BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1928, Page 5

BRITISH PARLIAMENT

IN THE COMMONS

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS.

(British Official Wireless.)

R UG BY, November 20

.Many questions were asked in the House of Commons to-day regarding the loss of the Vestris.

Replying, Mr Williams (Under-Secre-tary of the Hoard of Trade) said the form of the inquiry to be held in tin's country was not yet decided, but the inquiry would cover all material points as to tin 1 responsibility of the Hoard of Trade.

Mr Williams said all passenger ships trading to and from ports in this country were thoroughly surveyed by Hoard of Trade surveyors at least once a year. All ocean-going vessels, carrying large numbers of third-class passengers underwent a further survey before beginning each voyage. Asked whether inspectors of the Hoard of Trade bad any responsibility for the proper storage of cargo below decks. Mr Williams replied that this responsibility rested oil the persons concerned in sending the ships to sett. The Board of Trade surveyors did not intervene unless there was reason to think the ship was improperly loaded, and could not go to sett without danger to life. He added that all British liners carried boats for all aboard and in addition rafts up to 25 per cent oT the number of persons aboard. RUGBY, November 20.

Hon. W. Churchill stated in the House of Commons in reply to a question that the annual payment to the United States in repayment of war debt was £33,01)0,000. and British receipts in respect of Allied debts shoo'd be £ 1 2.0011,000, including £8.000.090 from Era nee and £1,009.000 from Italy. Reparations should amount to £19.000,000, making £32.000.000 as against £33.000.000. The annual payment to United Stall's would rise to £38.000.000 after 1933 and receipts from Allied war debts and reparations also would rise in proportion in accordance with the settlement agreed to.

A representative of the War Office stated in the Commons that the extra cost involved in keeping additional troops in Shanghai up to November was estimated at £1,250.000. The Earl of Lyttoil in the House ol Lords raised the question of the Washington Eight Hours Convention and moved that the Government should inform the International Labour Office at Geneva of the precise points on which they desired a revision ol the convention.

Lord Londonderry, on behalf of the Government, said this country was bound to maintain and promote the application of the genera! principle of an eight-hour day or 48-hour week, so far as our special circumstances permitted because that was part of our understanding in the Treaty of Versailles. The text of the convention, however, was found to be veiled and ambiguous and it failed to provide tbe necessary guarantee for uniformity of practice after ratification, and made no allowance for various industrial practices perfectly consistent with its main purposes. The British Government was impressed by the tact that interpretations given to various articles ol tin 1 convention by different countries were widely divergent. Neither the present Conservative Government of this country nor the Labour Government could ratify a convention so inapplicable in its present shape to our particular circumstances and contain:n such ambiguities. We had no desire to oppose the principle of eight hours. We desired only to alter the convention instrument under which uniformity of practice and enforcement would he asserted by removing ambiguities and making provision for various industrial practices which in any way opposed the principle ol the convention.