asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make a statement with regard to the permanent closing by the Japanese of the swing span of the Yalu River railway bridge, resulting in the cutting off of the treaty port of Antung to sea-going craft contrary to the undertaking of the Japanese Foreign Minister to the late Sir Claude MacDonald, by a note in 1910, to the effect that the bridge should always be kept open for traffic; and whether he is aware that the bridge is still being used daily for railway traffic, civil and military?

His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to make representations to the Japanese Government on the subject and to ask for arrangements to be made for opening the bridge when necessary to enable British shipping on the Yalu River to pass. I am not yet acquainted with the result of these representations. I have no information on the point raised in the second part of the question.

Is not this just another example of the way in which the Japanese are squeezing everybody out in that part of the world?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement as to the nature and results of the conversations between himself and the French Foreign Minister in London?

I understand that the Foreign Office Vote will be put down on Friday, and I propose to make a statement on this subject in the course of that Debate.

In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that these negotiations will not involve this country in any commitments?

I think on the whole that my hon. and gallant Friend might possess himself in patience until Friday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many consulates in China are closed at the present time; how long they have been closed in each case; and when his Department anticipates being able to fill them, in view of the facts that the shortage.of,officials is causing inconvenience to British traders?

My information is that a temporary shortage of staff due to recent cases of death, illness and resignation, has involved closing for the time being His Majesty's Consulates at Newchwang, Ichang and Tsinan on the 17th April, the 30th April and the 4th May respectively. I anticipate that the Consulate at Tsinan will be reopened at an early date, the Consulate at Ichang in the autumn, and that at Newchwang not later than next spring. Meanwhile the usual consular facilities in the districts affected are being supplied by neighbouring consular posts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a lecture recently delivered by Professor Harold Laski, of the University of London, to the Communist Academy at Moscow; whether a passport or permit was granted by his Department to the professor in order to enable him to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether, in applying for such passport or permit, Professor Laski stated as his reason for such proposed visit his intention to deliver such lecture, or, if not, what reason was given in so applying?

I have seen a Press report of the discourse to which my hon. Friend refers. Professor Laski's present passport was issued in 1932 in renewal of a passport which he had previously held, and was then endorsed, as has been the general practice for some years, as valid for journeys to all countries in Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkey. No special facilities for travelling to Russia are necessary, nor was my Department asked for any on this occasion.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lecture was not delivered to the Communist Academy but to the Institute of Socialist Law and consisted of a defence of parliamentary government; and that it was followed by a five hours' attack on Professor Laski?

I gather from the hon. Gentleman that he has some special means of information—

Why not?

He is one of our comrades.

My information is limited to Press reports.

Arising out of the reference to my having special means of information, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the correspondence column of the "Daily Telegraph"?

Is it not a fact that the "Daily Telegraph "refutes that statement?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the substance of it?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a lecture on the prospects of revolution in Great Britain delivered in Russia last week by Professor Harold Laski, of the London School of Economics; and whether, in view of the fact that this school is supported by a grant from His Majesty's Government, he will take steps to indicate that the said grant is not given with the object of facilitating activities of this kind?

My attention has been called to reports in the Press of this lecture. As regards the second part of the question, the London School of Economics does not receive a grant directly from the Government. The University of London receives an annual block grant, paid on the advice of the University Grants Committee, and from this source and others at its disposal makes allocations to its various constituent schools and colleges. It does not seem to me to be necessary to take any action of the nature suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Is it not the fact that this Professor Laski is an avowed Communist as well as being of alien origin, and will the hon. Member say why he should be allowed such facilities as are provided frequently by the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the London School of Economics to spread his poisonous propaganda?

Is the hon. Member aware that the Charter of the London School of Economics expressly provides for complete freedom for professors and lecturers to express their political opinions outside the school, and will he resist the obvious tendency to try to curtail this freedom?

Is it not a fact that the professor in question collaborates with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken?

Is not the gentleman referred to in the question a perfectly respectable member of the party which composes His Majesty's official Opposition?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the partial restoration in title cut made in salaries is to be applied to Government employés in Malta Dockyard or, if not, on what grounds is it to be withheld?

The decision to restore in part certain reductions in the remuneration of salaried and industrial employés in home establishments does not apply to locally entered employés in Malta Dockyard. The reductions in the rates of bonus of these local entrants in the autumn of 1931 were solely due to and related to the fall in their cost of living that had occurred between 1924 and the 1st January, 1931, and were in no sense an economy cut. Subsequent reports to date show that the cost of living of local entrants at Malta has still further declined since 1931 and we would not be justified in increasing their present remuneration.

Do we understand from the reply that the cuts that took place in 1931 in Malta had no relation to the 10 per cent. cut generally imposed?

Yes.

Do I understand that the cuts in Malta were made by the late Socialist Government?

Were they not made by the present Government for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave?

The decision to reduce the wages was taken by the Socialist Government.

In view of the fact that the wages paid to the Maltese employés, who are very good workmen, are so low, does not the hon. Gentleman think it is time that they were paid a little more?

The hon. Gentleman will find the answer to that question in my original reply.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is a very short one. I do not think it will require many words from me to explain why it is necessary for us to bring it forward and ask that it shall receive a Second Reading to-day. Under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, it was provided that colonies which desired to have their loans registered as trustee stocks had to conform to three conditions which were laid down by the Treasury, and, after the passing of the Act, the Treasury in fact prescribed in December, 1900, three conditions which had to be observed for this purpose. I need not trouble the House at the moment with all three conditions, but I will read the third, which is relevant to my purpose:

" A colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression of their opinion that any colonial legislation which appears to the Imperial Government to alter any provisions affecting the stock to the injury of the stockholder or to involve a departure from the original contract in regard to the stock can properly be disallowed."

At that time this power of disallowance was a recognised constitutional right, and no colonial Government of that day would have felt any embarrassment in acknowledging that right. But after 1900 things began to change in the constitutional relations between the colonies, as they were then, and the Government of Great Britain, and colony after colony became a Dominion. Questions of constitutional rights in these Dominions were the subject of discussion and of representation from time to time. A conference was set up in 1929 which consisted of representatives of the Dominions and of this country, mostly legal representatives, to discuss the operation of Dominion legislation, and among other things they gave careful attention to this question of the right of disallowance of Dominion legislation. The result of their examination was that they expressed the opinion that this power of disallowance should no longer be exercised, and any Dominion which had the power of amending its constitution could amend it by repealing the power of disallowance. That opinion was subsequently confirmed by the Imperial Conference of 1930 and in the Statute of Westminster, which was passed in 1931, it was to all intents and purposes embodied in legal form.

But there was one exception to this principle which the Conference of 1929 laid down, and that was in regard to Colonial Trustee Stocks. They expressed the view that, where a Dominion had complied with the Treasury conditions and there was at the time outstanding trustee stock of that Dominion, the power of disallowance must remain and could properly be used in the case of the passing of any legislation which in the view of the home Government would be injurious to the interests of the stockholder. That exception has not been embodied in legislation. It was merely an understanding accepted by the Dominions and formed what is called in modern parlance a gentlemen's agreement. But, obviously, it was not an understanding which it was to the interest of any Dominion to upset, because naturally the Dominions desire to maintain the credit of their loans as high as possible in the London market, and they would naturally, therefore, hesitate long before they took any action which was likely to have a depreciatory effect upon their value.

When, therefore, the Government of the Union of South Africa last year made up their minds that they desired, in the exercise of their undoubted constitutional rights, to repeal Section 65 of the South Africa Act, 1909, which deals with this power of disallowance, they were extremely anxious that no deleterious effect should be produced upon the value of the stocks and, accordingly, they asked the Treasury to discuss the whole matter with the representatives of the Union. A discussion followed, and, as a result, a complete agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the Union 'Government and the Treasury, and the Union Government agreed to enter into an undertaking in the form which will be found in Clause 1 (1, a) of the Bill. The actual undertaking that was given by the Union Government was:

" The Union Government undertake that legislation which appears to the United Kingdom Government either to amend the Act of 1913 of the Union to the injury of stockholders or to involve a departure from the original contract with regard to the stock shall not be submitted for the Royal Assent except after agreement with the United Kingdom Government. Furthermore, if attention is drawn to such legislation already passed by the Union Parliament, the Union Government will take the necessary steps to ensure such amendment as may be requested by the United Kingdom Government."

That undertaking was perfectly satisfactory to the Treasury, and the Bill which is now before the House is one to validate the procedure which has already been adopted by the Union Government and to provide that in future there shall he two alternatives open to a Dominion Government, namely, either to comply with the third condition laid down by the Treasury in 1900, or to give an undertaking in the form of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), and that undertaking is to be confirmed by the legislature of the Dominion. It has been thought desirable to draw the Clause in wide terms so that it is not confined to the particular Dominion whose action has given rise to the Bill. It therefore becomes open to any Dominion, although not obligatory upon it., to adopt the form prescribed in this. Bill in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Treasury. But, having consulted the other Dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have informed us that, as far as they are concerned, they are perfectly satisfied to abide by the original condition. They do not desire to take advantage of this new method or form which is open to them, but are quite satisfied with the position as it already stands. The New Zealand Government, if I may quote their observations as an illustration of the attitude of other Dominions, say:

" The Government of the Dominion of New Zealand considers that stockholders in the United Kingdom cannot legally be more adequately protected than under the existing law, and it has neither the intention nor the power to impair the present adequate legal safeguards."

I need hardly say that it is very gratifying to His Majesty's Government to find that with regard to these other Dominions they are perfectly satisfied to allow the present state of affairs to remain as it is and to maintain the safeguards of the interests of the stockholders which cause their trustee stocks to stand so high in the market, and that, at the same time, we have been able to agree with the Union of South Africa., which wished to change this condition, upon an alternative which, in our opinion, gives the full equivalent amount of security to the stockholders. I have only to add that, in the case of the Union of South Africa, the legislation which they have passed becomes operative on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General, and it has already been agreed that the date to be fixed by the Governor-General is the date upon which this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Therefore, there will be no gap between the old system and the new, and we shall pass automatically from the one to the other.

We are not as a party naturally very vitally interested in the question of the interests of the stockholders, but we are very interested, as is the right hon. Gentleman, in the development of the Commonwealth of Nations. This step, although it may appear to be a small one, is a very important step in the gradual development which has been taking place in the transfer of the Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that this area should be reserved under the old system of Empire while the rest of the area was transferred into the conception of the Commonwealth of Nations, that is, an equal brotherhood of nations without one of those equal brothers exercising any control or power over any of the others, and in the Bill, as it is brought before the House, it seems to say that there is an attempt to preserve what may become a very dangerous matter of controversy in the future. It is true that the other Governments, the Canadian, the New Zealand and the Australian, at the moment are prepared to cling to the old right of this country to disallow bills which they have passed in this particular area. That is clearly a right which is going and which has to go if we follow logically the development which has been taking place. We have in fact now entered upon an era when we have substituted agreements between equal nations for control by one nation. This Clause, which has been agreed upon with South Africa, seems to us to offer very great dangers because you are in fact not doing away with the old system but are merely giving it another form.

If the House will be good enough to look at what is in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a)—the alternative which is proposed —they will see that the Government in the Dominion has undertaken that legislation which appears to our Government to alter any of the provisions to the injury of the stockholders or to involve departure from the original contract shall not be submitted for the Royal Assent except after agreement with His Majesty's Government, and that, if it gets through without being noted, then upon representation by His Majesty's Government, the Government of South Africa bind themselves to bring in repealing legislation. It is obvious that the two Governments may take, perfectly legitimately, a different view as to what is injury to stockholders, or as to what departure from the original contract may be. Suppose there is a scheme for conversion. It may be that some people will take the view that in fact the stockholder is doing better out of the conversion scheme, and others may take the view that in fact the stockholder is not doing so well out of the conversion scheme. There is obviously, because that is what is contemplated at the moment, liable to come a time when legislation is either proposed or passed in South Africa which the British Government say ought not to be proposed or passed. This Sub-section preserves the right of this Government to negative that legislation. What is to be the position if you have a secessionist group in South Africa, such a group as there is at the present time in the South African Parliament, a Republican group, and the British Government tells the Government of South Africa that they have to repeal an Act which they have passed? I would not envy the Minister in South Africa who had to get up in the South African Parliament and say: "I have been told by the British Government that this Act which the South African Government has passed must be repealed." It would give a glorious opening for attack to the secessionist element, and that, surely, is what we want to avoid.

We do not want to keep on a chain of this sort. When we have decided upon the development to A logical conclusion of the Commonwealth of Nations, we do not want to give opportunities for secessionist groups to come along and say: "Ah, here is a very good reason for seceding." We have come across enough difficulties of this nature on Imperial questions with regard to Ireland. I ventured to state to the House on the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster that it was absolutely urgent and vital that an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal should be set up immediately the Statute of Westminster was passed, because otherwise we should find ourselves involved in discussions in which there was no solution. And so it has happened with Ireland. Here is just that type of difficulty which is going to arise—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take particular note of what I am saying, because I am saying it most sincerely and not in any sense from a party point of view—or may arise in future between a South African Government and a Government in this country who take a different point of view as regards A bit of South African legislation.

Surely, this is a very God-sent opportunity for setting up an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal. We have the recommendation of the Imperial Conference of 1930 in some detail as to what sort of tribunal it should be and how it should operate. If this matter, instead of being left to the veto of the British Government, were left to an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal in case of difference arising between a South African Government and a British Government—nothing can arise under this Bill unless there is a difference—the inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal will do two things. It will provide in advance 'an absolute method of solving the difficulty when it arises, and it will be a precedent for the settlement of inter-Imperial difficulties.

I regard it, as I always have regarded it ever since the Statute of Westminster was passed, as vitally important to get this principle started. We talk a great deal about the League of Nations and settling matters by arbitration, and there is the Hague Tribunal, and the rest of it, but we have not yet within our own Empire been able to set up machinery by which we can settle our internal disputes. Here is a case where internal disputes may arise in the future. Do not let us wait till the disputes arise, so that when they do arise they may be used by secessional groups within the Empire as an argument for secession. Let us initiate, while it is opportune, methods of settling these disputes, just as in regard to our own domestic matters we should decide upon some court to which we could refer the matter if dispute arose. Here, however, we are leaving the position open to the possibility of dispute between two co-equal Governments in the conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and not giving any methods in Advance by which they can solve their difficulties.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the development of the Commonwealth of Nations, to consider very seriously whether something cannot be put in this Bill so that if two Governments disagree as regards anything arising out of this matter, the dispute shall be referred to an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal on the lines set out in the report of the Imperial Conference of 1930, when the Commonwealth tribunal was dealt with in detail, and that that decision shall be accepted by this country and by this House as binding and as definitive. Unless we do that it is no use having arbitration by an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal. If we do that, it will lay down a precedent for the conduct of inter-Imperial relationships which will be of the greatest value to this country in the future. I am not sure that once one got such a tribunal constituted it might not help to solve the Irish problem.

I most sincerely beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the opportunity that arises now for initiating this great development and to pledge himself, and to get the South African Government to pledge themselves, in the event of a dispute arising, whether it is interim or whether it is a departure from the original contract, to submit it to the inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal and to accept as final the decision of that inter-Imperial tribunal. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that I am certain that this Bill, far from being regarded as a small matter, will in future be regarded as one of the foundations of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Colonial Stock Act when it was put on the Statute Book was comparatively small and not a sensational piece of legislation, but I have always felt that it had an important place in the development of the Colonies and subsequently of the Dominions. It gave at a most important time in their development a definite preference, amounting to one or two per cent. to the overseas Dominions in what was the most valuable possession to them of free access to the capital market of this country. It is obvious in view of the enormous expansion of the development which has been built up upon the foundations of that Act, that anything which seeks to modify it in any way must be of wide importance not merely to stockholders and others directly interested in that way but also to all who are concerned with the future stability of the Empire and the future development of the Empire, because it is likely in the future that the developments will be no less important than those which have been built up in the past upon this Act.

There appear to me to be two points of importance in regard to the Bill which the House will wish to consider. The first is the fact that the Bill proposes to make no change in the status of security of any existing loan, or to modify the conditions under which future loans may be made. To those who have heard the statement of my right hon. Friend, coupled with the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) last week, and also the explicit terms of the proposals which have been passed by the Union Government of South Africa, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, there will be no apprehension that there is any intention to do anything to alter the security or status of any loan which has been made up to the present time. It is also important that there should be no question of any kind in regard to that matter in the mind of any body of investors or anybody else. The facts cannot be too widely advertised that no change is intended which will in any way act deleteriously to the developments which have taken place in the past. The other point, which is of very great substance, is that there should not be in this Bill and in this proposed alteration any seed of possible trouble between different parts of the Empire, however unlikely it may be that that seed will germinate.

The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has pointed out that there is clearly here a matter which does raise doubts in our minds. He has pointed out with very great force that it is possible a difficult situation may arise owing to the fact that a Dominion Government may not be able to persuade the Parliament of that Dominion to carry out a change which the Government itself wishes to carry out in order to give effect to what is done here. I entirely subscribe to what has been said as to the desirability of having some machinery to which, however remote the contingency may be, differences of opinion may be referred for arbitration. I should like to know whether this matter was considered in the discussions that have taken place between the Government of this country and the Union Government of South Africa, and, if not, whether the Government will see whether they cannot do something in regard to a matter which requires further attention.

As the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has said, this is a very important Bill. Having read it, I am satisfied that it amply protects the trustee holders in this country of Dominion and Colonial loans. I cannot see why it should be thought that there is anything invidious in saying that the Government of the United Kingdom should have the decision as to whether or not legislation in a Colony or Dominion affects this particular security. After all, there is no obligation on any Dominion or Colony to ask that any particular loan which that Dominion or Colony may put upon the market is to be put on the Trustee List, and, as the last speaker has pointed out, the very fact of any loan of the kind being put upon the Trustee List by the Government of the United Kingdom, means that the particular Dominion or Colony will obtain the money which they desire to have at 1 or 2 per cent, less than they would otherwise obtain it.

Surely, therefore, it is not asking anything out of the way when we say that if this great privilege, this great security is given the British Government should be entitled to tell the Dominion or Colonial Government in question if they consider that the security in which trustees have invested their money on our certificate and recommendation is affected, I certainly think it is not asking anything too much—in fact, it is shown by the agreement which the Dominions and Colonies have already expressed in this matter—that the United Kingdom should decide whether or not the security which has obtained these great privileges has been in any way interfered with.

There is only one other matter to which I desire to draw attention, and that is the statement with which the hon. and learned Member representing the Socialist Opposition commenced his speech. I took it down, and I think it is substantially accurate. It was, that he and his friends were not particularly interested in securing the rights of Colonial stockholders. I think that was an extraordinary statement to come from a leader of His Majesty's Opposition.

I said that we were more interested in preserving the Commonwealth of Nations, which apparently, the hon. Member is not.

If the hon. and learned Member will look at the OFFICIAL. REPORT to-morrow he will see that what he said was that he and his friends were not particularly interested in securing the rights of colonial stockholders, but were more interested in Colonial and Dominion development. I was going to read on, if hon. Members had not interrupted. That was exactly my point. On this side we are all interested in Colonial and Dominion development, but, at the same time, we realise our responsibilities to people who have lent money on certain securities which we have approved. It was because the electors of this country at the last election realised that they were not secure with the late administration that the present administration is here with such a great majority. I think it is of immense importance that the country should realise that the hon. and learned Member leading the Opposition to-day says that he and his friends are not particularly interested in securing the rights of Colonial stockholders. I think it is a most remarkable statement for a leader of the Opposition to have made, and I hope that the country will note it.

I think that we can only attribute to the weather the heat which has been imparted into this Debate. It is not a. party matter, nor is it a controversial matter, and we have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member opposite and to the suggestion which he put forward. I would say, in the first place, that there can be no possibility of amending this Bill in any way, as it is the result of a definite and formal agreement with the Government of the Union of South Africa, who have already passed the necessary legislation. But with regard to the hon. and learned Member's interesting suggestion that we should take this opportunity of setting up an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal, and should submit matters that might arise on differences of opinion between the home Government and the Dominion Government to that tribunal, I would remind him, in the first place, that when he suggests that that tribunal would prove in days to come useful in many ways, such as settling our differences with the Irish Free State, that we have already suggested—I think I am speaking correctly—to the Irish Free State the setting up of such a tribunal, and they have declined to appear or to put their case before it, insisting upon it being not an inter-Imperial, but an international tribunal. That really brings home the fact that we have not yet reached the stage in inter-Imperial relations when the principle of an inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal is sufficiently well-established to command that confidence and general assent which it would certainly be necessary for such a tribunal to command before we submitted questions of this sort to it.

Surely the only way to get that started is to start it in a small way with such a thing as this, so that people may get confidence in it?

I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member. This is one of the subjects which ought not to go to such a tribunal, because it differs from every other Measure and cause of dispute which could possibly arise between the South African Government and ourselves, as it is not a question of inter-Imperial policy or, indeed, of policy at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) pointed out, when a Dominion is asking for special privileges, which we never give to any foreign government, however friendly to ourselves, in return for those privileges we say that we must be the judge of the conditions under which those privileges are to be exercised. Under this system they are able to borrow money in London more easily than they otherwise would do. That plan suits them admirably. They do not wish to see it changed, and the hon. and learned Member is really more royalist than the King; he is more sensible of the interest and dignity of the Government of the South African Union than the Government of the South African Union are themselves. They are perfectly satisfied with this scheme, and when the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) envisaged the possibility of a dispute between that Government and ourselves—and that possibility is, of course, not beyond the range of practical politics in the future--and when people speak of a secessionist group arising on a matter of this sort, I think they are entirely wrong. The last thing' that a secessionist group would want to do would be to undermine the credit of South Africa on the London market. They would be doing so obvious a disservice to their country to begin by ruining the credit of their country in London, that that is not a real, practical danger.

The scheme is one which the South African Government have themselves worked out. The Bill now before the House is one which suits their purpose, one which they think will maintain their credit; whereas they do think, as we think, that if the whole of this stock were put in a position in which the interest were no longer guaranteed, as in the past, by His Majesty's Government, but really rested upon some dim inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal, their first reaction to such a proposal would be to say, "Well, there are other stocks in which we can invest our money with a better guarantee than this." We have heard a lot about tribunals and arbitration. Arbitration may be all very well in its way. I am sure that it is the opinion and the policy of His Majesty's Government that the more use which is made of arbitration in the future the better, and it is an ideal of His Majesty's Government that we may reach the time when all disputes are submitted to arbitration. But at the present time the ordinary bondholder would much rather have the whole guarantee of this Government behind his money than the guarantee of an inter- Imperial arbitral tribunal. That being the feeling both of His Majesty's Government here and of His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of South Africa, I think the House will be well advised to pass this Bill without further discussion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In spite of the kindly welcome, I must ask for the indulgence of the House, because it looks very different here from what it did from the somewhat exalted position on the back benches, and par- titularly because this is a very technical Measure, and I was not on the Committee, although, naturally, I have read every word that was said. One, however, does not quite get the atmosphere in which the Debates were conducted by reading about them.

The Clause I have now the honour to move deals with the "Power to regulate employment in spells." All such Clauses are, of course, capable of the most wonderful mathematical possibilities if we set out to find them, and in Committee it was pointed out that it was possible to work a young person—this was die actual case given—from 8.30 to 1 o'clock and from six o'clock to 9.30, and on another day to alter the hours, so that a young person would never know where he was. Therefore, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has taken such a great part in all these discussions, proposed the adoption of the principle of continuous employment, whether the employment was actually continuous or deemed to be continuous. The argument, of course, was that, owing to the haphazard nature of the employment, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to afford reasonable facilities for these young persons, it might be for sport, or it might be for further educational opportunities.

My right hon. Friend in Committee promised that this matter would be further considered. We have, therefore, made inquiries again into this matter, and I am sure that everyone will be glad to know that the principal associations who speak for the traders have no objection at all to this on principle. I do not think that any reasonable person could have any objection on principle. It is the commonsense thing to do. But the trouble is, as everyone who has followed this Bill knows, that we are entering into an entirely new field of legislation, and while inquiries have been very thoroughly made, both by the Select Committee and by other means, the fact remains that a great deal of the water is still uncharted, and there may very well be abuses. On the other hand, until the Bill is in operation, it is very hard in this particular matter to make anything more than a surmise, and so my right hon. Friend has thought that the best way of dealing with the matter is the way this Clause sets out, that is, that he should have the power to make exceptions with regard to particular trades, but that the general idea should be continuous employment, exclusive only, as the new Clause says:

" of such intervals, whether for rest or meals or otherwise; and of time allowed for attendance at such instructional courses."

I need not go into details in regard to particular trades, but there is the case of the butchers, who employ young persons for cleaning the shop and the instruments mornings and evenings. They have a system by which they get two half holidays a week, but it is impossible to meet their case under this Amendment. There is also the case of newsagents, about which many communications have been received. These are exactly the kind of case with which we have taken power to deal with by regulations when we have seen how the provisions of the Bill work out in practice. We suggest this method of dealing with the matter. It is difficult to lay down rigid conditions for every conceivable case as we are dealing with 400,000 young persons, who have not been legislated for for many years. The House will, no doubt, be pleased to see the second part of the new Clause which gives them power with regard to any regulations Which may be made. I hope the House will accept the Clause. It is designed to meet the case made in Committee stage and allows the House to protest if necessary against any regulations which may be made. By having a system of regulations it enables the Home Secretary to discuss the difficulties with any particular trade affected and see how they can be surmounted within the general framework of the Bill, which is designed to assist the employment of young persons.

I am sure that the House will wish me at the outset to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his promotion to his present office. The only thing I am sorry about i3 the company in which he now finds himself, but I hope he may improve the company. I am not, of course, referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but the Treasury Bench as a whole. This is a Clause to deal not with the total number of hours to be worked by young persons covered by the Bill, but with the problem as to whether young persons shall be obtainable for work for 10 or 12 hours although actually employed for only eight or nine hours a day. That is a fair way of putting the position. In Committee we discussed this problem at some length and I thank the Government for having looked into the question and for bringing forward this new Clause. But I feel sure that the Home Office is capable of something much better than they have now proposed. What does the Clause say? It says that the right hon. Gentleman is to bring regulations before the House of Commons regulating the spells of employment of these young persons on two specific grounds, that is, in relation to reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation. Young persons, however, have more to think about in connection with their employment during the day besides reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation.

Take the case of a young boy or girl living five or six miles out of the centre of London employed in a large shop in the Metropolis. Take the case of a boy employed in a butcher's shop, who comes to town in the morning, starts work at eight o'clock cleaning knives, and all the rest of it, and finishes at half-past 10. He is then told by his employer that he will not be wanted until one o'clock. He comes back at that hour and at half-past four is told again that he is not wanted until half-past six. That is possible under the new Clause, and may be possible also under the regulations to be laid before Parliament. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State do not want to encourage that sort of thing in connection with the employment of these young people. Take the case of a girl of 14, 15 or 16 years of age. She lives five or six miles out in the country and works in a shop in London. My trouble about the new Clause is that it is an invitation to unscrupulous employers to do what I am now suggesting. What is going to happen to that girl. She is told by her employer at 12 o'clock that she will not be wanted until three o'clock in the afternoon. All that is possible under the Bill, and such an employer would still come within its provisions so far as total hours of work are concerned. Parliament should not allow a situation or that kind to arise. It would be a shame upon hon. Members of all parties if we tolerate such a condition as that.

The answer, of course, is that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the regulations before Parliament. But what is going to happen? The Home Office has consulted the trades. We have heard about the butchers and the newsagents, and about cleaning shops; and to be quite frank the people who have made these representations to the Home Office in regard to these spells in shop life manifestly represent the exceptional rather than the common case. In shop life in this country there are in the main no splits of that kind at all. There are no spells in the grocery and provision trade, in the drapery trade, in fruit shops and tobacconists; there are indeed no spells in the distributive trades, and I was astonished to hear that butchers want boys to come in the morning for about three hours and then to be unemployed for the remainder of the day until about four o'clock. Parliament should not allow butchers to do that any longer. I have never heard until now that butchers did that as a general rule. I say, therefore, that we have to be careful.

I am not criticising the Home Office. I understand their difficulties. We are tackling a new problem entirely in this Bill, but however clumsily it may be worded I still say that it is a Bill which is, or should be, the basis of a big reform. When we are laying down the basis of a big reform, and all the facts are known, we should not make the mistake of allowing this new Clause to be passed in its present form. The object of the Bill is to safeguard the interests of young people. After what I have heard to-day and during the last few weeks I am afraid that the pressure of the shop-keeping community on the Home Office has been such that the Bill, if we are not very careful, will become a measure to safeguard the interests of shopkeepers. We are dealing here with 350,000 to 400,000 young persons. I have never been able to understand the mind of those who run the shops of this country. The best shopkeepers, the larger shopkeepers, and some of the multiple firms, are well within the provisions of the Bill already. We are passing this legislation not to deal with the best shopkeepers but to bring unscrupulous employers up to the standard of the best.

There are no spells of this kind in the co-operative movement, which employs about 200,000 shop assistants. Their conditions of employment are in the main well within the scope of the Bill. I am up against this problem, that if this new Clause is put into the Bill and it provides a sort of incentive to the unscrupulous private employer to do what is suggested here, the butchers in particular, the co-operative movement, which is now working well within the ambit of the provisions of the Bill, will be faced with competition and will ask themselves how long they are to go on without breaking with the practice of the past in shop life. We must indeed understand what we are doing in this Clause. The Home Office has done well in bringing the Clause before the House, but I think they could have done much better to meet the criticisms made in Committee, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his first appearance as a Minister of State should have to move the adoption of this Clause, as the Opposition will have to go to the Division Lobby and vote against it.

Unlike the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) so far from sympathising with the hon. and gallant Member for having the misfortune to have to move such a Clause as this, I would desire to congratulate him sincerely on introducing it, because it appears to me to go beyond the hopes of some of us who sat on the Committee. We recognised how extremely difficult the problem is. There are isolated cases in the best trades of what are known as split duties, which are unavoidable. What we were afraid of in Committee was that this system of split duties, which enables people to be thrown out of work and then brought back again, might prevail, and might be encouraged by the overtime provisions we were passing in the Bill. We hoped that the Home Office would provide a Clause which would regularise whatever system might be approved. If there must be split duties, let them be recognised within certain limits. Those limits are very carefully defined here. The regulations will have to specify what the intervals are, whether for rest or meals or otherwise, and they will lay down the time allowed for attend- ante at instruction courses. A regulated scheme of that kind is very much better than a hopelessly unregulated scheme of which we were afraid, and we ought to accept the Clause with gratitude. The Clause definitely states that we regard courses of instruction as a valuable addition to the day of young workers. I do not think that in any other part of the Bill there is any such indication, and I do not know of any other legislation, except the Unemployment Bill which has just been passed, that throws such emphasis on instruction courses.

I recognise that the Home Secretary has tried to meet what is rather a serious point, but I am by no means satisfied that the new Clause will do away with what I fear may prove to be a blot on the Bill. It is obvious that the Clause cannot be operated for two, three or more years. It is impossible for the Home Secretary to make an Order under the Clause without first of all making inquiries into the working of the Act and until he has found out how far the split periods extend. What I am always afraid of is that when we get legislation passed employers who work under the provisions of an Act bring in their own rules to govern their own boys and girls, and it takes a. great deal of trouble and agitation to persuade the Home Office that any real grievance exists. We have to remember that the vast majority of employers concerned with this Bill are already working within its provisions. I refer to the great houses, the decent employers, and the thousands of small employers who are just as anxious as the large employers to do the right thing. All these people are already pretty well within the provisions of the Bill. But it appears to me that this House makes a great mistake very often when certain people—they may be a very small minority of the people involved—put up a case that there is hardship as far as they are concerned, and the House immediately turns a sympathetic ear and proceeds to protect, not the good employer but the position of the bad employer.

Let me give a case that comes to mind. Under the Bill a boy can be employed at a baker's shop at 5 o'clock in the morning, an unreasonable hour which is totally unnecessary. We are told that that hour is necessary because the bread just made has to be delivered. Fancy delivering bread at 5.30 in the morning when 99 per cent. of the people are not- out of bed. The baker having brought the boy to his establishment at 5 a.m. proceeds to put him on to jobs to prepare things for the bakers. The boy is allowed to work eight hours a day or a little over. The employer sends them away at 9 o'clock when he has worked four hours. He can bring that boy back at 4 p.m. and proceed to work him another four hours until 8 p.m. That is not going to happen except in the case of the kind of employer who compels this House from time to time to bring in legislation of this kind. I can imagine nothing more demoralising to the moral of a young man between 14 and 18 years of age than to be lounging about during the middle of the day, a nuisance to himself and to every one around him, and then to be at the disposal of his employer from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The hon. Member is overlooking Clause 2, and the interval of eleven hours consecutively. Eleven hours up to 5 o'clock in the morning would make it impossible for the boy to be employed at 8 o'clock the evening before.

But that does not alter the validity of my argument that if a young fellow is to be at the disposal of an employer all the hours of the day that in itself is a bad thing. Suppose the young fellow leave at 6 o'clock. He has been at the disposal of his employer since 5 a.m. He has then to have a period of eleven hour's rest. He goes away at 6 o'clock and he must have seven or eight hours' sleep. The effect of the proposal, therefore, is that, except in a very slight measure, the young person is at the disposal of the employer for at least 13 hours. He must have eight hours sleep if he is to be of any use at all, and all he gets in the way of recreation is three hours on any particular day. I am satisfied that if we were legislating for the vast majority of this trade it would be possible to have four consecutive hours of work, to allow at least two hours for a meal, and then to work the other four hours, so that young people could have recreation and instruction during the evening. I have dealt with the question of juvenile employment in my own industry over and over again. I have persuaded employers in all parts of the country that it is not desirable to have split shifts for young persons, that they are a cause of very serious discontent to older people, and that to start them with young people of 16 years of age is a step in the wrong direction. The whole thing is totally unnecessary.

I do not believe that even 2 or 3 perceʼnt. of the employers desire or require -this system of split shifts. Why, therefore, bring in a complicated Arrangement like this for the benefit of those who have always been the biggest trouble to the. Government, to the trade unions and to every one interested in the welfare of young people? It would have been far better for the Government to have recognised that we have a case in this matter. The mere fact that this new Clause is brought forward shows that the Home Office have given the matter serious consideration, but I suggest that they have dealt with it in A rather half-hearted way. It would have been far better to have provided that the hours should be as consecutive as possible, that they should finish at a reasonable time in the evening and that five o'clock in the morning for young workers to deliver bread made overnight is an altogether unreasonable hour. In justice to ourselves, not particularly as politicians but as members interested in young people, we must take this matter to a Division.

All the arguments used by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) And the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) are exactly the same as the arguments that we heard in the Standing Committee. It was recognised in Committee that there were some trades which were compelled to have split shifts and that it was impossible to get continuous employment. The work that occurs instantly to one's mind is the collection and delivery of newspapers in the morning and again in the evening. There was a Division on this matter upstairs. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in bringing before the House this Clause, which fills a gap and deals specifically with the various hours that young people shall be allowed to work. There is no doubt that the Cause ought to satisfy all reasonable people. It is practically impossible to satisfy unreasonable people. The Clause is one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the T7nder-Secretary, can be highly satisfied at having introduced, because it will give satisfaction to practically everyone concerned.

The Clause has been introduced by the Government as a result of the discussions in Committee, and it represents a concession by the Government. I am sure that it represents a substantial advance, and that the Bill will be infinitely better for having this Clause in it. I really cannot follow the reasons why my hon. Friends of the Labour party do not desire to have the Clause. I would very much rather that the Government had dealt with the matter on different lines, from the exactly opposite point of view, and had laid it down that hours shall be consecutive as the general rule, subject to execeptions in certain cases. I believe that that would have been far preferable. But this is a compromise Measure. We are trying to improve things as far as we can. I shall certainly support the Government on this Clause.

Without this Clause there would be a real danger that as a result of this Measure the lot of a number of shop assistants would be worse than it is now. When an employer can keep people at work for an unlimited number of hours he does not bother much about how the hours are divided out but if a shopkeeper has only 52 or 48 hours a, week during which he can employ a person he thinks very carefully about how he is going to allocate those hours and a shopkeeper might be inclined to say to an assistant in those circumstances: "I will concentrate your activities in the shop on those hours when I want your services most, however inconvenient that may be to you." As a result of this Clause, if the Home Office find that in any particular trade employers are depriving assistants of their proper opportunities for recreation and education—and I wish that this provision could be made wider still—it will be possible to pass regulations which will compel those employers to make the working hours reasonably consecutive. Because of the fact that the Clause definitely protects the assistants and prevents abuses which might otherwise grow up and render the lot of those assistants worse than it is, for my part, congratulate the Government on having brought forward this proposal though I wish it had gone further and dealt more firmly with the matter.

I regret that the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has seen fit to suggest that there are unreasonable people standing in the way of this undoubtedly good Measure. I do not think he can have gained that impression in the Committee upstairs because from what I saw of its proceedings, I thought there was more of the spirit of sweet reasonableness shown in that Committee than in some of the other Committees on which I have had the honour of serving. If there was any unreasonableness at all I certainly do not think he can make such a charge against Members on this side of the House and if it be the case that he regards us as unreasonable, I would say that we are acting unreasonably—from his point of view—on behalf of people who are entitled to protection and who are least able to protect themselves. With regard to the new Clause itself, I would point out that the former Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that he would take back this matter for reconsideration in the hope of damping down the ardour of the Opposition for the views which they had expressed in Committee. Our ardour has not been damped and nothing has happened since to lessen our desire for something specific in the Bill in connection with this matter. We must bear in mind that this Bill, in essence, is an Hours Bill and it is up to us to see that the regulation of hours is specifically provided for in the Bi11. Regulation of hours being an essential part of the Bill, we ought not to leave that regulation to the people who are in control of the employ6s concerned. That is the proposal, in effect, although I know it is tempered to some extent by the provision as to the eleven-hours interval. The person who can control the starting point and the finishing point of the working hours of an individual, determines that individual's day and the point made by the hon. Member for. Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) as to what might happen in circumstances such as he indicated is a very good one and one that could be extended in its application. In regard to the regulations which may be made under this new Clause and may be laid before the House, the matter is to be gone into only if the Secretary of State deems it necessary to do so. What factors will be taken into account in deciding whether there is necessity or not for such action? Will it be possible, for instance, because comparatively few people in one section of a trade are being harshly dealt with, for the Minister to decide that it is not necessary in such a case to take action? I think the wording of the Clause in this respect is rather wide and I do not think we have yet received sufficient guidance upon that point. I look upon an investigation of the kind proposed as being capable of ensuring the application of a certain measure of justice in particular cases, but I do not think it is possible to get the same degree of justice or impartiality by that method, as would be achieved by a specific provision in the Bill in regard to these hours. I would not suggest that there is no possibility of impartial decisions being defined and applied, as the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would wish, but I hold that the proposed method would not be so good as a specific injunction in the Bill.

I would also point out that a proposal of this kind involves the possibility of interference with the domestic conditions which obtain in the great majority of households throughout the country. The arrangements in those households are not based upon periods of work cut up in the manner which would be possible under this proposal. The domestic arrangements in the homes of the people have been made so as to fit into specific and continuous periods of employment, and I submit that that is another point in favour of our attitude on this matter. There is also the difficulty which has already been pointed out with regard to the possible misuse time at certain hours of the day. Upstairs in Committee the former Under-Secretary of State placed a great deal of reliance upon the application of the Shop Hours Act and referred to the possibility of that enactment imposing a restriction upon the cutting up of hours under these proposals, but I do not think that that example will be found, on examination, to be as effective as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. I think that a specific injunction in the Bill on the lines which have been suggested in our criticisms would be better than leaving the matter to future investigation and regulation.