asked His Majesty's Government whether they will cause inquiry to be made into legislation under which agricultural co-operative societies in other countries work, with a view to introducing similar legislation for the protection and encouragement of societies in this country. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may, perhaps, seem rather strange that on a subject of such vital importance as agricultural co-operation I should have put down a Question that admittedly touches only one corner, and that a comparatively small corner, of the whole problem. But I did this because it seems to me that there is at the present moment a very general recognition of the importance and the necessity of helping the co-operative movement.

My Lords, I very strongly welcome, both personally and on behalf of the Department which I represent in your Lordships' House, the Question which has been put upon the Paper by the noble Earl, because it is quite evident that he, fortunately amongst many other young landowners and farmers in this country, is one of those who are beginning to take a very lively interest in what is, after all, one of the chief conditions, if not the chief condition, of a successful and prosperous agriculture in every country in the world at the present time.

I ventured to say yesterday, in the course of my reply to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, that, unfortunately, agriculture is pre-eminently in this country an unsheltered industry. It is obvious that it is impossible, especially in view of its unsheltered condition, for British farmers successfully to compete with co-operatively-produced and marketed agricultural products from other countries unless they are similarly organised themselves, and it is worthy of note that the most serious competition which farmers in this country have to face is in respect of agricultural commodities which are produced under a strict and almost meticulous system of agricultural co-operation. Fas est ab hoste doceri. If, as the noble Earl has pointed out, there is an excessive number of middlemen dealing in agricultural products to the disadvantage of the agricultural producer and the consumers of this country, a defect which has certainly been endorsed by the findings of the Linlithgow Committee—and may I say what a debt of obligation we are under to the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, for his services in this connection?—it is quite clear that the only answer, and the most effective answer, is not so much, if I may say so with deference to the Government of which I am a member, to be found in setting up Food Councils, desirable though that is so far as overseas produce is concerned, but far more in developing agricultural co-operation, for thereby the farmers can achieve their own salvation and indirectly the salvation of the consumer far more effectively than by any other Government-conceived process.

The noble Earl seems to invite some expression of opinion from me as to the extent of the Government's sympathy with the development of co-operation and some statement as to the steps which they are taking to give evidence of their intentions or their sympathy in this respect. The Government are warm friends of the agricultural co-operative movement but, as noble Lords will realise, it is no use whatever imposing a system of co-operation upon the agricultural industry of this country if the farmers do not want it. If and when the farmers are satisfied of the immense advantages to themselves of the adoption of co-operative methods, then, but not till then, will there be a healthy expansion of the co-operative movement in the rural areas of this country. Whenever they take up vigorously the co-operative movement with something like the confidence which inspires the co-operative movement in other competing countries they can count upon full Government encouragement and support.

The noble Earl, in the course of the reasons which he gave for the lack of progress of the co-operative movement in this country, referred incidentally to the existing system of land tenure. I have no doubt that he desired to draw me on this subject, and I am very glad to be drawn, because, whatever defects there may be, or may have been, in this connection as the result of a tendency of farmers to lean for their support in bad times upon their landlords, it is quite obvious that, with the growing impoverishment of the agricultural landowners of this country, that support cannot be relied upon or expected to the same extent in the future. Whatever Governments may do it looks as if the economic trend is going to help in removing this alleged defect, which, according to the noble Earl, is standing in the way of the development of the co-operative movement in this country.

The noble Earl, I think, was not altogether accurate in suggesting that the progress of agricultural co-operation in this country is very unsatisfactory. I think, on the other hand, that there is a distinct improvement in this connection amongst the farming class, and this is more than evident by the fact that the National Farmers' Union, which was by no means sympathetic to agricultural cooperation a few years ago, have taken over what I may call the carriage of the movement from the Agricultural Organisation Society and have recently set up a special committee in order to foster the movement on lines likely to be approved by the farmers themselves.

The noble Earl's first Question—and he has tacked on another question to it, which I am very glad to answer to the best of my ability—is whether inquiry can be made into legislation under which agricultural co-operative societies operate in other countries. I am not quite sure whether anything very effective is to be gained by an elaborate inquiry into, or an exhaustive survey of, this subject, but in any case it is a difficult task to undertake and would involve some time in carrying out. We are fully alive to the importance of collating all available information as to the experience and practice of other countries in this direction. The noble Earl will no doubt be glad to know that a certain amount of material has within the last few months been assembled by the Ministry of Agriculture as a preliminary to making an inquiry of the sort he contemplates in his Question. The Ministry are also approaching the international Institute of Agriculture at Rome, with a view to seeing how far the Institute has gone in the collection of similar material. It may be found that the ground has already been covered, or is likely to be covered, by the Institute in the near future, and if that is so it obviously would be a work of supererogation and an unnecessary expense for the Ministry to undertake the task on their own account. If, on the other hand, we find that the Institute at Rome docs not propose to proceed to a full inquiry, I can assure the noble Earl that the Ministry will pursue the investigations with a view to publishing, if practicable, a compendium of information as one of the series of economic publications which the Ministry now have in hand.

I rather presume that the noble Earl has studied the Red Book which I have in my hand, but if not, I would like to commend it to his notice, because we are given to understand that in publishing this work upon co-operative marketing of agricultural produce in England and Wales, we have presented a more useful and practical survey in relation to the subject in this country than has been achieved by any other country in the world in so short a time. The noble Earl no doubt realises as well as I do that legislative crutches alone cannot keep the agricultural co-operative movement on its feet, and that it must gain and retain its footing on its merits as a method of doing business. He referred, I noticed, to legislation on parts of this subject in certain countries in the world. Well, there is legislation existing, notably in the United States, in Canada and in South Africa, which governs the methods of incorporation and internal administration of co-operative trading organisations. We, as the noble Earl has pointed out, have no special legislation relating to agricultural co-operative organisations, nor, indeed, any legislation which regulates exclusively the incorporation of co-operative organisation or seeks to give the force of law to what are known as co-operative principles, but in some countries legislation has been introduced with special reference to co-operative marketing, notably in the United States and Queensland, and this deals with such questions as the grading and standardisation of supplies as well as the application and forms of membership contracts. On that particular subject I do not know that I can usefully say any more.

The noble Earl referred to the intended grant of £200,000 by way of loan to co-operative societies, especially those which were intended to produce bacon or act as milk depots. As a matter of fact, the Treasury were reluctant to make the full grant of £200,000 and, indeed, there has been no demand for anything like that sum up to recent months, but the sum of £50,000 has been placed in the Ministry's Estimates for the purpose of making loans for the development of forms of cooperation directed to the preparation and marketing of agricultural produce. In order that a society may be eligible for a loan the share capital paid up by the subscribers must not be less than 5s. per £1 share and the rate of interest on the paid-up share capital must be limited to 5 per cent. The noble Earl used the expression "inelastic" in reference to the terms which govern these Government loans. There arises the not unfair question as to what elasticity is desired or desirable in this connection; whether, in fact, the word "elastic" is intended to mean lack of adequate security on the part of the borrower, whether tangible or personal. The question is to what extent is the Government justified in taking a risk which an ordinary joint stock bank or a prudent commercial lender would hesitate to take. What we hold out as the great advantages of the Government loan are that it is generally a long term loan, not likely to be called in if the conditions of the loan are properly complied with, and involves a moderate and uniform rate of interest.

Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear upon that matter. When I used the word "inelastic" I meant that the present Regulations were so inelastic that a loan could not be made upon an efficient basis, and then I gave the instance of these Regulations allowing a loan to be made to an unsound society and not allowing it to be made to a sound society, because the Regulations restricted the judgment of the business men who formed the committee.

Of course, if the noble Earl's suggestion, which he has just made, can on the facts be justified, there is certainly scope for examination of the whole practice upon which loans are made to-day. But the only case to which the noble Earl referred was that of the Lenham Co-operative Bacon Factory. As many noble Lords are no doubt aware, most of these co-operative bacon factories are experiencing considerable difficulty at the present time in carrying on their business, and the reason for the possible insolvency or bankruptcy of the concerns to which the noble Earl refers is not, as I am informed, so much if at all. the terms on which the original loan was made to these organisations by the Government, but the fact that, like many of these co-operative bacon factories to-day, they were wholly unable to obtain the right kind of pig to convert into bacon which could compete effectively with the Scandinavian product. And I take this opportunity of saying that you are expecting far too much, both of the co-operative movement and of loans made for promoting co-operation, unless high quality and uniformity of product, comparable to that of the competing article which comes from abroad, are to be found as the result of co-operative organisation. The sad fact to-day is that whereas most of the competing countries where co-operation is an effective factor produce high quality goods of uniform type, we are very far from producing articles of that description as the result of agricultural co-operative effort in this country. I may be misinformed, but I am given to understand that that is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the unfortunate position in which the Lenham undertaking finds itself.

Of course, as the noble Earl says, it is desirable to have business men on the committees of these societies, particularly if they are trying to carry on a factory business. Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of farmers in this country who sufficiently understand the proper conduct of a factory business, or even a retail trade, to enable them to handle a large amount of Government money without the risk of some of it being wasted or misapplied. I think I have answered the noble Earl's Question. I can only assure him that so long as the money which is provided by the Government is administered or likely to be administered according to business methods and with due prudence, we, at any rate, shall not be reluctant in making advances with the approval of the Treasury for reputable undertakings which are likely to prove a commercial success.

My Lords, I am far from undervaluing the keenness and earnestness of the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Government to get on with this policy of co-operation among the farmers, but he made, at the beginning of his speech, a very significant observation. He spoke, and spoke deprecatingly, of the want of keenness among the farmers themselves to take up the subject of co-operation. Now that is perfectly true. I think it has been more true in the past than it is true to-day. My information is that the younger farmers, particularly in the north, are getting more in earnest about this matter and are coming to see how much cost, not only in production but in distribution, can be saved by co-operative methods.

That being so, I am not sure that the noble Lord has quite appreciated the point which my noble friend Lord De La Warr made. The noble Earl, as I understood him, is anxious to educate the farming community of this country and for that purpose he wishes a comparison to be made public between legislation abroad in reference to agricultural co-operative societies and the legislation in this country. I am not for a moment saying that the noble Lord has not got on perhaps as far as agricultural opinion will let him at this moment, but I am very anxious to press this point, that it is really part of the business of the Government to educate and lead opinion in these matters, and the purpose of the Question is just as much to educate as to get things done at the present moment. For myself I should like to see a clear and simple account of the legislative measures which prevail in Denmark for dealing with this subject, and I should like to know what is being done in the States of the United States, where the conditions probably differ very much in the various States. I should like to know about the State of Wisconsin, for instance, where these things have been carried very far, and I should like to know very much what was done in the past in Germany, and what is still being done to-day. There are other cases of that kind, and, if it were possible for the noble Lord to give us a conspectus of these things, and then a conspectus of what we have in this country to compare with them, I think we should have gone a long way towards attaining the legitimate purpose of my noble friend's Question.

I have risen not for the purpose of making any criticism on the zeal of the noble Lord who has just spoken, because his zeal is very great, but for that of drawing attention to the truth with which he started—namely, that above all we have got to educate the farming community in this country. The only way to educate them is to spread knowledge, and I think, even if they do not assent to the foreign methods which are set out in such a conspectus, at least public opinion will learn what these methods mean, and we shall got on faster than we have done hitherto.

I should like to assure the noble and learned Viscount that we will do our best to present such a conspectus as he has asked for. It is difficult to obtain the material in any thing like a comprehensive form, but if the noble and learned Viscount will be satisfied with such material as we are able to obtain from Denmark, which I think would be easy to obtain, from Wisconsin and other sources which he has mentioned—

Including Germany.

including Germany, although Germany is a little more difficult, but we will see what we can do— we, no doubt, should be able to present to him something like a conspectus. It will not be comprehensive, but at least it will be instructive.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to state what number of private associations there are in existence which undertake to apprentice boys in various trades, and whether His Majesty's Government could see their way either to help the existing ones to extend their operations or to promote similar associations in counties where they do not at present exist. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I must ask for that indulgence which you are always ready to extend on these occasions. Although this Question only refers to the apprenticing of boys in country districts, I venture to say that it is not an unimportant one at the present day. The system of apprenticeship is a means not only of reducing juvenile unemployment but of enabling boys, when they leave school, to become proficient in particular trades and of ensuring that they do not drift from one trade to another, thus failing to gain proficiency in any one. It also facilitates the obtaining of employment by a boy near his home.

My Lords, as I have on the Paper a Question in regard to the subject of apprenticeships, it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Biddulph, if I say what I have to say now. I am delighted that other noble Lords are beginning to take an interest in this question of apprenticeship in addition to those who, from time to time, have spoken on this subject in this House. The Question that I have asked His Majesty's Government is as follows:—

"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they would state what are the causes of the delay in completing the inquiry into the subject of apprenticeship which has been undertaken by the Minister of Labour; whether in view of the importance of a decision on this matter in the interests of employment and the provision of skilled labour and of the trade of the country, steps could be taken to expedite the investigation in view of the fact that the Minister has announced that he may not be in a position to complete the inquiry before the end of the year."

I put that Question to obtain further information regarding the reply sent by the Minister of Labour to the Association of Chambers of Commerce in relation to this matter.

The resolution which was sent to the Ministry was in the following terms:—

"That having regard to the large amount of juvenile unemployment at present existing and to the imperative need for efficient and highly-trained workmen if Great Britain is to maintain its position as a great manufacturing country, this association urges the Government to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the present position of the system of apprenticeship with a view to ascertaining, and suggesting means for the removal of, the causes which at present operate to limit the scope of its usefulness in some industries, and to exclude it entirely from others."

A very courteous reply was received from the Minister, and the association was very pleased to learn that His Majesty's Government were taking up the matter at once; but it was rather vague on two points, to which I will refer.

In reply to our representations, the Minister of Labour wrote:—

"The Minister fully appreciates the importance of the question and in order to supplement the information in his possession he has instructed that an exhaustive and comprehensive inquiry should be undertaken. This inquiry is at present being carried out with the co-operation of the National Federation of Employers' Organisations. The Ministry proposes to consider, when the inquiry is completed, what steps it may be desirable to take in the light of the information obtained. It is hoped that the report of the present inquiry will be completed by the end of the year."

That reads as if there was a Committee already organised and that, instead of making a special inquiry by means of a special committee and getting the information together as rapidly as possible, the question was going to be transferred to another committee and that the Ministry hoped that at the end of the year they might be able to tell us something about the results of the inquiry. Why should we waste more months before dealing with a matter of such importance as the apprenticeship of boys and girls?

The noble Lord, Lord Biddulph, referred, in his speech this afternoon, to all sorts and kinds of difficulties concerning apprenticeship, and there are many more. When I brought the question before your Lordships the other day I did not profess that I knew all about it. All I professed to know was that these youths were eligible to become apprentices, but that there was a barrier which prevented them doing so. I wanted an inquiry to find out what is the obstacle that is placed in their way and whether any remedy can be found. What I should like to point out to your Lordships is this. There are hundreds of thousands of boys and girls at the present time who are idle and becoming degenerate through no fault of their own, but because they have never had employment. They are not included in the long list of the unemployed that we read of from time to time—these children have never had an opportunity—and no statistics of employment can be accurate unless they include these hundreds of thousands of unemployed young people.

This is not the time to delay measures. These young people should be trained in skilled occupations, and I put this Question because I am not satisfied with the official answer that I received from the Ministry of Labour. I hope that the noble Lord will be able, this afternoon, to assure me that this matter is looked upon by His Majesty's Government as a very serious one. When one looks at the competition that we have to face with the rest of the world, one cannot but take a gloomy view of the future of the country. I should like to quote your Lordships a few words spoken by my noble friend Lord Burnham, who gave utterance to what I regard as practical common sense. He said:—

"Every day international competition was getting keener and every day Great Britain was losing more of those accidental advantages which enabled her to conquer the markets of the world."

We are no longer conquerors of the markets of the world. We are losing them, and the reason for that is, I think, the careless manner in which we have dealt with technical education.

We had a debate some time ago on education, in which the most rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, and my noble friend Lord Haldane took part. They talked about extending school hours, but there was nothing practical said, from my point of view, about technical education. I contend that something must be done, and done speedily. I have doubts as to whether the Government are really in earnest, and I should like to know whether it is their object to refer the matter to a Royal Commission. I am an old Parliamentary hand; I know something about Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees. If they are really going to work, of course they can do a great deal of good. On the other hand, they can be great obstacles and I do not at all like the communication of the Ministry of Labour as to this reference to a Committee or as to the time at which their conclusions are to be made public. I am asking for a special inquiry and one which will take place with expedition.

My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friends who have brought these Questions before you, and particularly, if I may venture to say so, to my noble friend Lord Biddulph for the extremely clear way in which he put the point he desired to bring before your Lordships. I should like to assure the noble Lord who spoke last, and also the House, that there is no question about the seriousness with which the Government view this subject. I am sure I am speaking for all my colleagues and for the Ministry of Labour when I say that we recognise the immense importance of the question of juvenile unemployment, and consequently of the question of apprenticeship, which is part of that very much larger and graver question, I might, perhaps, remind my noble friend that quite recently the President of the Board of Education announced in the other House that the Government were setting up a Committee to inquire into, and advise upon, the public system of education in England and Wales in relation to the requirements of trade and industry, with particular reference to the adequacy of the arrangements for enabling young persons to enter into and retain suitable employment. That is the broad question of how far our educational system is now discharging its duties in connection with juvenile employment.

May I ask whether the letter states that they had already referred this to that Committee?

This is a totally different Inquiry to the one to which my noble friend is referring. It is a much wider Inquiry into the general question of the relation of the educational system to unemployment, not to the apprenticeship question solely, but to the general question, which is a much larger one. Though the Government would not in any way seek to undervalue the importance of the apprenticeship question it is only a part of the very large question of juvenile employment and unemployment, which stretches far beyond the apprenticeship question. I think it is the duty, it certainly is the object, of the Government to assist apprenticeship wherever they can do so, but I am afraid that my noble friend, Lord Biddulph, is a little sanguine in thinking that if you deal with the apprenticeship question that alone will be a remedy for juvenile unemployment. After all, apprenticeship only deals with a small part of the question of juvenile unemployment. It only applies in the first place, obviously, to skilled trades, which necessarily do not occupy anything like the whole, or even the larger part, of the working population. That is one thing that has to be borne in mind. I am afraid it is true that even in that restricted sphere apprenticeship is probably diminishing.

The figures do not seem to be available at present, and that is one of the reasons for the Inquiry, but there seems to be a general impression, such as that to which Lord Biddulph gave utterance, that apprenticeship is diminishing. There seem to be several reasons for that. One is the greater tendency towards what is called mass production, or standardised production, which involves more and more the employment of machines, and consequently the substitution of the semiskilled labour of those who are attending to the machines for the completely skilled labour which used to exist for these purposes. Undoubtedly, the War exercised a discouraging effect on apprenticeship. A very large number of the juvenile population were able to obtain employment in munition factories and otherwise of a very remunerative character, and they did not, therefore, think it necessary to obtain a thorough grounding in skilled trades. And not only was that true of the juvenile population, but even the skilled population were, as we all remember, so very hard pressed that they had not the time and opportunity which they used to have to teach apprentices. That dislocation, I am informed, has not yet been made up by anything that has happened since.

Moreover, the general depression of industry, through which, unfortunately, we are passing, has operated in the same direction. It has discouraged employers from, as it were, sinking capital in the education of skilled workmen, because they do not know whether there really will be any opportunity for employing them when they are trained. Similarly, the artisan teachers are less ready and willing to devote their time to this purpose than they were. The same thing operates with relatives—the fathers and near relatives of the juvenile workers who used to encourage their sons and juvenile relatives to enter the apprenticeship system—because the prospects are, unfortunately, so discouraging in many of the skilled trades, particularly, as the House is only too well aware, in the engineering trade, where the pay of the skilled workman is very often no greater, it may be less, than that of the semiskilled and unskilled labour in other trades. And that operates conversely also. The fact that the families from whom apprentices were drawn are now far less well off than they were makes them more anxious to begin earning money earlier and less able to undergo the delay and expense which attaches to a considerable training as apprentices. It is often said that trade union rules and action have discouraged apprenticeship, but I am informed that there is little ground for saying that, apart from the building trade, as to which special conditions apply.

This state of things is undoubtedly disquieting. I do not at all disagree with anything that fell from the noble Lords, Lord Southwark and Lord Biddulph, on that point. It is disquieting that inadequate means are apparently being employed at this time for training the skilled workers of the country. It is quite true that the skilled workers are not the most numerous class of workers, but in many ways the prosperity of the whole country depends upon an adequate supply of skilled workers. Therefore it would be a disastrous state of things if, when the trade depression passes, as undoubtedly it will pass sooner or later, we should find ourselves in this position: a great demand for goods and articles manufactured in this country but no sufficient supply of the skilled workers, without whom that demand cannot be fulfilled. That is felt very strongly by the Minister of Labour and the Government, and anything they can do to encourage apprenticeship they will do. It is not a question of waiting for an elaborate inquiry before they do anything. They are ready to do what they can to encourage it; and they do so whenever an opportunity offers. But in this matter, as in so many others, it is essential to observe that the Government cannot do everything. The Government cannot, indeed, do very much. The prosperity of the country depends not on the Government but on the people of the country, on the employers and the workpeople, and the efforts that have to be put forward must be put forward by these classes, though the Government's duty is, and ought to be and will be, to do everything they can to help and encourage and assist those efforts when they are made.

In other words, this question of apprenticeship, like so many other questions, must be solved primarily by the industries concerned. The Government can encourage, assist and advise, but they cannot do the thing. That must be done by the industries; we must rely on their enterprise, on their patriotism, properly understood, to supply the industrial needs of the country. But, subject to that, the Government are most anxious to do everything they can to help, and it is for that reason that they have decided upon, and are engaged already in, a very thorough and elaborate inquiry into the whole subject. It is not a question of going to do something; the thing is in process of being done, although I am bound to say that I think it will take longer than the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, appears to imagine. The matter is one of great complications. If you are going to do it properly, and it is no use doing it unless you do it properly, you have to make a very elaborate inquiry. I have been furnished with the conditions of that Inquiry, and I do not think I can do better than read them to the House.

The Inquiry will cover all industrial and commercial occupations and certain professions in which young persons are undergoing a period of training, whether as apprentices or learners. In the main the Inquiry will be carried out by means of a questionnaire which is being circulated to from 15,000 to 20,000 firms. The detailed information to be obtained with regard to each of the trades in the industry will include: —

(a) The number of young persons employed:—

(i) As apprentices under indentures or other written agreements.

(ii) As apprentices under verbal agreements.

(iii) As learners.

(b) The amount of premium, if any, paid by apprentices.

(c) The age at commencement of apprenticeship or learnership.

(d) The length of apprenticeship or learnership.

(e) Wages: —

(i) In the first year.

(ii) In the second year.

(iii) Annual increments.

Information of a more general type will also be obtained as follows: —

(a) Recruits—sources from which apprentices and learners are obtained; difficulties experienced in obtaining apprentices.

It is most essential we should know that.

(b) Training.

(c) Technical education.

(d) Improvership—if the young person has to serve a period of apprenticeship on the conclusion of the term of apprenticeship.

(e) Length of probationary period, if any.

The information as secured by means of the questionnaire will be supplemented in appropriate eases by consultation with the organisations of employers and of workpeople in the industries concerned. The Inquiry is being carried out with the co-operation of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations.

In addition to that, there will be, of course, the information which the Ministry of Labour has already in its tiles and archives, and probably a certain amount of personal investigation will be required. That is the scope of the Inquiry, and I do not think it could be curtailed or made simpler without a very great loss of the advantages which will accrue from it. I may, perhaps, say, as illustrating the complications which it involves, that in the forms of inquiry that are sent out some fourteen special forms have been found to be necessary in order to deal with the particular circumstances of each trade, apart from the general forms which go out to the trades as a whole. Then, in choosing the 15,000 or 20,000 firms, a good deal of care must be exercised in order to have them thoroughly representative. They have to be chosen out of some 280,000 firms in existence, and the collection of a great mass of information of that kind necessarily involves very careful consideration of details with everybody concerned. Otherwise you may obtain, not information, but confusion.

Something was said of the danger of special or other committees. It is not a question of a committee. This Inquiry is being made by the staff of the Ministry of Labour, and of course there is a certain limit to the amount of staff available for such a purpose, but I am assured that every man that can be spared to be put into the Inquiry is being put into it and every possible means is being used to expedite the collection of information. Even when that has been done a good deal will remain to be accomplished. The information will have to be digested and put into the form of a Report. I am told that the experts of the Ministry of Labour contemplate a volume of more than 600 pages when it is complete, so that it is evidently a thing that must take time. Of course, the rapidity with which this can be done must depend upon the amount of assistance and co-operation that the Ministry are able to obtain from the firms who have the information at their disposal. All that I can say on behalf of the Ministry is that every possible effort will be made to expedite the Inquiry, but. I should be misleading the House if I were to say that it could be done very rapidly. My information is that it must take some eight or nine months at least, and it may possibly take a little longer than that, though certainly not much longer.

With reference to the particular Question put to me by Lord Biddulph, I have asked as to whether the Government have any information as to the number of societies such as that which he so interestingly described for the assistance of apprenticeship. I am told that no such information exists, and I am not sure that it would be worth the expense of obtaining that information specially and separately. As to the other part of his Question, suggesting that financial assistance should be given to these societies, I am bound to adopt an attitude of the most extreme caution. It is customary for Ministers and for members of this House to urge economy, and I am sure that no one who considers the present financial position in the world and in this country will doubt the necessity for economy, and, even more than economy, for the actual saving of money. It is not enough to say that such and such an expenditure will in the end bring in a good result.

We are now definitely in a position that makes it necessary to consider the actual expenditure of money, whether it will be remunerative or unremunerative expenditure in the end, and I am afraid that it would be really hopeless for the Ministry of Labour to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for financial assistance for this kind of society. After all, we do spend money, we do maintain a national service aiming at securing employment for juveniles. It is provided for to some extent in the employment exchanges and employment bureaux which already exist. Consequently my advisers tell me that the policy of paying premiums, however desirable it may be in the case of relatively small societies which are closely acquainted with the circumstances of everybody concerned, is of very doubtful benefit if it is to be extended widely or largely. It might even degenerate into a mere subsidy to employers without really increasing to any very great extent the employment of apprentices.

My noble friend must not forget that, even if it were possible to obtain such financial assistance, it could be done only in exchange for Government control. If he thinks as I do about the value of Government control, he will doubt very much whether it is worth purchasing the payment of premiums in exchange for being put under the somewhat iron heel of a Government Department. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope whatever that the Government, will be able financially to assist societies which, as we recognise quite as much as my noble friend, are doing valuable work and which we desire to see prosper and succeed to the utmost of their power. But we do recognise, and we do feel as strongly as any noble Lord present this evening, that the question of apprenticeship is one of the very gravest importance to the prosperity of the country, and whatever seems to us possible to do to encourage and assist it will be done, though we hope that we shall not be pressed to take steps which would not be of advantage to apprenticeship and would be of disadvantage to the finances of the country.

My Lords, the first observation which I have to make is one of sympathy with the two noble Lords who have put these Questions. Each of them desired in his own way to hear that something was going to be done, and all that they have got is the announcement of a vast questionnaire which is going to be addressed to the already somewhat harassed employers of this country and from which it is hoped that valuable information will come. But it will not assist the movement towards further apprenticeship. The difficulty in the way of that movement is the obvious one that this is a time of very small employment and the only persons who are apprenticed are apprenticed without any certainty or likelihood that their apprenticeship will lead them into an occupation for which they are paid. That is a state of things inherent in the depressed condition of industry in this country, and you cannot put it right. As the noble Viscount said, all that we can do is to prepare people as best we can for the state of things that will arise when employment in this country becomes more general.

But, while I have expressed that amount of sympathy with the two noble Lords, I am entirely with the noble Viscount in the critical attitude which he assumed towards the policy implied in the two Questions. I do not think that this is a case in which the Government can usefully embark upon efforts or expenditure to promote apprenticeship. This is not a time when apprenticeship is likely to lead to any immediate results in the form of extensive employment. There will come a time when there is more employment in this country—that is a thing which I, for one, have never doubted—it will come, as it has come before, though it may take time, and the question is what we can do best to prepare the boys and girls who will be required when that period comes.

I agree with the noble Viscount that, one of the most serious things for this country is that we should have a revival of industry without people being prepared to take up positions in which to co-operate in that revival. How is that best avoided? Surely not by apprenticeship in the very narrow sense in which we have heard of it to-day. What is apprenticeship? It means that an employer takes a young person and trains him in the peculiar technical industry in which the employer is engaged, and in very little else. It is a very wooden and mechanical thing. It does not expand the mind or the spirit. It is all very well, when there is a great deal of employment and people are looking about for young workmen to go into their service, to say that they prefer those who have gone through some kind of apprenticeship. But what if there be no such employment available? Then what good does that training do in the way of giving a chance to a person who has had it to get into another and more hopeful sphere of life? The real thing to do is to train the mind and to educate the young person in the wider sense, to enable him to turn his attention to a variety of things, and if he cannot find employment in one way to find it in another, because he is better capable of entering employment than another person who is not so well educated.

What we hear now is that employers of labour are looking more generally to education, not in the direction of technical training or some particular narrow little channel—that what they want are young persons or men educated more generally, it may be, in the direction of humanism. It is better that they should have had training which enables them to read and speak accurately, to appreciate literature and to appreciate the difference in the quality of work—between quality which is high and quality which is low. That can only be the result of general education. To-day the Government have made a compromise about those things. We had a debate the other day about blind-alley boys. If we are going to make the younger population better fitted we should aim at more general education, rather than at anything which can be given by the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, in the interstices of education.

We all know the difference it makes where education goes on to the age of fifteen, instead of to the age of fourteen. We all know what could be done if education went on to the age of sixteen. I believe that a young person who was kept at education for another year, or two years, would find employment far more easily than a mere technically-trained apprentice can hope to find it at the present time. I am not saying that the Government are likely to find themselves in a position to insist upon continuing education up to the age of fifteen or sixteen, but I am sure that that is the ideal which we should have before us. It may be that through the medium of part-time education, which it is the policy of the Government to give in the interstices of occupation, something can be done in that direction.

I do not believe that much or enough can be done in that way, but it is something wider than the rather narrow substitute suggested in the Questions put to the Government to-day, and I am glad that the noble Viscount has given what is really a most unsympathetic answer to the suggestions made in the two Questions, and has not promised anything more than a long, rather harassing and tedious Inquiry, which will no doubt make miserable many clerks in the offices of the different firms to which the form of inquiry will be addressed. Such inquiries will, I hope, lead to some information, but I believe it will result in little information which will be of value in the solution of the question before us

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount opposite, when he said that what was required was more general education all round. I am interested in the subject of apprenticeship, and I think the whole of our successful trade in past years has been the result of that system of apprenticeship. It is through that system that England has obtained all its most skilled workers—those men who have been able to do the finest work in the past, and who have prepared the way for the great machines of the present day. I have been connected, like Lord Biddulph, with an apprenticeship fund, and it also is a very ancient one. Lord Biddulph has described a fund in the West of England. I am connected with one in existence in Gloucestershire, and almost on the same lines. It has existed for two or three hundred years, and is called "The John Edmonds Charity." A person named John Edmonds left a fund in the hands of trustees, for the purpose of apprenticing in London boys and girls from this little town in Gloucestershire. I remember that forty years ago every year a meeting was held and there was a dinner in a dim and distant pothouse in the City. All these boys and girls apprenticed under the fund had to come there, and were given a supper, and the chairman of the trustees presented them each with half a crown. Of course, that is a thing of the past.

It is found that apprenticeship cannot now be found for the children in London, and they are apprenticed in our own little town of Cirencester. Many of the local tradesmen take them and teach them their trade. For the fact that this system has done good work I can vouch, because there is one at least of the apprentices, a cabinet maker, who has attained such skill, and is able to do such beautifully fine work, that he was able to make furniture small enough and worthy to go into the Queen's doll's house. That is one result of these apprenticeships. They turn out men who are really skilled in their work, and who, when they have finished their apprenticeships, are able to go into business on their own account and get on really well in the world. My idea is that this is much more useful than giving a man what the noble and learned Viscount called a general education. Such a man goes into a factory and can simply pull over the lever of a machine.

I am very glad to hear that the Government are making such close inquiries. Trustees of societies like Lord Biddulph's and mine co not ask for any assistance. Our funds are ample for what is wanted, and I fancy that the only reason why there is some diminution in the applications for apprentice fees is that the system is rather disliked by the trade unions, because the pay given to these boys is very much smaller than they would get if they came under ordinary employment terms. As a rule £15 is given in the first place, and perhaps for the first year a boy only gets 2s. 6d. per week, but meanwhile he is taught his trade. In the second year the weekly pay is increased, and at the end of the time he gets very nearly the full pay. That is simply because during that time he is learning his trade. I think it is a most excellent way, and one which has turned out some of the finest workmen we have in this country.

My Lords, I have been somewhat entertained by the speech of the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government this afternoon, and who gave an assurance that the present Government are anxious to do everything they can in this matter. First of all, it does seem to me that to postpone a matter of this kind till the end of the year in order that a Departmental Inquiry shall take place is a little absurd when the matter is one of some urgency. I can tell the noble Lord of a way in which he can really do something to help in a practical way the education of boys who were employed until January of last year in connection with apprenticeship work.

In January of last year the last act of Mr. Bridgeman, who was then at the Home Office, was to issue an order preventing all boys from being employed in the coke oven establishments of this country in connection with work which they were performing. In the last few years a continuous process of coke oven working has been perfected at great cost in this country, producing a large number of by-products. No two plants are alike. They are chemical works, producing dyeing materials, sulphate of ammonia, tar, and a great number of by-products. Under this process it has been necessary to employ men continuously, and obviously night shifts, as well as day shifts, were necessary. The custom of the trade was for three men and a boy to be placed on a plant continuously, and to work for a fortnight during daylight, and during the third week at night. Thus, these boys were employed once in three weeks on night work, and, owing to that, the Government have stepped in and have taken away their work. When the permanent officials at the Home Office objected to this night work of boys, I pointed out how valuable such an education was to the boys. They were first brought into these chemical works to do nothing but to daub the waste places and the oven doors, so as to prevent waste, as heat was coming out of the oven doors. In a few months' time the boys were able to understand the whole of the chemical arrangements connected with the plant. And we have been able to educate and train a great number of these boys, working together with the three men, without any of the boys suffering in any way from this night employment once in three weeks. The result has been to teach them to become practical chemists, and some have risen to be quite good chemists in different industries.

The result of the Government forbidding the employment of the boys has been a great deal of waste heat from these plants, because it is not worth while to employ a full-grown man at adult wages to commence such operations on a plant of this kind. It was apprenticeship work to all intents and purposes of a very practical character, and 100 boys have been deprived of it. I have once or twice crossed swords with my noble friend Lord Haldane on educational matters, and I have always believed in practical training rather than theoretical training. I realise the advantage of scholastic education, but for those who come from the ranks of the wage earners and have to earn their living, I believe that practical work of this kind is far more helpful even than going up to the Universities, though, of course, I should like to see exceptional boys climbing the educational ladder. In this case it does seem a great pity to deprive these boys of the practical education which would help them to become chemists and to be very useful citizens, and I rather hope that this arbitrary action on the part of the Home Office may be reconsidered.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing on the Paper in my name.

My Lords, I hesitate rather to intervene with regard to this Order, because I, for one, do not desire that any delay should take place in the matter. It is now three years, I think, since the last. Act of Parliament governing the matter passed this House. Three years of very difficult spade work have had to be gone through in order that this Order might appear on the Paper. As I understand, there are a great many Amendments to this Order down in another place, and it is not likely therefore to have a very rapid passage through both Houses, but there is a point in the Order that I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend. It is one point only in an Order which covers a great deal of ground.

The matter is contained in Clause 39 (2) (b), which, I think, is to be found on Page 31 of the Order. This is the provision which requires the companies in the district to contribute to the administrative expenses of the proposed new authority which is to be set up, the Joint Electricity Authority for London and the Home Counties. This provision is based upon a particular Section in the Act of 1922—namely, Section 5 (4), which my noble Friend Lord Peel will remember, because at the time of the passage of that Bill through this House we had some discussion upon that subsection. I remind him of it because the point I desire to make is that the provision in the Order requiring the companies to contribute to the administrative expenses of the Authority does not comply, in my opinion, with the section of the Act. I do not want to trouble the House by referring at great length to the debate which took place on the particular clause at the time that the Bill was before your Lordships. It will probably be in the mind of my noble friend, who was in charge of the Bill, and who, in answer to some remarks that I made, stated that the administrative expenses would be small, and also that the compulsion to contribute would only be upon those who were represented on the Joint Electricity Authority. I have no complaint to make against my noble friend, because the section of the Act as passed entirely complied with the undertaking which was given to the House by my noble friend. Such complaint as I have to make with regard to the provisions is addressed to the authorities. The Minister of Transport, I take it, is responsible for the Order which my noble friend is moving.

With regard to the fact that the expenses of administration, would only be small, I should like to mention that in one of the many inquiries which have taken place in order that this Order should appear upon the Table of your Lordship's House, a figure of £50,000 a year in expenses is mentioned with regard to this particular Authority. I am not in a position to say that this amount is entirely due to administration expenses. Some of it may possibly be due and chargeable to the supply of current; but, at any rate, I understand that figure was put forward and that figure has never been disputed. Whether it is correct or not I do not know, but it shows—if my noble friend will agree with me that £50,000 is a substantial sum—that very substantial sums are involved in this matter.

Secondly, the statement to which I have referred was to the effect that compulsion to contribute would only be on those represented on the Authority. My contention is that the provision does not follow the section in this respect, but that it goes entirely outside what is allowed by the section of the Act and, therefore, is ultra vires and liable to be questioned in the Courts. That would not be conducive to a rapid decision or to the satisfactory solution of the matter. The section of the Act allows the charge to be placed on distributors represented on the authority. The Order that we have before us this afternoon places the charge on all authorised undertakers in the district; that is to say, upon distributors and undertakers apart from those who are represented on the authority. It is perfectly true, of course, that the company undertakers are represented on the new authority. I think their representation is 431, or something of that sort. I am not going to argue whether that is a very great representation for them to have and I have no point to make of that sort; but they have a voice upon the authority. There will, however, undoubtedly be distributors who will not be represented on the authority.

If the aspirations of the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government are going to be attained and as a result of all these operations under the Act passed by that Government we have a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, we are only upon the threshold of great developments. New distributors will, no doubt, arise and in due course those new distributors will become authorised undertakers in the district. But from the nature of things it will not be possible for them immediately to become represented upon the authority. I think my noble friend will agree that that will not be possible. Some period will have to elapse before they are even capable of being represented upon that authority. None the less, according to the provision which is before us, all these distributors will be called upon to contribute to a public authority upon which they are not represented. That, as briefly as I can put it, is my point on the ground that it is ultra vires.

May I ask the noble Earl a question before he passes to his next point? I understand that he is not making a complaint that it is wrong to charge existing authorised undertakers. The noble Earl admits that they have some representation on the authority. I think also he does not quarrel with the particular system which has been adopted for charging them. His complaint is solely in regard to future undertakers who may be authorised to distribute electricity—that as the scheme is at present drawn they will not have representation and therefore ought not to be charged.

I am sorry that I have not made it clear, but I think I can put my complaint in this way. It is that the provision of the Order does not follow the provision in the Act which is supposed to govern it. The Order says that the charges are to be upon all authorised undertakers in the district.

Yes.

The section of the Act says "distributors represented on the joint authority." I say that there may be and will be—at any rate I am entitled to assume that there will be—distributors who will not be represented on the joint electricity authority and that under the Order which my noble friend is moving (which, as I contend, is in conflict with the section in the Act), they will be called upon to contribute to these administration expenses without having any representation upon the authority which is spending the money.

Then I think I am not wrong in saying that the noble Earl is not making any complaint at all about existing authorised undertakers or distributors, but only as regards future undertakers or distributors. I thought I apprehended that.

Certainly I have no complaint. The Act is there, but the Order has yet to receive the assent of your Lordships. Another point which I wanted to make very briefly is that this provision seems to me to be not in accordance with the spirit of the Electricity Act of 1919 to which I have already referred. That Act contemplated a joint authority carrying on centralised generation and supplying electricity to the various undertakers in the district. Under the Order—and this is different from what is contemplated by the Act—while the district of the authority includes the area of the London companies, for example, those companies are generating their own electricity.

My second point is, then, that whether or not the provision is ultra vires, it is certainly inequitable, because you will have this position—that the joint authority will be competing with the companies for very big and important loads, railway loads, tramway loads, and so on. The effect of the Order will be that concerns taking electricity generated by the companies are to pay something beyond the fair charge in order to allow the consumers who are taking their electricity from the joint authority to obtain it below cost price. That is to say that part of the charge which should fall upon the joint authority will be met by their rivals and: competitors in the industry. That seems to me to be an extraordinary proposal to ask Parliament to accept. It has the additional effect of actually allowing a public body to spend money which they are getting from those who are rivals of, and are in competition with, themselves. I hope I have made my two points clear to my noble friend and that he will give them consideration.

As I said at the opening of my remarks, I do not wish to delay or to prevent approval being given to these Orders, and to this Order in particular. It is high time that the labour which has been expended upon setting up the districts in question should reach fruition but I hope that my noble friend, remembering the discussions which we had upon the section in the Act, will be able to meet me. I am not suggesting any particular Amendment, but if this Order is not to be finally dealt with this afternoon and some adjournment of the debate takes place, I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell your Lordships whether he sees the force of any of my remarks and is prepared to meet me in the matter.

My Lords, I am sure that everybody will agree with one thing that was said by the noble Earl at the end of his remarks—that it is perfectly impossible to deal at, this time, on the floor of the House and without notice, with such points as those which he has just brought forward. It happened last Session that consideration was given to the question whether, in the case of Orders requiring an affirmative Resolution in this House, some procedure should not be adopted for dealing with them. A Committee was appointed, on which were the Lord Chairman and the present Leader of the House. I think the noble Earl who has just spoken was also on the Committee and I, too, had the honour of serving upon it. We came to a unanimous conclusion as to what kind of procedure ought to be adopted, and I think almost any day the Resolutions that the Committee came to will be laid before the House with a recommendation that they shall be adopted.

I wish to suggest to the Government that they might now with this Order adopt, roughly, the procedure which the Committee decided to recommend and that in that way the questions which have been raised—one in a, very lengthy form on the Paper and the two questions raised without Notice by the noble Earl—may be dealt with in some formal manner, possibly upstairs. There is also a list of questions that covers, I think, three pages, raised in the House of Commons, which, I believe, will come on to-night and which includes a proposal that the matter shall be referred to a Committee. I think it might not only be a good thing to refer this to a Committee but that the other House should be asked to concur with this House in the appointment or a Joint Committee, and let all these questions be dealt with together. There is one further observation that I think is worth making. I believe it will be found by the House when they see our recommendations that it is probable that an Order of this kind would not have to be brought before the House at all.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend, at the beginning of his remarks, drew attention to the Committee which was appointed by your Lordships. I think I ought to tell your Lordships what has happened in the last few days. You are aware that the Report of that Committee was laid upon the Table same ten days ago. I may tell your Lordships that Standing Orders are now being drafted which, if adopted, would give approval to the proposals of this Report. I quite appreciate the fact that the Report has not yet received the approval of your Lordships, but I think we could discuss this proposal if we had as concrete a thing as possible before us. I hope to get the Orders on the Paper in a very few days, but in any ease they will be submitted to your Lordships for approval. I shall make it my duty to recommend them to your Lordships. What has happened this afternoon, I think, emphasises what my noble friend has said, that the sooner we get our procedure in this matter regularised the better for the efficiency of Parliamentary work.

My Lords, with reference to the suggestion about the procedure which has been made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Muir Mackenzie), I shall be very glad to discuss that with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. What I say now I say rather as representing the Department than otherwise. I listened to what was suggested by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. I understand that this new procedure, which no doubt has been carefully considered, has not yet been reduced to rules. It has, first of all, generally to be approved by this House and then, I suppose, it has to be drawn up in the form of new Orders which might take a little time. I rather hope, therefore, that as this procedure is not yet in being, it might not be applied to this particular Order, which, after all, appeared on the Table before the new rules came into existence.

Already there has been a great deal of delay—necessary delay, if you like—in getting this very elaborate Order drawn up which is to set up this joint authority for London and districts. It is of great importance that there should be no further delay. It is hoped that in the next few months this new authority may be set up. Some of the representatives will be appointed by the local authorities and county councils which, with the exception of the London County Council, do not, I understand, meet more than once in three months. Therefore any delay which might occur—at any rate, any prolonged delay—in setting up this authority may really postpone for some time the establishment of a joint authority for London, which is already long overdue. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that and to put in that caveat with regard to this new procedure. All procedures, I suppose, delay matters, and especially a new procedure which has not yet been tested in practice.

The only other point that was raised was with regard to the difficulty of dealing with this matter on the floor of the House. I am in the hands of your Lordships with regard to that. I must say that I was not very much impressed by the difficulties in this particular case. No doubt, in another place—we do not necessarily deal with all the Amendments in another place—there are two or three pages of Amendments, but I have looked at them. One of them certainly fills up a whole page, and, curiously enough, it is in precisely the same words as another Amendment which has been drafted by my noble friend Lord Strafford, and which is on the Paper of your Lordships' House. Therefore I do not think the Amendments ought to take a great deal of time, nor do I think the Amendment of the noble Earl, if I understand it, is of a very complicated nature. It is one with which we are quite accustomed to deal in Committee of this House. I do not wish the difficulties of this matter to be exaggerated. I think we really could deal with most of the Amendments. I understand, however, both from the noble Lord opposite and from the noble Earl, that there is a desire that consideration of this Order should be postponed. I have no objection, if it is the general desire, to postpone this discussion till Monday, and then to deal with the specific Amendments.

May I suggest to the noble Viscount opposite that the debate be adjourned until after the consideration of the Order in another place? I think that possibly our position would be simplified by that.

Perhaps the noble Earl will be content if, at the present stage, I move the adjournment of the matter until Monday. I should like to explain to the noble Earl, who wishes to wait until discussion takes place in the other House, that the other House has exactly the same desire as regards this House. We are constantly waiting for each other. I am afraid the Session might elapse before we had the pleasure of hearing the noble Earl on his Amendment if I consented to his request, and I hope he will be content for the moment with an adjournment till Monday.

May I ask the noble Viscount whether he means that noble Lords who have Amendments to suggest in the Standing Orders should put them on the Paper of your Lordships' House?

It is hardly for the representative of the Government freely to invite Amendments from noble Lords, but the noble Lord is very well acquainted with the procedure. No doubt he will get a far more definite, discussion of any particular point if he chooses to submit it to your Lordships in the form of an Amendment.

My Lords, perhaps I ought to enter a caveat with regard to Monday next. I understand that in addition to the Bill which is now upon the Order Paper for Monday next the Finance Bill of His Majesty's Government will also be on the Paper then, and that there will be an important discussion on that Bill. Whether in those circumstances Monday is the most convenient day I do not know. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount, who has shown himself willing to meet the wishes of noble Lords, will be able to arrange, something which will be convenient not only to himself but to other noble Lords.

Perhaps the noble Earl will confer with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House with regard to the matter?

My Lords, I beg to move the remaining Motions of which I have given Notice.