asked the Minister of Transport whether any schemes have yet been submitted to the standing joint committee of the Transport Board by the North Eastern Railway Company for the electrification of their suburban lines?

Yes, Sir. The standing joint committee has before it a number of proposals for new works, including a scheme for the electrification. of the Great Eastern section of the London and North Eastern Railway.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the line from Liverpool Street to Chingford is included in those schemes 7

I could not answer that question without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, in the metropolitan and extra-metropolitan areas, respectively, in each of the months of July, August, September and October; and whether such accidents are attributable to any special cause?

Statistics of road accidents for the country as a whole are not reported to my right hon. Friend until after the end of the calendar year to which they relate. I regret, therefore, that the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is not available for the country as a whole. As regards the metropolitan and city police districts, my right hon. Friend has obtained information regarding the number of accidents involving death or personal injury during the last four months, and, as this information is in tabular form, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the last part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to say whether these accidents are attributable to any special cause. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, it is hoped to obtain valuable information regarding the causes of accidents from a comprehensive analysis which the Ministry of Transport is conducting, but the results of this analysis are not yet available.

In view of the appalling increase in these accidents,

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of coal exported from this country to countries within the British Empire, and to foreign countries, during the nine months ended September, 1933, and for the same period in 1932 and 1931?

The total tonnage of coal exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the first nine months of 1933, 1932 and 1931, as consigned to British countries, was 3,084,000 tons, 3,563,000 tons and 3,174,000 tons, respectively. The total tonnage exported to foreign countries during the same periods was 25,773,000 tons, 25,600,000 tons and 28,454,000 tons, respectively.

Does this not show that tariffs have encouraged the export trade?

asked the Secretary for Mines if he will inform the House of the result of his negotiations with representatives of the coal industry, and when he proposes to introduce, in the light of two years' experience of its working, amending legislation to the Coal Mines Act to remove, or to snake more elastic, its restrictive provisions, especially for the export trade?

I understand that on the 19th October the Central Council of Coalowners failed to reach agreement as to the representations to be made to the Government for amendment of the schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. With regard to the second part of the question, I am unable to make any statement at the moment.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who are registered as unemployed but are not in receipt of benefit or transitional payments?

As the reply includes a table of figures I wilt, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will my hon. Friend issue, at the same time, figures for the year 1931?

I will see if I can do that.

asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures for unemployment, giving separate figures for each area?

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the cotton trade on the last available date and 12 months ago?

At 23rd October, 1933, there were 108,005 insured persons in the cotton industry classification, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 133,175.

Can my hon. Friend say how those figures compare with the year 1931?

The number on 21st September, 1931, was 251,807, and on 26th October, 1931, 189,083.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

During the current financial year, because of the continued improvement in employment, the Unemployment Fund has accumulated a surplus on insurance account of about £5,250,000. This sum appears to be more than sufficient to provide against contingencies during the winter months. My right hon. Friend has accordingly decided to apply a part of it to the repayment of the debt of the fund, which, as the House knows, had reached a total of £115,000,000. Repayment is being made as the various parts of the debt fall due for repayment or renewal. The sum of £210,000 has already been repaid and a further sum. of £1,460,000 will be repaid during the current week. A statement of the transactions of the Unemployment Fund appears in the Ministry of Labour Gazette each month.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, before repaying to the fund, he ought not to take steps to carry out the insurance obligations to the insured person, seeing that this Government cut down the insurance obligations under the Economy Act; and is it not the first duty to see that the contract of insurance with the people who are in insurance is carried out?

To do that would mean fresh legislation. I would ask the hon. Member to be patient until to-morrow morning, when he will read, with his papers, the text of the draft Insurance Bill which deals with this point among others.

Is not the hon. Gentleman prejudicing the issue by devoting a sum to the repayment? Why is the Minister not waiting, before allocating a certain sum, until this House has decided what is to be done with the surplus?

I think that the hon. Member, if he waits until to-morrow, will see the answer to that question as well.

I am sorry, but may I press the Under-Secretary on this point? A certain surplus has arisen; is the first duty not to those who have entered into a contract, and should not the Minister, before repaying any sum, not wait until this House decides what is to be done with its contractual obligations?

The position is this: This sum, having accumulated, can either be used for repaying the debt or be left to accumulate still further. To alter that would mean fresh legislation. If we allow the money to accumulate we shall receive a comparatively small sum in interest, but if we pay back the money we shall reduce the debt. It is obviously more to the advantage of the insured person that we should pay off the debt than that we should ask Parliament to allow the money to remain idle. It will be fully within the power of this House, when considering the new Bill, to deal with this sum, which will have been used pro tanto to reduce the debt.

Is it not most important, in the interests of the unemployed themselves, to get the fund really solvent?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the hatting industry on the last available date and 12 months ago?

I regret that separate figures for hat manufacture are not available. At 23rd October, 1933, there were 4,806 insured persons in the hat and cap (including straw plait) industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 5,367. These figures are exclusive of the millinery industry, for which separate figures are not available.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the shipbuilding industry at the last available date, and comparable figures for 1932?

At 23rd October, 1933, there were 90,865 insured persons in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 106,841.

Can my hon. Friend give the figure for October, 1931

On the 26th October, 1931, the figure was 109,492.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons unemployed in general engineering in the various administrative areas on the last available date and comparable figures for 1932?

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 5 to 9.

In moving the deletion of Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, from the Schedule of this Bill, I want to say that this is not the first occasion that we have tried to delete this provision from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We have objected to the continuance of these provisions for many years, and our opposition is even stronger to-day than it has ever been, as I shall endeavour to show. In spite of the fact that we have raised this issue for several years past, it is worth pointing out once again what they mean in practice, and I will explain to the Committee once again what we are trying to do in moving the deletion of this Section from the Schedule. Our first objection is that when this provision was inserted in the 1920 Act, the Government of the day not only made a definite promise to the country that the provision would come to an end in 1925, but they actually inserted that promise in the Act of Parliament itself. In spite of that promise, this provision has continued for 13 years. I do not like Parliament making promises that it does not carry out. I do not like Governments doing it either. In any case, when a promise is put into an Act of Parliament it has a very much sounder basis than one given. by mere word of mouth by a representative of a Government.

The provision to which we are objecting to-day is commonly called the two-shift system. It provides that an employer, on an appeal to the Home Office, and after satisfying certain conditions, can secure an Order for employing his work-people, contrary to the provisions of the factory laws of this country, for eight hours a day at any hour between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. Someone may say at once, "Well, there is not very much wrong in that," but hon. Members must understand that the provisions apply to young persons from 16 years of age upwards. As I shall try to prove, we contend that these provisions are harsh, unnatural and unnecessary especially in respect of young persons of 16 years of age and over. But before doing so, I want to show the Committee how these Orders have grown in number as the years have gone by. In 1921 there were 146 Orders issued; in 1922, 95; in 1923, 88; in 1924, 97; 1925, 86; 1926, 69; and when we come to 1927 the figures run up to 104; in 1928, 117; 1929, 113; 1930, 129; and in 1931, 227 such Orders were issued. When we come to 1932 the Home Office issued 293 Orders, and up to 31st October of this year the number had already reached 267. The number of Orders, however, do not indicate the number of workpeople affected because one Order alone might easily affect a thousand workpeople; and we have no information either to show the ages of the workpeople affected by these Orders.

I want first to ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office how many of these Orders have fallen into disuse. That information would be very important. I am not sure whether the Home Office keeps a record of the number of Orders which fall into disuse. It would be very helpful if we could have the information, because, if we added all the number of Orders together, they would run into a very formidable figure, but I Cannot believe that they are all in force at present. In 1929, according to the information obtained then, there were 148 Orders in continuous use and about 10,000 workpeople affected. It is a monstrous state of affairs that this country is rapidly getting into the position where two shifts a day, are operative just as if we were in, the middle of a period of trade prosperity. We have over 2,000,000 people unemployed on the one hand, And the employers turn round and say: "We cannot cope with the orders that are coming in; we must speed up our factories and work two shifts a day. "We make a strong complaint against the suggestion that the position of industry in this country warrants the claim that the employers are making, that factories must be kept on at full speed for 24 hours a day in order to cope with the immense number of orders that are coming in from home and abroad. Some of the first request's for these Home Office Orders were made on the plea that the demands which were coming in from abroad for British products had to be satisfied forthwith. Therefore, the Home Office were asked to issue Orders so that employers could cope with those urgent orders from abroad. I do not think that that argument holds good any longer, because the complaint is now made that hardly any orders are coming from abroad at all.

I should like to advance another argument against the continuation of the issuing of these Orders by the Home Office. What does it mean in relation to family life? The final test of every piece of legislation is how it affects the human being. Let me try to picture the position. When I was a collier I had to work occasionally at nights, and I did not like it. I preferred to work during the day, although I worked in darkness even during the day. Let me put the case which think can arise in a family consisting of a man, his wife and two children—a son and a daughter. The boy works under the two-shift system, starting at, say six o'clock in the morning. He must get up, I suppose, at 5 o'clock, and his mother has to prepare breakfast for him at 5.30. The husband goes to work at seven o'clock and another breakfast has to be prepared for 6.30. The daughter goes to work in a shop or an office and still another breakfast has to be prepared at eight o'clock. At mid-day the son comes from work at two o'clock or 2.30, at the end of the two-shift system and a meal has to be prepared for him. The husband and daughter come in at other hours and meals have to be prepared for them. The household, therefore, becomes in fact a small cook shop. We object to that sort of thing happening in our family affairs. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh. They employ servants to do the work, but in this case the housewife has to do it all. I do not think it is fair, in view of all the new inventions that have come along enabling almost everything to be done by machinery, that a, system should be adopted whereby the housewife is adversely affected in her household duties in the way I have described.

We have another objection to this system. Perhaps I ought to interpose a special word here, because I have been called to account for suggesting that this provision affects children. Someone was good enough in some official document to say that I had stated that children were employed on the two-shift system in this country. This provision of course affects young persons of 16 years of age and upwards. I regard a boy or a girl of 16 years of age however in the present industrial conditions of this country as nothing but children. The rich people take good care that they do not call their boys and girls anything but children until they are 18 years of age, and some even up to 21 years of age. Some of them are children at that age, and a number are old women at any age. I stated 12 months ago that the Home Office were allowing employers to exploit the workpeople by granting these Orders. I have no hesitation in saying that every move that an employer makes to get away from the ordinary practice of starting work at seven or eight o'clock in the morning and finishing at five o'clock in the afternoon is an unnatural exploitation of the faculties of the work-people. The employer may of course argue that he is doing it for the sake of economy.

I object very strongly to the extension of this system also because it has crept, at last, into the great textile industry of Lancashire, where this sort of thing was totally unknown up to a few years ago. I think the first Order for that purpose was granted during the lifetime of the present Government. I am glad to think that their lifetime is not going to be extended very much further. Let me put another point against these Orders. They are a relic of the great War. They were granted in order that we could turn out munitions night and day. without stopping. From the point of view of those who believe in war it is all right to turn out as much munition as you can, but we object to legal provisions that were intended to apply to nothing but armament factories being carried into the peaceful avocations of the people and continued for so long. If this Government has its way we may have double shifts in armament factories later on.

Will the Under-Secretary tell the Committee to what type of employer and industry these Orders have been granted Do they apply to gramophone record making, to textiles and so on? We would like to know what are the industries covered by the Orders. Are they factories that produce for home consumption or for the export trade? I think that is a fair question.

The argument has been put forward by the supporters of the system that they have increased employment by the adoption of the two-shift system. Will the Under-Secretary tell us where there is any foundation for the argument that you increase employment by adopting the two-shift system? It is like saying that you increase the water in the sea because the tide comes in twice a day. I do not think that the number employed in industry has been increased by one person by the adoption of the two-shift system. Everyone connected with local authority and educational work in this country will agree with me when I say that young persons employed under a two-shift system, which means that those employed on the afternoon shift return home in some cases after ten o'clock in the evening, are debarred altogether from the social amenities of their neighbourhood and also from attending any educational classes of any kind. That is most unfair to these young people.

There is one further question, and a most pertinent question, which I must put to the Under-Secretary. How many of these Orders have been granted to gentlemen who have come from Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden and Norway to establish factories in this country? I do not know how many of these factories there are. According to statements made by Ministers as to the rate at which they were being put up before the summer recess, one would imagine that every factory in this country would ultimately be run by foreigners. The attitude of mind of the Government was that they were growing by thousands, by leaps and bounds; that many foreigners with capital with coming here to show the English people how to produce commodities. That, I thought, was an insult to our own people; but it is the Tory mentality. Will the hon. and gallant Gentlemen tell us how many of these Orders have been granted to factories established by foreign capital and run by foreigners? We should then know where these phantom factories are situated. The Government have been quiet on this matter for some time; we have not heard very much about it in any of the propaganda speeches which have been delivered during the last two months and, therefore, I think we should get to know something about it now.

I know that as in answer to my criticism we shall have the stock argument—I can almost see it on the lips of the hon. and gallant Gentleman already—that in 1924 the Labour Government granted Orders and that in 1929 the Labour Government granted similar Orders. Surely that argument cannot prevail now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, when he uses that argument, that it is grossly unfair to judge the activities of any Government of any political colour which is in a minority in connection with our factory laws. When we get comparative figures about 1932 or 1933 someone always asks what are the figures for 1931, as if we did not know that the whole thing was prepared beforehand. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us whether the Government have seriously considered the necessity of continuing the practice of granting these Orders under what is called the two-shift system?

There is also the argument, which no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman will use, that the working people themselves vote on this matter, that there is a ballot before a decision is reached and that a majority of the working people are always in favour of this provision. I ask any hon. Member who knows anything about industry whether it is not the case that when an employer employing say 500 workers makes a suggestion, as is often the case, that the factory cannot continue much longer unless the two-shift system is brought into operation, such a suggestion in itself makes it almost impossible for the workers to vote against the introduction of the two-shift system. There is a suggestion there that they might lose their jobs unless it is adopted, and that is sufficient to bias the issue in the minds of the workers. I say that such a ballot of the working people, although carried out quite fairly, does not give a true indication of their desire. In any case, if any employer or Government Department were to ask working people whether they prefer to work from seven or eight o'clock in the morning until five in the afternoon, or start at six and stop at two, their decision would be overwhelmingly in favour of the ordinary day shift as the better alternative.

I desire to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) from my own experience as a secretary of a trade union and also as one who has endeavoured to do something for the cause of technical education in industry. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the point that is involved. Because of the operations of these Orders, because you are allowing the working of two shifts, ordinary Factory Act legislation, which forbids young persons under the age of 18 years of age to work except between certain hours, is altered and young persons can be employed until ten o'clock in the evening. When these regulations were made there was a great deal of hesitation in the minds of those interested in factory legislation as to whether it was really wise to depart from the ordinary factory legislation. Arguments, however, were brought forward at the time, the most convincing being that the employers said they were in the middle of a boom period—this was in 1920—and had a considerable amount of orders on hand. They asked that the regulation should be made, temporarily, to enable them to cope with the orders they had. When the matter was debated in this House assurances were given that these Orders were of a purely temporary character and would disappear in the course of time. Instead of that they have been kept on ever since.

I make this appeal to the Committee. I consider the two years between the ages of 16 and 18 very vital years indeed in the life of a young person. The trend of modern industry is to take children into industry at the age of 14, use them up to 18 and 19 years of age, to exploit them to the utmost, and then throw them on to the street. A good many young persons of 21 years of age are already too old for the jobs that they have recently filled. In addition, you have an army of at least 100,000 young persons between 16 and 21 years of age who are unable to get any employment at all.

The effect of this system is particularly hard and cruel so far as any educational facilities for young persons are concerned. I have been asked by county councils, by borough councils, by people interested in education, to do all that I possibly can to use my influence, as far as it goes, to impress upon young people the necessity of technical education in their own industry. This debars them from any chance at all. I hope hon. Members will visualise what happens to young persons employed on this second shift, which runs from 2 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock in the evening. That means that the young person is condemned to an existence which, in effect, is all bed and work. They get home late from work and lie abed late in the morning, and, after looking round, it is almost noon, and they must get ready for the factory. I put it that a system of this kind is altogether wrong in these modern days. Further, if British industry is absolutely unable to flourish without exploiting young persons between 16 and 18 years of age to this extent, then British industry must indeed be in a very bad and a very sorry way.

The exploitation of child labour has always been one of those subjects which have appealed to all men and women of good will. Apart from any political bias all sorts and conditions of men and women have realised that it is for the good of the community that young persons between these ages should be looked after and not be allowed to be exploited, that their entry into industry, instead of being made harsh and wearisome, should be made as pleasant as possible, that they should be encouraged to educate themselves as far as possible, and be encouraged to take a real, live interest in the work they perform. I suggest that the real argument against this provision is that it takes away that incentive to industry, that it chokes and drives off the young person from taking any interest in industry at all. It simply brings the young person down, more or less, to the level of a slave, without the possibility of enlightenment, without the possibility of developing, as he or she should at that stage, all the best that is in them. Consequently, I hope and trust that the time may have come when the Minister may see his way to drop this Regulation.

It may be argued that the Labour Government of 1924 or 1929 agreed to this. That is no argument at all in this House to-day. I am not here to defend the action of the Labour Government of 1924 or 1929. I am dealing with the thing as I find it now, and I say, out of my own experience, I am convinced that this Regulation inflicts a very cruel wrong upon young persons. If it be true, as the hon. Member suggested, that employers are now coming along in the textile factories asking for this Regulation to be put into force for their benefit, then I think the condition in Lancashire will soon be as bad as it was 40 or 50 years ago, and even worse than it was under the half-time system. No industry in the long run has really benefited by the exploitation of the labour of young persons of this tender age. I say that it is bad business for the industry, bad business for the nation and very bad, and even tragical, business for the young persons concerned. I hope that the Minister may afford us some hope that the promises made when this Regulation was introduced in 1920 are at least to be redeemed, and that we are to take from the Statute Book what, I consider, is cruel and harsh treatment of young persons.

I would like to add my plea to the right hon. Member opposite for this provision to be taken out of the Schedule. I remember coming here in 1922 for the first time and making an appeal then with others for the removal of this Act from the Schedule. I remember, further, being associated in 1924 with the party, to which I still belong, when they formed a minority Government, and I would say this to the Minister. He may make the reply which my hon. Friend thought might be made, that the Labour Government at that time, not in this House perhaps, but in another place, were tackled as to what their action was going to be in regard to the Act we are now considering, and we got a reply at that time, which I remember very well, from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister, and at that time was Prime Minister in the Labour Government. The reply was to the effect that it would be impossible for the Labour party as a party to pass a Bill through this House unless they could secure practically the unanimous support of the Liberal party in the House at that time, and we were informed that certain representations had been made in the usual way, and that although a large measure of support could be secured from certain Members of the Liberal party, there was not a sufficient measure of support to enable us to carry it. That was really the reason given to us then, and I think a similar reason was given in 1929. It must not be taken that, because the Labour Government did not remove this Act from the Schedule, there was any feeling in the Labour party at that time different from the feeling at the present time.

I think, however, this ought to be viewed from quite a different aspect. After all, it was admitted by everybody who was responsible for the Factory Acts that when they were carried it was because they were necessary for the protection of young people of the ages that we are now considering. When the attempt was made to modify those Factory Acts so as to allow young persons to work from six in the morning until 10 at night, very serious opposition was raised by Members of all sections of the House of Commons, and it was only agreed to by this House on the strict understanding that it was temporary, and that it was only necessary because of the special circumstances which existed at that time. All those who voted for it, no doubt, in 1920—I was not here myself —did so in good faith, and in the belief that as soon as the special circumstances then existing had passed away, the Act would be taken out of the Schedule, and we would come back to the old conditions imposed by the Factory Acts. Year after year this matter has been brought up since, and we are always met with some excuse, but never with a reason which any intelligent person could accept, and, frankly, I do not think that anybody on the Government side to-day could say that there is any reason for a continuance of this Act from the point of view of industry. From the public health point of view, either it is right or it is wrong that these young persons should work under the conditions they are working under to-day. If it is right that they should, why not repeal those parts of the Factory Acts which refer to the conditions of the employment of these young persons? If the Factory Acts are justified, as, I believe, most Members will admit, why should we pass this Act year after year?

Reference has been made by my hon. Friend to the lack of opportunity for young persons to get technical education. I am interested in technical education, too, but I am more interested in general cultural development, and I want every opportunity given to these young people to take advantage of the facilities provided, which some of us in this House never got when we were their age. I cannot help feeling that it is a bit mean to take advantage of these young people, and not allow them to have the opportunity to use these facilities. From the educational standpoint, I do not suppose there is an educationist in the country of any political party who would not agree that the continuance of this Act is detrimental to the interests of the young people. From the public health standpoint, I do not believe there is any one in any political party in this House who would disagree that it is also detrimental to the general health of the young people.

Therefore, I ask myself, what can be the reason that induces the Government year after year to press for the inclusion of this legislation in the Schedule? The only reason that I can give to myself is that pressure is being brought on them from outside somewhere. Whence can that pressure come? I suggest it can only come from that section of the community in the industry that is anxious to exploit young persons, and to evade all the provisions of the Factory Acts. I suggest to the Government that they ought not to allow pressure from a source like that to influence them in their judgment in a matter of such importance to young people. After all, there are among employers, just as there are among all other people, good employers and bad employers, and I suggest that it is only the bad employer, the employer who has no regard for the health of these young employes who would wish to maintain this Act against the better judgment of everybody qualified to judge as to the effect upon the education and health of the young people. I hope, therefore, that the Government, with their very large majority, will resist that pressure, which, no doubt, has been brought to bear upon them, and will accede to the request which has been made by my hon. Friend.

Our attitude has been challenged by my hon. Friend opposite. Of course, there is no question of what, our attitude to this particular provision is. I think that Parliament has never altered its opinion as to the undesirability of a two-shift system for young persons. In fact, if it were not so, it would become part of the permanent legislation of the country. Every year, unfortunately, these expiring laws contain this provision to continue what is, after all, emergency legislation. I sometimes think that expiring law provisions would be a very good thing to do away with, because they do encourage slackness in Government Departments. I think that if my right hon. Friend, the very able representative of the Home Office, had to come down this year and introduce new legislation to impose this provision, not only would he hesitate to do so, but I believe he would not for a moment think of doing it. Obviously, year after year, automatically, the Government are inclined to let these things slide. When the Session is expiring, the expiring laws go on expiring, and I think that is the only justification. If I remember rightly, in 1920 this provision was made because there was a little trade boom. Ever since then it has been justified because there has been a trade slump.

We cannot have it both ways. My right hon. Friend the Under—Secretary now suggests apparently a coming trade boom as a renewed justification for these very undesirable proposals. We do not want to be too hard on an individual employer if an emergency does arise in his industry. If an employer knows that these provisions exist, naturally he takes advantage of them, but if the provisions did not exist no doubt he would be able so to adapt the factory conditions and modify the organisation so that instead of employing juniors he could bring in a certain number of adult workers. Public opinion is growing in favour of keeping young people out of industry as long as possible. It seems unfortunate that automatically—I cannot believe deliberately—these provisions are renewed year by year. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Government that this really is the last time the provisions will be embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

I agree with the last speaker in hoping for some assurance from the Government that this is the last time these provisions will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. But I do not see why we should trust the promise of any Government when it comes to the Factory Act. We know perfectly well that the Factory Act was never a Government Bill. It was a Home Office Bill. Every Government since 1920, Tory Governments and Labour Governments, have put off dealing with this matter. I can never forget the Parliament of 1920. It "did for" the Coalition of that day. The House was full of War profiteers. All that was necessary was to mention anything to do with humane legislation, such as education or the employment of women and children, and Members would rise in their thousands and shout one down. There was never anything like it. That was at a time before the women had become organised.

I do not see the connection between the Noble Lady's speech and the Bill dealing with the employment of young persons.

The Bill refers to the employment of women and young children, and I am speaking about the consciousness of the House which in 1920 passed that Bill. This House is quite different from the House of 1920. There are very few in this Parliament who want to see children and young people working these abominable hours. When the Children Bill was going through Standing Committee we had a definite promise from the Government that they would regulate the hours of work of children in unregulated trades. Otherwise, the Government would never have got the Bill through Committee. But the Government have done nothing since, and we are not certain that they are going to do anything now. Why cannot they have the courage to bring forward a new Factory Act and pass it? What are they waiting for? They have the whole country behind them; they have far more power than any other Government has ever had. We ought to have a national policy for juveniles as far as factories are concerned. Some countries have absolutely upset everything in order to take children up to the age of 16 out of factories. I beg the House and the Home Office to do something. I know that the Home Secretary is for it. Who is keeping him back? It is not the House of Commons, and I do not think it is the officials of the Home Office.

Lansbury.

Do not bite your leaders. I do not blame the leaders so much as the House of Commons. What are we sitting here waiting for? Why do not we make up our minds what we are going to do about these young persons? We can exert pressure on the Government. If the Government will not give us a promise to deal with the matter we ought to vote against them even on this Bill. The trade unions have not pressed for the reform. They have always been pressing for other things. The whole House is to blame for nothing having been done. There is not a section of the House that is not to blame. I beg the Under-Secretary to go back to the Government and demand that something be done, or to give us an assurance that something will be done about these juveniles. The position is very awkward for some of us. We want to back the Government, but sometimes we feel rather like kicking it. In this case we will not believe a word that the Government say until we see something in a Bill The Government could pass a Bill quite well.

Of course there is a certain section of industry that is never ready to reform itself. Those employers were not ready in Shaftesbury's days. They are willing to sweat anyone. It is only a very small section of industry, but we are in this House to protect the people who cannot protect themselves. In this case it is the young people. I appeal to the Government and the House. Why do we not get to work and do something? Do not let us sit still. We hall never get a better Government than the National Government. The chance of real reform is through this Government. Once we get hack to party polities every party will play its tricks. This House of Commons is the best I have ever seen, but I am afraid its Members are not used to dealing with Governments. If they understood Governments they would get up and make speeches on this subject. Then the Minister would run back to the Cabinet and the Cabinet would take action, and we would get a Bill to protect the juveniles. I say to the Under-Secretary: Give us some assurance and do not make us vote with Members of the Socialist party. Much as we admire their hearts we are a little nervous about then beads.

We have all been much interested in the speech of the Noble Lady. I am in perfect agreement with her description of this Government as the finest Government that has been in office for many years, but I must protest against the violence with which she threatens me. I think she said that she felt very much like kicking the Under-Secretary of State.

No, the Government.

Then I take it I am exempted from that form of punishment. The hon. Member who moved the deletion of these lines in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill said that this was not the first occasion on which his party and he had objected to this two-shift system. That is quite true. Each year that this Bill has been before the House the Government, whatever Government it may have been, has been asked to delete these same words in order to remove the opportunity of the two-shift system being worked by women and young persons of 16 years and over. The Noble Lady has fallen into the same error as has been frequently made by many speakers. She refers to these people as children. The Bill has nothing to do with children. It refers to persons of 16 years and over. Let us make that clear. In the eyes of the law there is a great difference between a child and a person of 16 and over.

I am very glad that on this occasion at any rate the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has been more accurate than he was on the last occasion on which he addressed the House on this particular issue. He has to-day given a rather half-hearted apology for a statement that he made last year, but he has not been completely accurate even to-day. He said that the employer by making application to the Home Office could, under certain conditions, obtain permission to work a two-shift system. That in itself is misleading. It is true that the hon. Member qualified his statement later, but when he said that the employer could make application to the Home Office he surely meant that the employer and the workpeople jointly could make the application? Do not let us have all this thrust upon the employer, for the employés share the responsibility of making the application.

Does the Under-Secretary mean that a suggestion for the adoption of the two-shift system would come from the employés were it not for the fact that the employer made the suggestion to them first of all?

I said that it is a joint application. It is probable that the employer knows more about his business than any individual workman, and it is almost certain that he will make the suggestion originally. But the hon. Member said that the application was made by the employer, whereas it is made by the employer and workpeople jointly.

Made by the work-people under duress.

The hon. Member also talked about people employed on two shifts a day. That was a misleading statement, and I know he did not mean it. But the hon. Member ought to be careful in the words he uses. To the ordinary person his statement would mean that the same people were working two shifts a day. He knows that that is not true. The hon. Member's words are not only heard in this House but in view of the position which he now occupies and has held in a former Government his words are studied very carefully outside this House and people are apt to believe that what he says is in fact true. I would like at once to make it clear that the same people do not work during two successive shifts. The hon. Gentleman, as I have said, gave us a half—hearted apology to-day. I want to state exactly what the position is with regard to the two-shift system. Last year the hon. Member for Westhoughten said that this Act made it possible for women, young persons and children to be employed at night. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority, and he has already told us that his words went out as far as Geneva and were published in an official book there. I should like to indicate to the Committee how his words appear in that book. They are published in an issue of "Industrial and Labour Information" of 23rd January, 1933. This is a publication of the International Labour Office, and it contains a statement based on the hon. Gentleman's remarks headed as follows:

"Young workers. Night work by children in Great Britain."

Children as I have said do not come under the terms of this Section. Moreover, there is no night work in connection with this Section.

What about night baking?

There is certainly no night work within the meaning of the term as we know it and as industrialists know it. What is the position? This Section does not make it possible for women and young persons or for anybody else to be employed at night and the Section does not deal with children at all.

Young persons.

Yes, "young persons." The Section does not do that which has been described by many speakers. It authorises the Secretary of State, if a joint application is received from the employers and a majority of the workpeople in any factory or workshop, and only if the application is a joint one, to grant an Order, not for the employment of anybody at night, not for the employment of any children at any time, but an Order enabling women and also young persons of 16 years and over, to work under a two-shift system, averaging not more than eight hours per day between 6 o'clock a.m. and 10 o'clock p.m., and on Saturday up to 2 o'clock in the afternoon only. Even this is subject to a proviso. If the organisations representing a majority of the employers and a majority of the workpeople in any industry make a joint representation against the granting of Orders in that industry then the power of my right hon. Friend to make Orders under the Section ceases as regards that industry. If an Order is already in existence and my right hon. Friend receives a joint representation against it from the organisations of workpeople and employers, then the Order terminates within four months. My right hon. Friend has never received such representations. All these Orders with one exception are still in existence.

Nothing could be more fair or more generous than that arrangement. It means, in plain language, that if employers and workpeople desire the two-shift system they may have it under certain clearly defined conditions such as the hours that can be worked and the welfare conditions in the particular workshops concerned. If, on the other hand either the employers or the workpeople do not want that system they cannot be forced to have it under any conditions or in any circumstances. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked what was the effect upon employment of this two-shift system. Of course he knows, because he has previously been told in the House of Commons, that it is difficult to ascertain the actual number of persons affected directly and indirectly. The hon. Member was told in 1930 by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Short, that it was estimated that about 40,000 persons were affected directly and indirectly. to-day if one may venture a guess, because it can be little more than that, there are about 50,000 or 60,000 affected directly and indirectly. It is fair to say that but for this extra shift, half the shift workers, at any rate in most cases, would be unemployed. This is quite apart from the large number of other workers indirectly affected such as those engaged in preparatory work and also those engaged in subsequent processes.

Undoubtedly the system in most cases must reduce the cost of production by spreading overhead charges. We still have to export in order to keep our people employed at home. We are still therefore in competition with foreign manufacturers. So far as is known employers in all other countries, at any rate in the leading manufacturing countries, are free to employ women and young persons on this same system. That in itself is a strong argument in favour of the retention of the system here. It is in the interests of the employment of our own people. I do not know whether the Committee are fully aware of the procedure regarding these applications. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said that there was intimidation. He used some such word as that.

I say so undoubtedly.

I think "duress" was the word used by the hon. Member. It may be difficult for me to convince the hon. Member. I can only say that usually these applications are actually signed by the workers concerned. Sometimes a ballot is held, but in every case one who is a friend of the workpeople in the person of a factory inspector visits the works in respect of which an application has been made. In fact, the application is generally made through the factory inspector, and in any case the factory inspector visits the factory before submitting any application that he may have received and satisfies himself that the proposal has been properly explained to the workpeople and that a majority are definitely in favour of the application.

How many of them are afraid to say otherwise?

I do not hold such a low opinion as that of His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, and it is an opinion the expression of which I would resent.

I did not say anything about the factory inspectors. What I say emphatically, and I have experience which I do not, think the right hon. Gentleman has, is that the workers are intimidated to a certain extent if the employers want this system brought into operation. When the factory inspector comes round the workers are afraid to say a word to him because they know that if they do the "sack" awaits them, if not immediately in a short time afterwards.

I cannot accept that statement. It is not a question of any individual seeing the factory inspector, and even if it were, it is very unlikely that the factory inspector would tell the employer "So-and-so as an individual does not desire this two-shift system." Does the hon. Member mean to suggest that a number of workpeople who do not desire the system may be compelled to sign the application for fear of all being discharged? I cannot imagine that any employer is going to dismiss all his work-people because he has been thwarted in his desire to get a two-shift system. I apologise to the hon. Member for having wrongly interpreted what he said earlier with regard to the factory inspectors. I thought his accusation was against the factory inspector and that he suggested that they were intimidated. I withdraw what I said to him on that point.

There is already a tremendous shortage of factory inspectors. We have economised on factory inspectors in the last 10 years. Is it quite certain that the factory inspectors go into every one of these cases? I should also like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the effect of this system upon the workers themselves.

I was about to deal with the question of health. As far as. the inspectors are concerned I am satisfied that they go into these cases very carefully and make the fullest possible inquiries. They do not make inquiries in front of the employers, but quietly from the workpeople, and I am certain that there is no intimidation such as has been suggested. I would ask the Committee to weigh carefully what I am about to say now. There has never been a request of any kind for the repeal of one of these Orders, and no individual case of dissatisfaction in the minds of the workpeople who have been working these Orders has been brought to light. The fact that we have not had a single request for repeal goes some way at any rate to show that this system is not unpopular among those who are working it. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked how many Orders had fallen into disuse. Only one has been rescinded. That does not mean, however, that all the others are necessarily in use. What it means is that all the others may be used—that they are still operative.

I come to the question of the type of industries in which these Orders have been granted. I cannot give exact figures, but in the main they have been granted in the hosiery and light metal industries. The hon. Member said that the cotton trade had recently been granted an Order or Orders. That is not quite accurate. The facts are that Orders, few in number, have been granted in the cotton industry over several years. It is nothing new to grant an Order in that industry.

The hon. Member for West Walthamstow and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asked how the health of the workers was affected by this system. I can only quote from the report of an investigation made by the Industrial Fatigue Research Board into the two-shift system in certain factories. The investigation was carried out by Miss May Smith and Mr. M. D. Vernon. In the report they talk under one head of the sickness, and I read:

"No conclusive statistical evidence has been found of a greater amount of sickness under one system than under the other."

Again they say:

"When the visits were grouped by departments, it appeared that the total sickness of the departments on shift work was exactly the same as that of the departments on day work."

Again:

"It appears that only half as many days were lost through sickness by the shift workers as by the day workers and that there were only about half as many visits to the first—aid room."

That really looks on balance as though those young persons engaged on the two-shift system were in better health than those engaged on ordinary day work.

Did they approve the two-shift system?

They did not consider the two-shift system except from the point of view of its effect upon the health of the workers. I was asked about the abuse of this system. All that I can say is that in 1932 there were 1,564 Orders operative, not of course all in use at the same time, and proceedings were taken on only six charges in connection with the failure to comply with some portion or other of an Order; five charges related to women and one to a young person. In each case—and this I think ought to show the vigilance of the factory inspectors—the prosecution was initiated by the factory inspector. It was he who took action, and in each case a conviction was obtained, but the abuse of this two-shift system from the figures that I have given is, it must be agreed, infinitesimal, and, moreover, it shows that there is a considerable desire by everybody concerned to work the system. I submit that there seems at present really no case for its abolition.

I said at the beginning that every Government is asked to delete this part of the Schedule and I repeat that no Government has ever done so I repeat that statement, because I would not care to disappoint the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who knew that I would bring forward the argument that the Labour Government on two occasions had recam- mended to the House exactly what we are recommending to-day. I do not want to disappoint him, but I would like to put this in rather a different light. No Government has definitely asked the Committee or the House to delete this section, and, moreover, no Government has ever even recommended its deletion. If I might quote the language that was used by Mr. Short on the celebrated occasion in 1930, it was as follows—and I am going to make the frank confession that I have read the whole of his speech and am going in the first instance at any rate to quote something which the hon. Member opposite will be very pleased to hear read. Mr. Short said:

"I can assure the Committee that the Government do not desire or intend that this system shall become a permanent part of our industrial law or our industrial conditions."

But,

"If the two-shift system was brought to an end this year it would mean grave dislocation and would no doubt contribute to the industrial depression."

If Mr. Short had said that this was an undesirable system but that they could not prevail upon the Liberal party to help them in getting it abolished on that occasion it would have been one thing, but, as a matter of fact, he said, "If you abolish the two-shift system this year, you are going to create unemployment, poverty, and all the things that we do not desire to see in this country." I quoted the exact words, but that is obviously what he meant. It was a bad thing, in the year in which he spoke, for this system to be abolished. With those last words that Mr. Short used, I am in complete agreement, and I maintain, and I desire to impress this upon the Committee, that those words apply with equal force to-day as when he used them three years ago. For that reason, if for no other—and I could give many other reasons were there time—I ask this Committee to resist the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite.

The defence of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office really makes the matter a good deal more serious than I had supposed, because the defence which he has so ably put forward is in fact not a defence of this provision as an emergency provision, but, speaking, as I must suppose he does, the mind of the Government, he has brought forward all the arguments he could, with great conviction, to show that this system was a good system and one to be continued. If that be the case, we are considering something very serious indeed, and it shows what an unfortunate system it is to introduce legislation of this kind as an emergency and then to have it coming forward year by year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The result is that unless somebody actually makes a riot, the Government come to the conclusion that everyone is satisfied and it may as well go on.

From what words of the representative of the Home Office can hon. Members of this Committee to-day look forward to this being abolished at any time? Really, his defence was on the merits of the system. He defends the effects of it on health and on industry; everything is good about it. If that be so, the Government should take their courage in both hands and give this to us as a substantive piece of legislation which could be debated and given proper consideration, but the only intimation I heard that there was anything temporary about this arrangement in the mind of the Government was when the right hon. Gentleman said that we still need to export in order to keep our people employed. I am very glad that he recognises that, but are we to understand that this system is to go on until the time comes when we no longer need to export in order to give employment, because, if that be the case, I am afraid we shall have to wait a very long time? That argument is always very dangerous—to say that we justify this because, if we continue this system, we bring down production costs and thereby it is easier to export our goods. That argument could be developed in favour of things which everybody in this Committee would recognise as an abomination. It could be argued for any kind of sweating, and when an argument of that kind is put forward, we must not regard it as conclusive, but it has to be examined very carefully.

After all, whenever this Measure is presented to us in this form, simply in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, then the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that no case for its abolition has been made out. That is not the point. The burden of proof is on him, when he is dealing with the continuance of emergency legislation, to show that there is still, in this year, special reason for keeping it on. Except in his very last sentences, he did not approach that side of the question at all. From his very last sentences we are bound to conclude that even after the National Government have been here so long, conditions are so grave that emergency measures of this kind must be continued. I should be very reluctant to believe that the Government were treating it on those lines, which is rather an accusation against the state of industry at present, but if they are dealing with it on the lines that three-fourths or seven-eighths of the right hon. Gentleman's speech led us to believe, that this is a good system and that it ought to be continued for the benefit of those who take part in it and the benefit of industry, then, in the name of honesty and in order to get the proper consideration, let us have it put before us in proper form.

There are certain considerations in relation to this question which have been lost sight of. I would like to remind the Committee, first of all, that there is one of the leading trade unions of this country which has entered into specific agreements with employers' associations providing for the working of a two-shift day. I say at once that that relates only, of course, to the employment of adult work-people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Wait a moment; I am making a good point. There might be some ground for the contention of hon. Members opposite if they could show that the employment of young persons in industry was a separate industrial factor, but, of course, it is not. You do not get these young people, fill a workshop with them, and look to them for your production. The young persons are working either in ancillary occupations or in complementary occupations to adult workers. If you were to take the young persons out of your factory, you would dislocate that organisation and indirectly cause great hardship to the adult workers themselves.

suppose we understand correctly that when the trade union made arrangements for the two-shift system those arrangements did not violate the main provisions of the factory laws, as this two-shift system does?

That is quite a new point. I am not prepared to say that there is anything in this provision that we are discussing that violates the main provisions of the Factory Acts either in letter or in spirit, but I say that you cannot take these young persons out of this particular Act without doing a real hardship to adult workpeople who must have the help of these young people in the particular occupation which they are pursuing. I am not at all persuaded that we are not convincing ourselves entirely wrongly that hardship is in fact being inflicted upon young persons. I know a good deal about the working of factories and about the feelings of the people who work in them, and I challenge Members of the Opposition to go into any industrial area in this country and present to young people an opportunity of working from 6 to 2 or from 2 to 10 and finding out for themselves whether they would not grab the opportunity. [An HON. MEMBER "Not because it is right"] I hold that it is right.

There are men in this House—I am one of them myself—who have started work at 6 in the morning and gone on till 5.30 p.m. I am not justifying that, of course, but in those days, if we had been able to knock off at 2 or if we had started at 2 and knocked off at 10 p.m., we should have considered that we were getting a half-holiday each day. Working from 6 to 2 and from 2 to 10 is an industrial arrangement which, in my experience, is liked by the workpeople for the amenities that it gives them, and I do not believe that hon. Members of the Opposition are representing the sincere opinion of the workers in industry in indulging in some of the sentiments to which we have been listening to-day.

I should not have intervened if I had not had some little experience of the subject under discussion. I was half afraid that the Government had no supporters whatever, but I have experienced the two-shift system, and, first of all, I am going to answer the hon. Member who intimated that the work people were practically blackmailed or intimidated to give their opinion as to whether or not they wanted to work on the two-shift system. Allow me to tell the Committee that when this application goes in, a factory inspector comes along and interviews the workpeople, not while they are working, not while the machines are running, but during the meal hours. He mixes among the workpeople and asks them their opinion as to whether or not they are in favour. I am of the opinion that the workpeople themselves favour this system of two shifts. It gives them more liberty and more recreation.

Let us look at it from another point of view. There are certain times in every business when orders are plentiful, and naturally every employer is anxious to get his orders out. There are enough bad times, and when he has the opportunity he wants to take every possible advantage to get the orders out. That applies particularly to a seasonal trade. At such times the employer puts in an application for permission to run his machinery to the fullest limit. There is not the slightest objection to this system. It works very satisfactorily and the work-people are satisfied. The employer is satisfied, too, for it helps to reduce costs. It also helps the export trade. I do not labour that point, however. The point I emphasise is that it helps the employer to get out his orders and to distribute his goods during the season when they are wanted.

Am I to understand the hon. Member to say that the business he has in mind cannot be carried on unless there are two shifts because it is a seasonal occupation?

My contention is that when the employer has the opportunity of getting through an extra amount of work, the two-shift system is a great help to him. I am not going to say it is not possible for that work to be done without it, But where a large factory has certain orders to get out, it is to the interest of the employer and the work-people that they should be got through. It should not be overlooked that by this system you are engaging a double number of people. Are we out to find employment or are we not? This system has been carried on for a few years satisfactorily, and I should like to see it embodied in a permanent Measure. There is no question of hardship to young people, for they have sufficient protection from their parents and the trade unions. This Measure is very useful to the trade of the country, and I hope that it will continue for many years to come.

The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Eady) has made an admission in what he has said about rush business in a seasonal occupation. He said that the two-shift system was an advantage to seasonal occupations and that the workers were delighted. Is there a Member of the House who is not aware of the difficulties that have arisen in regard to the workers in seasonal occupations? Is there a Member who has not had pressure brought to bear on him in regard to people in industries which are classified as seasonal occupations? How often do we find people, after a seasonal rush when they have exerted all their influence to get a particular trade to themselves, dismiss their hands so that this seasonal occupation becomes a class of industry which throws the workpeople on to the scrap-heap. An industry which must have two shifts a day and can give occupation only to seasonal workers, is dangerous to legitimate business, for it brings in a class of persons who are classified as casual workers. The Ministry of Labour has had to deal with the question of workers in seasonal occupations, which week by week in our industrial areas are throwing hundreds upon the scrap-heap for, although they have con