I beg to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act in respect of goods made under conditions not allowed by trades union or by law in Great Britain. This is a Bill dealing with the Safe guarding of Industries Act, and it may be divided into two parts. The first part deals with key industries, and the second part with depreciated exchanges. The Bill which I ask leave to introduce deals with Part II of that Act, and it desires to allow restriction of imports of manufactured goods on two grounds. The first ground on which it is desired to amend the Act is if the goods are manufactured under conditions contrary to trade union regulations. There is much evidence that goods are imported into this country made under conditions which would not be tolerated for one moment by the trades unions of this country. I understand that in Germany there is in existence a 60 hours' week. I also understand from information which I have received, after visiting many manufactories on the Continent last autumn, that the conditions under which many of these factories work are of such a nature that no trade union leader would tolerate them for a moment. I went through a factory on the Continent where the hours of; labour worked were 60 hours a week, and the average wage paid was 3s. per day. I went through a cotton mill on the Continent last year where the hours of labour were 60 hours per week, and the average wage less than 3s. per day. From both those factories goods are coming at the present moment to this country to the displacement of British labour.

I am informed that in France, Belgium and Italy, the wages paid to the workers in those countries are about half of those we pay to the workers in those particular trades in this country. In Belgium a cotton doubling plant has recently been erected with British capital by British manufacturers, which is now employing a thousand workmen. The products of that mill are coming into Lancashire and into this country. The same manufacturer has works in Stockport and Bolton lying idle, and utterly unemployed, the reason being that the wages in Belgium are just about half those which are demanded by the trades unions of this country.

The second ground upon which this Bill is based is the laying of restrictions on imports of foreign manufactured goods, that is, where the goods are manufactured under conditions which are not allowed by the law of this country. There are four main grounds for this proposal. The first is the factory Laws of this country, which restrict the hours and conditions of labour, guarding machinery, and other conditions. The second ground is that we have here the Workmen's Compensation Act providing for payment to workers disabled through their employment. The third ground is National Health Insurance, under which employers in this country are forced to make contributions to the workers for insurance, and to guard against ill-health. The fourth is Unemployment Insurance, under which employers are forced to pay contributions to the workers' insurance against being out of work. All these proper and beneficial laws are a very serious charge on the manufacturers of this country. Quite recently I had a discussion on this subject with one of the largest engineers of this country, and he told me that the cost of the charges which I have enumerated came to £10,000 per annum, and was equal to the whole amount which was payable by this firm on the whole of their preference capital, and would have paid the whole of their preference dividends in any one year. I contend that it is most unfair to have competition against this firm by foreign firms who have not to meet these charges.

I would specially like to make an appeal to the Government not only to ask them to give support to me in order that this Bill shall have a First Reading, but I hope they will be able to fix an early date for its discussion on the Second Reading, and I trust they will give facilities for the Bill to pass quickly through all its stages in this House. I have special reason for making this appeal because the Home Secretary, during the recent election at Burnley, and several hon. Members during the last General Election, made references to many of the points which I have raised, and they said this was an international question which should be settled by the League of Nations sitting as an international tribunal.

I was surprised, in reply to a question which I put to the Minister of Labour, to find that the adoption of British trade union conditions is a question which has not yet even been proposed before the League of Nations. The Minister of Labour asked me in his answer to make suggestions, and my suggestions are contained in the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce this afternoon. I was also very surprised to hear from the answer given to me by the Minister of Labour that unemployment insurance is in existence as a compulsory measure in only four countries in the world outside our own, and that national health insurance id only compulsory in 15 countries outside our own. I confidently appeal to the House to give me permission to introduce this Bill, which I am sure will have a very beneficial effect upon the working people of this country.

In the few minutes at my disposal I cannot do better, in combating this Bill, than to remind the hon. Member who has introduced it of the opinion of his own leader upon this subject, as expressed at the recent Election. Few people will deny that labour conditions in other countries are inimical to the high standard of labour in this country, but the question is whether the remedy proposed by the hon. Member is the right one, or whether the contrary remedy proposed long ago from these benches, and which has always been opposed by hon. Members opposite is prefer able. Is an extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act a proper remedy for this situation? What did the hon. Member's own leader say about that? He said: No partial Measures, such as the extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, can meet the situation. Before the last Election the late Prime Minister had in his power these instruments which the hon. Member now seeks to extend. He had the power, and he was able to extend the provisions of that Act, but what did he say in, this House on the 13th November last? He said: I have reached certain definite conclusions. This is not the occasion, I think, to say what those conclusions are, but I became so convinced that the conclusions I had arrived at were right that I could not have undertaken to remain in my present position and to attempt to steer the country through the winter of 1924–25 unless I were allowed to use an instrument which I could not use, having regard to the pledge given a year ago by Mr. Bonar Law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1923; col. 39, Vol. 168.] In other words, the instrument which he had in his hand he declared was quite useless for the purpose, and he had to seek another instrument. Now the hon. Member opposite comes forward and asks to be allowed to use the instrument which was previously discarded as useless. It is quite true that the Conservative party have since abandoned the policy, without the application of which they said they could not be responsible for governing the country, and in so doing they have abdicated any claim to solve our difficulties or to govern the country, because if they do not intend to apply their one remedy, by which alone they could govern, how can they expect the country to entrust them with government? But what evidence have we that even hon. Members opposite have been re-converted to the Safeguarding of Industries policy since the last Election? It is true the right hon. Gentleman opposite recently recommended that policy to the electors of Burnley, but, as he ingenuously admitted at the beginning of his letter, he was then angling for the Liberal vote, and, as we know, even the most honest men become flexible in the exigencies of bye-elections, and these demi-gods of uprightness on such occasions assume a few of our human weaknesses. What other evidence have we that hon. Members opposite have abandoned the policy in which they believe, in favour of a policy in which a few months before they did not believe? The country was told at a recent meeting of the Conservative party that that party had decided, for the present, to abandon that great principle—that they thought it wise and advisable to do so. Why was it advisable? It has not been explained whether it was wise in the interests of the country, or only wise in the interests of a party. If it were wise in the interests of the country, then they admit conversion to Free Trade since the General Election. If, on the other hand, it is only wise in the interests of a party, then they admit they abandon the principle, which they believe to be essential to the welfare of the country, in order to snatch a party advantage.

Really, before they come forward and ask us to believe that even they have been genuinely reconverted to the Safeguarding of Industries policy, they should resolve a few of the dilemmas of argument which confront them. What would have happened in the past if every party had run away from its policy because it found it to be unpopular with the electors? Should we have peace with Ireland to-day, or any of the great reforms on the Statute Book which at present ameliorate the lot of the people of this country? It is a strange policy for a great party to abandon a principle in which it does believe, in favour of a policy in which it confesses it does not believe, because it finds it necessary for electoral purposes. What is the real remedy for the situation the hon. Member described? It is a remedy against which hon. Members opposite have consistently voted. It was brought forward in this House in 1921 for ratification under the Washington Convention, and hon. Members opposite turned round on their own delegates at that Convention and refused to ratify it. The result has been that other countries have been released from the shackles of fair competition, and our labour is faced with conditions of sweated labour in other countries which are unfair. But that is the fault of hon. Members opposite for repudiating the great Convention to which they set their signature, and the remedy lies in the hands of my hon. Friends in progressing with legislation of an international character with regard to labour conditions.

Notwithstanding that, does anyone really believe that labour, well-fed and well-educated, as labour in this country should be, is incapable, with efficient machinery at its disposal, of competing successfully with half-starved labour? The real problem which confronts us is the dislocation of markets and the

fluctuation of exchange, which has been brought about by hon. Members opposite through a feeble and vacillating foreign policy. That is the old Conservative policy. They have faced all these problems in the same spirit for the last few years. The remedy lies in a strong, firm and decisive foreign policy, such as has been so well initiated by the present Prime Minister. Let me say, in conclusion, that it is, indeed, welcome to observe from the benches opposite the admission of a fact which they have always previously denied, that the degradation, suffering and misery of other people react upon our own people, and, therefore, may we not look to them in the future for support for a policy which reverses their policy, and treats the world as an economic unit?

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act in respect of goods made under conditions not allowed by trades unions or by Law in Great Britain."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 228.