I have on the Paper an Amendment to leave out all words after "This Act." The object is to get a discussion on the principle of the Bill, but it is hardly worth while pursuing that in view of the arrangement come to by the President of the Board of Trade with certain hon. Members. The Parliamentary Secretary will understand what I mean. I will not move.

I am obliged to the hon. Baronet. As we have decided not to persist with Clause 7 it will not be necessary to move after "Act" ["schedule to this Act"] to insert "subject to the provisions of this Act."

moved, in section (l), to leave out the words "and to any other trades to which it has been applied by Provisional Order of the Board of Trade made under this section," and to insert the words, "subject to the provisions of this Act may be applied to other trades by order of the Board of Trade, after inquiry, as provided in this section." There are a large number of Amendments following this, and I propose to make a brief statement which will cover all of them. These Amendments hang upon one idea, and that is to make additions to the schedule as speedy and as inexpensive as possible. In other words, we seek to substitute for the method of Provisional Order—an admittedly costly and cumbersome measure— the much simpler arrangement of a Board of Trade Order, which, of course, will have Parliamentary power by reason of the fact that the Order must lie on the Table of the House for 30 days. That, briefly, is the idea underlying all these Amendments, and, in support of it, I beg leave to remind hon. Members what the Provisional Order arrangement means. It means that the procedure must be taken in this House. Before any extension can be made to the schedule, the parties concerned must give notice, and then they have the opportunity given them of coming up here and submitting evidence in Committee. The proposal has to be passed by this House and then by the other House; in other words, the whole Parliamentary procedure required for a Bill has to be passed through before you can make the slightest addition to the schedule, which is a very limited one, included in the four corners of this Bill. We submit that, having regard to the object in view, that is unnecessarily cumbersome and costly. We seek to substitute for that a provision whereby the Board of Trade, if, after the Act is in operation, they are satisfied on representation being made to them that there are certain other trades or branches of trades which might be included in the schedule with advantage, instead of the cumbersome central method which I have described, may have a local inquiry, which I submit is much better, because it does not involve bringing the promoters a long distance. Supposing, for instance, it were suggested that a trade, or branch of a trade, carried or in places like Aberdeen or Dundee, which are 500 or 600 miles distant, should be added to the schedule of the Bill, under existing arrangements the parties concerned would have to come up here to London, and probably, though I am not sure, they would have to employ lawyers; but supposing the Board of Trade had power, as we suggest, they would have inquiry on the spot, which would involve less expense and would have readier access to all the means of information. Therefore the inquiry would not only be less costly, but less cumbersome, and probably more efficient for the purpose in view. There are, moreover, many other reasons why it seems to us that the course we propose would be far better, but I need not go into them. I beg to remind the House, however, that there are provisions for safeguarding the authority of Parliament. It has been suggested, against the simpler method, that there would be in some sense a doing away with the authority of Parliament, and that a Provisional Order, however costly and cumbersome it may be, does recognise Parliament an authority in matters of this sort, and we have no right to add to the legislation of the country, unless Parliament has had an opportunity of voicing its opinion, one way or another. In the method we propose, however, the Board of Trade has not absolute authority to do this. It has only authority to have a local inquiry and then the Board of Trade have to submit to Parliament an Order which must lie upon the Table for 30 days, and during that time it is competent for any hon. Member to object and hang the matter up, and if that is done the Board of Trade are under the obligation to have a still further inquiry locally, before the matter proceeds further. The method we propose authorising the Board of Trade to proceed in this manner, is already a method known to the Home Office, because they have similar power, under the provisions of the Factory Act of 1901, and the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1008. Our proposal was originally in the Bill, and of course the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade now will give some explanation of why the Bill was altered in this respect. So far we have heard no satisfactory explanation on the point, and therefore I beg to move.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division, is applicable only to the new trades proposed to be added to this Bill, and it is true that as the measure was drafted originally, the procedure which he recommends to the House was contained in it. But there were apprehensions expressed in various quarters of the House and outside, that trades would be added to which the procedure of the Bill was inapplicable, and those apprehensions found a good deal of support, so much support that, in. order to allay them, the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking that no new trade should be added to the provisions of this Bill, except by the special consent of Parliament obtained through a Provisional Order. I do not think anyone will find fault or cavil with that statement of fact. Therefore this procedure, which is now embodied in the Bill by the Committee upstairs, has become part of an agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am not able to hold out any hopes to my hon. Friend that we can go back upon what has been put in the Bill. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that this procedure of coming to Parliament for a Provisional Order may be more costly and more expensive and may occupy more time, but it need not occupy more time, and it need not be more cumbersome or expensive. In the cases of Aberdeen and Dundee the expense would not be borne by the trade, or those who desire to bring that particular trade within the scope of the Act, but by the Board of Trade. There is a provision, as I think the hon. Gentleman will find, in the financial clauses of this Bill that the money should be found by Parliament. I want hon. Gentlemen to realise what the Provisional Order procedure actually does. A Provisional Order has to have a confirming Bill which goes through in most cases without opposition. I do not know whether we are entitled to assume that all cases of proposals for additional trades will necessarily be opposed. I sincerely hope not. The trades which we have scheduled are substantially agreed to. They are certainly asked for in three cases by the employers, and I am hopeful that, if our experiment has any of the successful operation which we anticipate and hope for, there will be no opposition to the inclusion of other trades within the Bill. The Provisional Orders which have been made by the Board of Trade in the 10 years from 1899 are as follows: there have been Orders applied for to the extent of 1,160, Orders made by the Board of Trade 1,032, Orders confirmed by Parliament 1,011, Orders opposed in Parliament 97; so that Provisional Order procedure need not be, and is not in the majority of cases, half so cumbersome or expensive as my hon. Friend thinks. I give these figures to allay his fears and apprehensions that it will be the Greek Kalends before we can add trades to the procedure of this Act. It was in order to get an agreed Bill, which it practically is now, that we gave this Provisional Order procedure to those who were fearful that there would be trades added which really ought not to be added. I am sorry I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.

We did not understand when the Bill was before the Committee that there was any understanding whatever between the Government and the Opposition. Other reasons were given why Provisional Order procedure should be adopted. At the same time, in my opinion, the President of the Board of Trade is really in sympathy with the Amendment, and believes it to be better both for the Bill and for the other trades which might be included. I am inclined to think that one of the reasons given by the Secretary to the Board of Trade why the Provisional Order system should be adopted is really in favour of the Amendment, because he says there has not been much opposition to Provisional Orders, and, therefore, we may take it for granted that his Department will be so careful that they will not schedule any trades which would be opposed by the employers. Therefore, I do not see why he should not accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it will simplify the procedure, and I feel certain it will meet with the approval of the majority of the friends of the Bill. I am certain it will meet with the approval of the whole organised labour in the country, and, that being so, I hope he will either accept the Amendment or leave the question an open one. I could see when the Bill was in Committee that some sinister influence had been brought to bear upon the President of the Board of Trade when the Provisional Order method was proposed. I feel certain that the acceptance of the Amendment will conduce to the smooth working of the Bill.

The last speaker said that organised labour was in favour of the Amendment. We are honestly trying to work with the organised labour of the country, and believing it is in favour of the Amendment I shall support it.

I beg to move in section (2) to leave out the word "exceptionally" ["rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is exceptionally low,"] and to insert the word "unduly." I do not think it will be necessary to press this Amendment if I can get an assurance that there is no difference in the meaning of the two words in this connection.

I beg to second the Amendment.

There would be distinct danger in accepting this Amendment, because it is not clear what "unduly," if inserted in the section, would mean. It might mean something which is not due, and that is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, what is exceptional is a matter of fact. I think my hon. Friend will understand that it would be a mistake to adopt a word implying that which is a matter of opinion rather than a word implying that which is a matter of fact.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move an Amendment which I regret to say is not on the Paper. It is to insert the words "in the same trade" after "employments"["as compared with that in other employments"]. This is an Amendment which I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be disposed to accept. It deals with the question of wages in various trades. There might, and probably would be, in a given district one or more trades which exist in competition with similar trades in other districts or in other countries. Although the rate of wages in a particular trade may be less than the rate of wages obtaining in other industries in that particular district, yet it may be essential for the existence of that trade that the rate of wages should be continued. I do not think it can be the intention of the Government that all trades in any given district must have their rate of wages raised to any given level. Desirable as it might be to so arrange matters, it might be impossible to do that. I desire the insertion of the words "in the same trade" in order to make it clear that where the existence of an industry, which is in competition with that industry as carried on in much larger centres of population or in districts abroad, renders it necessary that the Board of Trade should not deal with the minimum rate, the Board should not do so. The Amendment is in no way antagonistic to the general spirit of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment. I think it is the intention of the Government that the meaning of the Amendment should be carried out by the Bill. If these words are inserted the section will read: "The Board of Trade may make a Provisional Order applying this Act to any specified trade to which it does not at the time apply if they are satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is exceptionally low, as compared with that in other employments in the same trade, and that the other circumstances of the trade are such as to render the application of this Act to the trade expedient." I do not think it can be supposed that the Government mean that in a particular district the wages of tailors should be compared with the wages of bakers. The object, as I understand, is that in each trade there should be a certain rate of wages recognised. In order to make that quite clear it is necessary that the words of the Amendment should be inserted.

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The Amendment is not on the Paper, and therefore I have not had time to consider it fully; but, so far as I understand it, the effect would be to unduly narrow the scope of the clause. There may be a trade in which the rate of wages is low as a whole in comparison with the general level of wages in a particular district. I know the hon. Member who moved the Amendment means well, but I do not think it would have the effect that he hopes it would have.

I think the hon. Gentleman has unduly exaggerated the importance of the effect of the Amendment. I would ask the House to look at the section which reads as follows:—"The Board of Trade may make a Provisional Order applying this Act to any specified trade to which it does not at the time apply if they are satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is exceptionally low as compared with that in other employments." It seems to me that the reference there is to the same trade because the section goes on, "and that the other circumstances in the trade are such as to render the application of this Act to the trade expedient." It seems to me that this is a mere drafting Amendment not calculated in any way to affect the purpose of the section, but merely expressing more clearly the meaning of the section, and not in any sense either narrowing or widening its application.

It is intended that they should have regard to the general level of wages in other employments, and, therefore, the Amendment would alter the scope of the section, and cannot be accepted.

moved at the end of section (2) to insert:—"(3) The Board of Trade may by Provisional Order declare that this Act shall cease to apply to any specified trade to which it at the time applies, and subject to the provisions of this section this Act shall cease to apply to that trade as from the date mentioned in the Order."

I beg to second the Amendment.

When the original Bill was drawn there was a provision something like the provision now proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Somehow or other in Committee upstairs when they came to the change which made it necessary for the Board of Trade to proceed by Provisional Order instead of making an Order merely upon their own initiative this was not continued. We think there is no objection to the principle of this Amendment. We think it desirable that the Board of Trade ought to be allowed, if the circumstances so change as to make it desirable to make that alteration, to make, subject to the control of Parliament, an Order which would cause the Act to cease to apply to any particular trade. With regard to the form, I would prefer if it were moved on the same lines as those on which the section in the original Bill proceeded, and if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment I would move an Amendment in this form: "If and when the Board of Trade consider that the conditions of employment in any trade to which this Act applies have been so altered as to render the application of this Act to that trade unnecessary they may make a Provisional Order that this Act shall cease to apply to that trade." These words will come in before section (3), as it now stands, so that that section shall apply to this Provisional Order, as well as those which come in under section (2). It will apply to both Provisional Orders, so that it is not necessary to deal with the date when the Order comes into effect, which is part of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

I should like to withdraw my Amendment, and to move that which the hon. Gentleman has suggested in its place.

moved, at the end of section (2) to insert:—

I beg to move, "That Clause 3 be omitted." Already persons engaged in the trade are called on by the Census Production Act to produce a mass of information, and, under the Home Office, inquiries are so made. It seems hardly necessary in those conditions, seeing that the Home Office and the Board of Trade, and other Departments, under the Census Production Act, have it in their power to apply for information to those interested in the various industries in the various localities, that these Trade Boards should also have this power. I may point out that in some circumstances action on their part in inquiring into industrial conditions, etc., might become an intolerable nuisance to the various industries if it is suggested that these Trade Boards should meddle with the general conditions of trade outside the question with which they are exclusively to concern themselves, namely, the establishment of a minimum wage under the Board of Trade. Permission is given to them to make inquiries of the kind, and I do not think that the Government ever intended that these Trade Boards should make inquisitorial inquiries or have power to do so into the industrial conditions in great industrial centres. I do not think that by removing this clause we would in any way interfere with the general principles of the Bill, and it would still leave the Government Department, as at present, to make inquiries if they thought desirable. I am certain of this, that those who are engaged in the various industries, sometimes employing thousands of workpeople, would feel it an intolerable nuisance if the local Trade Board, on which sit perhaps persons who are absolutely obscure and with no influence, should be able to bring within their purview the operations of great industrial concerns, with which the Home Office or the Board of Trade can at present communicate if they so desire, and to whom, of course, every assistance would be given when seeking information which they may desire. For those reasons, and because I think that this clause would encourage the Trade Boards to operate prejudicially to the trades and industries, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

I second the Amendment.

When this Bill was in Committee upstairs nobody moved an Amendment to this clause, much less its deletion. I think the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment to-day might have seized the opportunity upstairs to do so.

An Amendment not having been moved upstairs does not preclude the opportunity of moving an Amendment now.

I agree that it would be no reason against its being moved now, but I think that an effort might have been made in Committee to raise this question. The hon. Gentleman has almost answered his own Amendment by saying that even if it be carried the Board of Trade would still be able to make inquiry.

Why include the clause?

This is a useful clause to which considerable importance is attached, and it would only be put in operation at the request of the Department or the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clause, he will see that a Trade Board may consider any matter referred to them by the Secretary of State or the Board of Trade, and "shall make a report upon the matter to the Department by whom the question has been referred." These Trade Boards will be in close touch with the Department for the purposes of inquiry. While I think that the clause will be useful, I believe that its being put in operation will be exceptional. It will only be used on the initiative of the two great Departments, and, that being so, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.

moved; in section (2), to leave out the word "finally"["Before finally fixing"].

I agree.

moved, in section (2), after the words "shall give," to leave out the word "public." The Board of Trade are empowered by Clause 19 to make regulations as to the notice which may be required under this Act with a view, so far as practicable, of bringing the matter, of which notice has been given, before the persons affected. It is not necessary, for instance, that the rates fixed should be made public in the sense of causing them to appear in a newspaper. The word "public" here is simply and purely restrictive, and if it were not omitted, as I now propose, the Board of Trade would never possess the power to require that notice should be given to the parties affected. In a particular case there may be apprehensions among the employers that too many details and too much information are required if the notice is public. As long as the persons in the trade get notice, and the Board of Trade will take care of that, it will be sufficient that the Department be allowed that discretion. It will not prevent their giving public notice if they think proper to do so.

moved, after the word "months," at the end of section (2), to insert the words "including any objections based on the competition of similar goods of foreign manufacture." I cannot conceive what objection can be urged by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to this Amendment, unless it is said, as was said upstairs, that it is unnecessary; at any rate, he cannot contend that it will alter what is the avowed intention of the Bill, and even, if it be unnecessary, it cannot be urged that it is mischievous or liable to lead to anything which is in conflict with the avowed spirit of this measure. Any attempt that may be made to improve the rate of wages in the trades affected by this Bill is bound to depend for its success in a very large measure upon the character of the foreign competition in those specific trades. Of the four trades scheduled in this measure, three are open to serious competition. They are the tailoring trades, the lace-making trades, and the cardboard-making trades. I have already on a previous occasion produced to the House information of an official character in respect of this point, information the accuracy of which has not been challenged. It is indeed a matter of common knowledge that the trades affected by this Bill are trades in which competition abroad is capable of very considerable extension in Belgium and France. And there is this danger to guard against, that in the event of the rates of wages in these trades being raised in England we shall put it in the power of men who are now suspected of paying sweating wages to go abroad to Antwerp, Calais, or Hamburg and get done at a lower rate of wages work for which they are already insufficiently paying. If the Trade Board, having knowledge of such conditions as those I have indicated, refuse to consider objections based on foreign competition, they would be able, under the Bill as it now stands, to justify their refusal. We have been assured that the power to consider this question is already conferred upon the authorities by the Bill, and, if that is so, why not state it specifically in the measure itself. If hereafter there should be an appeal to the courts, the courts, as we know from experience, will not be influenced by the pious opinions expressed in this House during Debate, but they will be influenced, and, indeed, they will be controlled, by the wording of the Bill itself. It is for that reason I urge the acceptance of these words. I think the position I have ventured to take up in the matter is somewhat strengthened by the action pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when the Bill was under consideration upstairs. It was pointed out that the passing of this measure in its original form would cause some hardship to certain Irish industries, and that in certain trades in Ireland the rates of wages there, for a variety of reasons, which I need not now enter into, are lower than the rates ruling in the same trades in England. In consequence of those representations, and in consequence of the opposition to the Bill in its original form, the President of the Board of Trade made a concession to the Irish demand by granting to them a separate Trade Board. The Irish insisted on protection against England in certain industries, and they are to get it. The Irish insisted on protection from the danger in respect of which I ask that England should be protected against the foreigner. The Irish naturally do not want to be handicapped by the English rate of wages, and I submit that they are right. I would ask why, then, should Englishmen be handicapped by the foreign rate of wages? I beg to move.

I desire to second 'the Amendment. The object of this Bill, as I understand, is that goods in certain trades shall not be produced at underpaid or sweated wages, and that we should afford reasonable protection to those good employers in these trades at the present time by preventing them being handicapped by unfair competition. It is idle to suppose even in those trades of which we complain that there are not some very good employers of labour who, in spite of the unfair competition which they have been open to, have invariably done their best to pay a decent rate of wages to their employés. Mr. Sydney Webb, on giving evidence, pointed out that the essence of meeting this difficulty was to see that fair treatment was given to those good employers of labour. He said:—

"The employer who has to sell his goods in competition with all other employers, if he does not keep his expenses of production down to the lowest limits that Can be attained, must be undersold."

The Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) has made an eloquent appeal to us to have regard to those persons who are employed in trades which are liable to foreign competition. I may say that it is not in support of the Amendment, which is to deal merely with the period of objections. The words which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Marks) has moved would be restrictive. As the clause stands at present, the Board may hear all objections. To mention any particular class of objections would be a restrictive Amendment, and would suggest that all other objections must be of the same kind. The speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) would really be an argument against the inclusion in the Bill of any trade subject to foreign competition.

The Amendment cannot be an exclusive Amendment, because it starts with the word "including."

I dealt with that point when I stated that, as the Bill stands, the Board may hear all objections. I regret the intrusion of a subject which is a matter of acute controversy, and I am disinclined to enter upon an argument on the economic difficulty. On the second reading, I endeavoured to put forward an economic argument, and I had hoped that, this being practically an agreed Bill, there would have been exercised that self-restraint which I recommend to the House by avoiding acutely controversial topics such as the fiscal question.

As it has been said several times that this is an agreed Bill, I wish to say that I know of no such agreement. At the same time, I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I am against the Amendment because, notwithstanding the word "including," I believe it is a restrictive Amendment. It would give power to employers of labour to bring forward the plea that, because low wages were paid abroad, therefore, they should be allowed to pay low wages here; and I am against that. I am not going into the fiscal question, but I am rather sorry that the proposal that, once wages were raised, we, in our purchasing capacity, should favour those who were paying high wages, was ruled out of order. I do not know whether I shall be committing myself to a protective policy by so doing, but I should be disposed to favour an Amendment which sought to provide that the Government, in its purchasing capacity, should favour those people who are compelled by legislation to pay high wages. But this Amendment is not that. It seeks to keep wages down, and for that reason I am against it.

I am going to exercise the self-restraint recommended by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennant), for nothing is farther from my desire than to enter into the general merits of the fiscal question; but the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that this Amendment has no bearing on the question we are discussing, except as part of the general fiscal controversy. It is very different from that. The hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) has expressed views with which I entirely agree. If by legislation you deal with a particular trade in a particular way which upsets all the rules which govern trade, it is not departing from Free Trade to consider what effect the legislation will have in that direction, and make suitable arrangements to meet it. That is all we want to do under this Amendment. We quite admit that you cannot take the lowest level of wages paid in any part of the world, and say that be- cause that level exists therefore you cannot get the wages raised. It is admitted by everybody that when a change of this kind is made for a time some people may suffer. In your efforts to improve the general condition you may for a time take away trade from people who greatly need it; and all we ask by this Amendment is that the Board, when it èndeavours to raise the level in these sweated industries, should take into account not the general rates of wages paid for the same class of goods in other countries, but that the goods made at those rates of wages are coming into the country, and that, unless you deal with the question, instead of improving the, condition of the people whom you wish to help you will simply take away the little they have now. Surely that is a point which, in the interests of the people you want to help, ought to be considered. When before the recent Committee it was pointed out that, under existing conditions, a great deal of goods were being sent abroad for work to be done upon them which used to be done in this country, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) said:—

"These considerations, of course, will come before the Wages Boards. It will be part of their duty to deal with all considerations of that kind."

"Even if it-were found that some branches of industry now carried on had to be abandoned, the benefit which would result would be great…They would turn their energy into other channels which are far more suitable."

I trust my hon. Friend will press his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told us that the Amendment was beyond the scope of the Bill. I should like to ask in what respect is it beyond the scope of the Bill?

Outside the scope.

Outside the scope! I do not know that that makes it different. What I said was the sense of the observation. If anything that can be suggested as likely to be within the scope of this whole question, it is certainly the conditions under which these trades are carried on. At the present time these trades find a considerable amount of employment for a large number of persons. We are all at one on the point that the conditions under which the work is done and the rates of wages are not satisfactory. But to say that the consideration embodied in the Amendment is beyond or outside the scope of the Bill is, I think, really to show—to put it mildly—a want of appreciation of the conditions under which these industries are carried on. It shows an extraordinary ignorance of the conditions under which these trades are carried on—conditions that will have to come under the purview of these Trade Boards when set up. It is observations like that which makes hopeless some of us who know something about commerce and industry. We feel that it is a desperate thing to try and maintain the trade of this country under such conditions. These things must be considered unless these industries are to be destroyed. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Money) is not here. He has said that he would rather see these industries destroyed than continued. He would be perfectly consistent in supporting the contention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He would be perfectly consistent in opposing the Amendment, because the one great contention of my hon. Friend is that under the existing conditions we cannot do what we would like, and that if the country would change its fiscal policy then we would be able to deal with the minimum rate of wages or anything else of that kind. Then it would become within the range of practical politics, and the operations of the Board could be made practical and useful, and the condition of the people improved.

I rise to oppose this Amendment, because I believe it is an attempt to introduce the fiscal issue by the back door.

Not at all.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. I want to say, and I think I can say it with every degree of confidence for my colleagues and myself—that if we believed there was a real industrial reform contained in this Amendment we would be prepared to accept it like a shot. We do not approach this question from a party standpoint. We never have done. We have discussed it entirely outside of what are generally understood as orthodox party politics. If we thought the condition of the industrial classes which we represent—and, by the way, which we belong to—would be improved by such an Amendment as this, then, so far as I am concerned, irrespective of party convenience, I would support it.

The hon. Member is getting a great many hundreds of miles away from this Amendment, which simply deals with the question whether the Board of Trade is or is not, when making an Order, to consider objections with regard to the rate of wages in foreign countries. The hon. Member must confine himself to that.

I will endeavour to confine myself to that to the best of my ability, though I may find it difficult. My objection is mostly to this—that so far as the rate of wages in other countries goes there are a great many other considerations behind the question of cheap articles coming into our markets, because goods made by cheap labour is a matter that ought, and does, concern us. We do not desire to form any policy in this country that would lead to legislation that would destroy international harmony among the working classes. We have international relationships between the workers of the various countries, protected and Free Trade, and in these circumstances we have the most stern objection to introduce anything that would restrict the international exchange of goods between this and other countries. We believe such exchange is natural and inevitable, and it is our business to see that wages are raised. Wages will be increased as the volume of trade increases, and therefore I say there is no solution to be found in the Amendment before the House.

The hon. Member who has just sat down opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would interfere with the harmony between nations. That may be——

Between the workers of the nations.

Surely harmony between the various workers would be included in the expression harmony between various nations. I was going to point out that this Amendment is designed to produce true harmony, which will prevent this kind of legislation aiding or abetting the development of sweating in foreign countries. I believe it is quite wrong for anyone to suggest that there is anyone in this House who would do anything by this Bill that would lower wages or benefit the employers at the cost of the happiness of the employed. On the contrary, this Bill is intended to abolish evils which we all know are substantial evils. I had considerable sympathy with the Secretary to the Board of Trade while he was speaking, because he had a bad case, and he tried to make the best of it. It is idle to tell the people of this country that you must not protect them against sweating, because to do so would be outside the scope of the Bill, and would raise the terrible trouble of the fiscal question.

I never said that: I said the seamstress controversy was outside the scope of the Amendment.

The hon. Member did really say that this Amendment was beyond the scope of the Bill.

I am sure I did not. If it was, Mr. Speaker would have ruled it out.

Well, then, if it is not outside the scope of the Bill, it is inside it. So that the hon. Member is on the horns of a dilemma, and, the Amendment being inside the scope of the Bill, I wish to ask the Solicitor-General, if he is not prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, would he suggest to the House the necessary form of the words which would ensure that the Trade Boards, when they come to consider the rates of wages shall take into full consideration the rate of wages paid in similar works abroad? The reason I am keen he should suggest such words is that in the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade on the second reading he laid great emphasis on the fact that Germany, France, and other nations were engaged in considering the question of sweated industries that a conference or convention had been held at Geneva, and that he had high hopes before long we should see great advances in this branch of industries in other countries. If we, by direction and express words in this Bill, ensure that the authorities in this country will investigate most closely the conditions of foreign competition in respect of any trade, we shall be in a far better position to attract the attention of foreign countries to the manner in which sweated industries in this country affect the welfare of our people at home. That really is the intention of this Amendment, and is, I believe, the intention of every Member of the House of Commons. It is idle for us to try and whittle this Bill down. What we ought to try and do is to ensure that every factor, in dealing with the miseries of those poor people, should be brought before the authorities created by Parliament, and see whether the workers cannot be guaranteed healthy and proper conditions of work. As one who has had some contact with this subject for some years, I know that on the part of employer and employed there is an earnest desire that this legislation should be made absolutely effective and that the evil of foreign competition should not be the element to destroy the happiness of the unfortunate sweated working classes of this country.

I do not know whether we can do anything in this Debate, but it is evidently not impossible to choose words as a contribution towards trying to narrow this discussion. I should like to point out that the trade which is the subject of foreign export trade—[An HON. MEMBER: "Foreign competition."] No; foreign trade—foreign competition is in the foreign trade. We are dealing with an export trade to Latin America in competition with Germany and other countries. It has constantly been found that the prices on which the foreign trade is being done are the known prices, and there is a secret concealed margin below that which is the sweating margin. I think an immense deal can be done by the machinery of this Bill to raise wages without affecting prices.

I wish to say a word or two from the point of view of the workers, probably of a very different class to those which have been in the minds of hon. Members who have spoken. We have in Ireland a considerable number of small industries, and, as the Bill stands, for the most part those industries do not come within the schedule. Power is given to extend the Bill to many other trades, and one can never tell which of the trades to which I have alluded might be affected. We are now dealing with the question of extension.

No.

But the same procedure will follow. Therefore, I am bound to have regard to the evidence which has been given in regard to these trades in Ireland before the Select Committee. We were fortunate enough to be able to secure one witness from Ireland, Mr. Walker, who is the chief inspector of industries under the Congested Districts Board, and he is a man who has a greater knowledge of these industries than any other man living. The whole gist of his evidence went to show that some of those industries are carried on at great expense in the face of fierce competition, and while he expressed himself favourable to anything which would tend to raise the level of wages, at the same time he expressed the gravest apprehension as to what might happen, under the extension of Wages Boards to those trades. He pointed out that in those very trades those Irish home industries had to meet competition not only from Germany, but from South Africa and the Canary Islands. He gave instance after instance of certain articles produced by home workers in Ireland, and within a year or six months similar articles were produced in Germany or the Canary Islands almost indistinguishable from the Irish article, at a price enormously lower than it cost the people of Ireland to produce it. I understand from the Under-Secretary that it would be competent to consider questions of that kind even as the Bill stands. I would, however, prefer that it should be stated plainly on the face of the Bill that the point I have raised can be dealt with. That course would show plainly beyond any question or doubt that this matter, which is of the most vital importance to our home industries, would come within the scope of this Bill, and would be properly and fully considered.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a case which came before the Select Committee with reference to Japan. At a place in Ireland an attempt was made to get up a fresh lace trade, and they were immediately met with competition from Japan. The person who gave this evidence brought before the Committee two or three samples of lace, and Members of the Committee were scarcely able to distinguish which was of Irish manufacture and which was of Japanese. It seems to me a very serious thing that we cannot do in this Bill what the measure professes to remedy. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean mentioned the case of Germany, and an hon. Member below the Gangway also referred to that country. I do not agree with them that the trades mentioned in the Bill are not dealt with by those countries. They are engaged in those trades, but they have duties which protect them against competition from imports coming from this country. We know that these goods are imported into this country from abroad, and they undersell our goods here. It is clear that this is a case which the hon. Member in charge of the Bill ought to provide against. We do not stick to this form of words, and all we want is an assurance that there will be some consideration given to this point. Unless we have an undertaking of that kind, I am afraid we must go to a Division, because we feel that the whole success of this Bill depends upon the fact that foreigners will be able to get round it, and attack these trades, with the result that the effect of this Bill will be absolutely nugatory as long as the foreigner is not subjected to some kind of imposition.

Surely the question before the House is an extremely simple and narrow one. Subject to correction by the Chairman, I submit that the only question before us is, Do the words of the clause as they stand cover the consideration of the question of the conditions prevailing in foreign markets? If they do, the Amendment will necessarily be redundant, quite apart from whether it is restrictive. The clause distinctly says the Trade Board may consider any objection which may be lodged with them, and "may" includes every objection. When the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. H. H. Marks) says they shall consider any objections based on the competition of similar goods of foreign manufacture, he means that they shall specially consider conditions abroad. If the hon. Member is entitled to put the particular matter specifically in the clause, I should like to say, "including especially the conditions prevailing in regard to prison labour and various other matters." The clause, however, covers the whole thing, and the hon. Member for Thanet should not be entitled more than any other person to put in any particular topic in which he is interested. I am not more indifferent than he is to the particular gravity of this consideration, and if I did not think a Trade Board would be entitled to consider the conditions under which goods are produced abroad I should vote for the insertion of the words; but inasmuch as the clause does, and that no words could be wider than "any objection," I do think we are not making such good use of the time of the Committee as we could. The only question we have to consider is whether the Trade Boards are precluded from considering the question raised by the Amendment. They are clearly not, and therefore I suggest we vote for the clause and get on to something else.

The question is whether or not there shall be an instruction to the Trade Boards to consider foreign competition, and I think it was quite unfairly suggested by hon. Members below the Gangway that we are not honestly desirous of raising the conditions of labour in our own country. We are ashamed of some of the conditions. There are men, women, and children working at wages at which they cannot be expected to live. The question is whether or not there is such foreign competition in the particular trade under consideration as will produce unemployment by throwing people out of work, and whether we shall instruct the Trade Boards to consider this point. I think we should have a direct instruction that foreign competition shall be considered.

I do not like to give a silent vote on this Amendment. It deals really with a very small point, and I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. H. J. Ten- nant) was not very wise in refusing to accept it, because he said it would be open to a Trade Board to bear an objection based on the conditions under which goods are produced abroad. If that is so, I think it would have been wise on the part of those who are anxious to see this Bill pass if they had accepted the words proposed. I do not think it can be reasonably argued that the conditions under which goods are produced abroad is not an important factor for the Trade Boards to consider in fixing the minimum rate of wages. If this Bill is not to do more harm than good, it is obvious that is a matter which must be taken into consideration. I confess I find myself in rather an unusual position to-day with regard to this matter. I am a little suspicious of finding myself on the same side as my hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Marks), and, if I thought any important principle was involved in this Amendment, I do not think I should take any part in the Division; but, having listened very carefully to what has been said, I am convinced that no very important principle is involved. Therefore, I think it should be put in the Bill in the clearest way that it is open to the Trade Boards to take into consideration the condition under which goods arc produced abroad. It is impossible unless they do to arrive at a satisfactory decision in matters brought before them, and to avoid, in some cases at any rate, coming to a decision which might do more harm than good to those in whose interest this Bill is devised. I therefore propose to support the Amendment.

I quite recognise that there is no answer to the logic of the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), but at the same time I am not quite certain that, in construing Acts of Parliament, any more than in the Department, pure logic prevails. The question is whether this clause shall be permissive or mandatory. That is practically what it comes to. Power is given under the clause as it stands to the Trade Boards to consider any objection, and the question is whether we shall specify plainly that there are certain objections that shall be considered, and that the Irish Trade Boards shall be bound to consider. before deciding to include in the schedule such trades as shirt and lace-making, the rate of wages paid for similar kind of work in China or Japan. I think it should be made more emphatic. We recognise in Ireland that under this scheme consider- able power, and possibly a dangerous power, is being given to an English authority, the Board of Trade, which would be accessible to English manufacturers, who, we know, have not been specially enthusiastic for the development of industries in Ireland. For that reason, I should like to see it made plain, aye or no, and I shall vote for the Amendment.

Does anybody think for a single moment that an employer under these circumstances would fail to give evidence as regards foreign competition? I cannot conceive an employer so foolish and stupid, and it seems to me it would do harm rather than good to put in these redundant words. I imagine that the Board of Trade, when considering whether they will schedule a trade or not, will consider everything which affects the wages. An employer can pay for making a certain class of goods. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Gwynn) was straining a point when he asked us to put in absolutely unnecessary words because of some objection Irish Members may have to make. I was hoping the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. H. H. Marks) would withdraw his Amendment. He wants to keep out certain classes of sweated goods which are in competition with goods manufactured in our own country. I support him in that. I should like to see it made possible for us to keep out all goods known to be sweated when in competition with our own manufactures, but this is a question of inserting a redundant Amendment, which, in my opinion, will not serve the purpose aimed at by the hon. Member.

This is a very small point, and I hope the House will come to a decision on it at once. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gwynn) wants, it to be made mandatory for the Trade Boards to consider the conditions of labour in similar trades abroad. But, as a matter of fact, they will be bound to do that.

Perhaps I should have used the word "explicit." It is not so now.

The hon. Member wants to call particular attention to this point, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in my humble judgment he would not be well advised in voting for the Amendment, as it will not effect the object he has in view.

moved in section (3) to leave out "public"["The Trade Board shall give public notice"].

moved in section (3) to leave out "finally"["of any minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate finally fixed by them"].

moved in section (4) to leave out "public"["Provided that the provisions of this section as to public notice"].

moved to insert, at the end of section (4),"and provided that when any minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate has been made obligatory in the manner provided by this Act, it shall not be varied or cancelled during six months from the date of the obligatory Order, or during such further time as the Board of Trade in the obligatory Order may appoint."

Following as well as I could, the speech of the hon. Member, I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because, according to the machinery of the Bill, if there is to be a variation of the minimum rate, the effect of the provisions of the Bill will be that there must be a new rate, and before there can be a new rate a period of six months must elapse. So far as the variation of the minimum rate is concerned this is entirely unnecessary. In regard to cancellation, it is deemed best by those who are interested in the Bill, I think on both sides of the House, that the Board of Trade should have power to cancel without any limitation of time. A bad mistake may possibly be made, and in these circumstances, under the Amendment, there could be no cancellation for at least six months, or very possibly for a period longer than six months, because such a prolonged period would be fixed by the Board of Trade. Then the only other point in the Amendment, I think, is that the Board of Trade might go outside the six months in fixing the time during which any variation should be made. That was a matter which it was considered better to leave to the discretion of the Board. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will see that his Amendment is unnecessary.

moved, in section (2), to leave out the word "public"["upon the expiration of six months from the date on which a Trade Board have given public notice."]

moved, in section (2), to leave out the word "finally"["of any minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate finally fixed by them."]

moved, in section (4), to leave out the word "finally."["The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, make an Order to apply generally as respects any rates which may be finally fixed."]

moved, in section (4), to leave out the word "public"["date on which the Trade Board have given public notice."]

moved, in section (1), after the word "rate"["at not less than the minimum rate"], to insert "clear of all deductions." I think that is exactly what the House wishes. They do not wish the minimum wage to be nullified by some pecuniary deduction.

moved, in section (1), to leave out the words "without prejudice to any proceedings for the recovery of wages at that rate."

moved, at end of section (1) to insert:—"(2) On the conviction of an employer under this section for failing to pay wages at not less than the minimum rate to a person employed, the court may by the conviction adjudge the employer convicted to pay, in addition to any fine, such sum as appears to the court to be due to the person employed on account of wages, the wages being calculated on the basis of the minimum rate, but the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any right of the person employed to recover wages by any other proceedings."

I should like to call the attention of the Solicitor-General to some of the provisions of this Amendment, and ask for his guidance in regard to the previous section (1). Under the Bill the employer who pays wages at less than the minimum rate can be fined a sum not exceeding £20, without prejudice to any proceeding for the recovery of wages at the minimum rate against the employer, and the Amendment proposes that the judge may, in addition to the fine, order payment of the wages at the minimum rate. These two sections in fact mean that the criminal proceeding for a fine and the civil proceeding for wages due can be kept separate or can be put together. This is a very unusual provision, and I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that the procedure in criminal cases is very different from the procedure in civil cases, and the effect of the Amendment might be that the employer charged with paying less than the minimum rate of wages may not have an opportunity of getting his defence in in a manner in which he would if sued civilly for the amount of wages due. It seems to me that there might be a civil action and there might be a criminal action, and they might either be begun separately or together. If both were taken in a criminal court it would appear that the employer would be under certain disadvantages.

Would not the effect of the clause be that if the magistrate, on conviction, adjudged that the employer had paid short wages, the workman would be entitled to recover the same amount by other proceedings in another court. It rather appears to me that he would. I do not know whether that is the intention.

There are two things dealt with by the section. First of all, there is the punitive proceeding against a person who offends against the Act of Parliament, and that lays him open to a fine or a penalty. There is also the possibility of the recovery of wages which ought to have been paid. One need not necessarily cover the other. They are totally distinct. There are precedents for making provision of this kind, and it is really done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, both for the sake of the person employed and of the other. Take, for instance, the case of the person employed. If there is a prosecution for a penalty it is rather hard on the person employed to say, "You are here to-day, but you must take other proceedings to recover your proper wages." On the other hand, supposing there is any dispute as to the proper wages, it would be rather hard on the employer if the question was not dealt with in exactly the same proceedings. There are ample precedents for this. In cases of malicious injury to property it constantly happens that a penalty is imposed for the offence, and compensation is payable for damage. There was the case of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883 (Scotland), where this procedure also was adopted. In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I do not think it is possible to recover twice. You may say the penalty covers to some extent the wages, but that is not the case put. It is impossible under these proceedings that the same amount of money should be recovered twice, whether it be the penalty or the wages.

It does not seem to me that that point is safeguarded. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will see that if that is so some words should be inserted in another place.

Yes.

moved, at the beginning, to insert: "In the case of the branches of tailoring specified in the schedule to this Act." I do not propose to press this, because we have heard it is the intention of the Government to drop the clause, but I move it for the purpose of stating what is the view taken by those who have previously promoted legislation of this kind. They were not, I think, consulted with regard to this clause, and their opinion is that it would be useful to the tailoring trade, but would be either useless or dangerous as a general clause, and their wish was that it should be in the power of the Trade Boards to withhold its application to other trades.

I am of opinion to-day, as I have been during previous discussions on this subject, that the addition of Clause 7 would be of advantage to the Bill. I think it easy to over-estimate the amount of advantage which would be derived from it, but it would be an advantage, especially to the tailoring trade. At the same time, it cannot be contended that the Act cannot be worked effectually without the addition of Clause 7, and it has been brought to my attention during the discussions in Grand Committee and also through private discussions I have had with many Members who take an interest in this legislation, that there are a great many supporters of the general principle of the legislation who would find difficulty in agreeing to the proposal in this clause. That being so, in view of the fact that it was not originally in our Bill, in view of the desire which the Government have to preserve in this Bill all the sections of those who have supported it, and in view of the fact that there is no doubt whatever that although the clause was of advantage, in our opinion we can effectively work the Bill without it, I have proposed, and the Government intend, to accede to the pressure which has been brought to bear, and the representations which have been made to them from so many quarters, not to overweight the Bill by putting this particular clause in. I must in justice say that I do not in the least recede from the view I have taken that it would be an advantage to retain the clause. I regret that I have not been able to persuade anybody else to take the view I hold. Under our representative institutions it is occasionally necessary to defer to the opinions of other people, and in those circumstances I will not resist the Motion to omit Clause 7. Therefore the saving Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) must be swept away in the general ruin, so to say, of the clause.

I move the omission of Clause 7 on the ground that this is a new clause which was added to the Bill, and that it embodies a new principle. If that principle is once embodied in the Bill it will be fatal to the industry and enterprise of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the Amendment I need not pursue the subject further.

In seconding the Amendment, I think it is only necessary to say, without going into the merits of the case, that I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to the representations made to him that it is not desirable this clause should be included in the Bill.

I beg to move to omit Clause 8. Under Clause 5 it is provided that "Upon the expiration of six months from the date on which a Trade Board have given public notice of any minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate finally fixed by them, the Board of Trade shall make an Order (in this Act referred to as an Obligatory Order) making that minimum rate obligatory in cases in which it is applicable on all persons employing labour and on all persons employed, unless they are of opinion that the circumstances are such as to make it premature or otherwise undesirable to make an Obligatory Order, and in that case they shall make an Order suspending the obligatory operation of the rate (in this Act referred to as an Order of suspension)." I would point out Clause 8 provides for a limited operation in certain circumstances in "where any minimum rate of wages has been fixed by a Trade Board, but is not for the time being obligatory under an Order of the Board of Trade made in pursuance of this Act." Why should the minimum rate of wages be held to operate at all before the Board of Trade has made it obligatory? That seems to be a curious position in which to place the suggested rate of wages. If the rate is not made obligatory, it is put into a sort of uncertain position which cannot fail to act prejudicially to the industry concerned. It is most important that the workpeople in any trade should feel that the rate of wages which is being paid is that which is recognised under this measure, or, on the other hand, that the question of wages is one which is absolutely open to be arranged between themselves and the employers. On these grounds, I think there is no necessity to put in a clause dealing with a rate of wages which is not actually obligatory, but to which, at the same time, employers are, to some extent, amenable. Is an employer to have a written agreement between himself and every individual workman, or is he merely to put up a schedule of prices under which he proposes to remunerate the workpeople? On the other hand, if he accepts the proposed rate, he is to be liable to certain pains and penalties in connection with it. I think it would be much better that there should be no question of dealing with the rate of wages until the Board of Trade have approved of it, and once that has been done of course employers and employed alike would come under the operation of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The omission of this clause would destroy the whole principle of the Bill. The principle is that there shall be an instrument by which we may endeavour to rally all employers who pay good wages to the side of the minimum wage. Then it is hoped by their pressure to induce others to accept that standard. When it finally comes to a case of the minimum rate being made obligatory by an Order, the Board of Trade will be able to proceed more effectively if they have the support of those employers who have paid not less than the minimum rate when it was in limited operation. We attach the greatest importance to the clause. The hon. Member for the St. Albans Division (Mr. Carlile) was a Member of the Grand Committee, and he did not give us the advantage of this suggestion when the Bill was before that Committee.

I am not aware that all the Amendments proposed to-day were considered by the Committee upstairs. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

May I ask whether I can now move the Amendment of which I have given notice on Clause 8?

It is not in order in its present form on this clause, which deals with the limited operation of the minimum rate, which has not been made obligatory. It would have been in order on Clause 6, but the hon. Member did not move it.

Before deciding as to the way in which it was to be moved, I consulted Mr. Speaker, and he subsequently suggested that it would be in order on Clause 8.

I cannot say anything about that. It was quite in order on Clause 6, and I called on the hon. Member to move it. He did not avail himself of the opportunity of moving it then, and as it stands on the Paper dealing with minimum rate, which has been made obligatory, it is not in order on Clause 8.

May I point out that when you called this Amendment to Clause 6 I stated it was an error to have put it on the Paper under Clause 6, and that I intended to move it under Clause 8.

I did not deal with the matter in reference to Clause 8 at that point. I subsequently examined the Amendment in reference to Clause 8, and found that in the form in which it is on the Paper the Amendment is not in order under Clause 8.

When my hon. Friend rose the first time Clause 8 had not been put to the House.

On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the Amendment to Clause 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), which you have called and which the hon. Member has withdrawn?

The hon. Member for Tottenham stated he did not move. Therefore there has been nothing before the House since.

My hon. Friend has mentioned that he spoke to Mr. Speaker about the matter, and was informed that it would be in order under Clause 8, and, in addition, when he brought the matter to your notice he intimated that it was his intention to raise it later, and I think it would be in the interests of all parties in the House in those circumstances that my hon. Friend should not lose the opportunity of moving his Amendment simply because of a slight lapse of attention at the time.

I am quite satisfied that we can go back to Clause 8. With regard to the special circumstances which the hon. Member has explained in reference to what he stated was the ruling of Mr. Speaker on Clause 8, that was not so left to me. It was left to me as being competent under Clause 6; and when the proposal was brought under my notice to change the Amendment to Clause 8, I found that it was not competent under Clause 8. Looking, however, to what has passed, I am not unwilling that the hon. Member should address himself to Clause 8, seeing that no later question has been put from the Chair.

Do I understand that I am entitled to move the Amendment?

No, not in the form in which it is on the Paper; but you may address yourself to Clause 8.

All I understand the hon. Gentleman to desire is that he should be at liberty to discuss very shortly this Amendment, and I would like to know if it is not possible to alter it so as to make it suitable for discussion under Clause 8?

I do not object to the hon. Member addressing himself to Clause 8.

In what form should the Amendment be altered so as to bring it within Clause 8?

The Amendment can be brought within Clause 8 by inserting "has been" after "wages," leaving out the words "has been made obligatory by order of the Board of Trade," inserting the Amendment as a new sub-section at the end of line 19. This would make it in order here.

Then I beg to move the Amendment in the form suggested, namely, to add: "no contract involving employment to which the minimum rate is applicable shall be given by a Government Department or local authority to any employer except on the condition that any work to which the minimum scale is applicable done under the contract shall be done within the United Kingdom."

I rise to second the Amendment. This House declines to take any steps to prevent sweated goods from abroad entering into competition with trade in this country, but they have decided that certain specified trades shall have obligations imposed upon them in reference to the wages which they pay. It is surely desirable, when those obligations have been put upon traders in this country, handicapping them in competition to that extent, that the Government should not put a further handicap upon them by giving away to traders in other countries the work in these trades which they have to give away. One of the difficulties of the moment is the want of employment for our people in this country, and it is very essential that we should seize every opportunity of trying to earmark this employment for our own people, and we should see that the Government, who depend on the taxes of the country for their mainstay, should give their work to British tradesmen.

This proposal raises a very wide and controversial question, far beyond the scope of the Bill, and I would urge that in the course of our discussions we should not involve in proposals for improving the condition of the people, about which there is a general concensus of opinion, other proposals raising the exciting political and party controversies of Tariff Reform. As far as possible we should endeavour not to engage in a dis- cussion on those lines. There is nothing in the proposal of the hon. Member which, if it is to be applied at all, ought not to be applied to the existing Fair Wages Clause. All this Bill does is to fix a fair minimum wage in certain trades. It does not alter the situation or the conditions in any respect. It is extremely unlikely that any of the Government contracts in regard to these trades will be dealt with under the Trade Boards Act.

Are there not different conditions in these trades from those which obtain under the Fair Wages Clause.

There may be a slight difference, but if the argument were to apply at all it would equally apply over the whole area of the Fair Wages Resolution. But that is raising a very large question, which should not be mixed up with the discussions on this Bill, and which is outside its general scope, purpose, and character. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is quite irrespective of the rates of wages paid abroad in any of these trades. They may be much higher than the minimum rates fixed here, and yet there would be a definite preclusion on grounds of principle limiting all Government contracts to this country. I do not think this is the moment to take such a position as that. I think it would be a very great pity if we were to plunge into a discussion of that character. I trust the House will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, who, after all, has moved it in a form which he himself, I think, admits is not the form in which he would wish to have it or the form which would achieve the purpose he has in view; not only that, but if he were to achieve his object it would render a large portion of the Bill unworkable.

I am not certainly going into the fiscal controversy, but I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it seems to me the conditions here are slightly different from those applicable to the Fair Wages Resolution. The object of the Fair Wages Resolution was intended to apply to foreign trades just as well as those at home in the case of Government contracts, while it is quite obvious under this Bill you cannot possibly apply the conditions proposed by the Bill to foreign trades. What this Amendment wants is this: that these trades in foreign countries shall be on precisely the same footing as they are in this country. We say you cannot get that by any of the methods which come under the Fair Wages Resolution. The only possible way in which you can do that in these particular trades is by saying that the contracts be done at home. That is the sole object of the Amendment. In the temporary space of time before a change is made in our policy I have not the slightest desire that a different rule should apply to Government contracts for those of general trade. We have got to go through a short period before the change that we all see coming, and in the meantime I do say it is very absurd to take particular trades like those which are in a miserable condition and included in this Bill. It was actually shown in the case of a particular trade in Ireland, in the city of Belfast, that the custom was to send goods to the West of Ireland, and get work done there. Those carrying on that trade found it possible to get the same work done cheaper in Madeira and Japan, and the work was lost in Ireland. In these cases the same danger is possible, and the least we can do in the

My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment is distinctly taking a step forward in the direction of a principle which involves the question whether trades at home should not be protected against the competition of similar trades in foreign countries, especially where regulations are applied to any trades at home which do not apply to those abroad. I think we are right in taking up this attitude, and pointing out that the Government in this matter are occupying an altogether untenable position in fixing regulations here, which, in the case of Government contracts abroad, would not apply.

proposed, in section (1), to leave out all the words after the word "affected" to the end of the section.