I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "five," and to insert "four."

The Amendment is intended to implement a promise which I gave in the Committee that I would reconsider the size of the groups specified in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) moved to reduce the qualifying size to 300,000 spindles. We have thought very carefully about the matter, in consultation with the Cotton Board. I hope that the compromise which I am now suggesting in the Amendment, 400,000, will be acceptable to the House, particularly when I point out that we retain in the Bill the provision for the President of the Board of Trade to consider any other figure if he thinks it is desirable. I hope that the House will not be delayed at this stage on this subject. I said that I could not accept 300,000 and that we felt that 500,000 was the right figure, but that I would reconsider the matter. The Amendment is an attempt to reach a compromise agreement between those who wanted the lesser number and those who wanted the larger.

We are naturally glad that the Minister has been able to consider the proposal we made in Committee and we are sorry, of course, that he has not been able to go the full way and to bring the figure down from five to three. We understand now, from what he has said, that 400,000 spindles will not be a hard and fast rule and that the Government can bring it down to 300,000 or even lower in suitable and approved cases. The Amendment, therefore, has our support.

While I welcome the reduction, I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit, after consultation with the Cotton Board, to reduce the figure to the 300,000 which we proposed. In conceding the figure of 400,000, the Parliamentary Secretary gave no real reason why he arrived at it, other than that it is half way between the two other figures. That is not a convincing reason, Incidentally, the figure 400,000 implies the Government's view that the spinning industry should be put on a horizontal basis as against a vertical basis in the industry. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, advocated vertical organisation in the cotton industry. The Amendment tends to prevent that organisation.

Whether vertical organisation is better than horizontal has been a matter for discussion and dispute in the industry for the last 20 years. I think there is room for both. I dislike the Government coming down rather suddenly on one side and encouraging what is undoubtedly permanent horizontal organisation in the industry, and in the spinning industry in particular. It will prevent in many cases any vertical organisation which might naturally arise.

Before the hon. Member sits down, perhaps it might assist the Committee in dealing quickly with the Amendment if I told him that in cases of satisfactorily integrated vertical organisation we are proposing to work to a considerably lower figure, possibly in the region of 250,000.

I am very glad to hear that. Perhaps the Minister would have in mind taking the equivalent of one loom to 60 mule spindles or one printing machine to 12,000 mule spindles, and working on that basis. It might be of very great advantage in the modernisation of weaving sheds and the two-shift system, and it would be of very much greater benefit to the industry as a whole than modernising merely the spinning industry itself.

I consider this to be a most footling Amendment. It misses the point stressed by hon. Members in this House and in Committee. I have yet to hear any justification whatsoever from the Government Benches for forcing these amalgamations on the industry. If there is any justification for it, if the Parliamentary Secretary knows any justification and if he knows anybody who can tell him the justification, it is proper that this House should be given that information. Up to now we have had no information which would justify any hon. Member saying that this forced amalgamation is in the interests of the country. Forcing an industry to do something against its natural wishes and as a result of economic forces is not a good thing. If the industry is to be planned, as the Government intend to some extent, they should try to move along the line of the natural impulses of the industry and not by way of unnatural channels. The suggested loom is obviously undesirable. I agree that some sort of safeguard is essential if public money is to be spent on private industry but why could we not have had a simple sort of safeguard? The Cotton Board should survey the factory which it is proposed to modernise and say that it is capable of being effectively modernised. That is all that is necessary. This nonsense about forcing amalgamations is not in the best interests of the workers or the industry.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that in the United States, which is held up to this country as the best example of production, the units of production are very much smaller than those in Lancashire? If large scale units were the test of efficiency, Lancashire would be knocking spots off the rest of the world. It is clear that that factor does not necessarily control efficiency and cost of production because the United States have a much higher production per man than we have. In face of that evidence and the fact that in the United States over the last 20 years the unit of production has been going down, why are we forcing the industry in Lancashire to amalgamate into big units?

The experience of large-scale organisation in Lancashire in the past has not been happy. After the 1914–18 war when the crash came the big fellows fell first, and fell hardest. This attempt to force the industry into unnaturally sized units is most unsatisfactory. This Measure's reception in Lancashire indicates how unnatural and unsatisfactory it is. Where is there in Lancashire haste to accept the Government's offer? Where is there anxiety to rush into this scheme? The Board of Trade are very reticent about the number of people who are projecting schemes or have agreed to schemes. It is almost a Budget secret. The fact is that the number of people coming forward is disappointingly small.

This Bill looks like being sterile when it becomes an Act because it imposes conditions which are unnatural and uneconomic to achieve results which might well have been effected in a much more satisfactory way. The Measure is most undesirable and the Amendment is very unsatisfactory. It does not meet the wishes of the Members of this House or of the industry. I feel there is only one reason for this large scale compulsory amalgamation—the administrative convenience of Government departments and statutory authorities. We are reaching a very dangerous position in this country where industry is encouraged and forced by Government departments and statutory authorities to combine into units with which those authorities can deal. The Board of Trade would rather deal with one firm than 14 and probably the Cotton Board also prefers to deal with one rather than 14, but that may not be in the interests of the industry or the workers. I am very sorry that the Government have not had the courage to do something more in line with the needs of the industry and the country.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) about the American cotton industry are not strictly true. He should be in possession of the full facts. Whereas the individual unit may be smaller than many in Lancashire, there is closer integration on a larger scale in the American textile industry than in Lancashire.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "to," to "with," in line 4, and to insert:

"control modernisation and re-equipment in planned stages."

If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, they will go a long way towards meeting the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Buck-low (Mr. Shepherd). It has never been clearly explained to us why grouping should be such an essential condition for qualification for subsidy. When the scheme was originally announced, we were told that the mills must be grouped into rnanoeuvrable units, but we have never been told what a manoeuvrable unit is for this industry. One reason for grouping is undoubtedly to avoid the dissipation of new machinery into a large number of small old-fashioned mills which might be better scrapped, and that is a sound reason, but the Minister has never said that he has insisted on grouping for that purpose. The grouping suggested in the Bill as necessary to secure a subsidy is nothing less than financial amalgamation with all that that implies. The independent mills suffer and lose their identity in these circumstances, and it is not unreasonable for mill owners and mill managements to look with suspicion upon a scheme which offers a small subsidy for new machinery but, at the same time, insists on amalgamation with other firms with which it may or may not be desirable to amalgamate.

Is this what the Government really want? Do they want thoroughgoing, wholesale amalgamation of the type which is inevitable if the provisions of this Bill are to be followed? The industry certainly does not want it. The good independent mill does not wish to ally itself with the relatively inefficient mill, from its point of view, further down the road. The inefficient mill, which probably does not realise that it is inefficient, in any case may not want to be tied up with the people at the other end of the road who have different ideas. Are the Government trying to bring in compulsory amalgamation by a side wind or are they genuine in wanting only modernisation and re-equipment? This Clause as it stands insists on the amalgamation of mills as a prerequisite to receipt of subsidy. If, however, the Government are only concerned with re-equipment and modernisation the industry will be greatly reassured if they accept my Amendment, because it shows clearly that the functions of the Bill are intended solely to secure groupings for the purpose of modernisation as distinct from amalgamation.

I feel it would be a great improvement of this Bill if the Amendment were accepted, because many mills would then come together for the purpose of securing modernisation by planned stages. This would take on an informal character. Three or four mills would get together and form, for example, a re-equipment committee to decide on a general programme for modernisation and for the reallocation of their employees consequent upon the introduction of modern machinery in one or more of the mills, such re-equipment to be given the approval and the sponsorship of the Cotton Board. In this way grouping could achieve the purpose which the Government require, and at the same time the mills would not suffer the loss of their independence.

As it stands, however, the industry remains suspicious of this Measure and doubtful of the Government's intentions. It is not at all unlikely that it may become a dead letter and it would be a great pity if the opportunity of the subsidy were to be lost through what may be unfounded suspicions of the Government's intentions. If these suspicions are ill-founded the Government are surely able to accept my Amendment and thus clarify an issue which is going to be helped by The implementation of this Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In my opinion this Amendment merely asks for greater flexibility. What we on this side of the House feel is that the Government may be in danger of thinking that big amalgamations are going to be more efficient because they are bigger. There is in industry an optimum size, which changes from section to section and merely to demand larger units in the belief that thereby it will make for greater efficiency is a mistake. In so far as I believe that this Amendment would give greater flexibility and, therefore, allow for smaller units which make for more efficiency, it should be accepted.

I hope the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) will not regard me as unreasonable when I say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. He and I and others have discussed the line behind the Amendment, and the Board of Trade have done their best to understand the need for the kind of thing he has suggested. Having thought about it, we have come to the conclusion that while this Amendment may give a certain amount of flexibility, which might be desirable, on the whole the Bill would be better without it. I should like to say why. It is true that the Bill, if amended in this way, would encourage modernisation and at the same time go a long way towards avoiding the danger of dispersal of effort. On the other hand, it would remove all the incentive to mills to get themselves into groups of a sort which would make it easier for the modernised mills to be properly run.

I want to make it plain that this subsidy is offered not only in order to encourage modernisation, but to create conditions in which the modernised mills can be run as we think eventually they must be run, that is to say, on the double shift system—this will help the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) to understand why we have fixed the figures as we have done—and in order that the slogan, with which I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House are familiar, "Fewer and better mills" can be put into operation with the least dislocation to the industry and its workers. The Amendment suggests that control of modernisation and equipment in planned stages would do what we are seeking to do, but it would do nothing to ensure that, if it became desirable to transfer workers from unmodernised mills to provide a second shift in the modern mills, the unmodernised mills would agree to the transfer.

Would they agree to it under the present scheme?

There will be more control over the situation as the mills stand at the present time than would be the case if the Amendment were put into operation. We feel, moreover, that in the somewhat uncertain future a greater adaptability or manoeuvrability of the group as compared with individual mills will be a very great asset to the industry. We have made our offer of financial assistance with the two-fold aim to encourage both modernisation and grouping. Nobody is compelled to take up the offer, but we are not prepared to change it from what it is at the present time—something to encourage modernisation and grouping—into a straight modernisation subsidy.

I hope what I am about to say will be of interest to the hon. Member and that he will feel better about the situation when I have said it. Although the Government are not prepared to pay the subsidy to groups which control their constituent parts only in regard to modernisation and re-equipment, and although they regard control over such matters as the running of two shifts in some mills and the closing of others as essential for the scheme, it might be made very clear that the Government do not insist upon complete financial amalgamation. What the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade will require to be satisfied upon is that applicants will be able to control the unit mills covered by their application in regard to their modernisation plans and in such matters as the concentration of production in the modernised units, as and when it became desirable to do so. The manner in which this control is to be exercised is not specified and cannot be specified in the Bill, and if applicants can show that they can exercise effective control over the units without complete amalgamation their applications will be approved. Having said that, I hope there will be better feelings about the Bill as it now stands, especially in the minds of those hon. Members who have expressed apprehension about our desire for complete financial control.

I do not think that the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary will be of much assurance to us on this side of the House. I fail to see how the compulsory amalgamation into groups of 400,000 spindles is going to facilitate the double-shift system. I fail to see why it is necessary to do it unless it is accompanied by a threat, which is behind the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, of the compulsory transfer of workers from one factory to another. I see behind this Measure a compulsory direction of labour, and indeed the Parliamentary Secretary made it quite clear from his remarks that this Bill was going to be utilised not merely as it is here now but through direction of labour to ensure double-shift working.

Nonsense!

That to my mind is the inevitable interpretation of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that matter. Secondly, I completely fail to understand how we are going to have a half-way idea of control. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we did not need to have complete financial amalgamation but could have a group of concerns where there is some central organisation controlling production. I would like him to tell me what kind of organisation he visualises.

That is up to the spinners.

I can hardly visualise the kind of organisation without some central organisation but with authority to close down factories and say to one in the group that it must stop production, while controlling production in the remainder. I think that is absolute nonsense. When the Parliamentary Secretary comes with this lame justification for rejecting the Amendment, it shows that there has been no attempt to come to grips with the problems of Lancashire.

This introduces something entirely new in regard to the aims of the Bill. We are told that complete financial amalgamation is not necessary, but that so long as they have sufficient control for modernisation and some control of two, three or four mills worked together, which implies control of labour, the subsidy may be granted. It seems to me that the subsidy will be granted where it is known that labour can be transferred. That comes very near to compulsory transfer of labour and the buying and selling of labour of bad and old-fashioned spinning mills, and that is entirely new. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there would be 250,000 spindles in the case of vertical combines, and I suggest that that is too large, as very few vertical combines have that number. If the hon. Member means what he says and does not mean to prohibit amalgamation but to promote amalgamation, he will have to reduce the figure of 250,000 spindles very materially.

I am naturally sorry that the Government are unable to accept my Amendment, but the assurances the Parliamentary Secretary give in the latter part of his remarks are, of course, some step forward. I wish he could give some examples of the type of informal collaboration which he is prepared to accept in lieu of complete financial amalgamation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) pointed out, we cannot have effective control if it is not financial amalgamation. Who is going to be boss? If it is grouping for the purpose of modernisation only, it should not be necessary to have complete financial amalgamation.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, at the end, to insert:

"(7) Any plans submitted for approval under this section for the re-equipment or modernisation of any cotton spinning mill shall be accompanied by particulars indicating the arrangements being made or proposed to be made for promoting the safety, health and welfare fare of the persons employed in the mill."

During the Committee stage there was a discussion about requiring the Board of Trade to be satisfied as to working conditions and welfare facilities before making a grant. After a good deal of discussion, in which I expressed complete sympathy with the aims behind a suggested Amendment, I promised that we would consider the matter before the Report stage, and would move an Amendment to bring about what was desired by hon. Members who expressed themselves strongly in Committee. I wish to make it plain that when I opposed the Amendment in Committee, it was not because I, or the Government, objected in any way to the purpose underlying it. I opposed it for totally different, and in the main administrative, reasons.

I hope the Amendment I have moved will be acceptable, and will be regarded as an earnest of our intention to do all we can in this matter. It will make certain that applicants for subsidy must disclose the welfare and other arrangements in their mills. The Cotton Board will play a very considerable part in the administration of this scheme. The Cotton Board includes a number of trade union repre- sentatives who will certainly be most interested to see that applicants for subsidy are providing satisfactory welfare arrangements and amenities. I hope the Amendment meets the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who expressed themselves as much concerned in the matter.

We on this side of the House are in sympathy with this Amendment. Not only will the trade union members of the Cotton Board be interested in these matters, but all the members will be interested. I think the Amendment is a definite improvement in the Bill.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the very generous way in which he has implemented the promise he gave in Committee that he would try to incorporate in the Bill the principle of the Amendment which was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) and myself. The significance of this Amendment is two-fold. First, it will be the guarantee of welfare to a group of workers who have had very few guarantees of welfare in the past. Secondly, it will serve as a prototype for similar provisions in subsequent Bills presented to the House. It is an improvement in the Bill as it originally stood and will be greatly appreciated by hon. Members here, and equally appreciated by workers in the textile industries.

It would be ungracious if I did not add my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the hard things I said about him in Committee. I tender an apology for that, and I am very glad that he, and not the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), is sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Amendment will make the Bill more acceptable, especially to the workers in the industry.

Everyone on this side of the House will, of course, welcome this Amendment, which is very important, very useful, very sensible and very desirable. I would like my hon. Friend to make one thing a little clearer, as I think it is important that it should be made clearer. He said that this Amendment makes it compulsory for an applicant to disclose welfare arrangements and arrangements for the health and safety of workers. I think he should go a step further and say that there is power for the refusal of subsidy in cases where the arrangements are inadequate.

I also wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for this Amendment. As an ex-president of the cotton operatives on the spinner's side, I know something of the conditions which used to obtain, and I am looking forward to this rectification and the building up of welfare arrangements for spinners in Lancashire.

I am grateful for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and other hon. Members about this Amendment. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), I can certainly give the assurance that the purpose of seeking disclosure of this information is to ensure that we shall not be paying Government money in the form of subsidy if welfare arrangements and amenities are unreasonable. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. I am grateful for what has been said. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he had previous experience of my promises. I hope that this experience will convince him of my bona fides.

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

I shall be very brief. I regard this Measure as extremely important. I believe it can play a great part in the development of the cotton industry, and every hon. Member is well aware of the considerable contribution which can be made to this country's future prosperity and security by this old and great industry. During the Debate this morning, it has been suggested that the Lancashire cotton industry is in some way inferior to the cotton industry of countries such as the United States of America. It has always appeared to me that one of the wonders of the world is the amazing variety and quality of the textiles turned out in Lancashire in mills which were built 100 years ago, with machinery built 50 or 60 years ago.

I would pay my tribute to the great skill of the people in Lancashire who are responsible for this production. Whether they are owners, technicians, spinners or weavers, they are doing a first-class job of work. The announcement yesterday that the target for yarn production had been reached is very gratifying. I would like in this House to pay my tribute to that number of men and women, far smaller than it ought to be, responsible for this production.

Turning to the Bill, I must confess that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) was right when he suggested that the response to our desire for grouping had not been as good as we should have liked. It has been disappointing. Nevertheless, there has been some response, and possibly when this Measure passes through all its stages, and some of the undertakings I have given this morning become known in Lancashire, there will be a speeding-up of the grouping process. That is my hope. I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given during the passage of the Bill through its previous stages. I hope that before long it will become an accomplished fact, and that as an Act it will be of great assistance to the cotton industry in Lancashire.

Our anxieties about this Bill are more concerned with its becoming a dead letter than with anything contained in it. Of course, as we stated on Second Reading, it is attacking this problem only on one front. I feel that the success of the Bill will depend on the energy displayed in attacking the problems on the other fronts at the same time. One of these difficulties is the present price of new spindles for those who wish to take advantage of the subsidy. Some of the difficulties are caused by slow progress on other fronts. I am not imputing blame to one side of the industry or the other.

In saying that we welcome this attack on this particular front of the problem, I hope that the Government will not take it amiss if we ask them to press on on the other fronts, which are equally important. That will have the effect of making the advantages which owners of mills get under this Bill much more alive. I can only say that we very much hope that the effect of the Bill will be to produce more modern equipment in Lancashire and further the cause of this great industry.

While welcoming this Bill, I wish to point out how short is the time in which it can be put into effect. I also wish to say a word about the practical application of this Bill, and in this connection I wish first to consider what amount of spinning capacity is likely to benefit as a result of the Bill, how far spinners are likely to take advantage of it, what they are likely to buy, what sort of delivery they are to get, and how it is likely to affect the export trade. I am very glad that we have had an Amendment reducing the number of spindles required, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that a comparatively limited amount of the spinning capacity of the industry will benefit as a result of this Bill. My information is that on the basis of 500,000 spindles there are only 11 concerns likely to benefit, which represent only 43 per cent. of the spinning capacity of Lancashire. It will be a serious matter if a large number of spinners are likely to be left out of the benefits of the Bill.

I fully agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we need to have amalgamations, but amalgamations are difficult to effect. I wish to say a word about that difficulty, which is a point that has not yet been discussed during the consideration of this Bill. There are two ways of effecting an amalgamation. One is by the purchase of the shares. That is a difficult way of effecting an amalgamation because there is always a dissident minority of shareholders. The Companies Act, 1929, laid down that there could be a degree of coercion of a 10 per cent. minority, but if the minority were greater than 10 per cent. obviously one could not effect a purchase of the shares. It is thus extremely difficult to bring about amalgamation by the purchase of shares.

I turn to the more promising way, the purchase of the assets. I do not say that that is always possible but the articles of association of many companies in Lancashire allow of the disposal of assets. Those concerned could go straight ahead by working on those lines but for the provisions of the Finance Act, 1945, which contained the so-called balancing charge. That is a serious drawback. I would here pay tribute to the move made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in the Finance Act, 1947, in reducing this restrictive provision. That has only gone part of the way, and I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the matter so that he can have a talk with the Chancellor with a view to some further steps being taken in the forthcoming Finance Bill.

I come to the question of how far this Bill is likely to be taken advantage of my the spinners today. I am very doubtful as to how far it is likely to be taken advantage of, for two reasons. The first is the fear that is inherent among the spinners of Lancashire that some new invention which is round the corner will upset any purchase they make. The Government should state quite specifically what are the facts of the case. To a humble individual like myself they are not fully known, but I would express a tentative opinion, and would be glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who is a far greater expert than I am, has to say on the question. It would seem to me that a new ring spindle cannot be produced every year in the way that a new motor car is produced, and that in fact the fears of these spinners are unwarranted.

What is needed is that the Government should embark on a programme of research, that they should make a lot of money available to the Shirley Institute, which will proceed with research not only in respect of cotton machinery but wool machinery and machinery for other textiles. If the Government stated quite clearly what the position was, there would be a far more ready acceptance by the spinners of Lancashire, and they would purchase machinery.

The other reason is the very substantial one that those interested in the textile industry fear the high cost of textile machinery. No firm which is running at 6o per cent. of capacity is likely to jump in and instal a lot of new machinery. A firm needs to be running at very nearly full capacity. We want to go further than that. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we want to be running fully on two shifts where possible. Where that can be done it should be possible to put in this expensive tex- tile machinery with far greater confidence that otherwise would be the case. I wish to stress that, because I believe it is an important question. I would also draw attention to the fact that, during the war, we had a concentration of the industry, and we found that, very often, it was the bad mill that remained in production, because the better premises were taken over for war production or storage. What we want now is for the concentration to be worked in such a way that production is in the efficient mills, and that the old fashioned mills are closed down, to the very great benefit of the health and amenities of those working in them. That would also be a very great incentive to the new workers coming into the industry.

What are the spinners likely to buy? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be flexible in the case of administration. New machinery is desirable in certain cases, but not in all. It must depend on the individual circumstances. I hope that the grant will be made available for the adaptation of machinery and the putting in of high drafting, where high drafting can be applied to existing machinery. I believe that the delivery of this new machinery is not likely to affect the export trade; indeed Textile Machine Makers Ltd. should be in a position to deliver fairly quickly. I had a talk with some of the directors before the Second Reading and I was assured then that they were well up to their target, indeed they were a little ahead of it. They have new production capacity coming into being at Barton, but they have received so few orders. It is vitally important that Lancashire spinners should place orders as quickly as possible. I do not believe that the export trade, which is very important, is likely to be upset by this, but I do feel that everything depends on the spinners of Lancashire placing orders quickly so that T.M.M. may know where they are, and plan production.

I would appeal for a vigorous approach in this matter. We are standing at the cross-roads. The sellers' market will not go on for ever, and it is necessary that the Government, the spinners and the textile machinery manufacturers, and, indeed, the research people, should all come together and put their backs into it, and try and make the greatest possible success in the little time available to us.

I think we ought to review what has happened since the proposal was first announced by the President of the Board of Trade in Manchester nearly 18 months ago. Then it was more a long-term problem of regrouping the cotton industry, but now that the Bill has reached the Third Reading, it is quite a different matter. It is a matter of urgent production now, and not at some time in the future. Textile production is urgently required in the export drive, and we cannot wait on a long-term development of the industry. The wholesale modernisation and re-equipment of mills will hinder current production. What we need is production now. I hope that this Bill will not in any way hinder the piecemeal modernisation of individual mills.

In many mills today one or two rooms in the mill are not in use at all, and others are working overall at about 70 per cent. capacity, owing to the shortage of labour. Therefore, it should be quite permissible for a mill to re-equip just one room, and not necessarily the whole mill, thus keeping the balance of its machinery working full out while one room is being modernised. In that way, too, it will be possible to avoid the unpleasant dislocation of labour which might otherwise result. It was apparent in the Committee stage, and subsequently, that hon. Members opposite seemed to think that mill labour could be moved about from one mill to another. It should be made clear that that cannot be so in this particular industry, and that wholesale modernisation may very well dislocate the labour force at the very time when current production is so essential.

When the scheme was first announced, we were told that an essential feature would be double-shift working in all modernised mills. We were told that the trade unions concerned would be consulted, and that their agreement would be obtained. We have heard very little about the outcome of those consultations. I do not think that, in fact, the trade unions have given their unqualified approval to the system of double-shift working. It should be made quite plain that a good deal of this modernisation depends for its success on whether double-shift working is achieved in the modernised mills. There is no sign yet that the workers of Lancashire are prepared to go in for double-shift work. I, person- ally, would have every sympathy with them if they refused. I feel that, if an industrial process is so developed, and plant production so expensive, that double-shift work has to be introduced, it is time that we thought again, and decided whether we really believe that the lives of working people should be disrupted by the necessity of double-shift work. It means the complete dislocation of the ordinary family life, particularly as it has grown up in the mill towns of Lancashire, and it will be very understandable if it is bitterly resisted.

On the other hand, the industry has been encouraged to go ahead with schemes of modernisation on the implied understanding that double-shift working would be agreed upon by the workers concerned. What happens if a firm goes ahead with modernisation, and then the workers do not agree to double-shift working? What are the Government going to do about that situation? Or is it to be left to the employers to take upon themselves the unpleasant task of trying to educate workers in the merits of doubt-shift working? Double-shift working implies working only 32 hours a week, as against the present 44. Modernised machinery has to be very much more efficient than the older machinery that it is to replace if it is going to do, in 32 hours, what at present is accomplished in 44.

It must be remembered that the bottleneck in this case is labour, and not machinery. Every person working 44 hours with old machinery is worth more than a person working 32 hours with more modern machinery, unless that more modern machinery is at least 50 per cent. more efficient than is the machinery which it replaces. Added to that there is the probability of greater absenteeism on double-shift working. We must also remember the question of the actual physical displacement of labour which must accompany modernisation—elderly women who say that, if they have to move from their own mill, they might just as well pack up altogether. That is an aspect of this Bill which has received scanty attention by the House, and I hope that the full seriousness of the effect of modernisation on Lancashire labour will not be forgotten by the Cotton Board.

I also think it important that the Government should not imagine that it is doing very much for the industry. Certainly a 25 per cent. discount on machinery is something, but not a very great deal for an industry which has suffered so much as a result of the war, and of pre-war competition. If the offer of this small discount is refused by the industry, because it fears the effect of the amalgamations which must follow, let not that be held against individual mills or owners. It is because the terms are not at all attractive. Do not let the Government think that they are making a generous offer to Lancashire. It is quite a mean offer, particularly with the present price of new spinning machinery at £8 a spindle. I hope that in days to come the Government will not abuse the industry for not taking advantage of what is still considered by many to be a very doubtful offer.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has made an appeal for interference by the Government in the cotton industry on a wholesale scale, of such a nature that it could only be achieved under nationalisation. That does not arise under this Bill and, therefore, I cannot follow him. However, it is a happy sign that such pleas are being made from the other side of the House.

I rise only to say that I share some of the apprehensions expressed by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). There is a real danger in Lancashire that this Bill can easily become a dead letter. There is real concern that up to now sufficient advantage has not been taken of the provisions of the Bill. I am in the unhappy position—or indeed it is a very happy position which has certain unhappy responsibilities—that in Oldham we have not only the greatest spinning town in the world, but also the greatest makers of machinery. Textile Machine Makers, Limited, are greatly concerned about the position on the home market. There are plenty of orders for export. We must face the facts when we criticise the policy of sending machinery abroad to re-equip industries to compete with us. We preach the doctrine of re-equipping home industries, but at the moment the overwhelming bulk of our machinery production is going abroad. No plans are being made that are sure and certain for the re-equipment of the home industry.

I am greatly concerned about this matter, because the position is now so acute in Oldham that town meetings have been held about the fear of unemployment among the engineers who are working at Platts Brothers and Company, Limited, makers of textile machinery. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) here. The position at the moment appears to be that either I lose employment for the people in my constituency, or he does. The rival factories in this sphere of activity have not got enough home orders to keep them going.

I venture to make two suggestions to the President of the Board of Trade. It is exceedingly important that the very able speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) should be followed up. It is exceedingly important that time should be taken by the forelock in this matter and that there should be no delay. I suggest that there are two steps which could be taken to encourage this development and modernisation. The first would be for the Minister to consult with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and try to revise the allowances for depreciation so as to give much more generous allowances to those who are modernising their factories and installing modern machinery.

The second one is much more important and would be much more effective. I suggest that my hon. Friend should consult the Home Secretary to see that advantage is taken of the provisions of the Factory Acts and that any necessary Amendments are proposed which will ban the use of broken-down, old and ancient machinery over a long period, and to see that the 50 year old loom would be out of the industry altogether by a certain date. The old machinery must go and the new machinery must come. If those steps were taken this Bill could be a turning point in the history of the industry. It is exceedingly important, not merely for Lancashire, but for Great Britain, that it should be.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has said. This Bill may become a dead letter not only because the spinners will not play ball, but because labour will not do its share. It is useless filling mills with up-to-date machinery if the labour force will not co-operate.

Probably the hon. Gentleman has not heard the announcement this morning that the new target has been exceeded even with the old machines. The new target has been exceeded, and that could only have been done with the terrific co-operation and help of labour.

I saw that announcement in the Press and I am just as delighted as the hon. Member for Oldham at the results achieved with the old machinery which he wishes to kick out. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the ideal is fewer and better mills. That means that certain of the old mills must be closed. Inevitably that will involve a great deal of dislocation. From my experience in another type of mill, I know that there is a lot of female labour which does not like to move from one end of a town to the other when the women have become used to living near the mill in which they work. We ought to hear from the President of the Board of Trade about his negotiations with the trade unions on the question of double-shift working and the closing of certain mills.

It is within the knowledge of all Members of this House that the National Coal Board have run into a similar problem. They have tried to close down certain inefficient pits and to transfer the labour to more efficient pits. In that they have been met with bitter opposition, which I understand and with which I sympathise, from the trade unions. It is as important to get the willing co-operation of the trade unions in these changes which will have to be made in labour conditions as it is to fill the mills with up-to-date machinery. I beg the Minister to give us some information on that subject when the time comes.

There has been a tremendous amount of talk about the cotton industry during the last few years. I would say that there has been far too much for what good has been done. Some of the Acts passed by this Government to assist the Cotton Industry have been of a practical nature, and this Measure is one of them. It may not go as far as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) would like to go in the support that should be given to vertical firms. I would like to see a very much lower ceiling for spindleage for vertical firms than 250,000. That is far too high. If an assessment could be made of the productivity of vertical firms, their weaving and finishing departments, along with an assessment of the capital employed in the business, I think a reasonable spindleage figure could be arrived at which would be more helpful than the one proposed.

We have heard a lot about T.M.M. in these debates. It is a remarkable thing that the really outstanding achievements in the production of new textile machines of up-to-date design, have not come from large firms. New textile machines other than spinning have come from firms of the size of Bruggers, Schweiters and Scharrers in Switzerland. We have enough firms of that type of precision engineers in this country. On the spinning side, we are handicapped by the feeling prevalent in Lancashire that just around the corner there may be new developments which will put a lot of our spinning equipment out of date by 1952, which is the end of the subsidy period.

A lot of people have thrown mud at T.M.M. but they are in great difficulty and some of their fears are very real. They have seen the Japanese textile machinery industry built up by copying their designs, and using their patents and they are naturally apprehensive whether this will go on in the future. Let me give an instance to show why we should be concerned. In 1937 a large engineering firm came into existence in Japan for the express purpose of making munitions of war. It is a gigantic place with four huge foundries, as the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) could confirm. This firm produced munitions during the war. As a result of an edict from the Far East Commission in Washington on reparations and the level of production of machines and steel, this particular Japanese firm is now trying to switch over to textile machinery.

This is happening in many other cases in Japan. Firms are trying to change from medium or heavy engineering to textile machinery making, which is of a lighter type and is looked on favourably by the Far East Commission. The firm I have in mind has a capacity equivalent to that of the whole of the United States during the peak year of 1937, when I believe 772,000 spindles were made and installed in America, and this is in addition to the production of existing firms.

No wonder the T.M.M. is apprehensive of the future, if nothing is done either to make interim arrangements now with General MacArthur, and the Far Eastern Commission and to have conditions included in the peace treaty when it is drawn up.

The development of textile machines in this country needs invigoration. We have the spectacle of the T.M.M. dominating the spinning side and of small firms trying to get going on precision machines. I urge the Government once again, if they cannot put into operation a development scheme of their own, to give more support to the Shirley Institute, so that the development of machines can take place at a far greater rate than it has in the past. If the development of spinning machinery is to be static until 1952—and it looks as though it might be under the provisions of the Bill—it will be a tragedy not only for our cotton industry, but also for the textile machinery makers, who will probably lose the opportunity of exporting their products in the future.

In view of what was said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), I should like to make it quite clear that I hold no particular brief for vertical combines. I merely pointed out that the minimum of 250,000 spindles which would be required to take advantage of this help is far too large a figure for any vertical combine. There is room for vertical combines in the trade, but I think the Bill rules out any increase in their numbers at present for that reason.

The Bill is disappointing. It offers little or no solution to the present great problems of the cotton industry. We are all familiar with the difficulties of the cotton industry between the wars and with its falling output against foreign competition. The period of conversion during the last three years since the war, however, has been a period of great opportunity, but I feel the Government have not taken adequate advantage of it. I think this is the third Cotton Bill they have passed. The first, which did away with the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, was a most unfortunate Measure. The second, which put the Cotton Board on a different basis, had a lot to be said for it. The present Bill is really a minute one com- pared with the problems in the industry; It deals with one small corner of the spinning section. It has been shown by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) that very few people are in a position to take advantage of this Bill and I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity of dealing more adequately with the trade as a whole. Such a favourable period will not easily recur when the sellers' market comes to an end.

It has become increasingly clear during the Debate today that this is a deal, not only with the owners of large numbers of spindles, but with labour also. Two mills under the same ownership may purchase a third mill, which may be a very bad one with bad machinery; under this Bill they may acquire power to re-equip and modernise their existing two mills and they must apply for authority to move labour from the bad mill to the new modernised mills. Those of us who live in the North-West know that over a period of years mills have acquired an identity—or perhaps more, a personality. It will be very difficult in some cases to transfer workers, even from an old mill, to one that has been modernised. When this aspect is realised by the workers they will criticise the Measure a great deal.

Another important aspect has only been briefly touched on. Modernisation of spinning machinery is useless without double-shift work. Have the Government faced up to that? Have the unions faced up to it, and are they willing to do it? Without double-shift working, the subsidy will be largely a waste of money. One of the great difficulties concerning the large amount of old machinery in the cotton mills—typical of many other industries at present—is the policy adopted by the Treasury over a great number of years of not allowing adequate depreciation on machinery and encouraging modernisation. We, of all countries, have allowed statutory depreciation at probably the lowest rate. This means a continuation of the process of patching up old machinery rather than putting in the newest and most up-to-date machines. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to bring pressure to bear on the Government for the cotton industry as well as for others, to allow very much more depreciation. That would be a natural encouragement to manufacturers of all kinds to keep their factories as modern and as up-to-date as possible.

I feel that in this Measure the Government have missed a great opportunity. We should not let them suppose that the passing of the Bill is in any way adequate for the circumstances. The industry and the country will demand, and rightly so, a much greater contribution to this very important industry than is included in this small Bill.

I wish to make only one point, and that is briefly to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) about the manufacture of spinning machinery and its contribution to the cotton industry. Recently, I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking him about the use of Platt Bros. factory at Barton, because I was concerned about the dismissal of 112 employees apparently on the ground of redundancy. He replied that the reason was that they were attempting to lower the cost of production. Another view has been advanced to me by those employed at the factory, who are concerned about the possibility of further dismissals there. Their view is that the reason for the dismissals was that orders were not coming in for the production of spinning machinery for the home industry.

The Barton factory can play a very great part in the re-equipment of the cotton industry, not only in this country but all over the world. It has a much greater capacity than is being used at present, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give this matter his attention. Concern is felt not only by people in my division but in almost every constituency in Lancashire where cotton machinery is used. I think the people concerned have a right to know what is the position and what the President of the Board of Trade intends to do about it.

I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his expression of thanks to the House for the welcome given to this Bill and for the co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House during all the stages of the Bill in getting it through so expeditiously. After what has been said, I do not need to stress again the urgency of cotton production or to underline what a number of hon. Members have said about the welcome which the House gives to the industry's success in reaching the first stage of its target, the figures for which were announced last night. We all hope that the industry will be equally successful in quickly reaching the second stage of the target which is so essential if we are to achieve our essential exports and, as has been said on more than one occasion by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), to do it without any further interference with supplies for the home market which we are all so anxious to see increased as quickly as possible.

Nor is it necessary to stress the need for the re-equipment particularly of the spinning side of the cotton industry. It is common ground between us that a substantial proportion of the machinery which is now in place on the spinning side and, indeed, on the manufacturing side is not only old in type, but very much of it is beyond its efficient working life already. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said that his only fear was not about what is in the Bill, but that it may become a dead letter. I would express general agreement with what he said on that point. I think the Bill, as it has emerged from the Committee and Report stages, is certainly an improvement on the Bill which came before the House for Second Reading. My principal concern is to ensure that it does not become a dead letter. It is absolutely essential that it should be used to the full.

My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) said he hoped that we would do something to exorcise the fear which exists in certain parts of Lancashire that there are new inventions round the corner and that this Bill will prevent Lancashire from going ahead with developments on the lines of existing inventions. Lancashire is a long way behind—about 20 or 30 years behind—catching up with existing inventions, to say nothing of new inventions. However, I do agree with my hon. Friend and a number of hon. Members opposite who stressed the need for spending more money on research, and the Cotton Board particularly have this point in mind in their use of the Shirley Institute, and in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is paying great attention at this time to questions of improvement, not only in the quantity of textile machinery but in the development of new types wherever possible. Both sides of the industry in Lancashire are doing a fine job today in face of very great difficulty, and their achievement of this target is the first step in their efforts to meet the country's needs.

We cannot go on indefinitely asking the workers in Lancashire to continue making the greatest possible effort in an industry which is so ill equipped and out of date. I am sure hon. Members in all parties experience great difficulty when they ask for increased production, for overtime, and for people to come back into the mills, very often at great domestic inconvenience, when the obvious answer is that much of this would not be necessary if it were only possible to re-equip Lancashire with the machinery that is required. I must also say—and a number of hon. Members have referred to this matter—that it is difficult when one asks for increased efforts, and the workers to whom one appeals say, "You regard cotton as important and so do we; yet there are not many orders being placed for spinning machinery. If cotton is so urgent, both from the short-term and the long-term point of view, there ought to be more re-equipment."

I want to conclude on that note. As the right hon. Member for Aldershot said, we do not want this Measure to become a dead letter. It is vital that this industry, which is being singled out for this special Government subsidy, should be conducted in accordance with the spirit of the Debates in this House, and should press ahead with the placing of orders for spinning machinery. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) said that the Government have missed chances in the last two or three years, and he seemed to suggest particularly that this Bill is a very inadequate Measure. I have never suggested that this Bill does anything more than a small part of the job, for the main job has to be done not by legislation—I do not know what increased legislation the hon. Member would like introduced—but by the industry.

So far as the spinning equipment is concerned, the first stage is the placing of orders. We cannot continue with this situation. The textile machinery industry is not going full out, simply because there are not enough orders being placed at a time when the need for these orders and the machinery is greater than it has ever been, not merely to advance on our present production, but, as has been stressed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and my hon. Friend for Accrington, to get costs down, because the sellers' market will not last for ever. Indeed, it is disappearing quickly now. It is vital that Lancashire should get herself re-established so that she can play a permanent part in the export trade of the world.

In thanking the House for the reception given to this Bill, I again stress to the spinning manufacturers the importance of taking a leaf out of the book of those who manufacture the machinery, who have not been deterred by the present high costs and who are placing orders, many of which cannot be fulfilled for three, five or eight years ahead. I say to the spinning manufacturers: now you have got this special subsidy, go to it and get your industry into a state of modernisation as quickly as possible.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the double shift, the negotiations with the trade unions and the question of redundancy?

On the Third Reading of this Bill I am sure I would be out of Order if I were to attempt to deal with those matters which are not covered in any part of the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we regard this Bill as an attack on only one of many fronts. The points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are points to which we are certainly giving our attention and shall continue to do so, but we must get the machinery.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "Subsection (5)," and to insert "Subsections (5) and (6)."

Perhaps I might suggest that at the same time we should take the following Amendment in page 3, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(6) No provision shall be made by a scheme as to, or as to the governing body of, an endowment which is applicable for the purposes of professional education or training, except with the consent of the governing body of such endowment."

It will be remembered that Clause 2 extends the Endowed Schools Acts of 1869 to 1908, and confers powers on the Minister with regard to education endowments by schemes made under those Acts,

"to alter or add to existing trusts and to make new trusts and to consolidate or divide endowments."

There was a discussion during the Second Reading of the Bill in regard to the operation of Clause 2 and concern was expressed about certain university endowments. Since the Second Reading the Minister has put down Amendments to Clause 2 which are now embodied in it and, in particular, in Subsection (5), which has the result of protecting university endowments on the lines suggested during the Second Reading stage.

I have put down this further Amendment for this reason. The Amendments already incorporated in the Clause protect university endowments but in my submission, they do not except any scholarship or endowment for professional training. If I may give an illustration, the Clause in its present form would effect certain trust funds which are administered by the Law Society for purposes of providing prizes and administrative funds which they have for prizes. In its present form, the Clause will affect the prizes and scholarships which are awarded on the results of the Law Society's examination. It might also affect funds used by the Law Society generally for the purpose of legal education which are the result of sales of certain properties.

I hope the Minister will agree in principle that the same protection that has been conceded in the case of university endowments should be conceded in the case of endowments for professional training. The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to extend the exception to these and to provide that no scheme which affects such funds shall be made without the consent of the governing body of such endowments. I very much hope that the principle of the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister, even if he has had no opportunity to satisfy himself that the precise words of my Amendment carry out the intention which I have explained.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the Minister will accept this very desirable Amendment. The Minister has conceded the point for university schemes, and professional bodies desire the same cover for the same purpose. I am happy to add my few words in the hope that the Minister will see his way to agree to this very desirable recommendation.

As the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) suggested, I have not had time to look at this with a view to seeing whether or not the wording used here would fit in the Bill, but I am in sympathy with the object and purpose of the Amendment. We have no desire to trespass upon this ground, and if the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to look into it, to accept the principle, and to introduce an Amendment in another place.

In view of that assurance, for which I am very much obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(3) In cases not falling within the exception mentioned in the last preceding Subsec- tion, the managers or governors of schools maintained by a local education authority shall comply, as respects the time of admission of children as registered pupils, with any general directions given by the authority in that behalf."

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the local education authority has control of the power given in the Clause to managers and governors of maintained schools to refuse admission to their schools except at the beginning of term. The local education authority has had such general control under the similar provisions of the 1921 Act and in the existing registration regulations of the principal Act of 1944. The present Clause under consideration, Clause 4, is a substitute for the relevant provisions of those regulations which, we are advised, are ultra vires.

It is right, in our opinion, that the local education authority, in order to enable it to perform its duty of securing that there is adequate school provision in its area, should not be embarrassed by schools under its administration taking different lines—for example, the admission of children on their fifth birthday, rather than at the beginning of the term after their fifth birthday. It will be noticed that the Amendment which I am moving refers to general directions by the local education authority. It does not require that the local education authority's consent is to be given in individual cases. I hope that this brief explanation, that it simply restores a general control, will be sufficient, and that the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, at the end to insert "or."

During the Committee stage the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked whether the three paragraphs were complementary, accumulative or alternative. The fact is that they are all three, and in order that they may be so described the word "or" must be inserted.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 23, at the beginning to insert:

"(1) Subsection (1) of Section ninety of the principal Act (under which a local education authority may be authorised to purchase compulsorily land required for the purposes of any school or college which is, or is to be, maintained by them, or otherwise for the purposes of their functions under that Act) shall be amended by inserting therein, after the words 'for the purposes of any school or college which is, or is to be, maintained by them' the words 'or which they have power to assist.'"

Members of the Committee will recollect that in Committee an Amendment in the form of a new Clause was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) asking that that which we were seeking to do with regard to the compulsory purchase of land should also be applied where it was a question of an assisted school. I promised him that I would look at the matter to see if we could include those powers in the present Clause 10, thus avoiding the necessity for a new Clause. The Amendment on the Order Paper is an Amendment to Section go and it accomplishes what the hon. Member for East Islington, sought to accomplish, by amending Clause 10 as it now stands. This is an Amendment to Section go of the principal Act. It gives the local education authority specific power to purchase compulsorily land for a school which they have power to assist and thus it brings the law of compulsory purchase into line with the law as laid down in Clause 10 of the Bill for the purchase of land by agreement.

I am very much obliged to the Minister and am grateful to him for having found himself able to accept the suggestion made during the Committee stage. If I may say so, the object we had in mind, is, I think, carried out by his own phraseology in a much neater form and with considerable economy of language.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, at the end, to insert:

"Fourth Schedule, paragraph 4	For the words	'at least once in every three months
(Times for meetings of managers or governors of schools)	substitute	'at least once in every school term'."

The principal Act requires that the managers and governors must meet at least once in every three months. This requirement is not always acted upon, partly because of the difficulties of getting a quorum, especially in the three holiday months of July, August and September. We here propose a requirement easier to comply with, and one which is more likely to be observed, namely, that there shall be a meeting once in every school term. The Primary and Secondary School Regulations require the school year to be divided into not more than four terms. There is nothing to prevent managers and governors from meeting more than once a term or in holidays as well as in term time. This Amendment is meant to facilitate the holding of the minimum number of meetings required under the principal Act.

I beg to move, in page i6, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"'Provided that children to whom this paragraph applies shall not be gainfully employed at any time in the mornings during the period of school term.'"

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to ventilate this matter. It is a question that affects the welfare and health of children throughout the country generally. Yesterday I asked the Home Secretary, whether he would consider allowing local authorities all over the country to ban the employment of children. Unfortunately, he could not see his way to do that. Perhaps, I can reinforce the case today by arguments I could not possibly put at Question Time yesterday.

In this Bill we are making provision for raising from 12 to 13 the age at which our children may be employed, thus keeping that age in line with the raising of the school-leaving age. I submit that that does not go far enough. Authorities all over the country are concerned about the effect on children's welfare of their having to work early in the mornings either in the delivery of newspapers or in the delivery of milk. Recently the matter was ventilated by a proposal of the Middlesex County Council, which has aroused the consternation and opposition of Chambers of Commerce all over the country. I notice in the Press a report that the National Association of Chambers of Commerce are proposing to see the Home Secretary in regard to this matter. It looks to me—although I may be wrong—that even if my hon. Friend does not accept this Amendment, this reform will have to be made sooner or later, possibly through the Children Bill now proceeding through another place. I hope that if my Amendment is not accepted, the principle of it will be contained in that other Bill.

In my own county of Lancashire, the education committee some time ago recommended to the county council that it should ban the employment of school children in the early mornings. Unfortunately, when that recommendation was debated by the council, it was rejected. I can only assume that it was so rejected because of the pressure of business men through the local chambers of commerce. There is a case against the industrial employment of children in the early hours of the morning. There is a case for the desirability of a national enactment to avoid local confusion.

First, I would say that children who are usually employed in this way are those who come from homes where there is financial stringency or where there is poor parental regard to education. Those who would look at this matter from the point of view of their own selfish interests point to a number of famous men who, in their childhood, sold newspapers or did other tasks of that nature. They could say, for instance, "Look at the Minister of Education." I see that the name of the Lord President of the Council has been quoted as an instance, and that of Lord Beaverbrook. These famous and worthy men, however, would have achieved success even if they had not sold newspapers or done some other similar work when they were children. I, in my own humble way, commenced work after school hours at the age of 11, but I cannot see that that is any reason why I am in this Chamber.

If children have any gifts at all they will find expression; and if they are compelled to put up with the disadvantages of working at these tasks in the early morning, or at other hours when they should be enjoying themselves and finding normal expression in children's play, then, in my view, that means that those children are not living a full life, and enjoying themselves as they ought to. All this nonsense about famous men having done this sort of work, and its having done them no harm, is really beside the point.

I am glad to have the backing of many educational authorities, and I see my hon. Friend's authorities on education in this Chamber today. I am sure they will agree that pupils who are employed in the early morning for the purposes I have outlined become drowsy and inattentive at their lessons later in the morning, and so become backward in their education. Many children who get up early in the morning to do this sort of work have only a sketchy and hasty breakfast. In the winter, particularly, that is a great hardship. It may not be too bad for children to get up at five or six in the morning in the summer, but I ask the House to observe the lot of the child who goes out on a cold, dark, wet winter morning, ill-dad, ill-shod, to face the rigours of the winter, merely to earn a few shillings a week. What it all means is that, if we allow this practice to persist, we shall allow an unfortunate discrimination between the children of the poor, who go out to work in this manner, and the children of the rich who can enjoy themselves in the manner children ought to enjoy themselves, free in their leisure to do exactly as they want to.

Some Members of local authorities—I am sorry to have to say it—who do not share this view may, perhaps, be business men who may be intimately concerned in putting their own business interests first before the welfare of the children. I am certain that from every possible angle we have to admit that there is injury to the children. It does put those who do this work into a lower social category, and it puts them into a lower educational category. It must operate to their disadvantage. It is certainly something that ought to be examined by the House.

I want briefly to outline how we can overcome the objections. The objection about depriving the children of rising to fame by this means, I have already dealt with. But there is an argument—and it is a very valid argument, and a substantial one—that if we do not allow children to do this sort of work it will be a great inconvenience, not only to newsagents and milkmen who employ children in the early mornings, but also to the general public. I can well imagine the well-fed, average citizen, sitting comfortably at home reading his morning newspaper at his breakfast, does not for a moment realise the conditions the child who has delivered the newspaper, has had to experience to bring it to him. I can understand very well his not wanting to be inconvenienced to the extent of having to go to the newsagent's shop to be served in the morning or having to go to the milkman's distribution centre for his milk.

I submit to the House that there is a simple solution. Whereas in the past, because of economic necessity, we have allowed these children to be exploited in many cases, perhaps we might now switch from the younger to the older generation, the much older generation. In my view the best way of doing away with this evil would be to agitate for older people to be employed for this work, and the type of person I have in mind is the old age pensioner.—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Oh."]—I heard an hon. Member object when I said that, but there is no reason why an old age pensioner who is willing should not be allowed to do this work instead of a child. It might provide a convenient opportunity of earning a few shillings for those who find life difficult at the moment, and we should also be alleviating a great social evil.

I have made it clear in my Amendment that I wish to prevent children from doing this work only during school term because, if they do it then, it follows as a natural consequence that they are not paying all the attention they should to their education, and that they are not being given the opportunities for education to which they are entitled. However, I make no plea for restrictions of any kind on the use of children during their school holidays, if they want to work, because they have leisure to recover during the rest of the day. I hope my right hon. Friend will give this matter his consideration, and if he cannot give us satisfaction today, I hope he will consult with other right hon. Members in the Government directly concerned with a view to arriving at a reasonable solution.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do this if only to emphasise once again what we discussed for hours and hours on the Education Act, 1944. We tried every way of getting this into the Act, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) on his ingenuity in getting this Amendment put forward today, if only for propaganda purposes. I can say, as Chairman of the Committee on Wage Earning Children, that we have been stressing this, and that we came down to the minimum period which was during school term, and my hon. Friend has followed the exact words of the original Amendment.

We had so many Debates on this during the passage of the Education Act that I will not waste the time of the House now by repeating most of the arguments then put forward. It is bad for the children, it is bad for the school, and it is generally an exploitation, and all the arguments put forward about newspapers and milk have nothing whatever to do with children but with another aspect of the problem. I am not sure whether this is the right place for the Amendment, but I know the differences that exist in the by-laws of local authorities. Some are still bad, some are model, but it is time there was some national lead on this, and I hope that the Minister, whatever his reply, will bring it before other Members of the Government.

I shall not attempt to reply to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) for I think I find myself in agreement with the greater portion of it; nor shall I dilate on the point that some great men sold newspapers, though I might be able to speak of the methods of accountancy which can be learned from selling newspapers at an early age. But I do not think this is the place to do that. This is too big a question to be tackled in a Bill of this kind, a Bill which has been brought forward deliberately for the purpose of tidying up administration. I do not think we can accept on Report an Amendment which deals with another Measure altogether and which, although it affects the administration of education, deals with an important Act of Parliament. It would not be right for me to accept on the Report stage of a Bill taken on a Friday morning a principle which should be considered in a more appropriate Bill. If it is suggested that we have already dealt with one Section of that Act of Parliament, I would point out that administrative tidiness, to which some of my hon. Friends object, made that essential because we have by Act of Parliament raised the age—

I hope my right hon. Friend will not misrepresent us. We have never objected to administrative tidiness.

The point I am making is that the alteration took place in that Act of Parliament so that we could carry out our duty under that Act. I would ask the hon. Member for Stretford, having brought this before the House, to withdraw his Amendment in order that it may be brought forward at the right time in the right way.

I cannot pretend to be other than disappointed that my right hon. Friend has suggested that there is something wrong about seeking this opportunity of changing the law with regard to the employment of school children. The House does not get an opportunity every day of dealing with education, and if we are to wait until a major Bill is introduced before we can improve the protection of our school children, we are indeed in an unfortunate position. My right hon. Friend gave no answer at all to this important question, and to suggest that there is something wrong about introducing it on a Friday morning is, of course, no argument at all.

I know where the sympathies of my right hon. Friend lie; I know that his own experience, of which the House is well aware, leads him to appreciate that school children cannot benefit as they ought if they have to work before going to school in the morning. I have seen too many children who have lost their chance owing to the shocking conditions described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford. (Mr. Austin) and, like the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), I feel there is no need to go into all the arguments. However, I want to express my dismay that the Minister is not even giving an indication that during some time in his term of office he will take steps to introduce this necessary reform. I hope he will not be obstinate on this point—he is not usually—and I ask him not to turn it down quite so flatly.

I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend has refused to accept what seems a reasonable Amendment. He appeared to give some kind of vague assurance that at some time in the future, in some Bill not named by him, some Amendment might be moved to give effect to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin). That is not a very satisfactory assurance and, from past experience, I do not pin too much faith to the assurance given by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. It must be clear to anybody that a child who has spent a couple of hours delivering newspapers in all kinds of weather and in all kinds of areas before he goes to school is not in the best frame of mind to take advantage of education.

Is it not a fact that that is the exact situation dealt with in Subsection (1) of Section 59 of the parent Act? It lays down that if the health of a child is damaged or his ability to benefit from the full amount of education is interfered with, that very thing shall be prevented.

It was precisely upon Section 59 that we tried to get stronger language inserted.

The Section has not proved efficient in practice as a means of preventing children from spending an hour or two delivering newspapers or milk. Even if it does not injure a child's health to do so, it must mean that the child does not benefit from the education, especially when the work is done in certain types of weather.

What is important is not so much the state of health of the child as the state of tiredness in which the child goes to school and which may undermine the child's health as well as making him unreceptive to education at school.

The word "unreceptive" exactly fits the case. There is no economic argument in children doing this work as there might have been in the past because wages are better and the parents receive family allowance. If there are any benefits, it is notable that the parents who are well-to-do do not seek those benefits. We do not find boys and girls who attend preparatory schools or public schools delivering newspapers or milk before they go to school in the mornings.

Some local authorities have adopted bylaws which prevent school children doing such work during the school term. Other authorities have not done so, with the result that there is variation of practice in the country. Some areas which have progressive local authorities have adopted such by-laws, and their children are fortunate because they do not have to do this work before they go to school. In other areas the children do not get that protection. Whenever an education committee desires to adopt such a by-law to protect its children it meets with violent opposition from newsagents and milk vendors. A strong barrage of criticism is directed against them which only a strong-minded education committee, earnest about the welfare of its children, can withstand.

I do not think it will make any difference to the delivery of milk and newspapers if the Amendment is adopted. I belong to the progressive education committee of Southampton. Recently, in spite of strong obstruction from the newsagents, we adopted a by-law preventing children from doing this sort of work during the school term. I have not found that our by-law has interfered with the delivery of newspapers. I get my newspapers just as soon and just as inevitably as I did before. I know that my right hon. Friend is keen about tidiness of administration and I appeal to him that it would be in the interests of tidiness if there was uniform practice on this matter among education committees in the country. That uniformity can be secured only by the adoption of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which was argued by him so ably. I ask the Minister to think again.

I intervene to express my strong feeling upon this subject. I know that in making an appeal to my right hon. Friend, I am not appealing to a person who is unsympathetic with the desire expressed in the Amendment. My right hon. Friend is perhaps more broadminded than I am myself upon the subject.

I speak as one with bitter experience of selling newspapers in the early years of my life. I started to sell newspapers at nine years of age and I continued to do so until I went into the trade at 14. Incidentally, I have been in the newspaper industry all my life. Whether that has been an advantage to me or not, I cannot say. My experience of selling newspapers in the evenings was that many times as a young boy I went home wet through. Consequently, I suffered for years with rheumatism. Although I have had a fairly healthy life, I might have been a great deal healthier had I been safely at home by the fireside instead of wandering the streets in all kinds of weather.

Another thing that happened to me as a result of this newspaper experience was the one half day I used to miss school to go round with the weekly newspapers. Consequently, I got rather behind some of my school fellows. When I sat for the foundation scholarship at my local grammar school, I lost it altogether. I have often wondered what effect that might have had upon my future career. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment talked about famous men who had sold newspapers. I am wondering how many famous men the country may have lost by letting them sell newspapers. I might even have been a famous man if I had not sold newspapers. I do not know how I ever got into Parliament in the circumstances in which I was brought up, but this is a wonderful country. Even a boy who goes round to sell newspapers has a chance of getting into the House of Commons, but it might very well be that if we abolished this awful system of boys going round in the morning selling newspapers and milk many more of them might in later life get into the House of Commons.

Because of the strong feeling I have that those experiences were a great handicap to me, I support the Amendment, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to adopt it. I knew my right hon. Friend very well indeed long before I came into Parliament. I know that his heart is full of sympathy on this subject and that he will bear our argument in mind and will not rest until he has placed upon the Statute Book an Act to prevent boys and girls being gainfully employed in such ways as selling newspapers or going round with milk, or any other kind of occupation that is offered to them.

I want to make clear the point of the interruption I made a minute or two ago. The question of working before going to school is extremely important, and I have every sympathy with the Amendment. For the sake of accuracy however it should be made clear that power exists at this moment to prevent the very practices that are being complained of. I think "receptive" is the key word. If a pupil is not receptive he is not capable of getting the full benefit from the education facilities available to him. Subsection (1) of Section 59 of the Act does the very thing that the Amendment proposes to do; if local authorities are not doing their duty properly, that is an entirely different question.

In view of the assurances which we have had from my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

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

My first duty is to refer to Clause 2. His Majesty the King is a Governor of certain endowments which may be subject to the schemes under this Clause. It has therefore been necessary to get His Majesty's gracious consent to this Clause, and I have the honour to make known to the House that his consent has been given.

I do not intend to make anything but a very brief speech. It is a brief Bill, but, as the discussions here and upstairs have shown, it is a Bill of some importance for the more efficient implementation of the principal Act. So great and so revolutionary an Act as that of 1944 was bound to require some amending in the light of experience. This second amending Bill since the passing of the principal Act attempts to make its contribution to this.

I wish to thank hon. Members on all sides of the House and hon. Members serving in the Committee upstairs on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself for the many and valuable suggestions made in the course of our discussions. By no means all the suggestions that have been made have been acceptable to us, but undoubtedly at this stage in the progress of the Bill it is a much improved Measure. It is a Measure which in almost every Clause directly affects the daily life of the child in the school or in later life under the almost all-embracing umbrella of further education. Already this morning, and certainly during our discussions upstairs, the phrase "administrative tidiness" has been used. I prefer the phrase "the better administrative efficiency" because without such administrative efficiency on the part of the local education authorities, and, I agree, the Ministry itself, the child and the teacher in the schools would suffer. I commend this Bill to the House in complete confidence that teachers, local authorities and hon. Members will welcome any Measure to facilitate the implementation of the principal Act and to give of the very best to our children in the schools day by day.

I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way in which they have piloted the Bill through its stages and particularly during the Committee stage. They were sympathetic and informative although they did not always give us what we desired. All the same, I heartily congratulate both of them on their conduct of the Bill.

We are, of course, still unconvinced that the Clause relating to the age of transfer is satisfactory. We still believe—and we want to put it on record—that 11 is the proper age for transfer. That age is essential in the interests of the children themselves and the corporate life of the junior schools. It is a bad thing to have a contained life in the junior schools and a bad thing to have the pressure of examinations.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about one great fear we have. It may be unfounded but there is undoubtedly the fear that the junior children will be transferred in large numbers into the grammar schools and modern secondary schools. It is vital—and we would like some reassurance about this—that there should not be a hurried transfer. In their young days the children should have every chance to live the full life of childhood. A child who lives the full life of childhood becomes a more efficient adult. Any containment of the child life is a containment of the adult life later on. I hope the Minister will reassure us that so far as he is concerned there will be no large-scale damage to the junior schools. I assure him that there is this anxiety, and we would like to be assured that he will watch this development closely and, if necessary, take action to preserve the entity of the junior schools and the right of the child to live a full, free life in those schools.

I want to say a few words in view of the fact that I was unable to be present during the Committee stage. However, I have read every word of the Committee proceedings very carefully. From the point of view of argument, there is no doubt that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) are completely right. The Bill is now a better Bill. The Amendments with regard to charitable trusts and building regulations have improved it. I was not quite clear what the Parliamentary Secretary meant when he said that some things had been accepted reluctantly; I could not think what they were.

When the three hon. Gentlemen the Members for Aberavon, Southampton, and Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) were putting their case, there was an implicit assumption that the local education authorities would almost automatically take what is in the Bill as the regular thing. That is a most dangerous outlook for education. In the Amendment on children working in the mornings we were seeking to set up a national minimum standard, but when it comes to education authorities, I want the greatest possible variety. Our local education authorities should work out their own solution to problems but unfortunately Section 1 of the major Act makes that very difficult. Day by day the stream of circulars and memoranda still comes out from the Ministry of Education.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly in agreement with me on this. I am not even blaming the Ministry be- cause those circulars and memoranda are an essential part of the Act. I am complaining that the insertion of 10 years and 6 months in the Bill implies in the minds of so many hon. Members a good reason for local education authorities acting on the precise words. That is a measure of uniformity and centralisation which we tend to get these days. I hope that authorities will not take too seriously these words "ten years and six months." I hope the local authorities will do what the Minister said they should do, and that is, continue doing what they were doing before. In other words, we have to accept what he says that there is no other way to amend this curious piece of illegality. This is a clumsy way of doing it, but there is no alternative. What has given rise to this situation is the peculiar wording of Section 114 of the 1944 Act. If it had not been put in that language, it would not be necessary to discuss it now.

One thing which this Bill has done is that it has shown that the junior schools of this country are a national disgrace. Until this House takes far more interest in education and puts the junior school on a proper basis, we are going to have a repetition of this kind of Debate and of the criticism which is in the Advisory Council's Report and which states that it will be 50 years before the buildings of our junior schools are on a reasonable basis. We have been paying a great deal of attention to secondary education and to the very early stages, but we want to make it absolutely clear that we want to see a good general education provided for children between 7 and 11. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberavon to talk about the preparatory schools and compare them with the public school system. They are an entirely different proposition. What we want to see in the ordinary system of education is the junior school giving proper time to the learning of at least one language such as French. The proper age at which to learn that language is two, but between seven and 12 there are great possibilities I hope what whatever the actual words, the spirit of the Bill will be carried out by the education authorities, who will insist on four years in a junior school and that they will cut out the hideous examination to abolish which was one of the purposes of the 1944 Act: but this means more building.

I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but it happens to be my Amendment which has been so severely criticised. We must bring ourselves to a sense of reality. This Bill deals only with administrative defects in the main Act. It has limited objects and the Minister was faced with a real difficulty in regard to the rigidity of the age in the principal Act. All of us can see what is wrong with a rigid 12, but it is very hard to find a solution. I think the Minister tackled the problem admirably when he found the solution through giving the authorities more elbow room. The education authorities in the country are not uniformly alike. There must be reasonable elbow room for each individual authority. Some authorities have been able to transfer children at 11 plus quite easily and so have every regard to their junior and secondary schools. On the other hand, there are other authorities who owing to their difficult circumstances will find it hard indeed to be fair to both junior and senior schools.

The Minister has done the right thing, for he has said, "I will give reasonable elbow room," He has taken 12 as the upper age limit, but where he made his mistake in my opinion was in introducing 10 years as the lower limit. That age is indefensible, for I do not think the authorities of this country need two years' elbow room. But 11 is equally too little for some authorities and would mean that some would be compelled, whether we like it or not, to transfer their children before legally they were able to transfer them, as they are doing now. They would be acting illegally, and could be brought before the courts. The Minister did the right thing I believe when he accepted my Amendment of 10 years six months which gives local authorities the right amount of elbow room.

The whole thing is now transferred to the authorities. In acting as a central authority this House, I believe, must always be very careful never to compel democratically elected local authorities to act within unreasonable limits. We must never abuse our power, and we have no right to place a statutory duty which is not reasonable on a local authority. It would not be a reasonable statutory duty to say to all local authorities "You must transfer all your children at 11." That would be tantamount to saying, "We do not care what your difficulties are as regards teachers or buildings, but you must carry out the Act." We have no right to exercise our powers in that way and then leave to the individual authority the problem of settling the method of transfer. Those who find it easier to transfer at 11 will do so. Those who find it difficult will get the encouragement and sympathy of the Minister and other educationists who will want to assist and who, I hope, will not be unmindful of local difficulties. Our job as I have said in Parliament is to lay down reasonable limits for the authorities and I suggest that from 10 years and six months to 12 years, which gives 18 months elbow room, provides reasonable limits for every local authority so that it can act according to its local circumstances and deal with each individual child. We are merely legalising the existing practice, and we can only do that by putting in the Bill 10 years and 6 months.

On behalf of the Opposition I should like to support the Third Reading of this Bill, and to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for their courtesy during its passage. There is one thing about which we can all agree and that is that this Bill, which now has reached its age of transfer and is going on to its secondary education is a far better, and wiser little Bill than when it bounced into the Chamber for its Second Reading. It is an example of how common sense can triumph over other things. There are, of course, one or two points in the Bill with which we on this side of the House cannot entirely agree. For example, there is the Clause which gives the Minister the power to decide to take over a charitable trust. During the Committee stage we had an assurance—I would be out of Order if I referred to those assurances—explaining what happened under an Order-in-Council to prevent any unfairness. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House are slightly doubtful about giving opportunity to somebody to take more powers. As the Act stood before it was amended by this Bill, it was the giver up of power, the Charity Commissioners who had the arbitrary powers to give up responsibility, if arbitrary powers could have been said to exist, so we are doubtful about the Minister taking that power on himself. We should have preferred, had it been possible, to have had a third party to give judgment. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, indicated that he agreed with this point of view. Perhaps it is not too late to hope that an independent third party will be introduced to arbitrate, if necessary, between the Minister and the trustees of any charity involved.

The main Debate has been on the question of the age of transfer and I do not grudge one moment of the argument which has taken place on that. As things exist, it is the most important moment in a child's life. Many of us think it is too important and that as things are at present, with the shortage of school accommodation and the difficulties the education system faces, there is too much irrevocability about that moment in a child's life. We look forward to a time when the main Act is working more fully when it will not be nearly so irrevocable and many more children will have a second chance than at present. That is why we considered this matter so carefully in Committee. If local authorities try to put the to year six months rigidly into force, it will undoubtedly be too low an age. I hope that local education authorities will do their best to adhere to the later age of transfer.

We are glad that relaxations have been made in regard to rules and regulations for buildings. So long as education authorities carry out the spirit of the Act, all will be well, but when we relax regulations there is always a danger that people will take advantage of them. That is why we tried to impress on the Minister that we wanted him to assure us that in his report to Parliament he will be able to tell us where, when, how and why such relaxations took place. Parliament should be very jealous of those standards, which were set up with great difficulty. We all know there is still some pressure of opinion to relax them permanently if opportunity were found. We who are interested in education should fight for keeping those standards and should very jealously regard the duty of the Ministry to report to us and tell us about them.

All the minor amendments are satisfactory with the possible exception of those relating to Section 40 of the main Act. Until recently we thought that when a child lived in one locality and was educated in another there would be no difficulty in the two authorities being able to get together and settle all problems amicably. We have recently been told that there is a legal doubt between the two greatest education authorities in England, the L.C.C. and Middlesex County Council, whether the school attendance enforcement provisions can be carried out if the child is not being educated in the district in which he lives. I ask the Minister to see whether that legal difficulty exists. It would be a great pity if this Bill should reach the Statute Book and any obvious amendment which would improve the main Act were omitted.

I wish this little Bill well. It is the right form of legislation to take a great Act and modify it as time goes on. I pay tribute to that great Act. It is not only a great Act, but a great act of planning to which some of the immature planners, of whom we hear so much, might pay attention.

Administrative experience and various changes have shown that there were a few loose ends in the great Act,—and I quite agree that it was a great Act—and this is the second little Bill introduced to tie up those loose ends. With most of the provisions of this Measure educationists throughout the country will be in wholehearted agreement. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in congratulating the Minister and the. Parliamentary Secretary on the skill and grace with which they piloted the Bill through a somewhat difficult Committee stage.

One Clause of the Bill is regarded with considerable apprehension by educationists, and another is looked upon with some degree of misgiving. The Clause which says that the normal age of transfer from the junior school to the secondary school should be 10 years and six months, is one which is looked upon with considerable fear by the majority of practising teachers. The junior school has a definite function in our educational system. It is a definite stage in the education of the child, a stage during which he learns to use the tools of knowledge, reading, writing and arithmetic, and to indulge in such activities as are suitable for his age. It would be harmful to the child to curtail the period unduly. Everyone agrees that the proper period for the junior school is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), the years seven to We want a full four years' course for the junior school.

The Bill does not say that the transfer must take place at 10 years six months, but the words "ten years and six months" are in the Bill, and will be taken as a guide by most local education authorities that that is the time at which transfer is desirable. If some local authorities, because of administrative difficulties, find it would make it easier to transfer at 10 years six months, they will seize on that Clause as an excuse for so doing. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett) has argued that it is for the administrative convenience of education authorities that the transfer should take place at 10 years six months. The birthrate has increased lately and junior schools are rather overcrowded. I presume the argument is that we can lessen that overcrowding by pushing the children into the secondary schools. A time may come when the birthrate may fall, and the same argument would be used for keeping the children longer in the junior schools. Apparently they are to be stretched on a sort of Procrustean bed to suit administrative convenience.

Our point of view is that education should not be modified to suit administrative convenience but that administrative convenience should be so used as to promote educational advance. We also fear that if the age of 10 years six months is generally adopted it will have an adverse effect upon the cleverer children who desire to proceed to the grammar school. They will have to take the entrance examination for the grammar school at the age of nine if they are to be admitted at the age of 10 years six months. That is far too early an age for a child to be worried by thoughts of a difficult competitive examination. It is not the work in preparation for the examination which harms the child but the worry about the results of the examination. At home, he is worried by his parents, who are extremely anxious that the child should qualify in this entrance examination to go into the grammar school, because most parents want their children to go into the grammar school rather than to the technical school or the modern school. The child is also pushed by teachers who are anxious, for the prestige of the school, to get as many successful results as possible. I feel it is wrong that a young child, aged nine, should be worried about examination results. It may have a bad effect on his emotional stability in later life.

I know that it is not obligatory for an authority to transfer children at the age of to years six months but the fact that there is that provision in the Bill will be a temptation for authorities to do so. I ask the Minister, with his great powers of control over local education authorities, which the Education Act, 1944, has given him, to exercise that influence and control so that as far as possible the age of 11 or 11 plus and not the age of 10 years 6 months shall, in the case of education authorities generally, be the normal age of transfer.

The other Clause in the Bill which has given rise to a certain amount of apprehension is the Clause which permits the Minister to relax the full rigour of the building regulations. Educationists throughout the country warmly welcomed the building regulations when they were issued by the Ministry for they set, for the first time, a really good standard for school buildings in this country. We know that circumstances have arisen—difficulties of obtaining sites, difficulties of material and labour—which in some instances will prevent those building regulations from being fully carried out. But if there are any relaxations of the building regulations, I hope that the Minister will carefully examine each one that is proposed, will authorise any relaxation with the utmost reluctance, and will review them afterwards as soon as possible, so that this Clause may do as little as possible to lower the fine level of building standards set out in the Ministry's building regulations.

The great obstacle in the way of implementing the Education Act, 1944, is precisely that lack of buildings. I hope that when the Minister has got this little Bill through Parliament, and can devote the whole of his time to his administrative problems, he will utilise every effort and mobilise every resource of technical advice in his Ministry to see whether he cannot devise some prefabricated forms of classroom, some forms of building other than traditional forms, which can be quickly assembled and erected as school buildings. If that is not done it will be many years before the Act of 1944 is implemented as we desire it to be.

In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have already spoken, I congratulate the Minister on having had this Bill improved as it has passed through its various stages. I believe that this Measure, which he well described as a tidying-up Measure, is nevertheless one of great importance, particularly in regard to the effect upon the children in our schools. I would like first to refer to the fact that by the passing of this Bill the Welsh Intermediate Education Act will cease to have effect. That has been a great Act of Parliament, and one which the people of Wales have sought to use to the utmost. Welsh education authorities have given a lead to the rest of the United Kingdom so far as secondary education is concerned.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given us, as he did in Committee, an assurance with regard to the alteration of the building regulations. I remember asking him a question on the Floor of the House concerning the reduction of those building standards. He was then most emphatic in stating that he would seek to maintain the required standard as laid down by the Coalition Government. I hope that we shall not fall away from that standard.

I wish to refer to what I consider to be the major part of this Bill, the issue about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) has already spoken, the fixing of the age of transfer at 10 years six months. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I can hardly hear myself; I do not know how other hon. Members can hear anything. It is sheer bad manners. When my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett) was speaking I thought he was trying to make out a case for not putting in an age at all, because he was most emphatic that we must not try to tie authorities, that we must not try to make them uniform, that we must not say, "We do not care what diffi- culties you have, you must transfer at this given age." None the less, he agreed, for some mysterious reason which he did not give, that 10 years six months is sacrosanct but that 11 years of age is apparently out of the question.

I said that I thought the Minister had gone too far when he suggested 10 years, as it gave too much elbow room. I also said that 11 years did not give the authorities sufficient elbow room but that 10 years six months would give the authorities the sensible amount of elbow room.

Then six months is wrong in one direction but not in the other? My hon. Friend is doing what we are all entitled to do, putting forward his own opinion, but the considered opinion of the teaching profession and of those engaged in the training of these children is diametrically opposed to what my hon. Friend says today. The Minister of Education will know that those to whom will fall the responsibility for training the children who will be transferred to the secondary school have great misgivings and great fears about the possibilities that are here envisaged. We are sentencing the children of the junior schools to cramming and excessive homework in order that they shall be forced through in the necessary time. I know that my right hon. Friend does not want that when he says that he does not want to see this a general age. But none the less this Act does make it possible for local authorities to take power into their own hands, and the junior schools can suffer a very deadly blow. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—whilst I appreciate that he has made a move forward on six months—if he cannot, even now, consider in another place an Amendment which will meet the very deep seated desires of the teaching profession in regard to this question.

I should not have taken part in this Debate at this late hour, had it not been for a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) a few moments ago, when he spoke of the opinion of the teaching profession in this matter of the transference of age. I do not know how he gauges the opinion of the teaching profession, because there are many branches other than that in the junior schools. My concern is similar to the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett), which is to give some latitude to the authorities, and to abolish a good deal of the rigidity which affects the main Act.

During the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) talked a good deal about the preparatory schools and the poise and confidence given to the children in the preparatory schools. Surely, it is well known that children in preparatory schools are taking a grammar school or secondary curriculum long before they are transferred to the public schools. They take French at nine, Latin at ten and higher mathematics. In fact it is exceedingly difficult even for bright children at a grammar school at the age of 12 to pass the common entrance examination to the public schools without special coaching.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in the Debate on the Second Reading put up a very good case for the specially bright child. His actual words were:

"There are children who, at a very early age, we call the exceptionally brainy and intellectual children. Somehow or other we must safeguard them, because we have to safeguard the nation. Brainy children developing into brainy, intellectual adults make a great contribution to the life of the nation; and without them I beg to suggest, without rhetoric, and without a complete development being available to them, the nation will find itself in a very parlous condition in the decades which lie ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Friday, 27th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 2366.]

I agree entirely. My submission is that the bright children are not necessarily the prostrated, over-stressed children. Often they are very fine physically developed children. The children whom we have to safeguard are those whose parents are over anxious and press them from another angle. I think it is a very fine thing to have this extra latitude and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York has said, to leave some elbow room to the authorities and to give them some feeling of responsibility. After all, we are not dealing with a standardised product when we are handling young children. There are many children now in junior schools who are bored with their last year. Some of these are the little imps who come before the juvenile courts, who get into trouble because they are bored. They often become errand boys in the school under the name of prefects, and it is very much better that they should have this chance to get on with their further education. I am certain that this is a very good Amendment which has been incorporated into this Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having accomplished it. The heads of secondary schools, grammar schools and junior schools know their job and how to deal with the children a great deal better than many M.P.'s can tell them, and when they can co-operate sympathetically and intelligently with the local authorities, we are likely to get first-class results.

I would like to thank hon. Members for the very friendly way in which some of the questions on this Bill have been put forward and studied. I would also thank them for their assistance in dealing with what were very difficult and technical matters. It is suggested that this is a much better Bill than it was before. Some doubt was thrown upon the capacity of the individuals responsible for drawing it up, because it had emerged in a different form after a Second Reading. It is suggested that those individuals did not know their job. I would point out that many of these questions—including the very one that has given rise to all the difficulties in the Bill itself—are due to the legalistic language that has to be used, and the difficulty, of interpreting that language, which makes it not an easy task for those responsible for dealing with the problems which have arisen as a result of the passing of an Act of Parliament.

We must not forget that every single one of these Clauses which form the new Bill are, in effect amendments to what were the original Clauses in the Act of 1944. If those who are drawing up these Amendments are to be criticised for not having done their job properly in the first instance, the criticism must go back further, to the people who drew up the Act which rendered this Bill necessary. The fact that we have so many hon. Members who are experienced in administration as well as in Parliamentary procedure has enabled us to send this Bill to what was described as the "secondary school," so far as legislation is concerned—it having passed through its primary stage in this House—in a much better form than it was before.

The question of the age of ten years, six months has been raised again and again, and I do not blame hon. Members for raising it. It has been incorporated into the Bill as a result of an Amendment made to meet what is now the situation. It is not intended to be a guide or a pointer to local education authorities, who are doing their job very well. The fact remains, however, that under the Act of 1944 any individual manager of a school could have prevented any child from being sent to the senior school until he had reached the age of 12. That was the effect of the interpretation of what was a junior scholar. In order, therefore, to make legal what is now the practice it was necessary to introduce this Amendment.

Someone asked why we should not reduce the age at which a child ceases to be a junior student, in the Appendix to the Act itself. The reason is that the age of 12 applies to many other things besides this question of age transfer. The average age of transfer is about 11 years, two months. A child whose birthday falls in such a way that he is promoted from the infants to the junior school late in his seventh year will also be promoted to the secondary school late in his eleventh year. The attempt to bring him within legal practice by introducing the age of 11 would have the effect of increasing the number of those treated exceptionally. There would be no other difference. I hope that this will not affect the present practice among authorities. The aim of the Clause is not to enable authorities to relieve congestion in primary schools by early transfer. If we find that authorities are doing that, we will use all the power we have to prevent it.

The Minister has the power.

If I have the power, then I shall use it. It is important that people should be acting legally rather than illegally in carrying out our intentions. One or two other questions were raised. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), I promised to have another look at Clause 1 to see whether it was possible to introduce words which would reduce the fears of hon. Members who thought that the Minister of Education might become too greedy and swallow up these various charities. I have considered the matter, and I cannot find ways of meeting the real objection put forward. However, I consider that the Amendment which I accepted in Committee upstairs went a long way towards giving the desired assurance.

I am glad that Amendments about the building regulations were accepted. While we are all desirous of retaining the building regulations at a high standard, we must be realistic and face the situation. To safeguard the position not only now, but in the future, it was necessary that the Minister's prerogative in regard to regulations should be limited in the way laid down. Anyone who fears that the Minister might be doing too much does not understand Parliamentary language. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that we were all agreed on the principle. He suggested that one of the difficulties in the administration of this Measure was that we were turning out streams of circulars. There is a Clause in this Bill which abolishes between 50,000 and 60,000 forms. This is the only Bill in which I have been interested which has gone so far. It might be useful if hon. Members would read some of the forms and consider the necessity for them. The object of this Bill was to tidy up the administration of what I believe to be a great Act of Parliament. There are many things which, although small in themselves—for instance, the question of the educable and the ineducable child—are of great importance. I thank hon. Members for the co-operation which they have shown.

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

Despite the limited time at our disposal, I am sure that no one would grudge me a few moments to take the opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to the Merchant Navy. This is the first time in this Parliament that any Measure of this description has been introduced. I think that, to a very small extent, it expresses the deep feeling of gratitude which the people of this country developed as a result of the services of the Merchant Navy during the war. I should like my tribute to cover all ranks. During the war many shipowners served in my Ministry. Their experience and knowledge were invaluable in carrying out the gigantic operations then necessary. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the heroism and endurance of the officers and men. I must confess that I could not rise adequately to the occasion. The fact that the losses of the Merchant Navy amounted to about 30,000 men and tonnage losses amounted to over 10 million tons indicates how great and far reaching were their services.

I am glad to say that the form of co-operation between my Ministry, the shipping industry and the seafarers' unions during the war, has continued. This Bill is an example of that co-operation. It represents complete agreement between all sides of the industry and it comes to this House with general support from the other place. The purpose of the Bill is to enable His Majesty's Government to ratify four of the Conventions adopted at the 28th (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference at Seattle in 1946. The fifth Convention which is dealt with in this Measure is not to be ratified, but I assure the House that although it will be dealt with in the main by regulations, nevertheless, with one or two major exceptions, the purpose of the Convention is being carried out.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen interested in the details will find the particulars of the Conventions and certain resolutions in Command Paper 7273, and the full text of the Conventions in Command Paper 7109. To complete this summary, I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to my former Parliamentary Secretary who is now Minister of Supply. He did a very good job of work at Seattle in bringing the Conference to a successful conclusion. I also wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to the late Mr. Charles Jarman who was then secretary of the National Union of Seamen. His devotion to the cause of seamen and his experience enabled him to bring to bear a practical mind on matters of this character. He made a direct contribution to the success of the International Conference at Seattle.

The Measure will enable the Government to ratify four Conventions: food and catering, certification of able seamen, certification of ships' cooks, and social security. It will also substantially apply the provisions of a fifth Convention relating to crew accommodation. To give effect to these Conventions the necessary Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1906 are undertaken in the Bill. I will deal first with the method which we shall adopt regarding crew accommodation and will mention briefly the Clauses dealing with the other four Conventions.

The first four Clauses deal with powers to make regulations. The regulations specify the ships to which they will apply, the procedure of inspection of crew accommodation and the consequential Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Acts. The first four Clauses of the Bill, will, in fact, cover this particular Convention as far as we intend to cover it. Although we are not ratifying the Convention, I should not like the impression to get abroad that the standards of British ships are in any way inferior to the standards which it lays down. As a result of agreement and initiative between the owners and the men in this country, the standards of crew accommodation in British ships are in many respects in advance of the Convention.

The main reason we do not feel able to ratify the Convention—a reason which has the support of both sides of the industry—is that one provision specifies that not more than four deckhands or four engine-room ratings should be accommodated in a single room. In the case of our large passenger liners that provision, if carried out, would have the effect of depriving a large proportion of the crew of ventilation and lighting. It is a practical difficulty of that kind which prevents our ratifying the Convention although, in view of the regulations that will eventually be put into operation, both sides of the industry are satisfied that we shall go as far as is necessary.

The food and catering Convention, which we propose to ratify, needs no new legislative proposal and will be more or less taken up and covered by the regulations dealing with the problem of crew accommodation. Clause 5 deals with the certification of able seamen, which is now granted on the basis of three years' service. Under the Convention a proficiency test will now be applied and this is covered by Clause 5. The certification for ships' crews, in Clause 6, at present applies to foreign-going vessels of 1, 000 gross tons or more. Under the present arrangement they are covered by certificates of competency issued by the Minister of Transport and Clause 6, as far as the Convention is concerned, will enable the Minister by Order in Council to cover other classes of ships as cases occur, and by agreement and discussion from time to time with both sides of the industry.

Clause 7 covers the Convention on social security. With one exception, the provisions of that Convention are more or less embraced in our existing laws, particularly in the National Insurance Act which comes into operation next July and by industrial agreements. The one main difference is the imposition of an additional legal liability on the shipowner when a sick or injured seaman is left abroad. The liability of the shipowner, which now extends until the seaman is cured will in future extend until the seaman obtains employment or is repatriated. Clause 9 enables the Minister by Order in Council to extend to other countries under His Majesty's jurisdiction the various provisions of the Convention.

I refer now to the dates and method of the bringing into force of these Conventions should Parliament give the Government the necessary authority. Clause 10 gives the Minister latitude to determine the date of the bringing into force of the various Conventions. While the British shipping industry is anxious to lead in these matters, both sides of the industry, as well as the Ministry of Transport, take the commonsense view that we must not unduly permit ourselves to be governed by international Conventions unless they are endorsed by a sufficient number of other maritime countries to establish some form of reasonable international standard. Therefore, the Minister will be able to satisfy himself on each particular Convention that a sufficient number of member States have also agreed to ratify and that they represent a sufficient tonnage of shipping to make the Convention effective as a competitive factor.

While adopting that precaution, we do not want to limit in any way the power and capacity of the shipping industry, with the Ministry of Transport, to take the lead and initiative on these matters, as we very often do. If at any time the Minister is satisfied, after consulation with both sides, that the industry is willing, and that circumstances are reasonable, he may ratify any of these Conventions where we have secured the agreement of a sufficient number of States representing a sufficient gross tonnage.

The Bill, which is not a very large Measure in itself, arises from the first major I.L.O. discussions on maritime affairs since the war. I am sure that all sides of the House will give generous support in getting this Measure through so that the Government and the British shipping industry can take the lead in international standards in the future as they have in the past.

I can assure the Minister that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. Indeed, it is rather refreshing in the present world situation to be discussing something in which there has been so large a degree of international agreement. All the same, it is typical of the high traditions of this Service and industry that the discussions at Seattle should have been so friendly and should have shown so much good will towards the officers and men of this great Service. I should like to add my congratulations, on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, to the congratulations which the Minister of Transport extended to his right hon. Friend the present Minister of Supply, who led the United Kingdom Delegation at Seattle with considerable skill. I should like also to congratulate the other Members of the delegation who played a very conspicuous part at that Conference.

This Bill gives us a chance of remembering—and I think we should welcome the opportunity of remembering—that we are dealing with an industry in which the relations between the owners, the officers and the men have been exceptional. That is the case today, and it has been so in the past. I think I am right in saying that, except for the brief but unofficial strike on Merseyside last October, there has not been a dispute for 36 years which has even led to arbitration, and during the long period going back to before the 1914 war official strikes have been unknown. That is a very remarkable record. It seems to us to be confirmation of those happy relations which the Minister mentioned, and to which I have referred, which exist between the owners and the men who man their ships, and of the improved conditions afloat, that of the nine Conventions agreed at Seattle the Government have found it necessary to legislate only for four.

The fact that this Bill is so small is proof in itself that the majority of the recommendations of the international Conference, if not in operation already, are capable of being carried out by the National Maritime Board within the framework of the existing Merchant Shipping Acts. While we have every right to be proud of the high standard of the British Merchant Navy, it is important, especially from the employment point of view, that international Conventions should not be ratified by the United Kingdom Government when they are not ratified by other countries possessing a sufficient volume of shipping to deprive our own ships of their share of the world's trade.

This House should not forget that the terms of ratification have already been reduced from what were considered necessary by the United Kingdom Delegation when they went to Seattle for this Conference in the interests of British shipping. In the case of Convention No. 75, which is covered by the first three Clauses of the Bill, and which deals with accommodation for members of the crew, I think the Delegation went too far in the con- cession which they made. The concession was that it was necessary for only seven countries instead of nine to ratify the Convention to enable it to come into operation. If we accept operating conditions more onerous to our shipowners than those of foreign countries, the result can only be a loss of business, which in itself will destroy the stability of employment in the industry.

Therefore, from everybody's point of view, it is no good agreeing to make the standard of conditions so stringent that a high level of employment cannot be maintained in the industry. I hope the Government will see that in future we do not go any further in concessions of this kind, which not only make conditions hard for the industry but which will affect employment of the men in the industry itself. We lead the world, as indeed as we have always done, in the quality of our ships, in the skill of our crews and in the conditions of their service, but it is no less important that we should continue to be in the forefront in the volume of trade which we carry.

We particularly welcome Clause 5 which provides for promotion to the rate of able seaman by merit rather than by length of service. We agree with the statement made in another place by a Government spokesman that it is a reform long overdue, and it can only result in raising the status of the men and the efficiency of the Service. It is only fair to the industry in general to say that the social security provision in Clause 7 for the maintenance of men in ports abroad after illness does no more than—and the Minister made this point himself—confirm very largely a voluntary agreement already in operation. I agree with the Minister that there is an advance in the Bill on what up to now has been a really satisfactory agreement in the industry itself. The remainder of the Bill is mainly administrative, and does not seem to require any further comment from me.

On behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, I should like to say that both the owners and the men deserve our warmest congratulation not only for the trust which they have shown in each other, which is evident throughout this Bill, but for the co-operation which they have shown at all times on the National Maritime Board. It would be a fitting tribute to those who serve in the Merchant Navy if the reward for their heroism and self-sacrifice during the war years were to show the postwar world, by their example, the way to international good will as well as to industrial peace.

Therefore, we on this side of the House give our blessing to this Bill—or perhaps I can more fairly call it this child of the industry itself. We believe that it will give to the shipping industry a still greater opportunity to play its part in the recovery of our seaborne trade and of our national prosperity.

Having spent 30 years at sea in the Royal Navy, I should like to take the first opportunity of supporting the Minister and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) in their tributes to the Merchant Navy for its services in the war. Time is short, and therefore I must confine that part of my remarks to one sentence.

As the representative of East Hull, which includes the docks area of the third largest port in the country, I welcome this Bill as the first attempt of this great Labour Government to improve the lot of the merchant seamen and the other members of the crews. I think it should not be unduly long before a Bill is introduced to deal with the whole of the Merchant Shipping Acts, a large number of which are overdue for reform, and need bringing up to date. That can only be done by large-scale legislation. Hon. Members opposite have owner interests, although I do not say anything against them for that. They may have been born into it, and not have walked into it by choice, but it is unfortunate that on this side of the House there are no actual representatives of the crews—that is to say, there is no representative of the National Union of Seamen—to give their actual experiences. Nevertheless, hon. Members on this side will at all times see to it that their case is fully represented.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Hereford that the fear of losing traffic as a result of making conditions more onerous for our ship owners is exaggerated. We ought to lead the world not only in trade, not only in ships, but also in accommodation and other reforms for our crews. We are all agreed on that, but apparently there may be some slight difference of opinion as to how far we should go. I want to say to hon. Members opposite that the merchant seaman's life is one of the most hazardous and most uncomfortable in the world and, moreover, he probably spends a longer time away from his family than anyone else. There is little or no privacy in a merchant ship. Conditions are bad enough in a warship, where steps can be taken to have cinemas and various other things to improve the crew's conditions. I say frankly that the conditions of the crews in a number of our ships still lag behind those in American and Scandinavian ships and the ships of other more progressive countries.

Turning to this question of not being able to reduce to four the number of ratings accommodated in a room, because of lack of ventilation and natural light, there is something in that argument; but if, when those ships were being designed, more concern had been given to this aspect, to see whether it is not possible to give them accommodation for feeding with natural light and ventilation, such facilities could have been provided for them. Too often in the past the construction of a ship has been decided in terms of cargoes or passengers, and the crews' spaces have been fitted into any odd corner which was left. Often the larger the ship the less suitable was the accommodation. In some of the medium-class ships the crew are much better off.

This Bill deals with crew accommodation, food, catering and other things which, omitting pay, are the main factors of the seamen's life at sea, and everything should be done to improve them in new construction. I realise that the industry has that in mind. I want to make a plea this afternoon for improvements in existing ships, because the argument that there is no room for them, and that space cannot be found, is just nonsense. When it was a question of defence in the war, and it was necessary to find positions for guns and other defensive equipment, space for ammunition and other requirements, the space could be found. Similarly, when these ships which are of a low standard are in for refit, improvements in conditions should be taken in hand. It is not only a ques- tion of living and sleeping accommodation, but also of very poor bathing facilities and awful sanitary accommodation. There are some cases where conditions are so bad that no one else would put up with them, in the way in which our merchant seamen have put up with them; and they would not have accepted them but for the fact that it is a seaman's privilege to grumble and carry on.

I hope that the hon. Member for Hereford will realise when he stresses, as he rightly did, the good relationship in the industry and the fact that there have been no strikes, that it is not because the conditions have not warranted strikes. They have warranted strikes. One of the difficulties of organisation in this industry from the crew's point of view is that they are always on the move and are consequently difficult to organise. I would like here, as the Minister did, to pay tribute to the late Mr. C. Jarman, who did so much for the merchant seamen and the other branches. When I use the word "seaman" today I want it to be understood that it is inclusive of all members of the crew.

I do not want hon. Members opposite to run away with the idea that because there has been no trouble "everything in the garden has been lovely." I am not going to give any indication.of what may happen in the future because, particularly with a Labour Government in power, and with the present Minister of Transport, who are both out to see that the crews' conditions are looked after, I hope owners will be sufficiently sensible to see that they have to advance with the times rather than to lag behind.

The next point is the certification of able seamen and also of ships' cooks. As has been said, that is an advantage. The able seaman in the Merchant Service is a trained man and he should have something by which to show his capabilities. In the same way the fact that cooks for the smaller ships have to be certificated, is, a reform that is long overdue. The old idea that anybody could go to sea as a cook and murder the seamen's food has, I think, gone forever. It is no good my worthy friends the owners providing good food if they have incompetent cooks who murder the food so that the men cannot eat it. What the men wish to have is good food properly cooked.

As to social security, it may well be that men left ashore in hospital have been looked after by progressive owners, but in future such action will be compulsory and there will be none of the cases such as those that I dealt with during the Spanish civil war, where ships went into port, left men ashore in hospital and made no arrangements for their welfare and pay when they came out of hospital, during the time they were waiting for a ship to return to England.

Other hon. Members wish to speak in this Debate and I will take up no more time. I congratulate the Minister on being able to get this Bill into the legislative list and before the House. I hope it will have a speedy passage and be the forerunner of further Bills which will improve the lot of the merchant seamen, to whom we owe so much.

I think I understood from the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) that Members on his side of the House would watch the interests of the merchant seamen. May I say that we on this side will do the same? The other point he made to which I think I should refer is that on the subject of the owners. Perhaps the House would like to put on record that in 1936 the shipowners took the initiative and submitted to the Board of Trade a series of proposals. Effect was eventually given to these in 1937 by the Board of Trade and they were officially described as "second to none." The recorded view of the National Union of Seamen was as follows:

"The new Regulations may be termed almost revolutionary in character and mark a great advance in providing comfort, if not luxury, for crews in new vessels and existing vessels wherever the necessary alterations are practicable."

May I add my welcome to this Bill which, as the Minister himself has told us and as is stated in Clause 10, is an enabling Bill, to enable action to be taken when the other ratifications have been made? I feel that nobody in this House, of whatever party, could possibly fail to welcome a Bill which deals with the Merchant Navy and questions of crew accommodation, food and catering, social security, certification of ships' cooks and certification of able seamen. In connection with this last point may I echo a word of warning, which I think was given in another place, that the Minister should be very careful if regulations are made laying down the percentage of able seamen to be carried in certain classes of ships? As during the last war, when we were particularly short of manpower, we might find ourselves in a most difficult position.

There is another point not really covered by the Bill and that has to do with construction. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer Lo it for one moment. The Minister may remember in the last war the amount of time, dockyard space and labour that was wasted at a time when we needed all of it—wasted in con versions to special purposes, ships to carry special heavy cargoes, and for employment in connection with Combined Operations—to carry tanks, for instance. I do think that that should be borne in mind because as in the Royal Navy it is said that the ship of the future may not yet be known, so there may possibly be some changes in the design of merchant ships. I need refer only to personnel landing ships and ships for carrying and landing vehicles, and that type of vessel.

Tributes have been paid to the Merchant Navy, and I should like to add mine. Although I cannot claim quite so long service at sea as the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull, I had in the last war quite a lot of experience of the Merchant Navy in the ocean convoys, including those to North Russia and Malta, and in some of the little convoys sailing around the coasts of this country which, perhaps, have not had as much publicity as some of the others. In 1941 I was on the run from the South Coast to the Thames, when many ships, coasters, used to carry coal from Newcastle to the South coast, and so saved most valuable carriage capacity on our overloaded railways. In those little convoys we were nearly always the same teams of ships which, in addition to running the risk of the conventional forms of attack by the enemy in passing through the Channel past Dover, ran the gauntlet of the fire from the long-range guns at Cap Gris Nez.

I remember—I always shall—how a little coaster had a near miss, and how she seemed to disappear in a cloud of sparks, coal-dust and water. When it cleared again, there she was, plodding along at exactly the same speed as she was before. A destroyer went up alongside and called her through the loud-hailing equipment, and asked, "Do you want a doctor?" The reply was, "No, but we could do with a bottle of whisky!" I am sure the House will realise that the attitude of the crews of the Merchant Navy was not just sheer bravado; they all knew when going back to sea what they would have to face, but there was never any hesitancy.

I think that at the end of the last war—and I feel my father, who served as Commander-in-Chief of the Western Approaches for sometime would bear me out—the relationship between the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy was probably as high and a, friendly as it had ever been. A great many of the misunderstandings and suspicions of both sides had been removed. I hope very much that on that foundation these good relations will continue to grow in the spirit of the great maritime nation that we are.

I rise to express my gratification that this Bill has been brought forward, and to welcome it. Speaking as one who has had some experience of service in the Merchant Navy, I feel that by this Bill today we are taking a great step forward in the way of improving the conditions of the Merchant Service. I must express a little disappointment at the fact that the Bill has been brought forward on a Friday. I should have liked it to have been before the House on a day when more adequate discussion could be given to it. After all, we spent some time recently discussing how to cook a herring, and yet we are to spend only a short time in discussing improvements in our great shipping industry. When one realises the great service that was performed in the 1914–18 war and in the last war by the officers and men of the Merchant Service, and when we have the opportunity of doing something to honour those who have performed so much in the service of the country, one feels that anything we can do to effect improvements in the Merchant Navy, must have the fullest and heartiest support of all hon. Members of this House.

I was happy in my service in the Merchant Navy in having reasonably comfortable quarters aft the ship, but I used to think of my colleagues who had to sleep forward, the engine room and the deck staffs, and of how closely confined they were together "in such a small space. I always thought that if there should be a collision they would be the first to be in danger. For many years the seamen have expressed their desire for improvements, and have sought them through their associations. I sometimes feel a little despondent when I remember the 1914–18 war, and realise what happened to the men who served when I did, and the luck they had after that war.

When the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) raised the question of the competition between our merchant marine and foreign merchant navies, and how that must be closely watched, I rather gathered he was hinting that at some time we should have to consider some reduction in seamen's wages. He may not have meant that. Perhaps, he did not. However, that was the impression in my mind. While he was speaking I remembered how, after the war of 1914–18, the wages of the merchant seamen went gradually down and down. I can speak from experience, because so many of our merchant seamen live in the constituency I represent, and I remember their conditions, and how they fell out of employment, and how even those who were fortunate enough to secure a voyage were, nevertheless, forced into such a position that the board of guardians had to make up their wages to assist their families at home, so that they could have a decent subsistence. I challenge contradiction on that.

I think of the struggles of that period. When I do I am apprehensive about the future. Although it is now three years since the war ended, and although there is not any sign of those misfortunes recurring now, yet I feel that, unless we focus attention on conditions in the shipping industry, and unless we are determined, each and every Member of the House, no matter to what party he belongs, to see that those misfortunes do not recur, there is the danger that they may. I hope also that there will be no pressure of factors which will compel the ship owners to take up such an attitude. I have great admiration for a number of the large companies, which I know well, and many of them do their best for their employees.

Finally, we must pay more attention to our coastwise shipping industry, the conditions of which are deplorable. After finishing a four or eight hour shift, men have to cook their own food. We should pay more attention to that and bring in further legislation to improve their lot. I believe this Bill will go a long way towards doing that, and so I welcome it, but I hope that it will not be long before further legislation will be introduced which, once and for all will abolish the old Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, and give us one comprehensive Measure which will be of benefit to the industry.

I am pleased to find myself on the same side as the Minister, having spent a large part of last year arguing a good many other subjects with him on another Bill. There are one or two points that have been made today on which I would like to touch. The hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) referred, understandably, to the extremely difficult days between the wars when so many seamen were out of work. May I assure him that everyone in the industry, on the owners' side as well, felt strongly about it throughout the period, but it must be recognised that shipping is subject to all the fluctuations in world trade. Every one of us hopes, with all the efforts being made through the policies for full employment throughout the world, and the efforts of the Havana Conference, to see that we do not fall back into world depression, that world shipping, and British shipping above all, will continue on a much steadier line than was possible in the past. I can assure the hon. Member that owners, particularly tramp owners, were racking their brains throughout that period to find voyages to, any corner of the world which would keep their men at sea. There can be nothing worse from the owners' or the industry's point of view than to have men drifting away from the sea, and we hope sincerely that will never happen again.

The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) seemed to be sympathising with hon. Members on this side of the House who have been born into or have drifted into ship owning. I am one of those who was born into it, and may I assure him that I cannot imagine any finer or more interesting industry with which to be connected. It has everything that is of interest and, from the British point of view, it brings one into touch with the finest traits in British character. To work with the men, masters and others, is immensely encouraging at all times, because every one connected with the industry is of necessity exercising the maximum of ingenuity and enterprise in everything they do; whether it is the owner, trying to think out a new design for a ship with a ship builder, or a master trying to get through a hurricane, the same tradition of enterprise and initiative is there which we must have if we are to keep the British Merchant Marine in the forefront of events in the future.

There is one remark of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull which I would like to put into proper perspective. I think he hinted that a possible reason why there had been no strikes throughout that long period in shipping was the fact than men were scattered all over the world, and that it was not easy to organise them. That is really rather a misleading thing to say because, looking at the experience of other countries where precisely similar conditions prevail, there are few other countries with the same record. It must be realised that for many years past there has been a steady, useful co-operation in the discussions between employers and unions through the National Maritime Board. While each side has had certain strong views to express, and has argued these views strongly, the ultimate objective of both sides has always been the progress of the British Merchant Marine. That, above all, has been what has produced this very good feeling over this long period.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, may I say that I agree with him. I only wanted to make the point that the reason why there has not been trouble in the industry did not necessarily mean that there had not been cause for it. The cause has been there but, first, because of the difficulty of organisation and, secondly, because of the tolerance on their part, the men have not taken strike action. I do not want it to go out that because there had not been any trouble, there was no justification for any trouble.

I think the hon. and gallant Member has fallen into the same heresy again because he has emphasised the lack of organisation, and I have just been saying that if that was the primary reason, what about all the other countries which have had much trouble with strikes? I agree, however, that there have been bad conditions, certainly in older ships. We must realise that one of the difficulties in keeping ships up to the best modern standards is that, once a ship is built, it is extremely difficult to alter her in any substantial way, particularly as regards accommodation, and the British seaman himself—I am not talking of his politics—is apt to be conservative-minded.

I remember well, when the firm with which I am connected was building some new ships, we were contemplating whether we should try to arrange accommodation in the poop or amidships in place of the old foc'sle up in the bows. We first talked about it with the local union representatives and, after that, we discussed it with any seamen whose ships were in port. There was a marked difference of view among the men. Some of them said, "If we go off to the poop there is the propeller, and that is not much fun when the propeller comes out of the water underneath you every time a wave goes under the ship." When we came to consider amidships, there were difficult problems of ventilation. The accommodation is near the engine room, and if the ship is trading in warm climates, there is a great problem in keeping the accommodation cool enough. So there are many balancing factors in trying to arrive at the ideal. My own hope is that, with improved efficiency of engines and hull and reduced consumption, even with coal bunkers, we shall be able to get accommodation ultimately amidships because that is the best place for it, particularly from the point of view of cooking, to which the hon. and gallant Member also referred.

I will close with one word of tribute to Mr. Jarman. Many years ago I was privileged to serve with him on a local panel of the Maritime Board in Glasgow. We had some magnificent arguments and Mr. Jarman fought valiantly for what he believed to be right. We fought equally valiantly, and I do not recall any occasion when, out of those discussions, did not come a conclusion which both sides were completely convinced was right, and the industry owes a great debt of gratitude to the work of Mr. Jarman during his years of organisation.

It is difficult to avoid recalling that the National Maritime Board, which has been so much responsible for the steady progress of the industry, came into existence only through my own father's efforts during the last war. My father is still alive and is in his 91st year, and I know that the Bill will give him great satisfaction, because it is fulfilling upon an international scale much of the work in which he took part himself.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which repays a very small part of the debt which we owe to the Merchant Navy. I, too, regret that the Bill is taken on a Friday afternoon when time is limited and the attendance is small. A good deal has been said during the Debate about the debt that we owe to the Merchant Navy in peace and in war. Too much cannot be said about it. It is a truism to say that without the Merchant Navy we could not have won the war, and I think I am right in saying that during the war no ship ever failed to go to sea for lack of a crew.

I speak with special interest in this matter, because the two harbour boroughs, North and South Shields, one of which I represent, suffered as much as any other port from Merchant Navy losses. In peace the Merchant Navy is as important as any other industry in the country and we must have enough men of the right type, which means that we must offer them good conditions. This depends to a very large extent upon the work of the seamen's organisations and the co-operation of the owners. But, it also depends upon legislation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) in hoping that this Bill is only the forerunner of a bigger Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts and to bring them up to date. We hope that this Bill and the bigger Bill forthcoming will provide much better conditions in the Merchant Navy than existed there before the war.

I particularly welcome that part of Clause 2 which improves accommodation in existing ships. New ships and ships being built are much better in this respect than old ships, many of which leave much to be desired. The Clause gives the Minis- ter power to bring older ships up to standard and I hope he will use it to the greatest possible extent. On Clause 6 I need only echo what has already been said —we can have very good food but we can ruin it by bad cooking. Anything which improves the standard of cooking in the Merchant Navy will be very much appreciated.

The coming into operation of this Act depends very largely on the action of other countries. I hope that everything possible will be done through the International Labour Organisation to speed up ratification by other countries and that where we can without risk take unilateral action, we shall do so. I appreciate the danger of going too far ahead but we can take unilateral action to some extent, and as the Bill makes provision for that, I hope we shall do so.

As to the Conventions agreed to at Seattle which are not included in this Bill, while I fully understand that it is not possible to ratify some which are contrary to our practice here, that is, 72, dealing with vacation holidays, and 71, with pensions, it has been decided not to ratify convention 75 which deals with accommodation. According to the White Paper, that decision is taken on the basis of what appears to be a comparatively small disagreement relating to the number of men who can be accommodated in one room. I fully appreciate that we shall carry out the remainder of this convention in practice but my worry is that if we fail to ratify it, we may hold up the coming into force of the convention itself because the implementation of the convention depends upon ratification by seven countries. If we fail to give ratification, that is one from that total, and I am afraid that by withholding our ratification, although in fact we carry out the convention, we may hold up the coming into operation of the convention.

I hope some means will be found whereby we can ratify the convention without going contrary to the agreements and wishes of the National Maritime Board. If we fail to ratify and thus hold up the implementation of the convention, we may suffer from the undercutting of other countries. Good conditions in the British Merchant Navy depend very largely on international agreement and this Bill is a small step in the direction of securing that agreement.

For many years I lived with and came into daily contact with merchant seamen and on very many occasions I had to deal with subjects which agitated them and brought them before the courts. I would not say that the suggestion that merchant seamen have nothing to complain about or would not have taken certain action had they been constituted otherwise than they are, is correct. The important point about the merchant seaman is that he is one of the best kind of workmen it is possible to get. He grumbles, but I believe he invariably puts first the interests of his own industry and of the country. We ought not to take advantage of that, but on the contrary we ought to do everything we possibly can to remedy the grievances under which he labours.

I have said that I have come across the merchant seaman when he is in trouble. I believe that much of that trouble is due to the fact that the Merchant Shipping Acts want consolidating and improving. There are many Sections in these Acts—I do not propose to go into them this afternoon—which are out of date, and there are many provisions that ought to be made for the welfare and comfort of the seamen and which should be incorporated in a new Merchant Shipping Act.

There has been a good deal of talk about bringing these Acts up to date, but in point of fact, it is correct to say that a certain amount of modernising is necessary to bring the Acts into conformity with present practices.

There have been improvements but I might make my point by giving an example to this House of what happened on one occasion. The food on board a ship was particularly bad or badly cooked. The sailors went ashore at Port Elizabeth and they did their best to effect some remedy. They approached the agent of the shipping company and actually took some of the food and put it on his desk. They were told to clear the food out as it looked horrible. They then complained to the captain that the food was not fit for a dog to eat. From the evidence it appeared that it was not very fit even for a dog and it certainly was not fit for a human being to eat The master informed these men that if they continued the voyage he would get them better food and that no action would be taken against them in respect of the matter. However, as soon as they arrived in port proceedings were taken against the men under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. It appears that in some circumstances the assurance of a master cannot be accepted. This illustration shows that the present Acts are not suitable for certain maritime purposes. That type of example could be multiplied ad nauseam.

I am very pleased that the Labour Government, in spite of the tremendous amount of work they have on hand, have seen fit to take a lead in this matter so that the other countries which are concerned with these conventions shall realise that we consider them of importance. I do not think the matters contained in this Bill are of tremendous size, but they are an indication that we are serious about the Conventions and that we propose to tell the rest of the world that we are prepared to go on with the job and that they must follow suit. Mr. Jarman, whom I knew personally, and his predecessors in the National Union of Seamen have, together with the full personnel and officers of the union, served a useful purpose in the affairs of the seamen of this country right from the union's inception. They are very pleased that this subject is being taken up.

I should like to pay my tribute to the services rendered by this excellent set of men, the Merchant Service, who in spite of their justifiable complaints continued their services so splendidly to this nation throughout the war, and what is more important are continuing their services in a similar manner in peace time. Sometimes they work under conditions which no others would tolerate, but they do it in order to help to advance the interests of our nation. I hope this Bill is only the commencement of what is to be done in remedying difficulties under which seamen suffer. I hope my right hon. Friend will say that, in spite of the heavy legislation we have before us, and in spite of the heavy legislation with which we have already dealt, he will consider introducing a new Merchant Shipping Bill to consolidate and improve considerably the present Acts. They are very complicated, and, although codified, they are not very easy for the average seaman to understand.

Or the average lawyer.

Or the average lawyer. I hope iffy right hon. Friend will produce such a Measure, and will also pay regard to the facts which have been brought to his notice, in the course of this Debate.

Everyone will welcome this Bill as one step forward in improving the conditions of the men in the Mercantile Marine. But let us be clear about the Bill. The majority of shipping firms are not just coming up to this standard, but are ahead of it. During the war I saw a tremendous amount of this state of affairs. Probably I have been on board more merchant ships than anyone else in this House. I have seen the way in which the merchant seaman lives his daily life. I had to put naval ratings on board such ships, and sometimes I was horrified at the accommodation which was provided. I remember one ship on which I was arranging to put naval ratings. I asked where the men could wash and the chief officer seemed surprised that they should want to wash. He said, "There is a bathroom." It was far from their accommodation and consisted of a tap under a shower bath. That is a most unsatisfactory way of washing. I had to insist on proper washing accommodation being put in.

That is one extreme, but on the other extreme there are many ships with good accommodation which has been made unpleasant or uncomfortable, not through the fault of the owners or officers, but of the men, for not looking after it. On a great Cunarder the men asked me to see their accommodation. The lavatory was a most objectionable place, all swimming with water and paper. I said, "That is all very well, but whose job is it to clean it?" I looked at the bunks and found the beds untidy and unpleasant. There again, it was the men's fault. Whenever a community of men live together without any women near, the way they look after themselves is intolerable. I do not know whether you ever look into the Members' Smoking Room, Mr. Speaker. In your high position you probably would not. Lady Members occasionally look in. Newspapers are strewn all over the floor, cigarette ash everywhere—hopeless.

Once there is authority, and once there is some form of control, things very much improve. Under Clause 1 there is a possibility of a big fine for the master of the ship, which puts the officers and the master in a very difficult position. They may have to go into the men's quarters and insist on things being done, and the men do not like that. I hope that, in future, the position between the master and the ship's company will be better defined, I am glad to see that something is being done about the cooking. I have always maintained, with some knowledge of the sea, that if a man has a clean, warm bed in which to sleep and good food, I do not pay much attention to the rest of his grievances. Good food is provided by the owners, but the way it is messed up by the cooking is terrible. Let us have good accommodation and good food, and then there will be no complaints.

I would like to express my appreciation of the very good work done by the Minister and the other British representatives who attended the 28th International Labour Conference (Maritime Session) in Seattle. I regret that this Bill is not as comprehensive as it might be. It does not go so far as I would wish. I am sure that the House will agree that the seamen deserve the very best, not only for their services in two wars, but between the wars. Nothing but the best is good enough for them.

I cannot hope to compete with those who have spent so much time at sea. I never have had the honour of serving in the Merchant Navy, but, if I may strike this personal note, I know a good deal about it, because my father spent a considerable time at sea. I know that in his days, and I think in these days, the Merchant Service was called, very properly, the Cinderella of industry. It has not kept pace with industry ashore in any respect, certainly not as regards health, hygiene, hours, wages, food, accommodation, security or contracts of service. I have another claim to say a word on this matter. Some time ago the National Union of Seamen asked me to draft a Bill dealing with the personnel in the Merchant Navy and I did so. That Bill has passed from their hands, and is before the Officers' Union, in the hope that it will secure the support of all sections of the industry, and come before this House, possibly at the instance of the Minister, in a way which will meet with the approval of the House.

I have said that the present Bill does not go far enough. There are a great many aspects of life at sea which should be dealt with, but I suppose in this matter, as in others, we must be thankful for small mercies, and I am glad that the Bill ratifies at least four of the conventions of the International Labour Conference (Maritime Session) at Seattle. In particular, I welcome the manner in which it deals with the certification of ships' cooks. I am informed, on good authority, that there is a great deal of stomach trouble in the Merchant Navy, due, not to bad food, but to the manner in which good food is badly cooked. I welcome that provision. I also welcome the one dealing with the social security of seafarers. It is right that when a seaman falls ill abroad he should have adequate attention, and Clause 7 deals with that matter.

The certification of able seamen is a step in the right direction. I look to the time when there will be a better system of graduation and better opportunities for the cabin boy having in his prospect a master's certificate, just as a soldier is said to have a marshal's baton in his knapsack. Accommodation, food and catering are attended to in the Bill, and it is right that they should be. It is right that every care should be taken. I am hurrying over what I wish to say because time is so short. I content myself with thanking the Minister for this Bill and expressing the hope that he will see his way at a later stage to introduce a fuller Bill which will do greater justice to the Merchant Navy.

I ought to preface my remarks, as I invariably do when Bills dealing with shipping matters are under discussion, by proclaiming once more that I am a ship- owner. In the view of some—perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is one of them—that may be a disqualification, but in the view of others, perhaps more generously minded, the fact that I am a shipowner may lend some little weight to the remarks which I have to make. I do not claim that I am speaking for shipowners or officers of the Merchant Navy or the National Union of Seamen, but as has already been pointed out today, the shipping industry is peculiarly united. Although we may occasionally drop into the jargon of talking about the two sides of the industry, it is much more true to say, or it reflects our views much more accurately when I say, that the two sides of the industry regard themselves rather more as partners in the industry and not as opponents within its ranks. I believe, therefore, that while I speak for my party, anything I may say will not be in conflict with the views either of shipowners or of officers and seamen.

I am glad that we have not had this afternoon a repetition of the sort of flamboyant "tosh" which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) used to address to the House in pre-war shipping Debates, or the rather pernicious invective with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) used to try to stir up strife within the industry. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull is, of course, quite right when he says that there have on occasion been causes for disputes within the industry, but one of the facts in which we all take pride in that industry is that those disputes never have to go to arbitration, never go before a court of inquiry, but are invariably settled by negotiation within the industry itself. Both employers and employed have the good fortune to find themselves led by responsible men, the representatives of the employers and the employed who give wise guidance in these negotiations.

Since 1939 there have been numerous tributes paid to the bravery and devotion to duty of the Mercantile Marine during the war. I remember that the last time upon which I spoke in this House on matters relating to shipping—it was very early in the war—I made the claim, of which I was justly proud at the time, that "Ropner's navy" was just about as well known in the Admiralty as that of His Majesty the King. At that time the score stood at two all. The Fleet with which I am connected had sunk two German submarines and had sustained the loss of two ships. But a tragic tale unfolded itself in succeeding years. From a fleet of 47 at the beginning of the war, only nine remained at the end, and 38 were at the bottom of the sea. I have ventured to mention the figures relating to the loss of ships and, even more tragic, the loss of life sustained by one company because I thought that that would illustrate once again the appalling incidence of the loss of men and ships, and the dangers from bombs, submarines, shells, bullets, and fire. All these were dangers cheerfully faced by seamen in addition to the ordinary perils and hazards of the sea. These men and their successors deserve the very best conditions of employment which are practicable and with which can be combined an assured future for the industry.

The provisions of this Bill are based on a number of Conventions adopted at a special Maritime Session of the International Labour Organisation. I repeat what has been said already by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) and other hon. Members on this side of the House, that we welcome this Bill; but I would like to issue a few words of warning. I suggest that the Government should not be in too much of a hurry to ratify or to bring into force all Conventions adopted by conferences of this sort. In fact, I think that the Government appreciate the danger for, of the nine Conventions adopted at Seattle, the Government in this Bill are asking the House to clear the ground for the ratification and bringing into effect of only four.

Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to explain wherein I think the danger lies in precipitate and what may well be almost unilateral action. It has been pointed out—and I will not dwell upon it for it is self-evident—that the shipping industry is open to worldwide competition and that, in times of low freights, British shipping may be handicapped if the cost of running British vessels far exceeds the cost of running foreign vessels. If this country goes too far or proceeds too quickly in advancing the costs of operating vessels, it may well be that when bad times return to this industry, as they will sooner or later, we may find ourselves in a position where British ships are tied to the buoys in our rivers and estuaries while foreign ships are able to compete and run at low rates of freight. Even this does not give the complete picture, for other nations have introduced—as they still are and will continue to do—measures of flag discrimination, trade reservation and subsidies to their fleets which will put the British Mercantile Marine in a position of disadvantage.

Moreover, when this Country ratifies such a Convention, the Government intends that its terms should be strictly adhered to; and the shipping industry, as with any other industry affected by similar international agreements, would wish to abide loyally by the terms of the Convention which had been ratified. That is not always so with other countries. In some cases they are not as honest in their intentions and, even if the intentions of their Governments are strictly honest, they are not as able to enforce the Conventions on their nationals. We on this side, however, realise that international Conventions, if genuinely accepted by all maritime nations, would tend to eradicate unfair foreign competition by bringing the standard of the more backward countries up to the level achieved by British shipping.

There is another danger from over-precipitate action. There is no bar to any member State of the I.L.O. attending one of these maritime conferences, even if it has only a negligible, or even no, mercantile marine. I suggest that the Government should have advocated at Seattle, and should advocate at the next Conference, a change to bring the voting power of nations into relation with their respective responsibilities. I am told that at Seattle seven of the nations represented did not have a total mercantile marine to equal the tonnage of either the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary." A story went around that the fleet of one South American Republic consisted of four ships; one was sold to pay the expenses of the delegation at Seattle; one was chartered to take the delegation to Seattle; and two were kept tied up in a home port in case they sank; so that the delegation could claim that their country owned a fleet. The House will recognise that voting is at present widely divorced from responsibility. The Government should also consider the question of delegations to these conferences being complete and able to express a balanced view. Of the 32 countries represented at Seattle only 23 had a complete delegation.

A most serious mistake was made by the predecessor of the Parliamentary Secretary in allowing this country to be jockeyed into the position of agreeing that these Conventions should be ratified and enforced when only seven nations were taking similar action and only four of which must have a total tonnage of not less than one million tons. The world tonnage is 60 million tons, and it is altogether wrong that Conventions of this sort should be enforced by nations representing as low a figure as 7 per cent. of the tonnage of the world. Of course, I know that if they are ratified and enforced in this country, that 7 per cent. is greatly increased, but surely the whole purpose of Conventions of this sort is to ensure world co-operation. The purpose of the Conference and the utility of the Conventions is, therefore, to a very large extent destroyed when an agreement is entered into providing that they should be enforced, when only a very small proportion of the world's shipping is represented by those nations which enforce them.

We welcome the scheme, and I am sure I am speaking for employers and employed in the industry when I say that we welcome the innovation agreed at Seattle and embodied in the Bill that Conventions can be carried out by national collective agreements as well as by legislation. The consequence of this is that it will now be possible for a government to ratify the Convention and leave it to be applied by collective and effective agreements within the industry itself. I am sure that is within the tradition and practice of the shipping industry, and I wish to congratulate the Government on having effected that very great advance in the procedure of ratifying Conventions.

While I am only too ready to repeat that we welcome this Bill, I do not want the Minister of Transport or the Government, or, indeed, the Labour Party, to get away with any claim that this Bill will bring any direct benefit to the officers or men of the Merchant Navy. The standard already set by British shipping is, for the most part, well in advance of the provisions of this Bill or of the Con- ventions. Let me give an example. I have made inquiries, and although I cannot be completely certain or dogmatic, I believe I should be right in claiming that if the whole of the provisions of the agreement on accommodation were to be brought into effect at once, it would not change in any way the design of any ship building in a British port today. Every ship building is in advance of the Convention. So with social security. The Minister will know that although there is some slight modification, the voluntary act by British shipowners in making the special payment which they have made for some years is almost completely in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. All that the Bill really does is to confirm and endorse an existing practice.

I would like to echo the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor at Seattle. He advanced the view that

"my country will be able to give a lead, as it has clone so often in maritime matters in the past."

It ought to be noted that the lead was-given in the past by private enterprise and under a Conservative Government.

I think that the number of Members—about a dozen—who have taken part in this short Debate has at least demonstrated that it is not necessary to make a long speech in order to make a useful speech. The suggestion of my hon. Friends, the hon. Members for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) and Tynemouth (Miss Colman), that we should have had more time and should not have taken this on a Friday, rather reminded me that in the old days seamen always had an objection to going to sea on a Friday. I do not know whether their objection is a hangover from that, but I want to say that it is a superstition which went by the board a long time ago and nowadays we think we can always send a ship to sea on a Friday; a good many of them go, they come home safe to port at the end of the voyage. I have a feeling, from the send-off which this Bill has had in going out of the river estuary on the first part of its course towards its destination, that we shall bring, this Bill safely through, also, with the aid of both sides of the House.

Most comments that have been made bout this Bill—I can hardly use the word criticism—have been directed to two things. If there was a general thread running through them, these were the main questions: first, the question of accommodation and, second, the question of food and cooking. These two matters were at least mentioned by most hon. Members, as I see from my notes on the speeches running through this Debate. If I may say so respectfully, I think those are two extraordinarily important matters and I am very glad indeed that we have concentrated on them.

I am not entering into competition with the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) as to how many merchant ships we have both been aboard, but I can tell him I have seen quite a few in the last few months. As I was going round one recently, looking at the crew accommodation—it was a new ship—someone said to me, "This is as good as the passengers'." That is as it should be. It should be as good as the passengers get. After all, the passengers live aboard a ship for only a week or two, but these places are the men's homes and they spend five or six months aboard on a voyage to Australia and back. It should, therefore, cause no surprise that the accommodation given to the crew out of which they have to make their homes should be as good as that given to those aboard the ship for a week or two in a journey from one place to another.

I want to emphasise that in the case of many new ships the standard of accommodation which I have seen is extraordinarily good. As the House will know, my first experience of going to sea was in His Majesty's Navy during the war, and that probably set my standards, which are pretty low. I cannot help, therefore, contrasting the accommodation which we had, admittedly during wartime, with some of the accommodation now to be found in these new ships in peacetime, and it is very comforting indeed to see the standards which are being attained. As the hon. and gallant Member for Tyne-mouth very acutely said—

I am not gallant.

The hon. lady is gallant; all women are gallant—the major problem we have, and I think the in- dustry has, is in raising the standard of the existing ships—those ships which have already been launched and are at sea, the construction of which has been already fixed but which require a major refit if they are to be altered. Within the limits set by the original construction, one cannot do a great deal. I am bound to say—and I think this is admitted on all sides of the House—that some of the accommodation in some of our existing ships is very poor indeed. It is nothing of which we can be particularly proud. I feel that we must make every effort to improve that accommodation and, indeed, I am bound to say that I find every disposition on the part of the owners to do so, within the limits which are open to them—limits set by material and shortages of one sort or another.

Our own marine surveyors, as the ships come in for major refit, take them in hand and survey them closely indeed to see what alterations and improvements can be made. I think there is a genuine disposition on every side to make the best of things—and it is a question of making the best—in some of those ships that do not match up in any way with the standards we find in many of our newer ships. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) made that point. I am glad to tell him that, in fact, surveyors are doing the very best they can, in co-operation with the owners.

The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) referred to the difficulty of finding the appropriate place for accommodation for the crew. He told a story which illustrated the difficulty graphically. In looking over some of the new ships I have found that the accommodation is being provided amidships. I think that on the whole, taking the balance of advantages and disadvantages, that is a good part of the ship for crew accommodation, and ratings and the catering staff and the engineers are finding their places amidships. I am sure it is a useful development, indeed.

I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey that the men spoil their accommodation. I would put it the other way. I think that the accommodation with which the men are provided reflects, and reacts upon, the type of men attracted to the service. I think it is the experience of the best of the shipping companies today that they can get the best type of men if they provide the best type of accommodation; and the men look after it; and it is noteworthy that shipowners find they can attract and keep a good type of man if they give him a good type of accommodation.

Will the hon. Gentleman apply that to the Smoking Room of the House of Commons?

I think Members of Parliament are beyond redemption. As to the matter of cooking, I agree with much of the comment that has been made. Those who have suffered from conditions at sea know how important it is to have good food properly cooked, and I am glad hon. Members concentrated on that point. I think we shall be in a position, when this Convention on cooking comes into force, to be able to report some progress. In order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention we shall have to make certain changes. There will have to be a minimum age fixed for a ship's cook and the training period must be extended, too.

According to the present proposals—I must emphasise that these are proposals: they have not yet been finally agreed—our training syllabus will be divided into two parts. First, there will be a course of 10 weeks, of which eight weeks will be devoted to elementary cookery and two weeks to stewards' training. Then there will be a gap of one year's sea service in between. The second part of the course will comprise cooking, instruction in food values, the buying and care of stores, and, sick bay cookery and nursing. When we contrast these proposals with the conditions of the past, I think it will be agreed that, if anything like what is proposed is introduced, we shall indeed see a very great advance in the standards required for ships' cooks in the Merchant Navy.

Of course, it is true to say that a number of ships' galleys now are a delight to enter. Many of them are, of course, run extraordinarily well. It is the general level with which we are concerned. I should like to see improvement particularly in the cooking and provisioning arrangements in coasters, in which, I think, there is room for improvement. This out-of-date and wretched system of the men provisioning themselves, all scrambling round a galley trying to cook their meals, should go. Both sides of the industry are agreed upon it, and I hope they will press on with this reform, which can do a great deal to increase the comfort of the men on board.

Let me emphasise one point which has not been emphasised enough. In the course we are taking in this Bill we are placing ourselves in the forefront of the world because, by its passage, we put ourselves immediately in a position to ratify these Conventions and, as far as I know, only Sweden so far has ratified any Convention at all, and that is the one dealing with crew accommodation. That is extremely important, and it should be recognised that as these Conventions will come into force when a sufficient number of nations have ratified them, we are leading the world in introducing this legislation.

As far as the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) is concerned, I regret that he spoiled a thoughtful contribution by speaking slightingly of past speeches made by two of my right hon. Friends. If he had come to my own constituency before the war and found 40 per cent. of the seamen of Cardiff unemployed, as they were, he would have had some fierce things to say about the position. I am glad we have not gone back to those times in Cardiff and in the other ports of this country, and I trust we never shall. His point about our being wide open to world competition throws into sharp relief, and emphasises the importance of the efforts His Majesty's Government are making in connection with European recovery and in their endeavours at Geneva and Havana to keep up the maximum possible level of world trade. I am glad to have the hon. and gallant Member's support in the Government's efforts in that way because, as he says, it will affect the shipping industry considerably.

He referred also to the voting at conferences and the fact that only seven nations were required to ratify a Convention. He thought it was a mistake made by the Minister of Supply. He certainly said that there must be tonnage ratification as well as a number of the nations and, surely, that is the significant thing here. However, the two Conventions he criticised because seven nations only are required to ratify them are social security —which in this country is above the level of the rest of the world—and crew accommodation, which we are not ratifying anyway, so I do not think that criticism has much force.

I commend this Bill to the House, and I am grateful for the reception it has had.

On 11th March last, the President of the Board of Trade announced in this House what was in fact an excellent agreement with the American film interests in Hollywood. Not only did that agreement save us dollars whilst giving us as many films as we were getting before, but it offered a way of getting British films shown in America. Since that agreement was made there has been a great deal of uninformed criticism on this side of the Atlantic. It must be uninformed criticism because the agreement has not yet been published. There has also been a great deal of misunderstanding of the nature of the terms of the agreement. That is largely due to failure so far to publish the agreement. Bits of it have appeared in England and in America, and particularly in America.

Many American film journals have carried what purported to be the full text and the details of this film agreement. The "Motion Picture Herald" of Hollywood of 20th March published what it called "the full text," stressing the uses that could be made of unremitted sterling. They gave these as being an encouragement to spend without limit on the film industry in Great Britain. None of those publications of the text of the agreement in America had included the principles which are to govern the spending of the unremitted sterling. The provisions in today's "Board of Trade Journal" make it clear that the spending is not to go beyond the limits of fair competition or be otherwise harmful to the legitimate interests of the British film industry. These provisions have all been carefully left out in America.

Hollywood now seems to be settling down to a state of mind that the agreement heralds an invasion of the British film industry. One film paper has already said that 23 films are already planned for production in England at a cost of 30 million dollars. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer are shifting over a number of films already in production from Culver City to Elstree. R.K.O. are trying to get the use of some of Mr. Rank's studios. United Artists are trying to get studios, while Universal films have made an agreement with Mr. Rank for the making of two films here. I understand that 20th Century-Fox are negotiating to buy British studios.

It must be made clear at once whether or not Hollywood is to be allowed to expand production here to an appreciable extent and how far they are to be allowed to expand their production. If that is not done there will be a great deal of bitterness later on. Our own British film industry is already in a somewhat precarious condition and if it is subjected to an invasion of this kind, we may see it collapse altogether. When questions have been asked of the President of the Board of Trade about the possibilities of an invasion of Hollywood into the film industry of this country, he usually answers that he would consider it unfair competition. But we obviously cannot keep Hollywood indefinitely out of empty studios or stop any increase in American film production by subsidiaries in this country of American companies.

We have to get some sort of agreed level at which American production would be allowed to operate each year. When we look at what the American film companies have been doing recently in England we see straight away that they have not done a great deal. In 1938 the only film made by American subsidiaries in England was one by Warner Bros. In 1947, there were only three, and they were by M.G.M. None were made here in 1946. When we are discussing the activities of American subsidiary companies it is well to keep those facts in mind and to see that their production does not get a great deal higher. I would suggest some seven or eight films a year as reasonable. We should not allow companies from Hollywood to invade our industry.

There are other possibilities arising out of the agreement which suggest that even worse things may happen. One of the things which the agreement does is to encourage the Americans to take British films in America because any sum earned by those films in America is allowed to be set off against unremitted sterling in new dollars equivalent to it, and to be transferred to America. Mr. Rank yesterday told the world that there are 28 ways in which American film companies could get their unremitted sterling out of England and into America. I do not believe that there are as many ways as that but possibly there are some ways. For instance, it is quite possible—I would like the President to clear this up—for a British subsidiary of an American film company to make a film here by using unremitted sterling. That film would count towards the British quota. The film could then be exported to America, and any dollars earned there would stay in America and none would come back because the distribution rights have already been bought with unremitted sterling in England.

Again, can an American film company bring over a complete team of stars, directors, and technicians and use British studio space, operating with unremitted sterling, and make a film and send it to America without any dollars coming back here or these dollars counting against unremitted sterling? If both those sugges- tions are correct, there are two large loopholes in the agreement straightaway, which will make it unlikely that the Americans will be as keen as they ought to be on pushing British films in America.

It appears from what has been published about the agreement that no unremitted sterling can be used for film production in England without the prior approval of the Joint Control Committee and it is important to know whether or not this is so. Much will depend on the composition of this Joint Control Committee and the way in which it works. Over the two year period of the first half of the agreement there is certain to be at least £10 million or £11 million of unremitted sterling lying about the country, and that money will be like the money in "Brewster's Millions"—it has to be spent within that period or it will be no good to anyone. Businessmen normally hate watching money disappear, and they will strain every nerve in order to get rid of it and get some value for it. Unless the Joint Control Committee operates at a really high level of statesmanship, every commercial trick imaginable will be tried to get the money out of the country. It is a very great potential danger to Anglo-American relations. First of all, it can embitter the people in this country if the spending is unfair to the British film industry, and, secondly, it can embitter the Americans if they feel that they have after all been tricked and cannot spend the money as freely as they would like. The Government should appoint at least one person to this Committee who has nothing to do with the industry but is of considerable distinction and will aim to see that the unremitted sterling is diverted into other uses than film production.

I hope that the President will make it clear that this unremitted sterling is only to be used as far as films in this country are concerned for buying the distribution rights of British films for circulation in America and not for the buying of studios and starting up new concerns in this country, although of course it can be used up to an agreed level of production in existing studios.

Already one way of buying distribution rights is being tried by an American film company. That is to use its unremitted sterling here for the purpose and then have a contract by which half the profits earned in America come to the British film company and are chalked up against unremitted sterling and the other half stays in America, which is a satisfactory way of dealing with it. It is very important that these matters of interpretation should be cleared up as soon as possible, and particularly that unfair competition should be defined quite clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding about it.

There is also a very important point on the agreement itself about which very little has been said, and that is the commercial uses to which the unremitted sterling can be put apart from things connected with the film industry. The President has already mentioned the hotel industry. Does that mean that the Americans can use their money to invest in real property now and realise their investments later on when the agreement has run its course and collect their dollars? That would be very harmful.

Meanwhile the British film industry has been getting into a very difficult state. Independent production has almost come to a standstill through lack of money. It is, first of all, important that this should be cleared up so that the British film industry may know where it stands. Secondly, it is important that the President of the Board of Trade should make arrangements for the British independent film producer to get finance. Both the ABC and Rank organisation do not care very much about these things because the agreement suits them. It gets them American films and it allows production in England with the co-operation of the Americans. They are not going to give money to the independent producer unless they can control the type of product. That is why we have things like "No Orchids for Miss Blandish" and "Good Time Girl."

Almost every independent producer would leave the Rank and ABC organisations if he could get his money elsewhere. One way in which the Government could raise this money is by persuading the F.C.I. to advance it for the reconstruction of this industry and by creating an instrument by which the money could be fed to independent producers. It is possible that that money may not be obtainable from private enterprise sources. If it is not, I suggest that the President should do the same thing by using the powers given him under Section 2 of the Borrowing Control Act to raise the money for a holding company which could do precisely the same work. There is no particular reason why an advance given to an independent producer should not be quite safe, because the President has a quota which he can fix at a sufficiently high level to make certain that any reasonable British film gets a showing, so that one's money is bound to come back providing the film is at all reasonably made

And it appeals to the public.

Certainly. There has been a great deal of worry and concern in film circles because of serious extravagance by producers. The problem can be met by a checking arrangement whereby directors work for deferred fees and share the profits of the films. This keeps costs down and is designed to make the films cheaper. The total amount of money that the President would be required to raise would not be more than £4 million. The fact of it being available might do away with the need for it, because distributors and exhibitors would see that producers could now get better terms and they would change their own. It is vital that these independent producers, who are capable of making films about England and the English way of life and who do not make imitation Hollywood products, should get their chance. There are strong grounds for supposing there is a popular appeal for this type of film in America, if shown with discretion in selected theatres so that it will earn for us valuable dollars.

My last point is on the question of studios. One of the highest costs in film production is that of rentals, and I suggest that the President should use his powers to take over at least one studio under the Emergency Powers Act. There is one empty now, the British National Studios. Let him take it over and let it out at low rentals which will help to bring down the costs of the others. Some of these studios are empty, because the cost of going into them is altogether too high. I would conclude by saying that it is absolutely vital that the President should see that the agreement is published immediately and that clarification is given on its most important details. He should see at the same time that some arrangements are made on behalf of the independent film producer, and if these things are not done immediately I am afraid that our relations with the American industry are going to be very strained through misunderstanding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has raised a very important subject and one on which I agree with him right away that there is a lot of misunderstanding and indeed misinterpretation at the present time. First, I should like to agree with him that the publication of this agreement which was signed on 12th March, is certainly long overdue. The publication has been held up by the need for a settlement of details between individual American companies. Although there are no details left for settlement which can affect our interest in this matter, there are a number of individual interests over there to be considered. I have this week telegraphed to Mr. Eric Johnston and expressed to him the concern of hon. Members in different parts of the House about this matter and told him I felt it was essential to publish the agreement immediately. As the House knows, we have published in today's Board of Trade Journal a pretty full summary of the main terms of the agreement, including the three overriding principles to which my hon. Friend referred, and which he said had not been published in some of the American journals. I have received a message from Mr. Eric Johnston today in which he agrees that we should publish the full agreement right away.

I hope that will clear up some of the misunderstandings which are due, I think, to rumours of our failure to publish it earlier, although many of the misunderstandings are due to a campaign of misrepresentation in one or two sections of the Press, chiefly those controlled by "His Master's Voice"—I am not referring to the gramophone company—a campaign undertaken purely for political reasons. When one finds "The Express" and "The Daily Worker" agreeing on something, one has to look very carefully at their motives for that agreement.

The agreement does in fact save this country dollars immediately. Instead of paying out 50 million dollars a year—as we have been doing in recent weeks— from June onwards we shall be paying only 17 million dollars. There was no way in which we could have got that reduction from 50 minion to 17 million dollars except by compulsorily closing the cinemas and I am certain that the critics of the agreement would never go on record publicly and politically and say they were in favour of closing our cinemas. If we had waited I think that in course of time the general reluctance of the public to go on seeing re-issues of old films would have gradually led to a closing of the cinemas and it would in the end have stopped the dollar flow. But it would have continued a fairly long time and the unsettlement in the industry, with the prospective closing of the cinemas, would have meant that the first casualty would have been British film production.

At present, the industry is going through fairly serious difficulties and these difficulties have led to a number of studios not being fully utilised. Empty studios at this time are a great tragedy in the industry. In my view they are due to two main things. First, the unsettlement in the industry before the tax agreement was made. As long as there was the tax boycott, and the prospect of cinemas closing, there was no confidence in the industry about embarking upon new production. Second, the financial unsettlement to which my hon. Friend referred. He referred, and I very much agreed with him, to the need, if we are to get full production in our studios, to encourage independent producers to the full, the independent producers who, as he said, are portraying the British way of life on the screen. I know he was not referring there to "No Orchids for Miss Blandish." Owing to the inadequacy of the financial facilities available to independent producers, a number of our studios are at present empty because there were not enough productions ready for them when the studios became available.

I agree with my hon. Friend that some sections of the industry are today unsettled by a fear of an American invasion, to which he referred, which might possibly drive our producers out of some of the studios. I want to correct any impression there may be that there is no longer any need for all-out production. There is full need for all-out production by British producers. I wish to clear up one or two points on the American invasion to which the hon. Member has referred. He asked for details as to how the blocked sterling, which remains available to American producers after the transmission of the 17 million dollars can be spent. I would repeat the three principles of the agreement to which he has referred. These over-riding principles of agreement are:

"(1) That the expenditure of the sterling balances should not create any excessive additional pressure upon the foreign exchange resources of the United Kingdom and the Sterling Area;

(2) That the expenditures for any of the purposes in Schedule A"—

the schedule of purposes in connection with direct film expenditure, film making, and so on—

"shall not be such as to go beyond the limits of fair competition or be otherwise harmful to the legitimate interests of the British film industry; and

(3) That the disposal or use of any sterling balances not expended in accordance with Schedule A"—

that is, not spent on film purposes—

"shall be for purposes which would not damage the productive economy of the United Kingdom or Sterling Area."

The first of these principles, that there should be no undue pressure on the dollar resources, was dealt with by the limitation of dollar outflow to 17 million dollars. The third one, that expenditure outside the film circuits, on hotels and things of that kind, should not he damaging to our national credit, is subject to the control committee which is being established, charged with the operation of the agreement. That control committee, of course, will consist of representatives of the British Government—the Board of Trade and the Treasury—on the one side, and the American motion picture industry on the other.

Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Aston, that it would be useful to have one or two high-powered persons independent of the industry on the committee, I think he would agree that, with this very difficult matter to work out, it is important that we should have someone who not only could represent the views of the British companies, but who knows the ins and outs of the film industry pretty thoroughly, because there are many things which will need careful watching. I propose to appoint one of my high officials to the committee.

So far as the expenditure of the blocked sterling is concerned, that will be subject to the control of the committee and it is, in any case, subject to the maximum expenditure of £2,500,000 in the first two years. We certainly should not like it to be spent on anything detrimental to our export trade. It was the second principle to which the hon. Member chiefly referred, that the expenditure in blocked sterling is not to involve production

"going beyond the limits of fair competition or otherwise harmful to the legitimate interests of the British film industry."

The key to this situation is, of course, studio space. It will be our desire, and has been our undertaking in the agreement, to provide reasonable facilities for American film producers to produce films over here. They have always had these facilities in the past to make films in studios owned by British companies. These reasonable facilities will be continued and it is only right that that should be so. We have laid down—and this was contemplated at the time of the agreement—that we must work according to a programme, and we must have some idea of the total number of American films to be made over here, and confine it to that programme.

There have recently been some extravagant estimates made of the number of American films which are likely to be produced over here. In the discussions leading to the agreement, the figure of something like 12 films a year was freely mentioned by the American representatives and we would attempt to provide facilities up to some such figure. There have been one or two American producers over here trying—in my view attempting to beat the pistol—to rent, buy or lease studio space. We must regard this as contrary to the interests of British film production We have to look at the programme as a whole. We cannot allow studio space here and there to be taken up and then find the total adding up to too much. I have, therefore, informed Mr. Johnston that we cannot agree to the alienation of studio space until the Agreement is published, the control committee set up and we can see the American production programme as a whole. I have informed British producers that we cannot agree to them concluding individual agreements alienating studio space. I have told British film producers and Hollywood that if there is any question of anyone beating the pistol and doing it in an unplanned way outside this programme, I am fully prepared to take powers, if necessary, to prevent the alienation of British studio space to American producers until it can be regulated by this committee.

The idea of this blocked sterling was that it should be used not merely for American production over here but also—and this was a great feature of the negotiations—for the purchase of the distribution rights of British films for showing overseas, particularly in the United States. I hope that if any American producers have been having extravagant ideas of what they were going to produce over here, they will damp them down a little and concentrate more on the other side of the Agreement, the purchase of British films. If the boycott had continued we should have had little dollar earnings indeed. Such earnings were infinitesimal in 1947. There were heavy distribution and capital costs. Now the United States has a vested interest in pushing our films. That will not earn us dollars in the first year or two of the Agreement, but it will give British films a solid foothold in the American market, so that at the end of this period we can count on getting a really big dollar income from the American market. The net drain of dollars after the period of the Agreement must be much lower than it was before 1947. The best way of lowering it is to increase our earnings of dollars over there.

My hon. Friend referred to finance and to empty studios due to the unsettlement to which I have already made referrence, and due to the lack of projects ready for "shooting." I need not tell the House all the difficulties about financing independent production in this country, particularly when dealing with an industry which is at the same time an art.

Before the right hon. Gentleman brings out that point, I am sure he would assent to the proposition that it is desirable that the British and American motion picture industries and exhibitors on both sides of the Atlantic should, in view of the general political position, be on the best possible terms.

I entirely agree, and I hope that the noble Lord will tell that to some of the Press which supports his party.

They do not support me on this.

This industry is dependent upon public demand. It is no use financing productions which the public do not want to see. We are certain that there cannot be distribution guarantees. We cannot contemplate a Government subsidy for film production, and no one would want to see that. I can tell the House that our investigation of this financial problem is now nearly complete, and I am now in a position to say that the arrangements I am making, details of which I hope to be able to announce in a few days, using existing financial and distribution facilities in the industry so as to strengthen them and put them on a sound financial basis, will be such as to provide a means of guaranteeing to every independent producer that if he has a reasonable project and a reasonable budget—we must get costs down here—he will not be prevented from going on by lack of finance. How we are to do that is something into which we are going at the moment. We are going to bring financial resources into this industry to provide finance for the independent producer on a self-liquidating basis, circulating capital which is so much needed in the industry. From then on a good independent producer with a reasonable project need not be prevented from going into production by lack of finance. On that basis I wish to call on the industry to go all out with full production with full confidence that it will have full resources available.