth upon him," is a true one and that the rose is not blasted by a too early entry into factory or industrial life.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is proceeding in this House with the Criminal Justice Bill, and he has raised a storm of protest over one part of that Bill. In this Debate we are asking him, not for justice for criminals, but for justice for bairns, who have broken no law. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand firm and not to allow orders which will increase the hours of work of a child. I hope he is not afraid of employers. Much has been heard lately about the encirclement of a certain country, but what we ask is the encirclement of young persons by the protection of the law against wearying hours of labour. Give them more freedom and opportunity for physical and mental development. I believe, and we on this side believe, that industry built up on the bodies, minds, and souls of bairns is a primitive idea exploited by capitalism at home and abroad. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider these orders and do all that he can to protect the young life of the country.
      1.28 p.m.
      Mr. Macquisten: I feel some hesitancy in entering upon this debate, as I do not represent industry, and I do not know much about the Lancashire cotton trade. On this point of the regulation of the hours of young persons—I cannot call a stout lad of 16 or even of 14 a child— they are just being introduced into industry, and I think it is monstrous that they should be asked to work eight hours a day. Factory work is of all work the most monotonous, and tending a machine must be extremely so. I cannot think of anything more likely to dull the faculties, unless perhaps it is going to a secondary school. Why cannot we work it in this way, that we should go back to the old system of half time for these young persons of 14 to 16 or even to 18 years of age? Four hours' hard work is quite enough up to 18 years of age, above all in a factory. It is something quite different from ordinary, open-air work, or even work in hotels and places like that. The record of Great Britain in the industrial age was very bad. You have only to look at the early days of the last century and to read the speeches of a man like John Bright, who was bitterly opposed to the Factory Acts and to any regulation of factory life, to realise that. It was not until the days of the great Conservative leader Lord Shaftesbury that any humanity was shown in this respect. The Duke of Kent, the father of Queen Victoria, was very strongly desirous in those old days of humanising industry, but unfortunately in those days they did not succeed. There is this to be said for Herr Hitler, that he is very much against the factory system, and says that he does not want a country composed of factory coolies. He wants to humanise the system, and he believes in people being spread over the land, as I do.
      I say that a half-time system applied to these young persons would be quite enough, and I do not accept the idea that it is awful for such young people to be employed half-time. If a young person has only four hours' work before him, he will go to it fresher and keener and will be more active at the end of it, whereas at the end of eight hours his powers of concentration are completely gone. I believe that with a half-time system you would get much more out of him. What is the good of all the inventions of science
      950
      and all the great improvements that we have made if young people, and even older people, are to work the major portion of the day? There are occupations in which the work is so hard that they simply cannot do it. I remember being told long ago, when they used to make ships' chains by hand, that the work was so heavy that the men could work only two days a week and for only two hours at a time. I do not say that factory work nowadays is anything like that, but certanly I think that some system might be devised to make it less arduous for young persons. I aways say that if an industry can thrive only by working young people for long hours, there is something very wrong about the organisation of the industry, and I think the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) put her finger on it when she said that the system has been in existence so long that the employers have never really tried to see whether they could get some better method.
      In the Highlands we are prejudiced against anything in the nature of factories. Lord Leverhulme went up to the Highlands and said to the crofters and fishermen there, when he saw them weaving their bits of cloth, "How splendid! I will put you up a factory, and there you will get ordinary employment." They replied, "Do you think we will work to a whistle? No, we will not." The thing failed, because they would not subject themselves to factory conditions. They loved their independence too much, and they wanted to weave with a little loom in their own cottage as and when they liked. If his Lordship had said, "You are getting very bad prices for your stuff, because you do not know how to sell it, and I will sell it for you, on commission," he would have conferred a great benefit on them, but he wanted to set up factories, and the Highlanders said they would rather be poor, but they would be independent. That is the spirit, and it has always been so throughout the Highlands. We could not get that spirit in England because they started with this industrial system, and they used to employ little children of four years old under cruel circumstances, for long hours, down in the pit. I remember reading accounts of them opening and shutting doors at the most tender age, and the children were horribly exploited. After that there grew up the

      951
      half-time system, and children much younger than those with whom we are now dealing were employed half-time and went to school too. I remember that in one particular place in Scotland the factories themselves had a splendid school, and their scholars who were working half-time in the mills were far ahead of the boys and girls at the ordinary school.
      One hon. Member has said that people go into factories because they are compelled, but who works for any other reason? We all have to work to earn our living. There are very few pleasant occupations. The stage is one. People love to act and to sing. Pleading in the law courts is one of the most entertaining of occupations. Farming is another delightful occupation as long as it is not commercialised. I agree with Hitler as to the undesirability of factory work. I remember a factory in the country where the poor lasses had to get up at 6 o'clock on snowy mornings to go to their dreadful occupations. The hours are altered now, and they are much more reasonable. I remember a lace worker who was very successful and owned a lot of property. He told me the way he had managed to accumulate money. He had married at 18 a girl of 16, and they had an enormous family and he had the benefit of all their wages until they got married in the same way. Every son born was worth another £ 100, because he got the benefit of his wages for a certain period.
      Now the children of the working classes have been made into a liability, the same as the children of the well-to-do, but they used to be an asset and repaid all that their parents had expended on them. They worked for a few years on the half-time system and repaid their parents the the cost of their upbringing. Now they are a liability, and that is why the population is going down. It will be a serious matter to the country 30, 40 or 50 years hence when, as Mussolini himself said, the democracies will be composed of nothing but old age pensioners. Under that half-time system the family income was increased and they had a bigger supply of nourishing food, which was much cheaper and of better quality than the tinned stuff that we get nowadays. I do not think it is right to have young people of 14 working for 44 hours. One recollects one's own disinclination to work at 14.
      952
      Children are willing to do a certain amount of work to help their parents but not eight hours a day, day in and day out. They have to travel to get to their work. In London they have to travel a long way, on account of the concentration of the population, and there is no time between sleeping and working. It is not good enough. The foundation of national wealth is a healthy, well-fed population. A certain amount of work is good for everyone, though they do not like it, but they must not be overworked. A 48-hour week is certainly overdoing it for young people. The practical remedy is to make all young people up to 17 or 18 half-timers. If the cotton industry cannot do without these long hours for young people, it is obvious that it is not an industry for this country, but much more one for the East.
      1.42 p.m.
      Mr. Cove: I do not think the Home Secretary can have reason for very much comfort from this Debate. If he likes to take a strong line and refuse to accept the recommendations of the Committee when they result in a 48-hour week, it is clear that there is very strenuous support in all sections of the House that have been represented. He can take: a very definite and strong line. I am sure that he can say with the support of the House that 44 hours is at least the maximum that these children ought to work. It is rather interesting to observe the contrast between the attitude of the local education authorities and that adopted by the Home Secretary, and the commissioners in some respects, when they made certain recommendations. It is more than interesting, it is useful, that we should give some consideration to the reasons why you have this change of attitude by local education authorities from that adopted by employers of labour. I gather that you have on the education committee of the Lancashire County Council a large number of Conservatives. I am told that the majority are Conservatives. There is also a large number of employers on that body. It is rather interesting to observe that that body, composed of Conservatives and employers, adopts a completely different attitude towards this question of hours for juveniles from that adopted by employers when approached individually. Why is that? In passing it throws an interesting light on one of the flaws in

      953
      Clause 71, I think it is, which arises from the fact that whereas the Home Secretary or the Committee has to deal with individuals or groups of employers and think of the interests of a particular industry, employers who are gathered together on an education committee or on a county council have larger issues in their minds. There they are not concerned only with whether a particular industry makes a profit or not, but with more fundamental issues, and that explains the difference between the decisions arrived at by local education authorities and by the committee when it is approached by individual industries or groups of industries.
      I want to put forward the proposition that a reduction of hours is necessary not alone in the interests of the physique, the health and the happiness of the child but as a sound national economic proposition. To anyone who understands the requirements of modern industry it is a case in which humanism pays, in which, from the national point of view, there can be a profit. It may be true that a particular employer can be assisted to carry on by lengthening the hours of employment, and may be able to prove that if hours are shortened he can operate only at a loss, but the Home Secretary, in a great Department of State, has to consider not only the interests of a single industry, but must have regard to the whole national economy.
      It has been said over and over again that it is necessary to let these young children go into these industries in order that they may get the requisite training for their work in the future, but anyone who has given consideration even to the basic industries of the country will have been struck by the fact, which was brought out by Jewkes and Winterbottom in their investigations into the cotton industry, that of late years these basic industries have become blind alley occupations for a large number of our children. There is no certainty that if children enter the cotton industry, the coal mining industry or the ship-building industry they can look forward to progressive employment in those industries. Those investigations make it plain that one of the tragedies of modern industrial society has been that even in those industries which have laid the foundation of our industrial greatness there is now no certainty of progressive
      954
      employment, and that for large numbers of children they are blind-alley occupations. In contrast with the decay of the big basic industries we have the rise of the new secondary industries, which afford a greater variety of employments, with increased mechanisation and increased mass production.
      Having regard to the needs of the old-established basic industries and of the newer industries, it is necessary that children who go into industry should be more adaptable, more intelligent and better trained. In the main, though I know there are exceptions, modern industry does not give the training that is required. The apprenticeship system is dying and in many industries is dead. A Home Secretary who was looking after the general interests of the nation would say to himself "Apprenticeship is dying or dead; both in the big basic industries and in the newer industries greater adaptability and more scientific knowledge and intelligence are required, and the industries themselves do not provide the training or develop that intelligence— then who has got to do it, and when has it to be done?" It will have to be done by the State, and in the time cut off from the hours of the children who now go into industry.
      The Government will have to bring forward a concerted plan for the technical equipment of all youths who enter the industries of the country and the necessary time must be found for it. I hope that I shall not be regarded as fanciful, but I should like to read one or two observations from Colin Clark's book "The National Income and Outlay." He discusses there the rate of increased productivity of our nation and points out that before 1913 the trend in production was a strong slowing down of the rate of increase. The curve was approaching a very definite ceiling. Then, he says, something happened which increased our power of national production. I am not going to read all that he says but he writes:
      "Something happened and our power of national production went up and up. The ceiling was broken."
      A number of factors contributed to that, but he claims there was this main factor:
      "We have now broken through that particular limit largely, I think, through the improvement of our technical knowledge and,

      955
      what is equally important from the point of view of the national productivity, the growing up of a generation of trained and experienced workers and technicians who can apply this knowledge."
      My argument is that in this modern world, living as we are in an industrial nation, the widespread power of masses of our people to work intelligently, use their fingers intelligently and their brains, and to be adaptable is a fundamental necessity of national well-being, and that to push our children into factory, field and workshop at an early age and to make them work hours which prevent them having the time to develop their intelligence and adaptability is not only wrong to that child but is national economic suicide.
      I say confidently that the decrease of hours of labour of young persons is the requisite preliminary to a planned development of adolescent adaptability and adolescent intelligence. As a matter of fact, the reduction ought not to be merely to 44 hours; the figure should be down lower than that. The case against the Government is, as usual, that they are dealing with things piecemeal, first with this industry and then with that industry, listening to the case of this one and that one and giving a decision on each individual industry. That is anarchy. That is not what you need at all in modern society. Some of the claims made by the employers have been ridiculous. I would remind the Under-Secretary of the case put up— I do not know whether hon. Members have read it— by the Ramie industry. It is absolutely absurd, and it is worth putting in to show to what lengths of absurdity individual employers will go in demanding that they should have this increase of hours. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State have not only a responsibility to individual industries, individual employers and workmen in those industries, but they have responsibility of a national character. I cannot see that by allowing this to go on and by not making certain that the hours are reduced, they are making any contribution.
      I have one final point. It is often thought— I could say it in my own words, but I want to have more authority than myself behind the statement— that modern industry does not need adaptability and skill and that, so far as the mass of the
      956
      people are concerned, it is entirely automatic; in short, that the moron can be an economic proposition. That is a great mistake, but I do not want the Committee to take my view; I came across an article the other day in "The Year Book of Education," signed by Mr. H. B. Butler. I should imagine that that name will carry some authority here. I shall not read it all, but I want the Under-Secretary to pay some attention to what is said by a man like this:
      "The spread of mechanisation, rationalisation, mass production and the use of conveyors have neither reduced nor eliminated the importance of vocational training, but they have fundamentally changed it. We are witnessing the creation of a never-ending series of new kinds of work "—
      I want the Under-Secretary of State to give some thought to that matter instead of saying "Shove them into the cotton factory and let them stay there for long hours." How are they to be made adapt able? You cannot meet the situation in that way —
      "and the ceaseless transformation of the needs of the labour market, with their consequent demand for different qualities, different aptitudes, and different capacities on the part of the workers. These, in turn, imply different vocational training, more varied and complex than the apprenticeship needed by the purely manual dexterities of the journeyman of the past. The old classifications of workers as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled no longer correspond to modern requirements. As Henri de Mann says: ' Modern technical methods require of the worker a lively intelligence and sufficient knowledge to understand the increasingly complex and fluctuating processes of manufacture, rather than a long and patient training in muscular movements and manual dexterity. As technical progress continues, the need for a higher standard of education among workers becomes greater.' "
      Mr. Butler quotes other authorities to substantiate that point of view.
      The Home Office has a contribution to make. Local education authorities are making theirs and doing so far better than the Home Office. At one time I had great doubts about the practicability of the Education Act, but I must confess that things look more hopeful than I expected them to be.
      Mr. Ridley: No thanks to the Government.
      Mr. Cove: I agree, but it is thanks to the local education authorities. These bodies are predominantly Conservative,

      957
      but they say: "No child must work more than 36 hours." Why? Because, as I have said before, these men not only realise the importance to the individual child, for its physique and good health, but they have looked at the matter from the point of view of the society in which they live. Doctors talk about health and nutrition, but it seems to me that many of them report merely what they are told to report on those matters. The medical profession is going down in the estimation of many people here, because, on these great public issues, they seem to be very partisan. The education authorities are the people who know and who can regard the subject apart from individual interests and individual profit. They have said that 36 hours in work are enough. They have said: "We will give time for the development of this adaptability and the intelligence that is necessary in modern society."
      Until the Lancashire cotton owners can guarantee progressive employment, and until they or any other single industry can guarantee that the youths who go into them shall have security of employment, they have no right at all to demand such hours of work as will prevent these children from getting an adaptability that will enable them to do some new job, should they not be kept in one of those industries during their lives. They have no right to cripple the future employment of those youngsters. If you impose these long hours you are chaining these youths to the industry, and you are not guaranteeing them security of employment in the future. This is a big issue. It may appear to be a narrow one, but it is really very big. Someone is needed to get up at that Box and to deal with the subject of the development of the health, the intelligence, the manual dexterity and the adaptability of the whole range of our adolescents throughout our country.
      2.5 p.m.
      Mr. Wakefield: Earlier in the Debate, the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who made such an interesting and informative speech, spoke about the evidence given by doctors at the inquiry which took place into the conditions of the cotton industry. I intervened to ask him a question, but I think he misunderstood its object, because he proceeded somewhat to chastise me, and said that it was no use giving greater
      958
      doses of poison. I would remind him and the Committee that certain drugs, when taken in small quantities, act as very excellent tonics; it is only when they are taken in too great quanties that they become harmful and poisonous. So I say now that, so far as work is concerned, I think we all must agree— in fact, we know— that where young people are unemployed they deteriorate mentally and physically. Work is a good thing provided that it is undertaken under right and proper conditions, and that the hours are not too long.
      The point I wanted to get from the hon. Member, because I have not seen this medical evidence, was whether it stated that it was injurious to young people to work over and beyond a certain period of time. I understand that the evidence given was that it was not injurious to work up to 48 hours. It may not be injurious to work up to 48 hours, but I would prefer to ask, not whether it is injurious— that is merely negative and destructive— but whether it is beneficial, whether it is of advantage for young people under 18 to work such a long time. I cannot think that medical opinion would hold that it is beneficial to young people to work these hours. It may not injure them, because they may be able to work that length of time, but, if they do work that length of time, they will not have that reserve of energy which is so necessary for young people at that age in order that they may improve their minds by taking opportunities for further educational advancement, and improve their physical health by playing recreational games of one kind and another.
      I do not think that young people should have to work these hours, and I said so during the Committee stage of the Factories Bill. I voted against the Government on this very point, and I gave any amount of evidence, which I had been able to secure as a result of my connection with youth movements of various kinds, to show that hours of work round about 48 and 50 a week for young people under 18 are too much. I hope that the Home Secretary will take a firm stand on this point. I know that the Home Secretary and his Department are very keenly interested in this matter, and I think that perhaps the House does not know of all the work which the Home Secretary has been doing and the firm

      959
      stand he has been taking. I hope we may be given further information regarding what has been done in this connection. I suggest that we must not allow the bringing back of any idea that industry can avoid inefficiency by lengthening the hours of work of young people. I have here a report, made by the National Fitness Council, giving some information about the progress of the national fitness campaign.
      The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), at the beginning of his speech, made reference, quite rightly, to the National Fitness campaign, and asked what is the use of all the steps we are now taking to provide facilities for young people in the country if they are unable to take proper advantage of those facilities because they are too tired? In this report reference is made to the fact that there are nearly 3,000,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 18 in the countryside, and, after pointing out certain advantages and facilities that exist for some of them, it goes on to say:
      "On the other hand, the conditions under which a large number of boys and girls are still employed leave them little or no time for active recreation during the week, and many of them lack the energy to play games at the week-end. The National Fitness Council are glad to note that the Education Act of 1936, which comes into operation this year, makes the granting of exemption from school attendance conditional on consideration of the health and physical condition of the child. The regulation of hours of employment for young people and the provision of holidays with pay have direct bearing on national fitness. It is indeed clear that the physical education of this large and most important section of the community is unevenly developed, often inadequate, and for large numbers practically non-existent. The majority of those who leave school at an early age get no further physical training, and large numbers have little chance to play games."
      Lack of facilities may be one reason, but too long hours of employment are undoubtedly another. I have been making enquiries recently as to whether there has been any improvement in this respect, but, unfortunately, I still find that the cases in which young people are employed for too long hours are far too numerous. The work of the various voluntary organisations is being sadly interfered with because young people are either too tired when they arrive at their club to take the part that they ought to be able to take in evening activities, or they are unable to get there because they have not
      960
      the time. I have here a report made to me privately by the secretary of a very large youths' organisation, which has a membership of approximately 1,000 young people. He says:
      "Most definitely the attendance at the juvenile voluntary organisation clubs is very adversely affected by juveniles coming home late and tired, mostly under 20, and particularly under 18. A contributory factor, in addition to either long or late hours, is the transport difficulty, where they literally have to fight for a stand— not a seat— and consequently they arrive home both late and tired."
      That is very definite evidence from a man who has wide experience of the difficulties of satisfactorily carrying out the work of the voluntary organisations as is required to be done by the Physical Training and Recreation Act, owing 10 the long hours which young people work. I have another report from the secretary of one of our great national organisations dealing with young people. He gives me a report, made this year by one of their secretaries of a club in a certain town. It says:
      "I have been visiting homes lately to find out why boys are not coming to the club, and in the majority of cases the reply is ' Working late and too tired.' I find that the 48-hour week for working lads is being defeated by employers insisting on their having a longer dinner hour, so that they can employ them later at night."
      I am taking the opportunity afforded by this Debate to draw the attention of the Committee, and I hope, of the public at large, to the existence of these facts and this position. Hon. Members who have spoken before me have pointed out that there is likely to be a fall in our population, and we have to make up by improved quality the deficiency in quantity. One of the ways in which we can do that is to see that our young people are given a reasonable opportunity, after their hours of work, to build up their mental qualities and to develop their physique by being able to play games and to continue their education.
      I have here the latest figures, made up to the end of last month, of some of the grants approved by the National Fitness Council to local authorities and voluntary organisations for the purpose of providing for the leisure time of, and the giving of recreational opportunities primarily to, our young people. There have been grants approved, for swimming baths, over £ 500,000 to local authorities, for

      961
      various social and recreative centres over £ 232,000, and to voluntary bodies over £ 168,000, for playing fields over £ 464,000 to local authorities and over £ 47,000 to voluntary bodies, and for each pound of grant approved probably another £ 1 or £ 2 will be added from other sources. This is splendid work. This is valuable expenditure which is being undertaken. But what is the use of such expenditure if on the other hand by increasing the hours of work we do not allow our young people to take advantage of the great work that is being done?
      I do hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will watch very carefully this effort by industry to cover up its deficiencies and inefficiency by working young people too long hours. I realise that our industries have to face very fierce competition from the outside world. From information with which I have lately been provided I know that the prices at which we are seeking to sell our goods to the outside world—we have to export and sell to the outside world— are somewhat higher than those of other countries, perhaps because of the various burdens placed on industry to meet the cost of our social services. The only way in which we can make our prices competitive is by increasing our efficiency. There is no reason why that should not be done. It is not increasing our efficiency to work our young people too long hours. One of the ways to increase our efficiency is to make our labour more efficient. I saw the other day a report in connection with a certain industry in which we are being beaten by our American competitors. On investigation it was found that higher wages were being paid and that shorter hours were being worked in America, and yet the prices of the goods that were being sold were lower. Investigation also showed that the quality of the labour in America in this industry was better than that available in this country. Does not that show the importance of not overworking our young people, and of giving them the opportunity, outside reasonable working hours, to improve themselves mentally and physically so that we can be in a position efficiently to compete with other countries in any export trade in the world? I would like to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate what the Home Office is doing in this respect, but I do hope that it will sternly
      962
      resist any tendency from any quarter and any pressure that may be brought to increase the hours of work of young people at this particular juncture.
      2.22 p.m.
      Mr. Viant: The Under-Secretary of State, who has been here during most of the discussion, and the Home Secretary, who has been present for a portion of the time, will have felt that this discussion has been valuable in enabling them to gauge the attitude of mind of the Committee towards this question. I think it is true to say that the general mental attitude towards juvenile employment exhibited in the Committee to-day is on all fours with the attitude exhibited by the Standing Committee which dealt with the Factories Bill. I think I am correct in saying that the majority of the Standing Committee were convinced that 44 hours a week were more than enough for young persons between the ages of 14 and 16. But arguments were advanced and, what is more important, a most effective appeal was made by the then Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give him the power to make exemptions, and it was said that those exemptions would be very few in number. I want the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary to appreciate that fact, as from the figures given to-day one feels a certain dismay because the applications that have been made and the ease with which exemptions appear to be granted are contrary to the spirit and desire of the Standing Committee at the time when the exemptions were made possible.
      At all times, of course, when passing legislation, whilst we might embody certain exemptions in an Act on the plea made by the Minister responsible, we are inclined to overlook the fact that the Act is to be administered probably by an entirely different personality. Therefore I want to make a special appeal to the Home Secretary to appreciate the atmosphere that existed in the Standing Committee when these exemptions were made possible; and I would express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be exceedingly reluctant to grant exemptions, and that where they are made there shall be an undeniably strong case made out for them. I am not persuaded that that case is being made in respect of the cotton industry— not by any means.

      963
      Stress was laid by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) on the fact that two doctors gave evidence before the inquiry that these longer hours in the cotton industry were not prejudicial to the health of young people. I do not want to cast any reflections on a noble profession, but it is evident from some of the advertisements that we see displayed that there are doctors who would tell me that whisky was good for me, although I know that it would not be good for me. We must appreciate that behind some of the evidence which has been submitted there are vested interests, which are in a position to employ some of these people. That state of things is far too prevalent. It would be better for the Home Secretary to place more reliance on the evidence of the operatives in the industry. There were quite a number of Members of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Factories Bill who had started work at the age of 12 or 13. I gave an illustration to that Committee from my own experience, pointing out that I started work at the age of 13, that I had to be at work at six in the morning and had an hour's journey to make before I arrived at the shop, and that very often I left at 7.30 at night. I know the effect that that had on me. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said that if she had had to work such hours of labour the Red Flag would not have been red enough for her.
      Viscountess Astor: And particularly if my children had had to work those hours.
      Mr. Viant: It is our experience which causes us to speak so strongly when we see such regulations as these being put into force. The regulations are entirely contrary to the spirit of the Committee upstairs, and, I believe, to the spirit of this Committee to-day. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division said that the cotton industry was largely an hereditary concern. She put her finger on one of the defects of inheritance. I have not the slightest doubt that in the cotton industry, as in many other industries, a great deal of the defects are due to the fact that it is run on an hereditary basis, that the father hands the business on to his son, who, perhaps, has not had a proper experience in the industry. The
      964
      only way we can cope with the keen competition that we have to meet in the world to-day is by giving our boys and girls a sound instruction in industry and equipping them mentally for their work. To do that we shall have to keep them at school longer than we are doing, and, most important of all, see that their hours at school are put to the best advantage. The Home Secretary, in dealing with regulations of this sort, is going to determine not only the welfare of the industry, but the use that is made of the potential wealth of this country. Our boys and girls are the potential wealth.
      I was delighted to hear the appeal that was made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), and the evidence with which he backed that appeal. He gave us valuable help on the Committee upstairs. As a Member of the council dealing with the question of physical fitness, he is in a position to speak about the health of the young people of this country. I hope the facts that he has given will receive due consideration by the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. Many of our young people to-day have to undertake a journey of an hour or more to get to their places of employment, they have to start work at about 8 o'clock, and they leave so late that they are too tired to be physically fit or to obtain the instruction which is necessary to achieve either physical fitness or mental fitness. I hope the Home Secretary will not be easily persuaded to allow these exemptions. If he did so, he would be acting contrary to the spirit of the Committee and of the Act. It is a difficult test for him, I agree, but if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary will take with them the mental atmosphere of the Committee, they will have a good guide in administering this important Act which we have placed in their charge.
      2.34 p.m.
      Mr. Rickards: I rarely speak in this House, because I generally feel that most hon. Members know considerably more about the subject being discussed than I do myself, and so are much more worth hearing. On this subject, I do not pretend to be an expert, but I happen to be a director and managing director of various firms dealing with almost every class of trade in textile— spinning, weav-

      965
      ing, dyeing and finishing. I should like, from the bottom of my heart, to impress upon this Committee and the country as a whole that those of us who in this case are supporting the Government are just as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite to help our fellow-citizens. Take my own case. I live right in the heart of the textile trade, with wool on one side and cotton on the other. I have been brought up in it. I may have been an employer, but many of the employed are my acquaintances and my friends. We on this side feel that hon. Members on that side are actuated by the very highest motives, and I ask them to give us credit for the same motives.
      It has been said that there is a great shortage of young people coming into the cotton industry and also the woollen industry, but I do not think that this alteration would make one per cent. difference to the young people who come into those industries. Why? For a very simple reason, and alas, a very sad reason, owing chiefly not to the basic wage, but to the terrible amount of unemployment and the really disgracefully bad wages. We have heard how these extra four hours a week will damage the health of the children. I do not want to exaggerate the position in the slightest. I believe that it will damage their health slightly, but there is something which is damaging the health of Lancashire far more, and that is the low wages, which lead to malnutrition. It is very easy for people who have not been in the trade to find fault with and criticise the manufacturers. We who live in the North country, whether we sit on this side of the House or on the benches opposite, know that the main reason is foreign competition. Take Japanese competition. They run three shifts to our one, and that means reducing their overhead charges by 75 per cent. Their wages also are 75 per cent, lower than the wages we would like to pay Lancashire, and which then would be none too high. What does it mean? Suppose you had a small firm running in Japan paying 20,000 or 30,000 a year in wages and overhead charges, the corresponding amount required in Lancashire, would be 90,000. That is the difficulty. It is that terrible hiatus, that great gap.
      Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee how it was that in 1892, when I first went into the mill—
      966
      and I have been in it more or less all my life— there was no Japanese mill in existence, and yet the conditions of which he is now speaking were then in operation?
      Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the Japanese have more up-to-date machinery than we have? I was told by a cotton manufacturer that one of the reasons why it was so difficult for us to compete with them was that they had reorganised their trade and were using better machinery, much of which had been made in this country.
      Mr. Rickards: The Noble Lady is perfectly correct. I believe that, on the whole, the machinery in Japan, much of which was made in England, is better than ours because it is newer, but, unfortunately, that makes the position of Lancashire manufacturers even more difficult. That is the position we have to face. Again, I do not want to exaggerate and say that the proposal would put people out of the trade altogether. It is too small a thing, but there is no doubt that it will add to the cost. In the old days, as some of us older people will remember, we had the half-time system. Then every mill was full, but if this were done it would mean that only some of the departments would for a part of the day be four, five or six per cent. short. You cannot get people to come in and work for four days a week, and obviously it would mean that the production in the particular department would drop four or five per cent.
      Mr. Tomlinson: I know that the hon. Member does not want to give a wrong impression, but I would like to hear of a single department in a cotton mill that would need to stop for any period of time if this labour was not accessible.
      Mr. Rickards: It would not need to stop, but if there were fewer people working, the production would be less. It is not only one department; you must remember that the mill is like a chain: it depends upon the weakest link. If you have eight departments and one department is turning out less, all the other seven departments will turn out less. I have heard many flattering and well-deserved remarks from both sides of the Committee with regard to our Home Department. I believe that we all are anxious to try to do our best for the

      967
      country as a whole. There are people who can put our case 10 times better than I can, and people who, no doubt, would be able to put the case for the Opposition as eloquently as it has been put by hon. Members opposite, and so I would say, let us realise that we all are out to do our best, and I, for one, shall in this case support the Government.
      2.42 p.m.
      Mr. Peake: There is at the present time a greater public interest taken in questions affecting the welfare of young persons and children than there has ever been in the country before, and, on account of the anxieties which have been expressed from day to day at Question time by hon. Members opposite, and on account of the misunderstandings which, to some extent, have been apparent in many speeches delivered to-day, I welcome this opportunity of explaining on behalf of the Government exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing in the great field of administration which he has to cover not only under Section 71 of the new Factories Act, but under a number of other Statutes as well. I would like to give the Committee a general picture of the background against which the Home Office has to work in this administrative field. It is to me a little surprising that so much criticism from the Opposition should be directed against my right hon. Friend and the Home Office on the matter of juvenile employment when I consider the record of the present Government in legislation concerning it.
      Mr. John Morgan: Criticism has come from all sides of the Committee.
      Viscountess Astor: I also praised the Government for what they had done, but deplored what they are doing now.
      Mr. Peake: I agree that there has been criticism from all quarters, but perhaps more from the Opposition benches than from the Government benches, and I was saying that, in view of the legislative record of the Government in this field, that criticism is a little surprising. Time moves on, as the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) reminded us, in this matter, and I will, therefore, in passing, only mention to the Committee the Factories Bill of 1924, which was introduced at a time when my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton
      968
      (Mr. Rhys Davies) occupied the position in the Home Office which I occupy today. It is a constant pleasure to me to have his pleasant and beaming features looking at me from a photograph above the mantelpiece in my office. Time certainly moves on. The Bill upon the back of which my hon. Friend's name appeared, provided for a 48-hour week maximum for all juvenile labour, without any exception. We are precluded on a Supply Day from discussing the merits of various Acts of Parliament, although some of the speeches to which we have listened have, perhaps, been directed to rather broader issues than Home Office administration. Although I am going to mention the various Acts of Parliament under which my right hon. Friend has important administrative and executive duties, I am not going either to praise or to blame them. That does not seem to be the function of an Under-Secretary upon a Supply Day.
      In 1933 we passed the Children and Young Persons' Act, which was an amending and consolidating Act and restricted in a very wide field the employment of children and young persons. It, moreover, forebade altogether the employment of young persons under 16 in street trading, and enabled local authorities, by by-laws, to prohibit similar employment for young persons up to and under the age of 18. The next great legislative action of the Government was the Shops Act, 1934, about which my hon. Friend opposite knows a good deal more than I do. This Shops Act reduced from 74 hours, inclusive of meal times, to 48 hours, exclusive of meal times, the maximum permitted hours for young persons in shops. It allowed a limited amount of overtime for those over 16 only, but permitted no overtime for those under 16. It extended not only to retail shops but to wholesale shops, and it affected no fewer than 400,000 juvenile workers.
      The next legislative achievement of the Government was the Factories Act, which has been the principal topic of discussion to-day. That Act reduced for young persons— by young persons in this connection I mean young persons between 14 and 18— the permissible hours, which were 55½ in textile factories and 60 in other factories, down to 48. It is true that at that time many factories

      969
      were working only a 48-hour week, but the effect of the old legislation was to enable almost unlimited overtime to be worked, amounting, I think, to 400 hours per annum in textile factories and 600 hours per annum in non-textile factories. That Act not only reduced the permissible hours to 48, but abolished overtime altogether for young persons under 16, and limited overtime for young persons between 16 and 18 to 100 hours per annum. Section 98, a very important Section, brought within the scope of these hours' restrictions a totally new class of labour previously unregulated — van boys and young workers of that class. It applied to them the same restriction as regards hours as Sections 70 and 71 did to factory workers generally. The Act also contained many other provisions which have been greatly appreciated by social workers for safeguarding the health, safety, and so forth, of juvenile and other workers.
      The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) asked what has happened under Section 11 of the Factories Act. That Section provides for arrangements to be made, by regulation, for medical supervision in factories where special processes are adopted or undertaken. The position as regards that Section is that so far there has been nothing brought to our notice to show the need for making regulations under the Section. We know that industry generally is paying much more attention to this subject than before, and I have been informed that the industry with which the hon. Member is connected has taken a leading part in this type of medical supervision. The Act has been in operation for only one year, but if cases are brought to our notice where we can usefully make regulations under Section 11, we shall undoubtedly do so.
      The Factories Act affected beneficially about 1,000,000 young persons employed in factories. Finally, we have the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, a very important Act, which covers shops and various miscellaneous employments not previously regulated. Those employments may be briefly described as affecting young persons engaged in the transport of goods, errand boys and girls, messengers, lift attendants, laundry workers, and young persons employed in theatres and hotels. That Act provides
      970
      for a maximum of 48 hours a week for all young persons affected by it, and for a maximum of 44 hours for those under 16 as from 1st January, 1940. It is estimated that the number of young persons to benefit under that Act will be approximately 220,000. The Act extended the 44-hour week to shops. Therefore, we have here a case of an Act passed in 1934, the Shops Act, which limited the hours of young persons in shops under 16 years of age to 48 hours, being amended only four years later by an Act chopping a further four hours off the hours worked by these young persons. That, surely, is evidence to the Committee that the Factories Act, 1937, is not unalterable for all time. These four Measures cover a very large field of juvenile employment and they are the background necessary for an appreciation of the particular topic which has been the subject of to-day's Debate. I think they show that the Government are not unsympathetic to the claims of juvenile workers.
      The principal attack to-day has been directed at and under Section 71 of the Factories Act. My right hon. Friend has certain important functions to perform under Section 71, but I think it is true to say that the greater part of the speeches to which we have listened have not been directed against my right hon. Friend's administration but against the principle of Section 71. Many of the speeches have really endeavoured to show that no young person under any conditions should ever work 48 hours in a factory. That question was debated at great length on the Factories Bill, but for the purposes of this Debate and my right hon. Friend's functions under the Act, we have to accept Section 71 as it stands. We cannot for the purposes of this Debate or of attacking my right hon. Friend say that Section 71 ought never to have been passed. Parliament under that Section provided for certain exemptions being granted, under stringent conditions, to the 44-hour week for young persons generally, and I do not think hon. Members can complain that certain industries have endeavoured to make use of the right given to them by Parliament to claim exemptions under Section 71.
      The representations which are made under Section 71 must cover six separate matters which are to be found in three

      971
      paragraphs of Sub-section (2). Let me describe in my own words what these representations have to cover. First, that the industry is so dependent on the employment of young persons that its carrying on would be seriously prejudiced by the adoption of the 44-hour week. Obviously, that is not an easy thing for any industry to satisfy an inquiry upon. The second is that the industry is so organised that its carrying on would be seriously prejudiced by the adoption of the 44-hour week. Those are two conditions which consider the question from the industrial point of view. The other four conditions consider the problem entirely from the young persons' point of view. They are, first, that the increased hours are not likely to be injurious to the health of the young persons; secondly, that the work is particularly suitable for young persons; thirdly, that the employment would familiarise them with and help to train them for posts in which adults axe engaged; and, fourthly, that their employment for 48 hours, or even longer than 44 hours, is likely to lead to permanent employment in the industry.
      Those are the six conditions. They are cumulative in their effect, and it is no good an industry trying to persuade a court of inquiry that it has covered only five of the conditions. It has to satisfy the court of inquiry, if one is ordered, on every one of the six conditions and, therefore, it is a very narrow mesh through which an industry has to pass if it is to secure exemption under Section 71. I should like the Committee to observe that the Section gives my right hon. Friend discretion as to whether he shall order an inquiry or not. Unless a prima facie case is made out, no inquiry is ordered, and when we have received representations we have, of course, used not only the knowledge at the disposal of the factory inspectorate but made special inquiries, and in a large number of cases refused an inquiry on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out. I am in a position to give the Committee some information as to the number of applications we have received. There have been about 60 representations from relatively important bodies in respect of more or less distinguishable industries, and a considerable number of applications from individual firms and smaller groups of employers. I am afraid that
      972
      I cannot give the Committee, nor do I think it desirable, the names of those who have made these representations. I think if we were to publish the names of those who make these representations on industrial subjects, we should not be rendering industry any good service.
      Mr. J, Morgan: How many children were estimated to be covered by these applications?
      Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is difficult to give an estimate, because in many cases the trade association does not extend to the whole of the industry, although, obviously, the regulations, if and when made, must extend to the whole of the industry, and not to a part of it. We have had applications from single employers. Obviously, in the case of a single employer if an inquiry is ordered and subsequently regulations are made, you would be bound to find afterwards that there were more juvenile workers covered than you had any knowledge of at the time when the application was received.
      Mr. J. Morgan: Do not the terms of the application require them to state how many children would be affected?
      Mr. Peake: Yes, but they can speak only for themselves; they cannot speak for other parties who may not be parties to the application.
      Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Clearly the Home Office in considering an application must ask how many children will be affected if it is granted?
      Mr. Peake: I have given, in answer to a Question, the number of children covered in those cases where an inquiry has been directed.
      Mr. Ridley: I put a Question as to the number of people covered in the case of cotton, wool and carpets, and the hon. Member gave a specific number, but considerable anxiety was aroused in my mind because in answer to the second question he said it was difficult to be precise.
      Mr. Peake: It is extremely difficult to be precise even in the cases where an inquiry has been made, because the number of persons employed varies considerably from time to time, but in those cases where we have rejected the application for

      973
      an inquiry we have done so because on the fact of it no prima facie case had been made out, and we have not always inquired how many children were covered by the application. Sometimes on the fact of it the application was bad and one which did not fulfil several of the conditions. It is impossible for me to give a precise figure as to the number of young persons covered by every application.
      Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely no recommendation would be made without knowing how many young persons would be affected. Surely the Home Office would have to find out the conditions in similar trades before they could be sure that the conditions which have to be complied with, do apply in other factories where the regulation would necessarily apply?
      Mr. Peake: When an inquiry has been ordered we have figures as to the number of juvenile workers, but I think I have satisfied the Committee that it is impossible to give a precise number in respect of every application, and to do so would involve a great deal of trouble which, in my opinion, would not be worth while. I should like now to inform the Committee of the position in regard to the 17 cases where a prima facie case appeared to my right hon. Friend to be made out and an inquiry has been held or is to be held. The analysis of the present position is as follows. Two of the applications have been withdrawn— that is, in respect of the manufacture of biscuits, and chocolate and sugar confectionery. In five cases the court of inquiry has recommended that regulations shall not be made; those are the jute spinning and weaving industry, the ramie yarn spinning industry, the paper or paper board manufacturing industry, the flax industry, and hemp spinning for cords, ropes, twine, etc. The last two recommendations that regulations be not made in the cases of the flax and hemp in dustries— were received only yesterday afternoon, after I had answered a Question on the subject in the House.
      I have accounted for two cases where applications were withdrawn and five cases where regulations were not recommended. There are five cases where the inquiry has not yet been completed or held, and these are relatively small industries employing in all only 17,500
      974
      juvenile workers. There are three cases where regulations have been recommended and have already been issued in draft, and those, of course, are the cotton, woollen and worsted, and carpet industries. In those cases, it is essential that hon. Members should appreciate that the recommendations of the inquiry, as well as the draft regulations, provided that the longer hours of 48 shall apply only to those who have attained the age of 15 years and upwards, except that those at present employed in the industry shall continue the present hours. In the other two cases, which are the textile, bleaching and dyeing industry and the printing and bookbinding trades, the recommendation of the court of inquiry has been in favour of making regulations and the regulations will shortly be issued in draft.
      Mr. Tomlinson: May I ask whether the same recommendation with regard to the age of 15 as was included in the two other instances is incorporated in the recommendations?
      Mr. Peake: The same provision as to age is included in the recommendation as regards the textile, dyeing and bleaching industry. As regards the printing and bookbinding trades, the recommendation is that only one extra hour shall be worked per week, that is to say, that the hours shall be 45 in place of 44; and the recommendation covers all juvenile workers under 16. I want to be perfectly frank in the matter, and I will give the Committee the information I have as to the total number of young persons under 16 who are employed in the industries in respect of which draft regulations have been or are going to be issued. In the five industries to which I have referred, the number of young persons between 14 and 15 is about 29,000 and between 15 and 16 approximately 44,000, making a total of 73,000 juvenile workers under 16 at present employed in those five industries, and that is out of a total of about 500,000 juvenile workers under 16 in factory employment. Now, the outstanding cases where an inquiry is still to be held or has not yet reported cover in all l7,500 juvenile workers. No further inquiries can be ordered, because the date for making applications to the Home Office has gone by, so that we can now get some picture of what the future position will be. Let it be observed in relation to this figure of 73,000 juvenile

      975
      workers that, in the first place approximately 29,000 of them are employed in the printing and bookbinding trades.
      Mr. Marshall: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the draft regulations applicable to the printing and bookbinding trades would enable juveniles to work a 45-hour week, that is, to add one hour. Is it correct to say that the standard week in that industry to-day is a 45-hour week; and are we to understand that the industry proved that that one hour would make all the difference to them?
      Mr. Peake: As I was saying, out of 73,000 juvenile workers covered by the recommendations already received, 29,000 are in the printing and bookbinding trades. In their case, the recommendation is for a 45-hour in place of a 44-hour week. I understand that the printing and bookbinding trades are organised upon the basis of a five-day week.
      Mr. Marshall: A 48-hour week?
      Mr. Peake: A nine-hour day, making a 45-hour week.
      Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some firms actually opposed the application because they were already working 44 hours?
      Mr. Peake: I daresay that some firms did, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) will be able to tell the Committee a great deal more about that than I could. What I am entitled to observe is that the industry is organised on a basis of a five-day week. That is under a very recent agreement made in the industry and the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) who is, I think, the secretary of the trade union concerned in this industry, has not taken this opportunity to-day of voicing any grievance against the recommendation in the case of the printing and bookbinding trades. Apart from those 29,000 juvenile workers in the printing and bookbinding trades, there are 44,000 in the other four trades which are all either part of or connected with the textile industry. The inquiry has recommended that the recommendations for the longer hours, that is 48, shall, in the course of 12 months, apply only to those of the age of 15 and upwards. It is, therefore, obvious that in a year's time
      976
      the number of juveniles working the longer hours, will be very much smaller than 44,000. There are, at present, something like 18,000 juveniles under the age of 15 in this group of four industries connected with the textile industry. It is exceedingly likely that in a year's time, that number of 44,000 will be considerably reduced. How far it will be reduced we cannot say. It depends upon the policy to be adopted by education authorities, when the new Education Act comes into force on 1st September next. It does, therefore, appear that in relation to the figure of 500,000 young persons under 16 employed in factories, the number who will be working longer hours than 44 in the course of a very short time will be relatively very small.
      Now I will say a word or two as to the procedure under this Section, because there is some misapprehension about it. My right hon. Friend has a complete discretion as to whether he shall hold an inquiry. After the inquiry has reported, if he is satisfied with respect to all the six matters which form the conditions in Section 71, my right hon. Friend may make regulations increasing the total hours. But before the regulations are made a rather cumbrous procedure under the Rules Publication Act has to be followed. It provides for the publication of the rules in draft for 40 days before the rules are finally made, and during that period further representations may be made to my right hon. Friend, either as regards opposing these regulations or as regards their amendment, and it is only after the rules are made that they can become operative. They may become legally operative either on the date they are made or at a date fixed by the rules themselves— a future date— but it is after that that they are laid on the Table of the House, and, therefore, no regulations can be made under Section 71 without there being an opportunity of Parliamentary discussion. I am further assured, in case there is any apprehension on this subject, that should the 28 days during which they have to lie on the Table be broken into by a General Election, the period of 28 days is unaffected, and the unexpired days will be reckoned from the beginning of the new Parliament, so that hon. Members will see that there is bound to be, automatically, an opportunity of discussing the regulations.
      Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman see the Patronage Secretary in order to secure that the promise of a discussion is implemented?
      Mr. Peake: Of course, hon. Members, if they put their Motion on the Paper, will have their opportunity of discussing it in the same way as other hon. Members. I have promised the hon. Member opposite to leave him half-an-hour in which to speak, and I hope that when he does speak he will tell us exactly what the complaint is against our administration of Section 71.
      Mr. Ridley: Have we not been telling you all the morning?
      Mr. Peake: I have listened all the morning, and I must confess that I have not yet understood what the complaint is. Employers have, within their rights, made representations to us under Section 71. Does my hon. Friend say that those representations should have been passed straight into the waste paper basket on receipt at the Home Office, or should they have been, as they have been, carefully sifted, checked, and examined? [An Hon. Member: "And granted"]. In a very small proportion of cases they have been granted.
      Mr. Woods: What evidence was there before the Inquiry Committee from those firms which were either operating or prepared to operate the 44-hour week?
      Mr. Peake: They were public inquiries, and anybody was entitled to offer evidence. What does my hon. Friend say should have been done when those representations were received? They were, in fact, sifted and checked and examined. In a great many cases the application was rejected. Where we saw a prima facie case, we ordered an inquiry. Does he say that no inquiries, or fewer inquiries, or more inquiries, should have been ordered? During the Debates on the Report Stage of the Factories Bill the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) suggested that in every case where representations were made an inquiry should be obligatory. What should my right hon. Friend have done on receipt of the reports of these inquiries? Again, should we have thrown them into the wastepaper basket unread, or considered them on their merits and then issued, as we have done in certain cases, draft regulations?
      Mr. Tomlinson: Having answered the question themselves and made the draft regulations, surely we might have some justification for them?
      Viscountess Aston: Surely we can ask why the Government never paid more attention to their own Departmental Committee on the hours of employment of young persons, which is absolutely against juveniles working 48 hours?
      Mr. Peake: Parliament provided a procedure under which inquiries should be held. That procedure has been followed, and we have been guided by the reports of those inquiries. I can see no purpose whatever in Parliament providing for inquiries being held unless my right hon. Friend is to be guided by their reports. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) raised a point in connection with the regulations under Section 71 (4). It is rather a technical point. My answer is that we have issued in draft some regulations but. when we have had more experience of the 44-hour week, which has only just come into operation, we shall be prepared to receive any representations and, if necessary, make further regulations under the Subsection.
      There are, probably, some points to which I have not given a reply, but I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that whatever they have said to-day will be carefully considered at the Home Office and borne in mind. I have occupied my present position for rather less than three months, the position previously occupied by the hon. Gentleman who is going to wind up the Debate. Perhaps he will agree with me that the Home Office touches the lives of our people at many points. Its field of administration is probably more varied and wider than that of any other Government Department. Great Departments of State are frequently represented as machines having no soul and no spirit, but that has not been my experience in the last three months. Behind all these statistics, behind all this complex and sometimes cumbrous procedure of Acts, orders and regulations, there lie great problems intimately affecting human interests. Although we talk in these horrible phrases of adolescents, juveniles, and young persons, we must never forget that we are, in fact, talking about only

      979
      boys and girls. At the Home Office, whether it be the refugee problem, or questions of penal reform, or factory Act administration, we have the problem of these boys and girls always before us. I have been profoundly impressed since I went there with the consideration, the care and the genuine sympathy constantly given by officials to all matters affecting these young people. But I do submit, in my last sentence, that our administration of Section 71 has been fair, has been impartial and has been judicial, and that it is fully in keeping with the record of my right hon. Friend and the traditions of the great Department with which I now have the honour to be associated.
      3.25 p.m.
      Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman has to-day delivered what is, I think, his first speech as Under-Secretary of the Home Department, and whatever opinions we may hold about what he has told us, I think I may congratulate him on the fair and courteous manner in which he has dealt with us in this Debate. The trouble about the present Secretary of State and his deputy is that they are too nice— perhaps I ought to say they appear too nice; but behind the surface there is still the strain of Tory capitalism. Having said that, I think the Committee would like me to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) for raising this important subject. Having sat here for some years and taken some little interest in industrial legislation, I feel that the Debate to-day has been very refreshing indeed. The hon. Gentleman and his chief will forgive me when I say that we are determined that issues like this shall be ventilated from time to time in the House of Commons, in order that our Debates may have a salutary effect just beneath that very nice surface that I referred to. The Under-Secretary said that the record of this Government in dealing with the conditions of employment of juveniles was a good one. If it is a good one, why spoil it by these Orders? Frankly, we are very much afraid that if we allow these Orders to proceed it will be only the beginning of a retrograde policy, but we are hoping that whatever else may happen in future the Debate to-day may induce those at the Home Office not to travel any further on these lines.
      980
      The hon. Gentleman asked me a very fair question, What is our complaint? I do not know what has happened to him. He has sat there all day long, and if he cannot be moved by excellent speeches like those of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), the hon. Member for Clay Cross and the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) not even the oratory of a Demosthenes would affect him. The strange thing about the Debate is that the Home Office does not seem to have any friends except one, the senior Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle). I am sorry that he is not in his place, because he represents a constituency next to mine, and I hope that he will read what I am saying about him and that is that I am a little ashamed of his speech.
      Viscountess Astor: So was he.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady says so, and she knows more about men than I do. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton talked about airy factories with plenty of space but the hon. and learned Gentleman himself knows that at this moment the Home Office is dealing with one of the most terrible complaints that can affect working people, and that is the severe bronchitis which seems to disable permanently many cardroom operatives. I know of no section of the industry that is more unhealthy than that called the card room employment in the Lancashire textile mills.
      The hon. and learned Member for Bolton was very careful and so was the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I could not understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying to-day. He and I are members of a committee that has done very excellent work, the committee on wage-earning children. When he and I sit there, his speeches are very much more progressive than they are when he sits here. I do not know what influences him for the worse when he sits on that Front Bench below the Gangway. But we will leave it at that. Strangely enough the argument was that we all want to reduce the hours of labour of young persons but— and there is always a "but" about it. I would like to know what was behind that "but"? I was very pleased that the two Lady Members were with us on this occasion, and I am hoping that they will be with us in the Division

      981
      Lobby. It does not always happen that people vote as they speak in this place.
      Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Davies: We shall watch the Noble Lady with the greatest interest in the Lobby to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) knows as much about industry, I suppose, as anybody in this House. I was therefore very pleased with his speech. I regard him as among the enlightened industrialists; and if all our cotton employers were like him there would be no trouble about these matters we are discussing to-day. Perhaps it would help him if I remind the Committee that no application for exemption has come to the Home Office from the Principality of Wales. We are having a row particularly about Lancashire today; and as everybody knows, politically I am an Englishman.
      The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Rickards) trotted out the old argument once again: "What about Japanese competition?" If I had the musical genius of a Wagner or a Mendelssohn I would put that question into grand opera. If you say a thing often enough people will believe it. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if Lancashire cotton operatives worked for nothing the industry could not even then compete with the Japanese textile industry. He forgets that Lancashire produces goods for the home trade as well; that only 52 per cent. of its production is for export. The Lancashire textile industry must understand something else. We on these Benches supported the cotton employers for months recently during the proceedings on the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill which we hope will become an Act of Parliament soon, in order to put the industry on its feet once again. What do we get in return? A request, if you please, from the very same employers that they shall work their operatives under 16 years of age for 48 hours a week instead of 44.
      Let the Noble Lady in particular understand what that means. This juvenile problem is mainly a girls' problem. In the Lancashire textile industry 20,890 persons are under 16 years of age; 5,770 are boys and 15,120 are girls. I want the Committee to realise that nearly every industry that has come to the Home Office with a request for exemption employs
      982
      girls at the rate almost of three to one boy. The most impudent request is, of course, the one from the printing and bookbinding trade. It is an impudent request from people who probably make better profits than anyone else in the land, and who, I understand, print some of our daily newspapers which enlighten and inform us so very well on foreign affairs. Those of us who have been in this House for some time have watched with interest the struggle in the House of Commons to emancipate the child life of this country and the difficulties that always emerge on all hands. The raising of the school age, the regulation of the hours of labour of young persons; almost every effort made in this House to improve the lot of the children, has always been torpedoed by some dark forces behind the scenes. One such effort to undo the good work is now being made by applying for these exemptions. I took part in all the proceedings of the Committee on the Factories Bill. If that Committee had thought for a moment that 70,000 young persons were to be exempted from the provisions of Section 71 in this fashion, I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would not have voted to delete the power of exemption. The real fact of the matter is that it was understood by everyone that these exemptions would be very rare, that they would only be granted in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. But the first thing that the Home Office does is to exempt the two largest industries of all that employ juvenile labour— bookbinding and printing and cotton. The cheek of the printing and bookbinding industry is colossal.
      Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Gentleman abuses the printing and bookbinding trade. Why did he not take the trouble to come and give evidence at the open inquiry, instead of coming to the House of Commons and abusing them?
      Mr. Davies: Because there were better men than myself who did so.
      Mr. McCorquodale: They did not manage to persuade the committee.
      Mr. Benjamin Smith: They never will, because of the profits.
      Mr. Davies: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman in charge for the Home Office what is there to prevent all the em-

      983
      ployers in the country from applying for exemption in this way? Nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman looks at me in astonishment, and his astonishment is more eloquent than his speech on some occasions. Once exemptions are granted for the cotton industry, what chance is there of refusing them to any other industry? They will say that they have to fight Japanese or Chinese or some other competition, and so on, and they will come increasingly to the Home Office and the tribunal and make out their case.
      Mr. Peake: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the time for making applications has gone, and no further applications can be made to the Home Office.
      Mr. Davies: I have not sufficient faith in this present Government to feel that they would not alter the law to make all that possible. If hon. Members are astonished at that, they do not know this Government as well as I do. Really, the position boils down to this. These people want exemption in order to employ child labour. Why? It is not child labour alone they want. What they desire is cheap labour; and if they could get adult men and women to do this job for children's wages they would employ adult labour instead. Therefore we have a right to object to these regulations. I understand, of course, why juvenile labour does not enter the cotton mills, but I fail completely to understand why the employers do not see that if wages were good, hours of labour reasonable, and conditions of employment decent in the mills of Lancashire, they could get as many juveniles as they wished. Why do boys and girls go to the shops? Of course the shops draw the largest proportion of our juveniles. The answer has been given in part; in the shops there is a 44 hours maximum. But there will be a 48 hours week in factories under these regulations.
      The Act to which we have been referring was passed in 1937 and the hon. Member for Clay Cross quoted a very pertinent part of the speech of the then Home Secretary, when he said in effect that there would be two years for the employers to bend their organisation to the law. What are the employers doing? They want the law to bend itself to their
      984
      desires. That is what is happening. It is a lamentable thing that to-day we are discussing regulations which will indeed put the clock back a great deal. Let me turn to a problem of high politics for a moment. If employers in Fascist Germany or Italy, the totalitarian States, or in Communist Russia, made a request of this kind to exploit child labour, the employers in this House and in this country would howl with sheer disgust.
      I am delighted when we deal with home and domestic problems in this House, because I have a fear that the more we discuss international affairs, here the more employers will "get away" with bad conditions in our own country. I do not think there is a dearth of juveniles. When I look at the reports of other Government Departments, the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board, for instance, I find that there are scores of thousands of juveniles unemployed. But here is the gravamen of my charge against many employers They take juveniles straight from school employ them for two or three years, throw them on the scrapheap, go to the school again, get another batch and in tarn throw them, too, on the scrapheap. It annoys some of us that the nation does not take a much kindlier interest in children. I have said when visiting foreign countries and was glad to say so in the past, that the industrial and social legislation of this country was on the whole the best in the world. That is not so now. In several States of the United States— here the Noble Lady will know what I am talking about
      Viscountess Astor: I want to know to what countries the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. Davies: I will come to the country of the Noble Lady's birth. In the United States no goods can be sold between one of the 47 States and another if they are produced by young persons under the age of 16. In the States of Rhode Island and Wisconsin all child labour under 16 is prohibited absolutely, except in agriculture and domestic service. If the position in America is not a good argument, let us come within the British Empire, on which the sun never sets—and, I might add, the wages seldom rise.
      My hon. Friend has moved a reduction in the salary of the Secretary of State. If this Debate has counted for anything, he should not get a salary at all.
      Mr. Messer: He would have to pay us compensation.
      Mr. Davies: I am making these points because hon. Members still have a tendency to think that we, of course, are better than anybody else; that our legislation is superior to anything in the wide world.
      Viscountess Astor: You say so when
      you go abroad.
      Mr. Davies: I am going to say one thing that may please the Noble Lady. I never let my own country down when I go abroad, especially when I am in America. But I know some Americans who let their native country down when they live abroad. However, that has nothing to do with the Factories Act. Let me make another important point. The Under-Secretary knows that during the last few years the Chief Inspector of Factories has made a special point of the fact that accidents in factories in this country have increased enormously, and, what is worse than anything else, that the percentage of accidents among young persons is proportionately on the increase. That ought to be a strong argument in favour of reducing the hours of labour of young persons. I have been through all these arguments of the employers in favour of exemption and I find among them all the same old stuff. I have heard it a hundred times as a trade union official— the industry cannot afford it; somebody will lose wages unless you do as they suggest.
      Let me point out to the Under-Secretary that, unless he is careful, his orders will land some industries into difficulties. If the Lancashire Education Committee, of its own will, lays it down that no child may work more than 36 hours a week and a cotton employer employs a child up to 15, as he may well do, for 36 hours a week, older children from 15 to 16 will be working 48 hours a week, while some children in the industry will not be allowed to work more than 44 hours. In one factory you may, therefore, have some children employed for 36 hours under the education committee's decision, for 44 hours according to the tribunal, and for 48 hours according to the decision of the Secretary of State. On top of all that—and what is more offensive than anything else— you may have men and women trade union-
      986
      ists in these very same factories working a 46-hour week, and the little ones working 48 hours. That is what you are likely to get. The shabby way this nation is dealing with these children is therefore something worth mentioning in the House of Commons. I want to finish on this note. I am not going to quote my own experience and the experience of hon. Members on this side of the Committee —
      Viscountess Astor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have mentioned that there were 35,300 juveniles injured and 62 killed since 1937.
      Mr. Davies: No amount of figures will make a dent in the mind of this Government.
      Viscountess Astor: They would make a dent on the House.
      Mr. Davies: It has always occurred to me in debates of this kind in the House of Commons that the employers of this country, and maybe politicians and statesmen of all parties, forget two fundamental facts about persons engaged in industry. One is, as has been mentioned already, the falling birth rate, but there is something even more important than that, and that is the ageing population. It has been said by the Minister of Health that a child born in this country to-day may reasonably expect to live on the average 13 years longer than its grandfather was expected to live when he was born. We are finding that in some industries juveniles are engaged and got rid of as soon as possible, and if and when they reach about 50 years of age they are dismissed for good. This Amendment of ours is a protest not only against the Government, but against the diabolical tendency in this rich country— the richest country in the world at this moment —
      Mr. Wragg: What about the United States of America?
      Mr. Davies: Their riches are only on the surface. They bring some of their wealth here when they come.
      Viscountess Astor: Oh!
      Mr. Davies: If they do not, then they ought to do. Finally, Parliament will have to take note of the tendency in industry in favour of employing young-

      987
      sters and scrapping adult men and women. I hope that I have said something that will help to bring Members of this Committee into the Division Lobby with us to-day. An hon. Gentleman opposite said— and I could not quite understand what he meant— "It is not our duty to vote against the Government; we must educate public opinion." I say that
      we must not only educate public opinion on this issue, but we must educate the Government by voting against them in the Lobby to-day.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £ 722,461, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 186.

      Division No. 267.]

      AYES.

      [3.55 p.m.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

      Parker, J.

      Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

      Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

      Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Simon)

      Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

      Ridley, G.

      Banfield, J. W.

      Groves, T. E.

      Ritson, J.

      Barr, J.

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Beaumont, H. (Batley)

      Hardie, Agnes

      Sexton, T. M.

      Bellenger, F. J.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Shinwell, E.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

      Hayday, A.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Charleton. H. C.

      Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

      Simpson, F. B.

      Chater, D.

      Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Cluse, W. S.

      Hicks, E. G.

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

      Hills, A. (Pentefrest)

      Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

      Cooks, F. S.

      Hopkin, D.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Collindridge, F.

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Cove, W. G.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

      Thorne, W.

      Daggar, G.

      Kirby, B. V.

      Thurtle, E.

      Dalton, H.

      Lathan, G.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

      Lawson, J. J.

      Tomlinson, G.

      Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

      Lee, F.

      Viant, S. P.

      Dobbie, W.

      Lunn, W.

      Walkden, A. G.

      Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Walker, J.

      Ede, J. C.

      McEntee, V. La T.

      Welkins, F. C.

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      MacLaren, A.

      Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

      Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

      MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

      Williams, T. (Don Valley)

      Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)

      Marshall, F.

      Wilmot, John

      Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

      Mathers, G.

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

      Messer, F.

      Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

      Foot, D. M.

      Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

      Frankel, D.

      Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

      Mr. John and Mr. Adamson.

      Gardner, B. W.

      Nathan, Colonel H. L.

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Noel-Baker, P. J.

      NOES.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

      Channon, H.

      Eckersley, P. T.

      Albery, Sir Irving

      Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

      Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

      Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

      Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

      Clarry, Sir Reginald

      Ellis, Sir G.

      Apsley, Lord

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Emmott, C. E. G. C.

      Assheton, R.

      Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Everard, Sir Wlliam Lindsay

      Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Findlay, Sir E.

      Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

      Colville, Rt. Hon. John

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Baxter, A. Beverley

      Conant, Captain R. J. E.

      Fyfe, D. P. M.

      Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

      Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

      Goldie, N. B.

      Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

      Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

      Gower, Sir R. V.

      Beit, Sir A. L.

      Cox, H. B. Trevor

      Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenent R.

      Bennett, Sir E. N.

      Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

      Granville, E. L.

      Bernays, R. H.

      Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

      Greene, W. P. D. (Woroester)

      Bossom, A. C.

      Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

      Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

      Boulton, W. W.

      Cross, R. H.

      Guinness, T. L. E. B.

      Bower, Comdr. R. T.

      Crossley, A. C.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

      Brass, Sir W.

      Crowder, J. F. E.

      Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

      Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

      Davison, Sir W. H.

      Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

      Bullock, Capt. M.

      De Chair, S. S.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Butcher, H. W.

      De la Bère, R.

      Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

      Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Howitt, Dr. A. B.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Denville, Alfred

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

      Cary, R. A.

      Donner, P. W.

      Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

      Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

      Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

      Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Dugdale, Captain T. L.

      Hunloke, H. P.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

      Duggan, H. J.

      Hutchinson, G. C.

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

      James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

      Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

      Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

      Jarvis, Sir J. J,

      Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)'

      Keeling, E. H.

      O'Connor, Sir Tarence J.

      Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

      Kallatt, Major E. O.

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

      Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

      Orr-Ewing, I. L.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

      Palmer, G. E. H.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Kimball, L.

      Peake, O.

      Suteliffe, H.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

      Parkins, W. R. D.

      Tasker, Sir R. I.

      Lipson, D. L.

      Petherick, M.

      Thomas, J. P. L.

      Little, J.

      Pilkington, R.

      Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

      Llewellin, Colonel J. J

      Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

      Touche, G. C.

      Lloyd, G. W.

      Pownall, Lt..Col. Sir Assheton

      Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

      Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

      Raikes, H. V. A. M.

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Loftus, P. C.

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

      Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

      Read, A. C. (Exeter)

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

      M'Connell, Sir J.

      Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

      Warrender, Sir V.

      McCorquedale, M. S.

      Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

      Wayland, Sir W. A

      MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

      Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

      Wedderburn, H. J. S.

      Macdonald, Capt. P. (lsle of Wight)

      Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

      Wells, Sir Sydney

      Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

      Rowlands, G.

      Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

      Magnay, T.

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

      Russell, Sir Alexander

      Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T, (Hitchin)

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

      Salmon, Sir I.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

      Marsden, Commander A.

      Samuel, M. R. A.

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

      Schuster, Sir G. E.

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Miller, Sir R. J. (Miteham)

      Scott, Lord William

      Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

      Mills, Major J. D, (New Forest)

      Shakespeare, G. H.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lana (Streatham)

      Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lt'st)

      Wragg, H.

      Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

      Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

      Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

      Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

      Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

      Moreing, A. C.

      Smithers, Sir W.

      Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston.

      Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

      Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Original Question again proposed.
      Mr. Tinker Mr. Tinker rose—
      It being after Four of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
      The remaining Order was read and postponed.

  ROYAL NAVY (FREE CHURCH CHAPLAINS).
  ROYAL NAVY (FREE CHURCH CHAPLAINS).
  WAR RISKS (PROPERTY INSURANCE)
  WAR RISKS (PROPERTY INSURANCE)
  LAND ACQUISITION (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  LAND ACQUISITION (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  CHINA (DAMAGE TO MISSION PROPERTY).
  CHINA (DAMAGE TO MISSION PROPERTY).
  GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).
  GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND (STATISTICS).
  SOUTH AFRICA(LABOUR CONDITIONS)
  SOUTH AFRICA(LABOUR CONDITIONS)
  INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES).
  INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES).
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY RABBITS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WEST SURREY WATER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Munster I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MILK INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
11.5 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, you will be aware that milk policy has been the subject of a great deal of attention for a number of years. We have had a series of measures designed to provide temporary assistance to the milk industry against the effects of emergency conditions. Certain comprehensive proposals in regard to the industry were put forward by his Majesty's Government in a White Paper in the summer of 1937, and a Bill to implement these proposals was introduced

325
into another place in November last. The provisions of that Bill were wide in scope and far-reaching their possible effects; inevitably they were the subject of much controversy and eventually the Bill was withdrawn so that the whole problem of milk policy could be re-examined. The present position is that, quite apart from the controversial nature of the subject of milk, there has been no time this Session to introduce any fresh comprehensive proposals. But existing legislation, which provides for Exchequer assistance on milk used in manufacture and the financing of schemes for increasing the demand for milk, in particular the milk-in-schools schemes, expires on 30th September next. Moreover, English and Scottish Milk Marketing Boards took steps to put into effect as from 1st October, 1938, a very important part of the proposals contained in the White Paper which were the granting of increased quality milk premiums so as to encourage and accelerate improvements in the quality of the milk supply.
The Bill now before your Lordships accordingly provides, up to the end of September, 1940, for three things—first, Exchequer contributions towards the cost of the premiums that are being paid by boards on quality milks; secondly, the continuance of Exchequer assistance in regard to the milk-in-schools schemes and further Exchequer assistance for any cheap milk schemes for mothers and young children; and thirdly, for limiting, on rather a new basis, milk producers' losses in respect of milk sold for butter or cheese manufacture. The first two parts of this programme are designed to lead to an increase in liquid milk consumption by gaining the greater confidence of the public in the purity and cleanliness of the milk supply and by taking steps to encourage milk consumption by those who need it most and are least able to afford it. The third part is necessary to protect milk producers from the serious effects of conditions over which they have no control—for example, the price level of imports of manufactured milk
products—and so make them better able to play their part in carrying out what is now the constructive parts of the programme.
I think there is agreement on all sides that the main objective of policy, both from the point of view of the milk producers and of the nation as a whole, is
326
to increase the consumption of liquid milk. Although this Bill is necessarily a measure of limited scope it is a further contribution to the solution of that problem. Clause 1 provides for Exchequer contributions to milk marketing boards, for the two years from 1st October, 1938, to 30th September, 1940, towards premiums paid by them to encourage quality milk production. This was foreshadowed in the White Paper of 1937 and the premiums have in fact been paid by the two main milk marketing boards. It is accordingly proposed to recoup them by Exchequer grants.
Clause 2 provides for the milk-in-schools scheme up to the end of September, 1940, and for any cheap milk scheme for expectant and nursing mothers and children under five. It differs from the previous provision under Section II of the Milk Act, 1934, in several rather important respects. There is no overriding financial limit to the annual Exchequer grant as there has been in the past. Up to October, 1938, the limit was £500,000 a year and this year it has been £750,000. It is estimated that the actual grant for next year may be £1,000,000, which is considerably higher than the grant in previous years. A change has also been made in the formula governing the maximum rate of Exchequer grant that may be made to milk marketing boards to enable them to carry out the necessary arrangements. They will now be able to cover the full real loss incurred by boards. It will apply retrospectively as from October, 1938, so as to cover in particular the increased cost of the milk-in-schools scheme during the current year, due to increasing consumption and to the increased distribution margin allowed for this service since last October.
My noble friend the President of the Board of Education recently described in your Lordships' House in replying to a Motion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester the steps that are being taken to secure that the greatest possible advantage is taken of the milk-in-schools schemes, and I believe that no one can doubt the Government's desire to see the development of these schemes. As regards mothers and young children, although a scheme was introduced by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for its area early this year, it has not been possible to begin such a scheme in

327
England, but I am now glad to be able to say that agreement has within the last few days been reached with the English Milk Marketing Board as to the financial basis for such a scheme and I understand that the Board will submit a scheme at a very early date. In the meantime I can, I think, give a general indication of the lines that the scheme is likely to follow, which will be broadly similar to those of the Scottish scheme. It will provide for the supply of milk to local authorities for the purposes of their maternity and child welfare arrangements at a price of 2d. a pint, which is 1s. 4d. a gallon, and is little more than half the ordinary retail price. The purpose of the scheme is to enable the local authorities to extend their present services.
The development of the scheme will depend in the first place on the initiative shown by local authorities and in the second place on the response from the mothers and children. It will be for the local authorities to prepare their proposals and submit them for the approval of the Minister of Health. The scheme is designed to increase consumption by those who at present consume too little milk, and I am sure that local authorities will do everything within their power to encourage mothers and children to participate in the scheme. They will be able to authorise the supply of milk to the consumer free or for part payment or for full payment of the reduced price of 2d. a pint. The balance of the cost of any milk supplied to mothers and children at less than 2d. a pint will fall on the local authorities' funds under existing maternity and child welfare arrangements. The Exchequer grant until the end of September, 1940, will be sufficient to bring the Board's returns on milk supplied under the scheme up to an average of 1s. 2d. a gallon on the year. The rate of any grant for the future will be reviewed before the end of September, 1940, in the light of the experience gained. It is further proposed that the distributive margin on milk sold under the scheme shall be not more than 8d. a gallon. There is, of course, no compulsion on any distributor to supply this milk, but I hope that distributors will co-operate to make the scheme a success.
I now come to Clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill. These are designed to place a
328
bottom in the market for milk used in the manufacture of butter or cheese. It is important to remember that under this Bill we are proposing to give very substantial assistance to milk producers by way of encouraging quality milk production. This represents a change of emphasis in our milk policy and it constitutes the main method of helping the industry during the two years to which the Bill relates. Assistance on milk for manufacture accordingly becomes a supplementary safeguard only. Its object is to prevent the persistence of low prices in the milk product market from jeopardising the success of the main proposals for encouraging quality milk production. It is, therefore, proposed to change the method and basis for granting such assistance. In future, this will depend on the course of prices of imported butter or cheese over six-monthly periods. Payments will be limited to certain standard quantities of milk. This is in accordance with the general principles of price insurance provisions, and production is not, of course, limited to those quantities. On present contract terms and in the light of present price relationships, the level of price insurance under this part of the Bill may, for the year 1938–39, be assessed, in the case of milk for butter, at 6.1d. per gallon in winter and 5.2d. in summer, and, in the case of milk for cheese, at 6.3d. per gallon in winter, and 5.1d. in summer. These are average figures for six-monthly periods. Remembering the purpose of the proposals, I think it will be found that they afford a reasonable measure of security for milk producers.
The Bill can, of course, only be regarded as an interim measure. Nevertheless, it provides for quality improvement in the milk supply, which is an essential feature of a sound national milk policy directed towards achieving increased liquid milk consumption. In the Government's view, however, the desired increase in liquid milk consumption is dependent not only on improvement in quality but also on improvements in method and organisation, particularly on the distributive side, leading to a reduction in costs and eventually in retail prices. The objective of permanent milk policy must be a self-supporting milk industry, assisted only so far as may be necessary to prevent the price structure

329
from being undermined by low prices of competing milk products from overseas. In pursuance of that end, the Government is continuing to seek a means of approach to problems some of which, as the House will be aware, raise acute controversial issues. It has been suggested that the Government should initiate an expert inquiry into the costs of distribution. It must be remembered that a good deal of information derived from various sources is already available as to costs of distribution of milk, and the Government do not propose in the present Bill, which is essentially an interim measure, to ask for special powers to undertake a further inquiry. If, however, in connection with any further examination of the whole problem which is being undertaken, it is found necessary to add to our knowledge on this subject, the Government will take the necessary steps to this end.
Another aspect of long-term policy to which I should like to refer in connection with this Bill is the Attested Herds Scheme. My right honorable friend has recently had under review the future of this scheme and its relation to milk policy, and he has reached the conclusion that the payments made under the scheme in respect of disease eradication should be considered as far as possible independently of the various considerations affecting milk policy generally. It would be inappropriate in a purely interim measure such as the present Bill to include any long-term provisions relating to this matter. On the other hand, it is desirable that some indication should be given at this stage of the future of the Attested Herds Scheme as a disease eradication measure. It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation, at the first suitable opportunity, providing for the extension to September 30, 1948, of the period of operation of the relevant provision under the Agriculture Act, 1937, which at present expires on January 31, 1941. But in so far as payments made solely in respect of disease eradication are made by way of compensation for the additional expenditure incurred in ridding a herd of tuberculosis and qualifying it for attestation, they should not be of indefinite duration, This principle is already applied in the case of the alternative bonus per head of cattle under the Attested Herds Scheme, which is payable over a period of three years, and it is proposed that after January 31, 1941,
330
milk bonus payments under this scheme shall likewise only be received by an individual owner for a period of three years in all, including any period prior to that date in respect of which bonus has been paid. It is also proposed that the rate of this milk bonus up to September 30, 1943, shall be the same as at present—namely, one penny per gallon, or its equivalent in bonus per head. I am not in a position at present to indicate what the rate of bonus will be in the period subsequent to that date, but the matter will be reviewed during the preceding period in the light of the progress made by the scheme and of other considerations, and as long notice as possible of any proposed changes will be given.
Other matters of long-term policy will also require further consideration in the near future, but in the meantime I commend to the House the present proposals and I hope that they will serve to promote the interests not only of the milk industry but of the whole nation. I have taken longer than perhaps might have been expected at this sitting to elaborate some of the proposals contained in this Bill, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, I have to-day been able to make an announcement which my right honourable friend was not in a position to make when the Bill was being considered in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
11.28 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I want to raise one point only, which concerns Private Bill legislation. I must trouble your Lordships to throw your minds back some three years, when two Bills were brought into your Lordships' House, one by Poole and the other by Glasgow. It will be remembered that about three and a half years ago there was a nasty outbreak of typhoid on the South Coast of England, and Poole was especially a sufferer. The Corporation of Poole, very properly and rightly desiring to extend every protection they could to the inhabitants of and visitors to Poole, brought in a clause in their general Bill dealing with pasteurisation of milk. In the same Session quite a different scheme was brought in by

331
Glasgow in a proposed Provisional Order. Under the Scottish procedure that Provisional Order was considered by my right honourable friend the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself, and we decided that the proposal was so novel that it should be brought before Parliament in a Bill. Glasgow then turned their Provisional Order into a Bill.
There was considerable objection from various interests to the proposal made by Poole. Among those who regretted that Poole had brought in this clause, although the Government admitted that they were perfectly right in doing everything they possibly could to safeguard their population, it was felt that this scheme of pasteurisation had better be dealt with by general legislation, rather than by particular legislation. I need not enumerate the numerous difficulties presented by this proposal to proceed by Private Bill. It was possible for the Minister of Health at the time to give an assurance to Poole that the danger of infection there was no greater than anywhere else in the country. To put the matter shortly, after a good deal of discussion my noble friend Lord Halifax, who was then leading your Lordships' House, said these words:
"In these circumstances the Government have reviewed the whole matter and I am authorised to announce that it is their intention to bring forward long-term legislation dealing with general milk policy in the near future."
He also said:
"I am bound to agree with my noble friend Lord Cranworth that a question such as pasteurisation would be and must be more properly dealt with in general rather than local legislation. Consequently it would not be the wish of the Government that any provision to enforce it should be admitted in a Private Bill during the present Session."
On that the Poole clause was withdrawn, and Glasgow dropped their Bill.
Now that speech of my noble friend Lord Halifax was made on April 27, 1937, and, as your Lordships are aware, in this spring the first Milk Bill was introduced in another place. That Milk Bill included provision for pasteurisation, but circumstances arose which necessitated the dropping of that Bill and the introduction of this Bill which my noble friend Lord Feversham has told you is of an interim character. What I would like to ask my noble friend is this. Supposing—I have not had any information
332
that such an intention exists, but Bills for the next Session, as your Lordships are aware, are in process of being prepared—supposing some local authority brought in a Bill such as the Poole and Glasgow Bills for next Session, and deposited it in November, what attitude would the Government take in regard to that matter? Would they adhere to the view that such a proposal would be inopportune, and that an inquiry into the matter of pasteurisation would be difficult in the case of proposals put forward to your Lordships in a Private Bill? Because it is quite possible that a local authority—I have absolutely no information, as I have said—having seen the proposals of the Government, may bring them forward in a Private Bill. In any case I think we ought to ask the Government what attitude they would take if such a course was pursued.
11.34 a.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill very wisely disarmed possible critics of it by confessing it was an interim measure. On those assurances we have no desire to oppose the Bill, but if it were put before your Lordships' House as a final or satisfactory solution of the milk problem we should feel that it ought to receive very careful thought and criticism. The Bill, however, is not of fundamental importance, but it does review, as I see it, the mechanism of distribution and makes proposals for the modification of that mechanism. There is a growing appreciation of the need for a greatly increased consumption of milk, but I feel that it will be a long time before the general public are convinced that milk is as safe as its food value is undoubted.
My own experience has been an almost continuous desire to avoid milk because of the dangers that were at least at one time associated with its consumption. There have been great questions raised as to the purity of its production, the dangers of its distribution, and so on, and therefore anything that we can do to assure the public that pure milk is now to be regarded as a possibility will be of very great value. Parents are, of course, being continuously educated in this matter by seeing the improved health of their children owing to school milk-consumption schemes, and the details of this Bill will appropriately be examined on the Committee

333
stage. I only desire to say that what the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has said about Lord Halifax's declaration is of some importance. Even under the pressure that exists in other departments it should have been possible, before now, to have made proposals for that long-range legislation which was then foreshadowed, but we have no desire to prevent the Second Reading of the Bill before the House.
11.38 a.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am fully aware that at this time of day it would be idle to lament over the fact that the supply of milk and of dairy products generally is conducted under purely artificial conditions, or to shed a tear over the days—the old days which we all remember—when milk, cheese and butter were articles of ordinary consumption, to be bought and sold on the ordinary principles of competition, Therefore we have to consider the proposals of this Bill as being in a sense forced on His Majesty's Government. How far it is possible to proceed within a reasonable space of time to implement the intentions which the noble Earl stated in general terms to be in the mind of the Government, and how far this is to be regarded as a purely interim measure, is, perhaps, a matter of some doubt. I think in view of the general stress of legislation we cannot anticipate any very early further step in advance on the lines which have been indicated.
The intentions of His Majesty's Government in producing this measure have been clearly stated—so far as possible to increase the consumption of milk at a reasonable price, and to ensure, so far as possible, that that milk shall be pure and free from the possibilities of disease. I am not quite sure how far the statement that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that there has been a general uneasiness with regard to the purity of milk which has distinctly limited its use, can be supported by evidence. There is no doubt that the fear of tubercular disease caused by milk has been widespread, and I think in some cases it has been exaggerated almost to the point of believing that so long as any cattle are tubercular the milk supply of the country is in danger. Now, that is an undoubted exaggeration because, as everybody knows, cattle may
334
suffer from quite severe tubercular lesions without in any way affecting the purity of the milk which they give. At the same time, of course, we all agree that everything that can be done in reason to stamp out the appalling tubercular disease which, as we know, affects so many animals as well as human beings, ought to be encouraged in every possible way.
I am glad to notice one feature in the Bill, that although every respect is properly paid to accredited milk, yet that is not to be considered as the only milk in respect of which assistance can be given from public sources. As many of your Lordships know, great expense has been caused by the alterations to buildings in various forms in order to obtain a certificate for accredited milk. That has been in itself desirable, though it is obvious that it must, in the long run, whether the farm be private property or public property, add something to the cost of production. But it is undoubtedly true that a great deal of milk can be produced under reasonable conditions, and absolutely good milk for general consumption, in holdings which have not been able, in the technical sense, to obtain the accredited certificate. One point is, I think, worth mentioning—that quite apart from the permanent improvement required to obtain the accredited certificate, quite as much attention has to be paid to the manner and conditions in which' the actual milking is carried on, which for the purity of the milk is just as important as the provisions for light and cubic space, as demanded by the rules.
Perhaps I may be allowed, as coming from a part of the world where cheese is a main product, to express my satisfaction at the encouragement which the measure gives to farmhouse cheese-making. It is well known that in cheese-making so much depends upon the individual skill of the person who works in the dairy, and that generally speaking a finer product can be obtained in this way than can possibly be obtained by a cheese factory. Then, as regards the increased consumption of milk, I am not sure that it is always realised that milk, taken alone, is not regarded by everybody, for either children or grown-up people, as a really palatable form of nourishment. We notice the vastly greater percentage of milk which is used in some foreign countries as compared with Great Britain. Well, I do not know whether any in-

335
formation is obtainable as to how far that consumption represents liquid milk drunk undiluted or unchanged, or how far it represents consumption in other forms. I have always felt that the countries are greatly to be envied in which the consumption of coffee and milk, either in the morning or in the afternoon, takes the place of the consumption of strong tea, which I believe to be an extremely unhealthy beverage. I think that any encouragement that can be given, by example or precept, to a larger consumption of milk in this way would be of distinct advantage to the country.
And I think we must all feel that the provision which will increase, as we hope, the consumption of milk in schools and its consumption by nursing mothers is an act of wise liberality on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that a very large increase in the consumption in both these directions may be the result of this measure. I have nothing more to add, and I do not know whether it is likely that in the Committee stage some of the same Amendments which were moved in another place will be moved from the Front Opposition Bench. I am rather inclined to hope not, from what fell from the noble Lord, not merely because time presses, but because he regards this as a measure which will have to be dealt with in other details later on. In these circumstances, I hope and believe that the Bill will pass your Lordships' House in much the form in which it has been brought in for Second Reading.
11.50 a.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the milk control schemes have served a very useful purpose, but there is a small minority who have suffered severely from them. I refer to the hospitals. The cost of milk at the higher price they pay to-day as compared with 1932–33—the year before the milk control came into being—means about £115,000 more expense per annum to them. That is taking the average price per gallon paid in 1932 against that in 1939, and is only based on the average price for 1932; but hospitals used often to get special terms from friendly local suppliers of milk. This is a very serious matter for such hard-pressed institutions as voluntary hospitals. A hospital of 500 beds requires at least 100 gallons of milk a day. At present
336
prices, one-quarter of the total cost of hospital provisions is for milk. The quantity of milk supplied to the hospitals is seven million gallons per annum out of a total of eleven hundred million gallons—under a 150th part of the whole milk scheme. No doubt more milk would be consumed if the price to the hospitals was lower.
It is the Minister or the Milk Board who can best suggest the means of giving justice to the hospitals in this matter. A 150th part is a very small section of the scheme, but a gesture of this kind at this time would be much appreciated by the committees and executive officers of these great homes for the sick poor. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the large quantity of milk sold at much under the hospital price to those who manufacture cheese and butter in this country—useful commodities no doubt, but they can be bought more cheaply from New Zealand. In fact, at the present moment, this country can get extra butter for nothing from New Zealand because that Dominion owes our investors a great deal of money and if we do not take her dairy products for interest on our capital New Zealand will not be able to pay us. The British Hospitals Association put this dear milk matter to the Ministry two years ago, but the case is more urgent to-day and the present Minister of Agriculture may not have heard of it. It is the high price charged to the hospitals that helps the milk schemers to charge the low price to the butter makers.
I am not asking for milk for the hospitals at the low price that butter manufacturers pay, but I am asking that the cost should at least be reduced to the price paid by them before milk control in 1932—that they should be saved this extra £115,000 per annum they now pay. Hospitals are not business concerns—they cannot raise their prices to their patients. Every penny of that £115,000 extra cost has to be obtained from the threepences a week that are paid by working men and the contributions of generous subscribers. I trust the Ministry and the Milk Controllers will arrange for some amendment to this Bill in Committee that will put this injustice right. May I express the hope with regard to the matter that has been discussed here to-day—that of the safety of milk—that it will not be headlined in the Press? Nothing has done more harm to the policy of those who are

337
endeavouring to increase the consumption of milk than that particular report when it gets headlined and large space in the Press.
11.55 a.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have participated in the debate on this Bill have unanimously voiced the view that if the future prosperity of the milk industry is to be secured it is necessary that the consumption of liquid milk should be increased. That is not only for the benefit of those who produce the milk but also for the benefit of those who consume it. Further, it is urged that if that objective is to be attained, it is necessary that the milk supplied should be of a higher quality inasmuch as it is free from disease and is clean. Perhaps it would be of interest to your Lordships if I gave you some figures showing the improvement that has so far been effected. I recognise, in submitting these figures, that they are only of a provisional character inasmuch as the schemes launched are still in progress.
The percentage of quality milk that is put on the market to-day—that is accredited milk and T.T. milk—is now 40 per cent. of the total sold. The total amount of milk sold in the year 1937–8 for England and Wales was 1,063,000 gallons. As I attempted to say in moving the Second Reading, we are tackling this problem on two fronts—one with the object of obtaining better herds, free from tuberculosis, and the other with the object of getting cleaner milk. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, referred in some most interesting remarks to the premiums paid for the attestation of herds. It may be of interest to the House if I say that the total premiums payable on milk from attested herds sold by wholesale are as follows: Since October 1, for tuberculin-tested milk from attested herds, 3¼d. a gallon has been paid; for accredited milk from attested herds, the same figure; and for ordinary milk from attested herds, 2d. per gallon. The assistance given to quality milk sold by wholesale which is not from attested herds has been, since October 1, 1938, when the Boards adopted the proposals set out in the White Paper, as follows: For tuberculin-tested milk, 2¼d. per gallon and for accredited milk, 1¼d.
338
Your Lordships will see that encouragement is given to the milk producer either to produce milk of cleaner character or to get his herds free from the disease of tuberculosis, or to combine both these objects by coming under the attestation scheme and also getting a certificate either for T.T. milk or accredited milk. The persons who at present sell milk from attested herds are producing over 50,000,000 gallons per year. Your Lordships will see that great progress is being made in this direction. I agree that if this Bill were to be considered as a long-term measure it would be neither a complete nor satisfactory solution of the problems that confront the milk industry.
My noble friend Lord Luke has referred to the question of milk for hospitals, and a similar point was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, in a recent debate which my noble friend the President of the Board of Education said he would look into. My noble friend Lord Luke has said that this question may not have come to the knowledge of the present Minister of Agriculture. I should like to assure him that the Minister is well aware of the case enunciated by the hospitals, and I myself have been present on occasions when the view as expressed by the noble Lord has been put forward. Perhaps I may be allowed in those circumstances to deal with one or two aspects that my noble friend has raised. He has informed your Lordships' House that the increased cost to hospitals in the purchase of milk has been £115,000 as compared with the figure paid in 1932.
On previous occasions when representations were made it was pointed out that as far as the hospitals are concerned they are quite obviously large consumers of milk and are entitled to expect—as it is understood that they do in fact obtain—special terms for the purchase of liquid milk for human consumption. But it would appear that there is no more justification for the provision of milk at specially cheap rates with Exchequer assistance to hospitals than for such other essential requirements of hospitals as gas, coal, electricity, bedding and medicine. The fact that hospitals are doing beneficent work is surely not a reason why producers of milk should give preferential treatment to the extent of selling milk to the hospitals at an unremunerative level. I understand that the Milk Marketing Board

339
have already granted such concessions as they usefully can, and it seems that in this instance compulsory beneficence should be no more required from the milk producers of this country than from any other section of the community. If hospitals are to obtain milk at prices below those at which other persons can buy it, the matter would appear to be one for consideration on social grounds, and I am sure that my noble friend in putting forward the case of the hospitals does not mean to imply that milk producers, or those engaged in the distributive side, should be put under a severe loss by selling at a special figure to these institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, has quoted the figure that was paid in 1932, but he will know that at that date the condition of the milk industry was such, owing to cutting both in the wholesale and retail prices, that the industry was as near bankruptcy as it has ever been, and had it not been for the adoption of the agricultural marketing schemes it would be true to say that a large number of the 150,000 persons engaged in the production of milk would have gone out of business. Therefore this is a question that cannot be solved merely by negotiation between those who represent the milk producers on the Milk Marketing Board and the hospitals. It is a matter which must surely he considered, as I said, on social grounds, and although that may suggest the need for a review of the maintenance and equipment of hospitals, that should be considered not only having regard to the expenses incurred in the cost of obtaining milk but also expenses incurred in the provision of other necessities for hospital maintenance.
My noble friend Lord Onslow, together with Lord Snell, has referred to the statement made by Lord Halifax in April, 1937, with regard to the Private Bills which were presented by the Corporations of Poole and Glasgow. As regards the question of pasteurisation, provisions on this subject are clearly unsuitable for a short-term Bill of the kind which is now before your Lordships' House. Further, the question is one which concerns more than one Department, and I regret that I cannot give any statement of the Government's view on the general question. But with regard to the particular question to which my noble friend has referred, I can
340
at present only say that as far as local authorities are concerned it is open to them to promote Private Bills containing pasteurisation provisions, and that if they do so the Government for their part will consider these provisions on their merits. I am glad that those who have participated in this debate have given a welcome to the provisions of this Bill, and I trust that pending consideration of further policy and of the views of all sections of the milk industry therein and up to the time that any new proposals are put forward for a another measure, the limited provisions of this Bill will have gone some way to increase the consumption of liquid milk and to obtain a better quality and standard of milk consumed.
12.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, by leave of the House may I ask my noble friend a question to get this point cleared up? He said, if I do not misquote him, that if local authorities were to bring forward proposals for pasteurisation such as those proposed by the Bill of the Glasgow Corporation the Government would consider them on their merits. Does that mean any alteration of what my noble friend Lord Halifax said nearly three years ago? It was a definite discouragement to local authorities to proceed by Private Bill, and for obvious reasons. Supposing, for instance, any local authority were to bring in that part of the dropped Milk Bill which relates to pasteurisation, would the Government say it was undesirable that it should be proceeded with or not?
One reason why my noble friend Lord Halifax said, and very properly and rightly said, that the Government at that time discouraged local proposals was that those proposals would go to a Committee of your Lordships' House, and would be examined by that Committee as a Local Bill, and that would entail probably great expense to the local authority without possibly producing any conclusive results. I think everybody agreed with that. Supposing for the sake of argument the proposals made in the dropped Bill were introduced, have the proceedings which were foreshadowed three years ago gone so far as to enable the Government to express an opinion in regard to pasteurisation? I do not want to press the point, but I think my noble friend will see that it will possibly come into the minds of local authorities to bring the matter forward

341
in Private Bills next Session, and it would be desirable that they should have some guidance because it would save them trouble.
12.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the statement I made in regard to the point raised necessarily differs from that made by my noble friend Viscount Halifax in April, 1937, because at that time the long-term measures for the milk industry were in process of formulation. Your Lordships will recall that that Bill was withdrawn from another place owing to the acute controversy that arose concerning it. Therefore there is not at present before Parliament any provisions under the head of pasteurisation. I can only repeat to my noble friend that if local authorities wish to promote Bills incorporating pasteurisation proposals they will be considered by the Government on their merits.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS TRADE GUARANTEES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
12.12 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a bill to increase the powers of the Board of Trade to give guarantees for the purpose of encouraging our over-seas trade; and also to authorise certain financial arrangements in connection with such guarantees. Section 4 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, empowered the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury, to give guarantees in cases where the Board of Trade were satisfied that it was in the national interest that guarantees should be given, although the normal method involving consultation with the Advisory Council is not appropriate. The liability in respect of such guarantees was limited to £10,000,000 and it was provided in Section 5 of the Act that separate returns were to be made of guarantees given under Section 4, so that those transactions could be clearly distinguished from the Department's ordinary commercial business.
My noble friend Lord Sempill—whom am sorry not to see in his place—on the 1st May last introduced a Motion which led to a very interesting debate in this
342
House. He impressed upon His Majesty's Government the urgent necessity of offering substantial credit facilities to countries whose independence we had guaranteed, so that we could assist them to remain economically independent while at the same time extending our export trade. These views were generally supported by the noble Lords who spoke in that debate. In reply I said that it had always been in the mind of His Majesty's Government that the amount of £10,000,000 provided in the Act which was passed in February of this year might not be enough, and I assured your Lordships that if the amount was really found to be insufficient, the Government would not hesitate to come to Parliament again with another Bill with the object of increasing that sum. It is permitted to me now to disclose the fact, which I naturally could not make public at that time, that in May last His Majesty's Government had already reached the conclusion that the considerable number of proposals for such guarantees which had been put forward for consideration and the amount involved, would make it necessary to ask Parliament to increase considerably the sum of £10,000,000 referred to. That is the reason for this Bill.
There is no intention of disturbing the provisions of Section I of the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, for the giving of guarantees after consultation with the Advisory Council in respect of ordinary commercial credits, and the present title of the Bill has been chosen with the object of marking the difference between the two classes of guarantees. Owing to the developments of the international situation which have taken place since that Act was passed last February, the Government decided that further steps were required to preserve the commercial and economic relations between the United Kingdom and other friendly nations. It is known that negotiations have been proceeding with several countries for the purchase on credit terms of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom. It is inevitable in present circumstances that a considerable proportion of these goods should be material and equipment for defence purposes. These demands necessitate the immediate increase of the limit I have just mentioned to the sum of £60,000,000 shown in Clause 1 subsection (2) of the Bill. I should like to make it clear at this point that whereas

343
the former limit of £10,000,000 included interest charges, the sum of £60,000,000 now proposed excludes interest. This sum has been arrived at after a very full consideration of all the applications for assistance in relation to our available resources, bearing in mind of course our own essential needs in respect of munitions and armaments generally. Provision is made in Clause 2 of the Bill for the publication half-yearly of Returns as to the guarantees which have been given under Clause 1 for exports to various countries.
As regards Part II of the Bill, powers of a new kind are proposed to be given to the Board of Trade to overcome any difficulty that may be found in marketing the guaranteed securities. Up to the present the securities have been moderate in amount and no great difficulty has been experienced in selling them on the open market. Securities of much larger amount will have to be dealt with as a result of this measure, however, and Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill set out the procedure to be followed which will enable the Board of Trade to purchase the securities with moneys advanced by the Treasury and to hold or to sell them as they may think fit, having regard to the conditions of the market. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Lord Templemore.)
12.17 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the last War the Germans established a battery of long-range high-accuracy guns on the Belgian coast among the sand hills and all our war vessels closing within a certain range came under a devastating fire. I see the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, in his place and when discussing this Bill in face of what we used to call the Hindenburg battery, I must be very careful of my navigation also. With that preliminary, may I be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, on the very concise and condensed way in which he explained this highly important measure. I see that it applies to all or any countries, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I should like to say how glad we are to see that New Zealand is still regarded as a country which should receive friendly assistance when in need of it. We had begun to think that the Turks, the Poles,
344
the Rumanians and everyone else could come to us for assistance, but that our own kith and kin overseas, if they in any ay incurred the displeasure of certain money barons in the City of London, would be sent away empty-handed. We are very glad that that is not the case, and we do not regret the fact that we are deprived of a most devastating weapon at the next Election which we might have had if the Government had carried out what was apparently the original intention.
I was, however, somewhat alarmed to see to-day certain statements with regard to Poland. I understand that Poland wants assistance partly by way of loan and partly in the form of export credits. The trouble is that Poland wants to be able to buy urgently military equipment which she would have difficulty in obtaining here at once. If the Government are taking what I may call—I hope without offence to the noble Lord—a purely Treasury view of this matter, it may be very mischievous indeed. There is a shortage of equipment in this country for our own Armies. You have not yet got enough uniforms for the young men who are going into camp next month with the Territorials, for the new recruits, and so on. Naturally the Poles are having the greatest difficulty in purchasing for immediate delivery uniforms, boots and so on in this country. Surely it is necessary to strengthen the Polish Army as an ally of ours in resisting tyranny and aggression in the world, and it seems very short-sighted indeed to say that even if they can buy elsewhere with our financial help they should not do so. After all, we have ourselves had to buy munitions from the United States. I hope the noble Lord will not mind saying a word about that, because I think the public are rather disturbed about to-day's news.
I must now say a word with regard to Germany, and particularly to the Anglo-German Trade Agreement, which has a direct bearing on what we are doing now. We are admittedly guaranteeing weak borrowers in friendly countries. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will not I think quarrel with that description. It is necessary to help these weak borrowers because of the really unfair methods which the German Government organisation engaged in forcing German trade is attempting to impose upon these markets.

345
This £50,000,000 of additional finance will be largely cancelled out because of the operations of the Agreement which gives Germany preferential rights in buying raw materials with our help. In addition to the free sterling surplus left at Germany's disposal under this Agreement a large part of the amount which Germany is obliged under that Agreement to spend with Great Britain is spent on raw materials for her munition factories.
The result is that, thanks to our generosity, Germany is able to keep abreast of us and our allies in the present armaments race, this deplorable race in armaments which is going on. Were it not for this assistance given to Germany, the comparatively modest amounts of assistance given to friendly nations we are discussing would go a long way towards increasing their resistance against German aggression. In other words, while we are providing the taxpayers' money or putting it behind this obligation because we want to help our allies and friends to strengthen themselves, at the same time we are helping the Germans to keep their lead in the arms race—or at any rate, if it is not a lead in all respects, to keep their place, if I may put it that way. So we are strengthening the aggressor at the same time as we are trying to strengthen the potential victims of the aggressor, and to me that does not make sense.
Let me give an exact example. When the Germans marched into Czecho-Slovakia the military and technical experts who accompanied the German troops immediately took charge of the great Skoda works. Their first question concerned what raw materials were available. They were very disgusted to find that there were hardly any raw materials. Through these operations of the Anglo-German Agreement, they have been able to provide the raw materials to keep the Skoda works—I believe one of the finest munition works in Europe—going at full capacity, and actually 5,000,000 worth of raw materials entering the German munition factories in Czecho-Slovakia represent £50,000,000 worth of military material, which is about the amount of additional credits supplied tinder this Bill for our friends. My Lords, I really do not think this makes sense.
I will, if your Lordships will permit me, before I sit clown, say a word or two about the principles of this Bill, particularly with reference to certain countries in South-Eastern Europe. I also heard
346
the speech of Lord sempill last May, and I know he was very disappointed that he had to leave your Lordships' sitting today. I am sure that our late hour of sitting on Friday must impress all observers at home and abroad and show them how serious the situation must be. The weakness of this policy is that it is a one-way policy. I suggest that we should do all we can to help our merchants and manufacturers to sell in certain difficult markets, but we do not do enough to help those markets to sell to us. In the past, when we used to invest in undeveloped markets in South America, for example, the money came back in the form of wheat, meat and other goods. You must buy from them as well as sell to them. One of the fallacies of many present-day politicians—apart from those who sit in your Lordships' House—is that they think we can sell all the time without buying.
In the case of the Balkans, which I should like to quote, you have a very important group of countries with a combined population of about 80,000,000 people and very large natural resources and of great political and strategical importance. I suggest, in the first place, that the Balkans should be treated as a unit. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are two of the four or five countries to which I refer as being Balkan. Rumania is only geographically in the Balkans, I know, and I do not want to insult my Rumanian friends; they get very angry, I believe, if they are referred to as a Balkan Power; but geographically Rumania, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Turkey are all one. Turkey is so to a lesser extent, of course. I suggest they should be treated as a unit in this matter and that we should not differentiate in any way between the Yugoslavs and the Bulgarians and our other friends in buying their produce. My information, such as it is—and it is not always inaccurate—is that the underlying feeling to-day in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria is wholeheartedly in sympathy with our cause among the mass of the people. Never mind what the Yugoslav and Bulgarian politicians say or do, the mass of the people are with us and we should do all we can to encourage trade with all those Balkan countries.
They should be treated as a unit for that purpose. By organised bulk buying you could possibly do something to get over the difficulties caused by currency restrictions in those countries which have

347
so often been explained by Lord Mancroft, and so I will not dilate on them. Otherwise you are simply risking all this money by creating a new mass of debt and giving these people no opportunity of paying it off. The problem, has, if I may say so, to be tackled in a very scientific way nowadays. It cannot be done by haphazard methods because the German rival to us has this advantage, that there is only one authority in Germany which acts as banker, importer, exporter, agricultural adviser, mining technician and marketing expert. That is all under one roof whereas with ourselves we have the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Treasury, sometimes pulling against each other—if the noble Lord will forgive me; he will not admit it but he knows it is true—and then you have not got to the end of it. After that you have to go to the various trade associations and cartels in this country and then to individual manufacturing and purchasing firms, as the case may be, whereas the Germans, both for buying and selling, have the whole thing organised under one roof.
About the political importance of encouraging trade with the Balkans there will be no quarrel. But I also suggest that even when all this trouble is over, as I hope and believe it will blow over, and when we get settled, peaceful conditions again, with the reduction of armaments and so on by agreement, even then that great market in South-Eastern Europe will remain of great importance to our manufacturers and merchants, and I should like to see stable foundations for future trade laid now. If this Bill were properly applied, and if certain other provisions to which I will refer were put into force, such foundations would be provided; but an important factor is missing, and that is some method of buying in bulk in the great markets of Southern Europe.
I suggest that what you need is an organisation which will be the counterpart of the German organisation I have described, but, of course, suited to our conditions. That is, you want a semipublic corporation to deal with the whole of this area and with corresponding British organisations in each separate country. There is talk of an Anglo-Rumanian trade organisation, and I
348
believe there is an Anglo-Greek trade organisation. These are no doubt very admirable bodies, but you want a single large trade organisation to deal with the whole area. Such organisation would, I understand, be welcome to the Balkan Governments. You should form this association not to deal with individual manufacturers or merchants in Britain, but to deal with trade associations in this country, with the Chambers of Commerce, the cartels and the trade organisations, so that there is no question of favouritism. You could, of course, form an organisation in which you could have one great manufacturer of electrical machines, another of aeroplanes and another of textiles and so on. I have no doubt they would do very good work, but you want something much bigger and wider than that which can deal with the buying capacity of this country as a whole and not simply be used for extending the sales to these markets.
It is the buying which is going to be the difficulty. I need only detail the tobacco difficulty. I am not convinced that you cannot use a great deal more Turkish and Greek tobacco in this country. You only want a few leaders of the women of this country to let it be known that they are only smoking Greek or Turkish tobacco or a blend of it with American tobacco and then it would become fashionable and everyone would smoke it. I can remember that before the War no gentleman would think of smoking anything but tobacco from Europe. He would never dream of smoking American tobacco. I smoked it but I had no inhibitions of that kind. More important than that are the raw materials and metals available in the Balkans. I know there are dfficulties. We buy much the same things from our own Empire but it is a matter of semi-State supervision and, above all, of the organisation of some semi-official body which can treat the problem as a whole and not just represent the interests of a few powerful separate companies. You want an organisation representing the whole British nation in helping trade with this important part of Europe. I refer particularly to the Balkans because, as I have ventured to suggest before, for some reason or other they have been largely neglected in the past by British merchants and we cannot afford to allow that neglect to go on. The same sort of organisation should also

349
apply to other countries in Eastern Europe as well. We on this side of the House realise the necessity for this measure. We think it is a good measure and our only criticism is that this matter should not have been tackled on a larger scale earlier on. We do not wish to do anything to resist the passage of the Bill or delay its becoming law.
12.33 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think this Bill is a milestone in the history of Britain and also in the history of European freedom. I am in complete support of the Bill without qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will forgive me if I do not follow the line that he took; but I agree in principle for the most part when he said that some effort should be made to induce the tobacco firms and people dealing with metals to come to the assistance of, and take these materials from, Greece and Bulgaria. I agree that such action will assist to make the wheels of friendship between those countries and our country go round more freely. I could not help thinking as this Bill was being moved and explained to us by my noble friend how history repeats itself. Here are we doing the same things as the Athenians were doing 490 years before the Christian era. The Athenians in order to prevent the encirclement and enslavement of Greece by the Persians placed their armed forces and their fleet at the service of the Greek City States. The Athenians, to use words which your Lordships may recall from school days, with their put the power of their finances at the assistance of their allies. The Victory of Salamis followed. Under this Bill Britain with her armed forces is putting the power of her finances also at the assistance of her allies—Greece is still in the picture—so as to prevent the encirclement and enslavement of Europe by Germany.
This Bill has two facets: one of international or foreign policy so far as regards Great Britain, and the other facet is the enlargement of the working of this instrument of export credits in which I have taken some personal interest for the last twenty years. I have noticed that a number of persons, some in another place or on platforms outside this House, whether politicians or not, and certainly politicians on public platforms, have indulged
350
in an orgy of masochism—in an orgy of self-abasement—in saying that we are in the wrong, that Great Britain and her allies and friends are in the wrong because they and we drew up the Treaty of Versailles and Peace Treaties and that these Treaties have brought about the present disturbed state of international affairs. I am not going to allow that hold statement to stand. I have watched political proceedings from 1918 and I challenge those who allege that the international troubles of Europe are due mainly to the stupidity or otherwise of those who framed the Treaty of Versailles and the Peace Treaties.
I hold in reserve that those Treaties rested as it were on the pivot of the League of Nations being a living factor to support the Treaties. If the League of Nations had been put into operation with the help of all who started it our troubles would not be those from which we now suffer. But we had and have to take things as we find them. I have no doubt that those who drew up the Treaty of Versailles and the other treaties, out of which we are told our present troubles and this Bill arise, drew them up in the expectation that the League of Nations system would be brought to fruition with the help of the United States of America. That fell through. One of the main supports was destroyed, throwing the whole of the working of the Peace Treaties out of gear.
What would to-day's critics of the Treaties have done at Versailles if they had had historical memories? They must have remembered this: though, not in my lifetime, but nearly so, that France has been twice invaded. M. Clemenceau had to remember that—the blood and tears and suffering of those two invasions. Then let us go back a little further. Would these critics remember how Prussia has in the past disregarded any treaty? It has to be remembered that you were and are confronted with a country which will respect no treaty. It is habitual for the German nation to break its word of honour whenever it suits its purpose. Let us remind the critics of the picture which Macaulay draws of Frederick the Great stealing Silesia from Austria and the disregard of the Pragmatic Sanction.
Do they remember also the action which Germany took in 1864, to steal the Danish duchies; then the action she took

351
in 1866 to force Austria into war, in order to consolidate the interests of Prussia? Remember also how at that time Bismarck made use of the words: "I do not believe in conferences or verbal discussions, I believe in Blut und Eisen." He believed in bloodshed and violence. So the Germans do now, as they did also in 1914. Belgium did not invade Germany: Germany invaded Belgium. No "scrap of paper" or honourable undertaking meant anything to Germany. Nothing but force. That had to be taken into account in framing the Peace Treaties.
My noble friend Lord Halifax has said, with that chivalry which is characteristic of him, that he refused to believe ill of any person or any nation, and he gave Herr Hitler credit for honest intentions and was content to believe in the good faith of Germany. The breaking of an honourable undertaking between Herr Hitler, representing the German nation, and our Prime Minister is sufficient to show that those who framed the Treaty of Versailles, from which it is said that this Bill has now become necessary, made their compact with a people whose word of honour is not kept. They do not do as we do—have a row with a man, give him a licking and shake hands and make friends afterwards. You could not treat with Germany on those lines, no matter what peace treaty you made. It is doubtful whether the self-righteous persons who are now blaming us for the Treaty of Versailles would have made a treaty of a very different kind. Even if the Germans had not had Herr Hitler as dictator they would have set up some other Government and they would have broken every treaty they made. And, as one who watched the international peace arrangements after 1918, I will not allow to pass unchallenged the statement that we or our Allies were to blame in making the terms of the Versailles Treaty, so that it has given rise to avoidable trouble with Germany.
Then there is one other thing about which I feel strongly. This Bill is partly for the purpose of showing Germany that we are in grim earnest, and that we do not intend to give water and earth to the Germans, any more than the Athenians would give water and earth to the Persians. We intend to stand by to the full extent of our resources in men
352
and money to prevent our friends from being encircled and enslaved by Germany. But in 1934 a mischievous and misleading, and I would almost say a hypocritical action was taken under the League of Nations Union, in organising what was called then the War or Peace Ballot—the words were afterwards altered to Peace Ballot. But
"Oh, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
How did the Germans regard the Peace Ballot? What did the Germans say when they saw that 11,000,000 people took sympathetic part in that Ballot? Those people who took part in the Ballot have a blameworthy and terrible responsibility to bear. Let them now pause and reflect on the trouble they have brought on the nation. The Germans said: "These people are decadent; they will not fight. What will they do if put to a test or if threatened? Will they resist? Eleven million have voted for peace." And we have now to pass this Bill in order to disperse from their minds the ill effects of that Ballot which was one of the principal causes of the German belief that we were not in earnest in defending our liberty. Then we have the heartfelt flummery of a popular leader like Mr. George Lansbury, and his journeys and visits through Europe, bleating for peace. What did the Germans think of that? What were they likely to think after they had seen 11,000,000 people vote for the Peace Ballot? Then, quite recently, there was a society which attracted many people, Was it called the Peace Pledge Union, at the head of which was the late Canon Sheppard?
All those things have tended to accentuate trouble, to put into the minds of the Germans the feeling that they could attack us and our friends and we should not stand up for the liberties and freedom of Europe. Hence this Bill. This Bill is part of our foreign policy, and we have been put into this position by the actions of the people to whom I have referred rather than by any avoidable mistakes, or lack of foresight, associated with the Versailles Treaty when it was being made.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am so enjoying what the noble Lord says that I hope he will go on with his argument and I hope he will complete it by referring to his friends on his own side who formed the "Heil Hitler" party in this country.
LORD MANCROFT: Is the noble Lord talking about Sir Oswald Moseley?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, I am talking about the noble Lord's friends. As he has mentioned my right honourable friend Mr. Lansbury—though he and I do not always see eye to eye—he should have mentioned the former activities of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and the present activities of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and of Lord Astor and the Astor family. He must not forget that, and I hope he will go on because what he is saying is so valuable.
LORD MANCROFT: I have no knowledge of what they have done, and in any case I do not think I am called upon to defend or attack them.
LORD STRABOLGI: Do not only attack my friends, then.
LORD MANCROFT: Well, I am going to make another further reference—namely, to the dislike by the Socialist majority of the London County Council for the Cadet Corps. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury I used frequently, to hear opposition by the Labour Party to the Government whenever we wanted to increase our defence forces. They opposed Singapore. Time after time in the lobby they opposed Supply for the Defence Services. These are the people who have brought the trouble on us caused by unpreparedness. When they come and tell us that we are guilty of having brought the international position to what it is now because we made the Peace Treaties, I think that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Now let me deal with the export credits system, which is the other facet of this legislation. My noble friend has been kind enough to hint that I have had personal and long experience of the inner working of the export credits scheme. I feel great respect for the way in which the Advisory Committee and the officials of the Export Credits Department have made so useful an instrument of commerce as they have done out of this scheme. Let me say I am totally against anything of the nature of a State Investment Board. People who talk about a State Investment Board, if I may say so, really do not know what they are talking about. How can anyone—how could my
354
brother if I had one—control or prevent me from investing my money where I wished? Suppose I wished to develop a tea garden in Assam, or a coffee plantation in Brazil, or set up an electric light works in the kingdom of Ruritania? You cannot control private investments by a State Investment Board. But for political reasons, as in a case like this, I think a Bill and control are necessary, because this is a matter which is quite different from private investment; it is for national purposes and losses, if any, should fall on the community and not on the private investor or his savings.
This Bill has been drafted as an instrument for loan making. It will act as a corrective and be as great a step forward in improving the methods of credit as the step forward in 1877 was when Walter Bagehot invented Treasury bills. I see a startling step forward in the use of export credits for overseas general lending implicit in the operations permitted by this Bill. I know there has been and there is an embargo upon the issue of foreign loans. But our past method and even our existing method of lending overseas is defective. I gave some figures during a recent debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, took part, and showed that we had lent various sums to various countries, quite wrongly, quite undiscriminatingly, quite unjustifiably, and those who borrowed had no justification for asking for those loans. Take Brazil. We have sunk £160,000,000 in Brazil. Much of it was never justifiable because much of it was borrowed to pay interest on earlier loans. £152, 000,000 of that £160,000,000 does not pay the British investor one single farthing of income. I am not a shareholder in the Leopoldina Railway, but I recently saw the report. That is one of the Brazilian investments. There is probably £10,000,000 of the capital we found for that railway not paying us a penny. It ought never to have been lent. But it is easy to raise money here on account of the underwriting system and the flotation houses. They get their underwriting and their overwriting and their rake-off of one sort or another, and thus arrange for the public to lend their savings when an underwritten loan is advertised for public subscription. The public parts with its savings and holds the paper whether it turns out to be valuable or valueless.

355
Had that Leopoldina money been lent to a concern in this country, it might have been spent and lost here at home by the people who subscribed it; for example, it might have been lost or given to the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide better roads for tourist traffic, for putting up more hotels for Scottish holiday traffic, or even for putting up a new ferry at Ballachulish—at any rate, if the general body of the population had subscribed and lost that money to Scotland or to any other part of the United Kingdom we should have had the resulting assets here although they returned the subscribers nothing; whereas money lent to the Leopoldina Railway, which I quoted just now as an example, is not only lost but is giving benefits to Brazil and not to ourselves. I quote that instance to show, as I shall proceed to show, how I think the Government, by the export credit system, can prevent waste of our savings in the future.
I do not know whether it is known to noble Lords what we have lost in overseas investments during the last 70 years—money which could have been saved in some degree had the borrowing and lending been done through the export credit system. Under that system the loans would have had to be justified, the amounts and uses would have had to be justified, the bills for the borrowing and the lending would have been for shortish dates; they would not have been irredeemable loans but would have had to be liquidated at fixed periods over a certain number of years. It was my duty to address the Incorporated Society of Accountants at Leeds in 1929, and on that occasion I made a calculation of our overseas loans in the sixty years from 1869 which I shall revise a little now in order to make this statement more up to date. For a number of years, as may be seen from the Board of Trade returns of overseas transactions which are published every March, we have lent abroad on an average, to bring us interest as shown by the Board of Trade, something like a total of £150,000,000 per annum. In seventy years to 1939 that would mean something like £10,000,000,000 which we have lent abroad. I have always said there should be a team of young economists set to find out what the figures actually are; as this is a hit-or-miss calculation as to what we
356
have lent abroad in these seventy years, I put it at no less than £10,000,000,000.
I believe we had before the War a known amount of surviving investments. During the War we had to get rid of some of these investments to pay for some of our American purchases, but I believe that after the War we replaced some of these investments by further investments, so that we have now something like £4,000,000,000 invested overseas. That figure has been brought up to date by Sir Robert Kindersley. If we have to-day between £4,000,000,000 and £5,000,000,000 of surviving investments overseas, what has become of the balance? The difference between £4,000,000,000 or £5,000,000,000 surviving investments to-day and £10,000,000,000 or more lent overseas during the last seventy years is very great. There is a gap, even taking into account the repayments, and in my opinion the balance in that gap has been utterly lost. It looks as if not less than £2,000,000,000 or £3,000,000,000, probably more, has been lost by our undiscriminating way of lending abroad by public flotations on the market.
We are told we must lend overseas to keep up our exports. Be it so, but it is not good business for a manufacturer to lend money to enable a customer to pay for goods if the customer gives paper which later on he does not honour. That is only giving him your goods for nothing. That is what our overseas lending has been doing. It is no good to lend money abroad if people pay for our goods with their paper securities, and then after we have held the paper for a few years we discover that this paper is valueless. The British people have not benefited from transactions of that kind, they have lost by our market methods of floating loans to foreigners. The people who have benefited are the issuing houses who, once they have placed one loan, proceed on the principle of "Next gentleman, please." They have done their work, they have got their flotation and "ground floor" profits, and they allow the investor—for it is the investor and not the banks who hold these loans—to hold paper which events now prove to be valueless.
Under this Bill, however, a foreign Government requiring help for national purposes such as we are seeing here, comes along. It does not float its loan on the

357
market, but has to go through the Export Credits Department and there you have some check as to what the borrowers do with the money. Before the accommodation is given, the proposal has to pass through an alembic of tests in various Departments and to be approved by the skilled brains which look after our public money. In that way we discover to what uses the money is to be put. Although I am not criticising what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said about Poland, it is better that the loan should go through the export credit tests so that we may see what is to be done with the money. One must not forget this, that when America was forcing money on borrowers through its issuing houses in Wall Street in 1929, the world had a shock when it heard how the loans which were forced on Peru and other South American borrowers—the bonds issued by forced salesmanship in America—never reached the purposes for which they were intended. The bonds were issued in the United States, but nobody knew where the money went till afterwards, and there was much indignation. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is not quite right in demurring to the method now being pursued by His Majesty's Government with regard to the Polish loan. It is for their own benefit as well as for ours that the money should be lent for a specific purpose and expended in the most economical way. I am putting that aspect of the matter in euphemistic terms.
Some of our money lost in foreign lending has been lost because of the very stupid cry raised by the Labour Party, "Oh, the bondholders—the bondholders must not be protected." The Labour Party forgets that if you lend abroad and do not protect the people who lend the money by seeing that they get what belongs to them, people will not lend again. Overseas lending brings employment if the borrower is honest. It is all-important to make the lender feel his confidence has not been misplaced; he will then lend his savings to create exports. His Majesty's Government should have come along and taken steps with Brazil and Chile to see that wanton dishonesty is not practised on the English savings. I do not like to make that charge about Chile, but certainly Brazil has behaved very badly. By protecting the bondholder the Government are protecting labour also. Because if the bondholder
358
knows his savings will be looked after by the Government he will lend again, and so there will be more employment for exports.
Then we are told we ought to lend abroad because we must have a reserve war chest, that we must put money abroad, whether we lose it or not, because we must have a reserve to draw on in time of war as we had in the last War, when bonds expressed in terms other than sterling, and of good value, were acceptable to the American people as dollar currency in payment for the goods we bought in America. But you cannot buy American goods if the investment paper in foreign currencies which you have in your hands now has become valueless by default. For that reason, again, I say the export credit system would allow instruments of credit to be produced which will certainly have a greater value than have the foreign bonds which were issued in the ordinary way through the issuing market.
I am glad to see that New Zealand has come into this system. It would have been better if New Zealand had borrowed what she wanted in past years through the export credit system rather than through the open market. What she has now done is a great change for the better. The export credit system will act as a check upon the dangerously easy, seductive means for borrowing which Australia and New Zealand have in the past had at their disposal. It has allowed them to overborrow; it has allowed them to obtain loans here which were originally never justified. They went to their representatives here who sent round underwriting documents and got the loans underwritten without the slightest trouble; and many, I think, have never paid for their keep. Some Australian loans, and I believe also some New Zealand loans but I am not certain about that, have never paid for their keep, and have merely been raised for the purpose of paying interest on loans raised at an earlier date. Bad finance! Bad housekeeping! I do not approve of countenancing these borrowing facilities by the issuing houses; they are not in the interests either of the borrowers or of the lenders.
We brought in an Act in 1927—the Moneylenders Act—and I will refer In Clause 5 of that Act. Young men were accustomed to go to moneylenders and

359
say they wanted to have a good time and ask to borrow a sum of money. They signed a bill stating when they would pay back; when the time arrived they could not, so another bill for interest was signed, and eventually they got into trouble. They borrowed to have a better time than was justified by their earnings, they failed to repay or even to find the interest on the first loan; so they renewed the loan and gave a further obligation to meet their default of interest. The same sort of thing has occurred in some way in the case of Australia, and now we see the trouble into which New Zealand has got with her loan due for repayment. They have been in the habit of saying "We must raise the standard of living in the country." And on borrowed money. They do not see that this is not justified by what they produce. They wish to have the good time that the young man hoped to have when he signed the first bill for getting money from moneylenders. Then there came along an Act in 1927 which, under Section 5, said in effect: "You shall not do that any more." Public opinion now prevents it; it prevents the young man from ruining himself by over-borrowing in order to have a good time, and I think that the same spirit should be put into operation when the Australian or New Zealand Government or any foreign Government which wishes to borrow here comes to do so for purposes which we do not think are justified. Let us insist upon their needs being handled by the export credits scheme in future.
I am glad that this Bill extends the idea of export credit. I think it will in many cases be made to supersede the public flotation over-borrowing system of the issuing houses by underwriting loans to any creditworthy person who comes along. For then, if the loan is not taken up by the public the underwriters nurse overborrowed loans, whether they are partly justifiable or not, until they can unload them upon the permanent investor. I think this Bill will act as a potent check against over-borrowing. So far as foreign policy is concerned I support the Bill. I am glad to see it. In view of the thousands of millions of pounds that have been lost by our undiscriminating and haphazard method of granting loans to overseas borrowers in the past I welcome this
360
Bill, because we have now extended and improved the method by which we can challenge and prevent easy over-borrowing and thus protect the borrower as well as the investor and make our investments abroad remunerative instead of being losses.
1.6 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill for the trouble he took to give an exposition of the reasons for it. His speech supplemented the very clear explanation that was given in another place by the Minister for Overseas Trade who, by his own personal perambulations recently, was convinced of its necessity. He was able to give a brilliant representation of the need there is for action along the lines now proposed. In introducing this Bill in another place he emphasized that it is only in Part II where the really fundamental change is introduced as compared with the Act to the passage of which your Lordships agreed earlier in the present year. I am sure we are very grateful for the useful historical review which my noble friend who has just sat down has given us. He adds to an intimate practical knowledge, as a Minister, of the working of a Bill, that wide business experience which he is able to introduce into these matters. It must indeed be helpful to those who study the underlying reasons for this new technique that there should be interposed a review of the general political considerations which require some change of practice. I propose at this hour to confine myself as briefly as I can to the particular points which justify my intervening in this debate. I took part in the debate in this House earlier this year, and have taken a great interest in this subject since the original Committee of the other House was set up. I have tried to follow the work of that Committee some of which is envisaged in this Bill.
There are two points particularly to which I want to draw attention. The present Bill, in Clause 1, gives powers to the Board of Trade as wide as anybody could wish. It is in that respect that I wish to associate myself with the complete endorsement of the Bill that I was very glad to hear given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on behalf of himself and his Party. The point to which I wanted particularly to draw attention

361
is that the Bill seems to offer the possibility of a 100 per cent. assumption of liability by the Department as compared with 75 per cent. previously. The powers which are now given seem to cover anything that could be said to be justifiable, but since the Act which was passed early in the year came into force there seems some doubt as to the extent to which under Section 4 of that Act advances have been made which would facilitate trade over and above the provision of credits given for political reasons to other countries. It seems, therefore, that there is need under this Bill for developing the method whereby the internal credit hazard should be reduced to the smallest dimensions. That, of course, is a political question, and it is put forward because the understanding is that the advances made under this Bill to so-called friendly countries are tied to the new political policy of guarantees by this country. It therefore presumably removes the hazard.
I particularly hope that in the administration of this Bill attention will be given to the possibility of following as far as practicable the ordinary methods and channels of trade. And at this stage I would like to say that one is fully conversant with the skill and prudence of the civil servants who will be in charge of the execution of this scheme. Their practice in regard to the execution of what is essentially commercial business gives the lie to the allegation that any Government activity cannot be efficiently administered. I wish to bring into relief also the point that this is the application of the principle of collective responsibility to that field of industry which is engaged in export trade. Abnormal world conditions evoke abnormal needs. The protection of the sterling exchange is the ground on which are justified the new principles which are being followed under the Bill. Surely that justifies a very wide view being taken as to its application. Vast expenditure is at present being incurred in trying to ensure against war. Finance is dominant in our weapons, and therefore it is essential that we should protect the sterling exchange. I would point out, however, that while the sums advanced may be very large, if they are confined in the main to financing Empire raw materials married to the products of labour in this country, it does not involve a strain on
362
the exchange anything like comparable to what might occur if they were foreign goods.
The prosecution of a war envisages vast unassessable liabilities. Surely it is not unreasonable to assume similar large liabilities in the attempt to preserve peace. That is the first point I wish to raise in regard to the aims of the Bill. The other point that I wish to raise is a caveat as to the distribution of the credits and the supply of goods under the credits. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave an instance of a particular country, and suggested that there was some restlessness as to whether supply as quickly as possible was being given where it would be reasonable to assume that the productive capacity of this country was adequate in the particular materials that were indented for under the global credits granted to friendly nations under this practice. It is understood that latterly some progress has been made, but until very recently there has been a definite feeling that, as we found in the last War, new methods demanded that committees be set up to provide contact between different Government Departments so that the intention of the Government should be carried out with the least possible delay. It is because of the danger of delay in advance of this machinery being properly established that one suggests that any unnecessary delay should be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, pointed out the value of publicity with regard to the support given to friendly nations under this Bill and the discouragement of unfriendly critics. Unfriendly criticism, that the intention of the country is not serious in giving real support to friendly nations, can be most quickly demolished if the amounts given are adequate to convince our friends and discomfort our critics, and the machinery provided should be such as to bring into effect the intention as quickly as possible, because the strengthening of these friendly countries is an imperative need and the weakness of any link is the degree of strength of any chain. I want to support in every manner the intention of this Bill, but I would repeat that I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will bear in mind that the normal machinery of commerce, in so far as possible, should be employed, and that in the extension of the method of Government guarantees

363
there should be as far as possible an avoidance of new methods of trade.
1.20 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had three very interesting speeches, all, I am glad to say, supporting this Bill. To take first the speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Mancroft: he did indeed give us a very interesting dissertation, in the course of which he ranged from Frederick the Great to the Moneylenders Act, 1927, and he gave us a lot of very interesting and useful matter. I am glad to hear that he is, as I expected, very much in favour of the Bill. Support from him is, I know, really worth having, because, as I think he informed the House—at any rate as he told me some little time ago—he was responsible for the first of these Acts which ever came into force in this country when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place.
LORD MANCROFT: No; I was on the Advisory Committee about 1921, and later had to operate the Act for three years when I was Minister of Overseas Trade.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I misunderstood him. Anyhow, I am very much obliged for his support. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, was most anxious about two special questions. The first was the negotiations with Poland. Of course, I saw in the paper as well as he did this morning—I have no other information—that there were certain difficulties in the way of the loan to Poland, but I have to inform him that His Majesty's Government are, of course, most anxious to do everything in their power to give effective help to Poland by strengthening its finances. Naturally we should do so, because we have guaranteed its independence. The noble Lord will, however, appreciate—and indeed in the course of his remarks he showed me that he did appreciate—that there are limits to what we can do at any particular moment, having regard to the requirements of our own forces. The noble Lord will appreciate the difficulties of our providing very large credits for Poland to enable that country to make purchases in other countries. But these matters are fully appreciated by the Government and are under
364
active discussion with the Polish delegates at the present time. I am afraid it would not be desirable to go into details, but I can assure the noble Lord that everything that can be done, having regard to the other demands upon us, will be done in this matter.
The noble Lord was also anxious about trade with the Balkans. Here I have to say that the importance of increasing our consumption of produce exported from the Balkan countries is very fully realised. I also have to point out to the noble Lord, however, that there is not in this country the measure of control over the type and quantity of goods available for popular consumption that countries with another form of government can freely apply. I thought the noble Lord showed in his speech that he appreciated that: he said what an advantage a totalitarian country such as Germany, for instance, has over us in that all its administrative departments are, so to speak, under one roof, if not under one hat. Therefore, of course, they have a great advantage; but, as the noble Lord also said, here it is a question of balancing the conflicting interests of different suppliers, and His Majesty's Government have very fully in mind the claims which Balkan countries have to our assistance in this respect. I also take note of the very important suggestion which he made, that we should not differentiate between the five Balkan countries, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. I was also very pleased to hear—I have been a little doubtful myself, but I dare say the noble Lord has better information than I have; it is extremely probable—that the feeling in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria is really inclining to this country. That is very good hearing.
My noble friend Lord Barnby, in the course of his interesting speech, paid, I am glad to say, a very well-deserved tribute to the civil servants who work this Department. On all sides it is admitted, I think, that the Department is one of the best-run in the Government to-day. He rather qualified that tribute, however—at least I thought he did—by the remarks that he went on to make. He said he thought there was inclined to be danger of delay in granting credits.
LORD BARNBY: I should like to explain those words. I referred not specially to the Export Credits Department,

365
but to the difficulty at the present moment of getting co-ordination between the Export Credits Department, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Board of Trade, the Army Trades Department, the Ministry of Supply and the new Committee of co-ordination between all the Departments. The point I wanted to make to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that there is at the present moment a very considerable delay in getting execution of orders within the capacity of this country to provide the material, with due regard to the requirements of this country and without causing disappointment and even suspicion in the minds of those in this country in charge of the interests of friendly nations whom it is the intention of this Bill to help.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am obliged to my noble friend; I had not quite taken
366
his point. I quite understand what he means, and that shows the advantage of this House and the great advantage of having a debate such as we have had to-day. I can assure him that this debate, which will of course be reported, will be read by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Trade and by other members of His Majesty's Government, and that everything will be done to obviate the delays that he says are taking place or that he fears may take place in the future. I think I have answered the questions I was asked, and that the House is now ready to come to a decision.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past one o'Clock.

AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill namely:
E. Wicklow, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. Teynham, L. Gifford, L. Carnock (Chairman):
Agreed to: and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.