La rédaction de geneveMonde poursuit sa mission de mise en valeur des archives audiovisuelles de la Genève internationale et vous invite à écouter ici le discours d'Harold Butler, second directeur du Bureau international du Travail, prononcé lors de la Conférence internationale du travail, organisée à Genève durant l'été 1933.

En 1932, suite au décès inattendu d'Albert Thomas, Harold Butler est choisi comme successeur. L'organisation dont il hérite voit son avenir menacé par la Grande Dépression, dont les effets poussent au repli nationaliste. Son mandat en tant que directeur du BIT se caractérise par d'importants changements qui marquent l'histoire de l'OIT: entrée des Etats-Unis en 1934, organisation des premières conférences régionales en dehors de l'Europe à partir de 1936 et un engagement fort en faveur d'une régulation internationale de l'économie.

Dans son discours prononcé en 1933 devant la CIT, à l'occasion de la publication de son premier rapport annuel en tant que directeur général, Butler avance des idées économiques en rupture avec la doctrine du libéralisme, chère à la Société des Nations. Il voit dans la baisse de la consommation l'une des origines de la crise. Il exhorte alors les Etats membres à maintenir des niveaux élevés de salaires, la prospérité des travailleurs étant, selon lui, un élément fondamental de sortie de crise.

Britannique d'origine, Harold Butler a dirigé le BIT pendant six ans avant de retourner en Angleterre, pour devenir Warden [Recteur] du Nuffield College à Oxford.

Cette archive sonore provient des fonds du Bureau international du travail à Genève et a été numérisée et restaurée par Francine Margot, technicienne et archiviste de la RTS.

Véronique Stenger pour geneveMonde

Référence de l'archive sonore: Discours à la CIT d’Harold Butler 26 juin 1933. 60 min. MCD I 33 CIT 6. Archives du Bureau international du travail.

Retranscription du discours (tiré de: CIT, procès-verbal, juin 1933, archives du Bureau international du Travail).

The SECRETARY-GENERAL — Mr.President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise to reply to this long and interesting debate in a very humble spirit. I realise only too well what the immense oratorical talent and the magnetic personality of Albert Thomas have accustomed you to expect on these occasions. As many speakers have recalled, his absence weighs heavily on all of us, and not least on myself. Some of the speakers have been so kind as to express the belief that I might prove a worthy successor. That will certainly be the aim that I shall always keep before me, but I do not conceal from myself the difficulty of approaching that high ideal, and on that ground I feel justified in asking for a special measure of indulgence on this the first occasion that I am called upon to defend the Director's Report. Indeed, I should be singularly wanting in gratitude if I did not deeply appreciate the great indulgence which has already been shown by the Conference in its reception of my Report. Without taking at their literal value all the compliments that have been paid to it, I am nevertheless profoundly sensible of the kindly feeling that has inspired them.

Je regrette qu'il me soit impossible de parler en deux langues à la fois. Mais je tiens à remercier de ma propre voix et dans leur langue, tous les orateurs qui ont parlé en français, des paroles généreuses qu'ils ont prononcées au sujet de mon rapport, plutôt que leur adresser mes remerciements par la voix métallique du téléphone.

To begin with, I should like to take up some of the criticisms that have been offered on the Report. In the first place, I should like to turn to a request made by Mr. Kupers, who asked that the decisions of the Governing Body might be included in the Report and who was particularly anxious to know what had been done with regard to the proposed enquiries into the textile and into the iron and steel industries. As he is probably aware, the Governing Body decided that the time was not opportune to make enquiries in either of those industries. It was felt that during the period of depression it would be difficult, if not impossible, to procure adequate and reliable information upon which to base trustworthy conclusions. The enquiries have not been abandoned and I have every hope that they will be undertaken as soon as more normal conditions are restored. I should just like however to make one observation.

There appeared to be some reluctance on the part of some Governments and some employers' organisations to furnish the material which will be necessary for the construction of a satisfactory Report, and it would seem to me that if we were unable to obtain that information it would be singularly unfortunate, particularly at a time when, as has been shown by the debate to which we have listened during these last three days, a strong desire is being expressed, not only by certain Gov- ernments but also by a good many employers' organisations, for fuller information as to the conditions in some countries with which they are in competition. The Office can only do its work satisfactorily if it can obtain the scientific basis which it requires, if it is to guide public opinion, as Mr. Kupers has expressed it. I, therefore, hope that when the time does come to make those enquires we shall be able to get all the information we want from every country in which those two industries are carried on to any important extent.

A second sin of omission was attributed to me by Mr. Knob, the Employers' Delegate of Hungary, who suggested that it would be a good thing if in the future the Director's Report should deal with the demographic problem, the problem of the distribution of population, and in that connection I was extremely interested to listen to the speeches of Mr. Bullrich and Mr. Zumeta, who suggested that one of the great problems connected with the crisis was the transference of the surplus population of countries which may be considered as over-populated into the great countries which still need capital and labour to develop their resources. Mr. Bullrich suggested that the Governing Body might very well concern itself with that question, and as a matter of fact it was brought before it not very long ago by Mr. de Michelis. It has also been the subject of consideration by the Committee of European Union instituted by the League of Nations.

I have every reason to think that those studies Avili be pursued, and it is quite evident to anybody who has reflected upon the consequences that one of the factors which has deranged the equilibrium of the economic world is the restrictions placed on the passage of emigrants from one part of the world to another. That, as Mr. Knob pointed out, is a problem which needs to be treated in relation to the growth not only of the population but also of the national revenue of the different countries. He asked whether it was true that national revenues were increasing as rapidly as population. I do not know the answer to that question, but it is certainly a fundamental question and, with him, I agree that we ought to examine it. I am only sorry that he is not here to-day, because in giving that under-taking I should have liked to have asked him on his side to defend me against any criticism from Mr. Cort van der Linden, who, I am afraid, might accuse me of exceeding the bounds of the competence of the Organisation.

And that brings me to another sin, perhaps one of commission, which Mr. Cort van der Linden attributed to me. He said that the Report was too economic, that it did not confine itself to dealing with the social questions which are properly within the purview of the Organisation, but went astray into the broad field of economic controversy. He even quoted the Standing Orders to indicate that I was ultra vires. Well, I confess that that criticism surprised me alittlewhenl thought of the criticism which was levelled at the White Report of the Office during the Preparatory Conference in January. On that occasion the complaint from the Employers' side was that it had failed to deal with the economic aspects of the problem, and I confess that some of those criticisms seemed to me to have some substance in them. It seems to me to be at least a pardonable error if I have tried to correct that error on this occasion.

But, as Colonel Creswell said this morning, it is in fact impossible to distinguish the economic from the social aspect of what is now taking place. In my Report, 46 pages out of 68 were devoted to the social aspect of the crisis, but I am bound to admit that a great part of those in pages were concerned with economic questions to some extent. The two things are, nowadays at any rate, whatever may have been the case in the past, completely inseparable. I do not think anyone would now maintain that the question of wages, the question of hours of work, the question of social insurance, the question of the assistance to be given to the unemployed, were simply humanitarian questions.

Even from a purely economic standpoint, it would hardly be maintained that the ideal is to have the lowest possible wages, the longest possible hours, or the least possible degree of assistance for the unemployed, and what I tried to show in my Report was that it is just the economic aspects of these social phenomena which have perhaps not been given all the import- ance that they deserve. These questions form part of the general problem of pur- chasing power, the problem of circulation of capital and of the distribution of income on which the economic balance of society depends, and I was therefore glad to find that the general view expressed by a great many speakers (by Mr. Biagi, by Professor Aalberse, by Mr. Jezsovits, by Mr. Jurkiewicz, by Colonel Creswell, by Mr. Olivetti, by Mr. Tchourtchine, by Mr. Mircea and by Mr. Watanabe) was to the effect that the Report had rightly dealt with these matters, which are vital to the prosperity of the worker, the employer and the community alike.

I do not propose to say very much about the matters of economic controversy which have been touched upon in the course of the debate. I should only like to dwell upon two points. In the first place, as regards the question of purchasing power, which, as in the Preparatory Conference in January, is being more and more recognised as being fundamental in the present situation, I was accused by Mr. Cort van der Linden of having ignored an elementary economic principle—namely, the theory of value. Like other economic laws, this theory as expounded by the classical economists was based on certain assumptions ; it postulated among other things a free market, national and international, in which supply and demand operated freely and automatically.

Those conditions do not exist. They have never entirely existed in the real world ; but in modern times the complexity of industrial and commercial life has rendered their realisation impossible. If the adjustment of prices were really automatic, if labour always commanded the remuneration to which it was entitled—as would be the case if the classic theory really operated in practice—there would be perfect balance between production and consumption and there would not be 30 million unemployed at the present time. The persistence of the depression has led a great many people, including a number of quite respectable economists, to the view that the competitive economic system, if left to itself, can never achieve the results which recent development in men's power of production have entitled us to expect. The growth of conscious intervention and control in the economic life of every country—the beginning, in fact, of what is called "economic planning"—is the natural consequence of this conviction. Moreover, it is now becoming generally admitted (as may be seen from the draft Agenda for the Economic Conference now sitting in London) that this conscious control must begin in the financial sphere.

At the present time the farmer cannot sell his produce or the industrialist his goods. The purchasing power of the peasant, the farmer and the factory worker are alike diminished. Wheat and coffee are being burnt or thrown into the sea while the unemployed tramp the streets in hungry millions. But, as Mr. Bandeira de Mello very wittily and aptly said, "Nowhere is silver being burnt or gold being thrown into the sea—on the contrary they are being carefully hoarded for fear lest they come into circulation." There lies the root of the great problem, economic and social, with which we are now confronted : the problem of restoring the balance between our increasing production and our lagging consumption.

The solution of that problem means restoring to use the wealth now lying idle, which alone can enable the farmer to obtain a fair return for his labour and thus to become a good customer of industry, and which alone can enable the worker to produce what he is capable of producing and to obtain the equivalent remuneration to which he is entitled. How is that to be accomplished ? For those who still cling to the doctrine of the old economists on the assumption that it is applicable to the conditions of the modern world, the answer apparently is — "By doing nothing ; by letting things slide ; by letting things drift in the fond hope that in time they will some- how adjust themselves." We are told that all that has to be done is to restore confidence, but how can confidence be restored without positive action ? Few people now really believe that without action of some kind we can emerge successfully from our present difficulties. If they did, there would be no London Conference sitting at this moment.

Most people agree with Sir Phiroze Sethna that the old automatic adjustment of supply and demand no longer runs smoothly and that an intelligently planned and concerted economy has become inevitable. Many speakers in the course of this debate have spoken of planned economy as if it were a theory, but, as Mr. Olivetti very forcibly pointed out, it is not a theory but a fact. That was the point which I tried to emphasise in my Report. Whether we like it or whether we do not, interference with competitive conditions has already gone so far that it will almost inevitably go further. I also noticed that several speakers, Mr. Tchourtchine and Mr. Mircea among them, adopted some definition of planned economy which they disliked and proceeded to condemn it on the assumption that no other definition wras possible.

Planning is in fact taking many forms and is, no doubt, capable of assuming many other forms which have as yet been untried. Some of those forms are good, some are bad. We are still groping after the right methods, which may well differ from country to country and from industry to industry. In any case, it is quite fallacious to assume that the only form of planned economy is the direct State administration of industry, resulting in a glorified bureaucracy, which the bureaucrats themselves would probably be the first to deplore. Planning is by no means incompatible with the self-government of industry, such as was adumbrated by Signor Biagi, in which employers and workers determine their own problems. It may well be that it is in this direction that the control of industry will develop, rather than in the direction of nationalised industry. This may be the natural development which Professor Aalberse suggested, in which the State would perform only " its natural task of removing obstacles, guiding and supervising ". For, as Mr. Jouhaux insisted, a planned economy can only be successful if it is planned in conformity with the general interest.

That is what every State is now trying to do, sometimes badly, through exaggerated tariffs, quotas and restrictions, which are bringing their own nemesis. But the fact that some of the efforts hitherto made, both by Governments and by private industry, to regulate production and exchange have been unsuccessful does not prove that the general idea underlying these efforts in themselves was wrongly conceived. Mr. Jouhaux appears to me to be perfectly right in saying that planning has not yet been fully tried, either nationally or internationally. And I will add that national planning inevitably leads to international co-ordination and control, if it is to furnish a remedy for our present difficulties. It is for that reason that the Committee of Experts which reported to the Economic Conference recommended some permanent system of co-operation between central banks for the control of credit and prices, and that the American Delegation to the London Conference has introduced a far- reaching resolution, demanding co-operative action between Governments, aiming at the systematic revival of credit and confidence.

Finally, planning must reconcile social and economic requirements. It is with this aspect of it that this Organisation is most closely concerned, and it is for that reason that it appeared to me relevant to draw the attention of the Conference to the importance which planned economy was now assuming in the minds of Governments and in the thinking of economists. I should now like to pass to one or two questions relating to the present position of this Organisation. In the first place, as regards its composition. Perhaps I need hardly say that it is a very special pleasure to me to see an American Delegation here for the first time this year. We value their collaboration all the more on account of the great industrial reconstruction, of which Miss Anderson and Mr.Frayne gave us some account, which is now being undertaken in the United States. Anyone who is interested in the problems of this Organisation is bound to follow this effort with the closest attention. I need hardly add either, perhaps, that we too hope that, as Miss Anderson said, "the collaboration so successfully instituted may expand and grow".

I should also like to say what personal pleasure it gave me to hear the statement made by Ziwer Pasha as regards the progress made in Egypt. That was particularly welcome hearing for me, as I became intensely interested in the social problems which I found in Egypt, and I am naturally glad to find that many of the recommendations which I made are already being carried into practice, in particular the establishment of a Labour Council, of which Ziwer Pasha himself is the Chairman. He expressed the hope that Egypt would before long become a Member of this Organisation, and that the legal difficulties that may be held to stand in the way would be overcome. Everybody must echo that hope, and I have always believed that the great merit of lawyers was that they could always find a way round the obstacles which they themselves had set up. I hope that on this occasion they will not prove less ingenious than they have on many occasions in the past. In any case, I trust that the Governing Body will consider these difficulties and find a way of meeting the desire of the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian workers to enter the Organisation next year.

Then I should like to say a few words on the subject of the Conventions. I think that the record for last year may be regarded—as several speakers have said—as distinctly satisfactory, when one thinks of the times in which we are living. This is all the more so when one realises that whereas, at the time when my Report was written, the total number of ratifications was 502, to-day it is 565. That increase has been largely due to the remarkable progress which has been made in the matter of ratification in Latin-America. Even, before the Conference opened, Venezuela and the Dominion Republic, each for the first time, had deposited ratifications. Then Mr. de Castro brought us the very welcome intelligence that Uruguay had ratified no less than thirty Conventions, which were embodied in its legislation. He was followed by Mr. Arango with twenty-four further ratifications from Colombia, while Chile has added six to its previous record.

During President Alessandri's previous administration some years ago, Chile gave a lead and had ratified thirteen Conventions at the beginning of this year. She hasjnow ratified nineteen. Finally, Dr. Bullrich and Dr. Castillo Najera have informed us that yet further ratifications may be expected from the Argentine Republic and Mexico next year. That, I think, is a very remarkable development. It confirms what I ventured to say in my Report, that one of the results of the depression has been to give a stimulus to social legislation in Latin-America.

Then I must add a tribute to those which have already been made to the address of Spain, where, through the faithful support of Mr. Caballero and Mr. Fabra-Ribas, fourteen more ratifications have been added to the previous total, bringing it up to thirty. There was only one critical note sounded during the debate with regard to ratifications, namely, the disappointment expressed by Mr. Kupers, Mr. Hayday and other Workers' Delegates in regard to the non-ratification of the Convention on Hours of Work in Coal Mines. I share their disappointment, as I said in my Report.

A resolution is to be discussed in the Conference in the next few days urging the Governing Body to take some further steps in the matter, and I can only say that as far as I am concerned I shall do everything I can to bring about the ratification of that particular Convention, which was discussed in such detail, and with such minute regard to the conditions in the various countries concerned, that there really ought to be no insuperable obstacle in the way of its being brought into force. That reflection leads me to make one or two observations on the theory put forward by Mr. Renggli as to the framing of Conventions. He built what seemed to me a somewhat unscientific structure on the fact that the Convention on Night Work in Bakeries had only been ratified by six countries, although it was adopted eight years ago, but I would point out to him that he took the least favourable example, and if I were to take other Conventions of the same period I could make quite a different argument. It might not be a better argument, but it would be a different one.

Of the twenty Conventions that were adopted before 1925, no less than eleven have obtained more than twenty ratifications, and all, with the single exception of the one which he mentioned, have obtained more than ten ratifications. Then he went on to say that the old method — by which I understood he meant the method adopted before the war by the International Association for Labour Legislation and the conferences which met under its auspices — was more fertile and successful than the method adopted by this Organisation. Well, there I venture to join issue with him on a question of fact. I look at the Convention on the Night Work of Women, which was adopted, I think, in 1906, and I see that it obtained eleven ratifications in a space of thirteen years.

The Washington Convention on the same subject, which was adopted in 1919, obtained no less than twenty-seven ratifications in the same period. Then he suggested — and I am not saying this as a matter of criticism, but because I think it is a point of real importance which deserves the attention of the Conference, and certainly it is one to which we ourselves have given a great deal of thought — that it would be easier and more satisfactory if Conventions could be drafted which did not go into too much detail, which contented themselves with laying down principles and which in that way would be easier of ratification. I am not quite convinced of that.

We have had all kinds of Conventions. We have had very general Conventions, Conventions which hardly contained any detailed obligation at all, such as the Convention on minimum wages. That has not been a very successful Convention ; it has obtained only 13 ratifications. Again, we have had extremely detailed Conventions, such as that on safety in docks. That again has given rise to a great deal of difficulty. I believe in the end it will be ratified, but you will re- member that it had to be revised once and even now it is still awaiting ratification. I believe that that was too detailed a Convention ; at any rate it was too detailed to be adopted as a general model. I think one is driven back to the conclusion that there is perhaps no general rule which one can lay down ; each Convention must be taken by itself.

On the whole, however, it would seem that what should be aimed at is a mean, a middle way between something very detailed and just a broad principle which creates no international obligation. There is one thing, however, which is quite certain, and that is that it is impossible in an international Convention to include the letter of every national law bearing on the subject. An international Convention is an international Convention and it can never be made to embody the national law of all the countries engaged in discussing it.

I should now like to turn to another subject which has been mentioned a great deal in this debate and which I was glad to see so fully ventilated, namely, the position of the overseas countries in this Organisation. It is quite true, as Colonel Creswell said this morning, that the overseas countries are necessarily at a certain disadvantage. Their participation in the work of the Organisation is far more difficult than that of the European countries if only for reasons of distance and the expense which distance necessarily involves. I think I can assure the overseas Delegates, however, that the Office is very much alive to the importance of following as closely as possible the developments which have taken place in the countries which have only trodden the path of industrialisation for a comparatively short time.

As Sir Atul Chatterjee said, it is impossible to put the clock back. The process is bound to go forward, whatever effects it may produce on the economy of the world at large. I do very much hope, if I may say so in passing, that when the new Indian Constitution is finally drafted, it will not in any way diminish the effective participation which we have always enjoyed from India in the past.

I was also particularly glad to hear what Mr. Wallach said this morning. He said that one of the great difficulties was that the overseas countries got very little news of what was happening in Geneva, and it was therefore very difficult for their public opinion to understand the importance and the effect of the debates which took place here. This, I think, is incontestible, and the answer he supplied is the only possible answer, namely, that we should try to do more in the way of obtaining publicity. He added a rider with which I should certainly not quarrel, namely, that this would mean some further expenditure of money. Whether that is possible under present circumstances I am not sure, but when it does become possible I shall certainly not be opposed to adopting the course which he suggested. I am quite convinced from my personal experience of the great value to the Office and to those who make the journeys of visits to the overseas countries. It is only in that way that one can appreciate the great difference which often exists, and which indeed usually exists, between their conditions and those which obtain in Europe. As far as I personally am concerned, my visits to the United States of America, to Canada, to South Africa and to Egypt have taught me to understand problems which I should not have realised at all without those visits, and for that reason I intend—and I have already carried out the intention to some extent-—to send qualified members of the Office to visit overseas countries and report whenever opportunity offers.

I should like very much as soon as I can to avail myself of the invitation which Mr. Saavedra-Agücro brought to this tribune and to visit Chile, and use that opportunity of visiting other Latin-American countries. I feel that there is a gap in my knowledge and education there which I should certainly endeavour to nil as soon as the possibility occurs. There is just one other point, which was mentioned by Mr. Hsiao, namely the necessity of obtaining the ratification of the amendment to Article 39;3 of the Treaty.

That amendment has been hanging fire year after year and now it requires only the ratification of one country, Panama, to enable it to enter into force next year. That would mean the enlargement of the Governing Body and the increase of the representation of overseas countries in the Governing Body. That proposal was first put forward by Mr. Gemmill at Washington at the very first Conference held under Part XIII of the Treaty, and I am sure the time has now come when effect should be given to it. In conclusion, I should like very briefly to indicate what I consider the principal immediate tasks which the Office has before it.

During this debate a number of speakers have laid stress on the competition, now being intensified, between the old advanced industrial countries and some of the newer industrial countries overseas. Anxiety was expressed by Mr. Kupers, Mr. Hayday and other Delegates lest that competition should have the effect of debasing the standards of living already obtaining in Europe, and Mr. Leggett said that seemed to him a problem which ought essentially to be dealt with by the International Labour Organisation. It would be idle to conceal from oneself that the task is certain to be extremely difficult .

As has emerged in the course of discussion, it is not only a question of competition between Europe and America and the Asiatic countries, but it is also a question of competition between Asiatic countries themselves. Mr. Aftab Ali and Mr. Sakamoto both stressed this point, and both of them suggested that the Asiatic Conference which was recommended in the Resolution adopted here some years ago should be convened as soon as possible. I believe that would be a good thing. I believe it would be a first step towards obtaining first hand and complete information as to the real conditions of competition in the East. The Office has already made a beginning in publishing this year a substantial volume on industrial labour in Japan, and the interest which that volume has aroused is an indication of the importance of this question.

We propose to follow that volume by others dealing with other Asiatic countries, but I am sure that at the present time a great many statements are made and a good deal of controversy is carried on on insecure foundations without a complete realisation of all the facts of the situation. In that connection I was very much struck by some of the figures which Mr. Watanabe adduced. As he pointed out, the exchange situation as it is to-day has created an abnormal position, and it would no doubt be a mistake to assume that the conditions which now exist are permanent. Again, he pointed out that this whole question is intimately bound up with the whole problem of tariffs and inter- national exchanges, and I believe that account has to be taken of all those things before we can see this problem in its proper perspective. I would say is that I regard this as one of the most important problems with which the Office is called upon to deal, and that we shall do our best to try to obtain full information and to present it as impartially and objectively as we possibly can.

Then there is a second task, namely, the study of the question of technological unemployment. Mr. Olivetti suggested that we were too pessimistic, that the experiences of the past have shown that new industries developed to absorb the labour displaced by labour-saving machinery and that in the end the volume of the industrial population was increased rather than diminished. I hope that is true, but I confess that the evidence which has become available during the last ten years hardly seems to me to bear out that conclusion.

The question is being increasingly asked, whether the time-lag between displacement and absorption is not getting longer, and there is also a second question, equally relevant, namely, whether the new inventions which are now coming into the industrial world are not rather labour-saving than labour creating. I believe one can find a good deal of support for that belief, but I should be the first to admit that proof is very difficult to obtain. Mr. Gerard emphasised the difficulties of distinguishing unemployment due to technical causes and unemployment due to other causes.

That is perfectly true, and in the present state of our knowledge we are not in a position to form a final conclusion. There is a good deal of prima jade evidence, but there is no great conclusive proof; the deduction I would draw from that is this, that it is our duty to try and obtain the material necessary on which to found a proof, and for that reason I am very glad that the Hours Committee has not only adopted the suggestion which we made in the questionnaire as to an enquiry into this whole subject, but that it has been strengthened by an amendment of Mr. Justin Godart which will give it a good orientation.

Then a third question, the question of hours of work, which is of course closely bound up with the subject of technological unemployment. A good many speakers have expressed disappointment that more rapid progress has not been made this year. I would not go further into that than to say that I believe and I hope that next year we shall be in a position to see this problem more clearly than we can see it at present ; but I was struck by two remarks which were made in the course of this debate.

The first was by Miss Anderson, who tells us that in the cotton textile industry of the United States it is already proposed to establish a forty-hour week. That I regard as an announcement of the very first importance, because, if experience has already been gained of a shorter week in so great an industrial country as the United States, I am sure it will be of the greatest assistance to us in trying to solve this problem.

The second remark was made by Signor Biagi, who said that in his view "a deeper study of the problem will bring out the necessity of remedies, not of a temporary but of a permanent character, especially as regards technological unemployment". In any case, it is certain that this question of hours is part of the whole question of industrial reconstruction, and as such it is an essential part of the future task of the Office. And I would just like to add one word—one caveat—which is this : the question of reducing working hours as it is now before the Organisation is perhaps the most important, but also the most difficult, question with which it has had to deal, and I say that for this reason : it is the first occasion, as I think Mr. Schiireh pointed out, that a far-reaching reform has been proposed internationally which has not yet been realised in any single country.

In the past our Conventions and Recommendations have been based on a considerable amount of national experience, and the fact that we are making our own experience on this occasion is bound to create a difficulty in solving the problem. At the same time I believe, with Colonel Creswell, that this is a reform which is bound to come. I believe that we have passed the first stage of pure negation, and I hope that next year we shall enter upon the process of positive achievement. The fourth task is in connection with what I will call public works. Personally, I have never very much liked that expression in English. It has always seemed to me to give too narrow an interpretation of what is intended. It suggests road-making and bridge-building and things of that kind, as if these were the only ways by which labour can be employed or industry stimulated, whereas in fact a more accurate and comprehensive expression would indicate that there are a number of other spheres in which Government action could be effective in order to restore the flow of credit and revive industrial activity.

The Conference has already adopted a resolution which has been transmitted to the Economic Conference in London dealing with this question, and it is evident from the reports which come from London that it is beginning to assume considerable importance there. In particular, the proposal to which I have already alluded from the American Delegation proposing international co-ordination, not of expenditure on public works but of Government expenditure in general, with a view to effecting credit expansion and higher prices, has put forward the whole question in the way in which Î believe it ought to be put forward. Some speakers, notably Mr. Olivetti, have suggested that that means inflation. I do not think it necessarily means inflation. He asked in the first place whether I thought that stable money was not a necessary pre-condition to any action of this kind. I am inclined to think that this particular Conference has already gone on record in that sense.

The first recommendation which it sent to London was '' the stabilisation of currencies, nationally and internationally ". I agree with Mr. Olivetti that that is the first step, and I would also agree with him that a great deal of crédit expansion has not been sound. On the other hand, I should also maintain that the restriction of credit was unsound in cases where capital is lying idle, is not being fully utilised, is simply being sterilised in the banks instead of being put into use for productive purposes. That, as I see it, is the real value of expenditure on public works, or Government expenditure on other objects calculated to produce some results, namely, a restoration of money to circulation and the reduction of unemployment, provided that it is properly co-ordinated and controlled. That, to my mind, is the interest of the suggestion thrown out by Mr. Jurkiewicz and Mr. de Castro to the effect that some new body was needed for this purpose. I think that may prove to be the case, and if such a body is set up I think it ought to have some kind of relationship with this Organisation. Well, I am afraid I have taken a great deal of your time — more than I intended. The programme which I have sketched is admittedly formidable, but I do not think it is more ambitious than the needs of the time demand.

The work of this Organisation is closely linked up with the whole problem of economic recovery, with the readjustment of social values and of economic organisation which it implies. These are essentially international problems. We cannot stand still in the face of a world which is moving with great rapidity out of its old tracks into new and untried paths. We have got to play our part in that journey of discovery. Millions of people look to this Organisation for help and guidance. As I ventured to express it in my Report, the regulation of labour conditions is no longer so much a matter of protecting the worker against abuse as a part of the rational organisation of society. I am glad that that view of our mission has been approved by many speakers in this debate, and I feel that the whole tenor of the discussion which we have had during these last three days is an encouragement to the Organisation to go forward boldly and confidently to meet the new problems and responsibilities which confront it.