Commons Sitting of 2 April 1928

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that customs duties are charged on entry into India of regimental mess plate, furniture, pictures, and band instruments, and on artificial poppies for Poppy Day celebration; and whether he will consult with the Indian Government as to the desirability of securing the immunity from customs charges of regimental and other commodities possessing mainly a sentimental value?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have no information as to whether duty is charged on artificial poppies imported into India for Poppy Day celebration but will inquire. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of a pamphlet regarding British Indian Customs, and of Indian Army Order, No. 418, dated 10th June, 1926, which give full information as to the levy of customs duties on the remaining articles referred to.

    SUPERIOR SERVICES, BURMA (RECRUITMENT).
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of the Lee Commission regarding the recruitment of officers for the superior services in Burma operating in transferred fields has yet been terminated by the issue of the Secretary of State's orders regarding rules to supersede the Civil Services (Governor's Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926; and, if not, whether, in view of the admitted hardship caused to men serving in the transferred Departments, he can now give the date of the proposed issue of the Secretary of State's orders?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Civil Services (Governor's Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926, give Provincial Governments full power to form and recruit superior services in the transferred field as recommended by the Lee Commission, and their difficulties, which arose from problems of organisation and not from any defect in the rules, have, it is hoped, been largely solved as the result of a conference held at Delhi last November. The new Classification Control and Appeal Rules which are ultimately to embody the provisions of those rules and deal with other matters besides, are still under discussion with the Government of India and it is not possible at present to give a date for their issue.

    BEDIBUNDER PORT, KATHIAWAR.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are considering the acquisition of the Port of Bedibunder, in Kathiawar; what offer has been made, if any, to the Jamsahib in this respect; and whether he will in form the House of the reasons for these negotiations?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no knowledge of any such proposal.

    DEPRESSED CLASSES (REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of representatives of the depressed classes in the central and provincial legislatures of India and who appoints them; and whether any grant is made by the

    1573
    Government of India for the specific purpose of raising the status of these classes?
    Earl WINTERTON: The number of seats provided specially for representatives of the depressed classes in the various legislatures is: Ten in Madras, four in the Central Provinces, two each in Bombay and Bihar, and one each in Bengal and the United Provinces. The appointments to these seats are made by the Governor. In addition, the Governor-General has nominated a representative of these classes to the Legislative Assembly. No grant from the Central Government is (or could be, under the present constitution) made for the benefit of these classes, but in some provinces the local Government is endeavouring to take special steps—educational and otherwise—towards their advancement. These matters are for the most part in the charge of Ministers responsible to the provincial legislatures.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the Noble Lord give the House any idea how much money is spent on the education side of what are called the depressed classes?
    Earl WINTERTON: Not without nonce; it would require careful research in the case of every single province. It is a matter really within the discretion of the local Government, or rather the Minister of the transferred Department.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Is, there any reason why the request to devote one crore of rupees to these services was recently turned down?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I stated the constitutional position—the position under the law—in my answer.

    INDIAN PRINCES (STATUS).
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has been notified of the despatch by the Indian Chamber of Princes of a deputation to negotiate with the India Office regarding the future status of the Indian princes in connection with the Government of India; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Earl WINTERTON: It is understood that certain ruling princes will visit England this summer unofficially in order to take counsel's opinion regarding the evidence which they desire to put before the Indian States Committee, when it returns to this country, on the matters covered by its terms of reference. Neither these nor other matters which are still sub judicio as far as the Committee is concerned, and have not yet been officially considered, will be discussed by the princes with the India Office or with His Majesty's Government.

    MIAN TAJ MAHMUD.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the chief justice in Lahore, delivered on 18th November, 1927, in setting aside the convictions of Mian Taj Mahmud for perjury, in which the chief justice remarked that the proceedings taken by the magistrate showed that he had not heard the case with that judicial detachment which should characterise the trial of a criminal case, and that he had allowed his executive zeal to outrun his judicial discretion; whether the Government have taken any action in the matter with regard to the magistrate in question; and whether they propose to take any steps to secure that executive and magisterial duties shall not be confused in the future?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. I have not been informed what action was taken by the Government in regard to the magistrate but am inquiring. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer I gave on 12th March to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon).

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VISITS).
    Mr. THURTLE(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is in accordance with the advice of his Department that Opposition Members of Parliament who visit India are kept under police surveillance during the period of their stay in that country, and have reports of their speeches taken down by the police?.
    Earl WINTERTON: No. Sir.
    Mr. THURTLE: In view of that reply, will the Noble Lord use his influence with the Government of India to get this very disgraceful practice stopped?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would not feel himself entitled to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India in this matter. The Government of India are responsible for law and order within the country which they govern and, if in the exercise of their discretion they feel it necessary to take any particular action with regard to any particular person, they are entitled to do so.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the Noble Lord, in his very many years' experience in this House, has ever found it necessary in a British Possession to interfere with a Member of Parliament belonging to any party——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    SOLOMON ISLANDS
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of tribesmen at present detained at the Sinarango Prison Camp, Malaita, awaiting trial for the murders that occurred last October; and when it is proposed to try these prisoners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am informed that 191 natives were arrested, but I am not aware how many of these are detained at Sinarango. The trials were expected to open at the end of March.
    Mr. DAY: Have any of these men died since their incarceration?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I have heard there was dysentery in the camp, and I have telegraphed for information.

  IRAQ.

    PRESS TELEGRAMS
    13. Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the censorship of newspaper telegrams from Iraq has been suggested or sanctioned by the British Government?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make a statement about the delaying of Press messages and telegrams to England from Iraq; who is responsible for it; and the reasons for it?
    Mr. AMERY: In my reply to the question asked on the 29th of March by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I stated that so far as I was aware there was no censorship of Press telegrams at Bagdad, and that I was in communication with the High Commissioner in regard to statements appearing in the Press as to the alleged detention of such telegrams. I have now received a Report from the High Commissioner on the subject. He informs me that under a long-standing arrangement the Bagdad Telegraph Office informs a member of his staff by telephone of the gist of any Press message for issue from Bagdad, which may appear prima facie to give an exaggerated or misleading account of any important occurrence. The object of this procedure is that the High Commissioner may be able, should he consider it advisable, to acquaint the correspondent in question with the true facts-The High Commissioner informs me that the occasion for this arises about twice a year only, and that the resultant delay in the transmission of Press messages might be one or two hours at the utmost. There is no other censorship of any kind. The High Commissioner is not informed of inward messages.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this amounts to a Government control of information sent by private Press correspondents in Mesopotamia; and does he not think that it is very objectionable indeed?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; it only amounts to giving the Governor an opportunity of supplying true information to the correspondent, if he should desire to use it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the taxpayers want to have unbiased messages from Mesopotamia, and not Governmental dope?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not precisely that form of interference which is objected to when it is used in France or any other foreign country; and is not

    1577
    that form of censorship the common form throughout the world whenever Governments desire to interfere with Press messages?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no interference; the Press correspondent still remains free to send whatever he chooses.

    DISTILLERY, BASRA.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the distillery at Basra was set up after Great Britain received the Mandate for Mesopotamia; and, if so, to whom it belongs, what it produces and to whom its products are chiefly sold?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no information on the subject, which does not fall within the scope of the Treaty regulating our relations with Iraq.

    MALTA (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representation has been made to him by the Legislative Assembly of Malta to amend their Constitution in financial matters; and, if so, whether the question has yet been considered and with what result?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

    GIBRALTAR (COALHEAVERS' DISPUTE).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will make inquiry as to the threatened expulsion of British citizens from Gibraltar owing to their being involved in the coalheavers' dispute; and what action he proposes to take in the matter:
    (2) if he has received reports as to the arrest of 23 men in Gibraltar in connection with the dispute affecting the coal-heavers; and what was the cause of this arrest?
    Mr. AMERY: I have received no information on either point, but I will make inquiry of the Governor.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report as to the present situation in Gibraltar regarding the coal-heavers' dispute; whether he can give any information as to any negotiations likely to lead to a settlement; whether there are now any Moors employed to take the place of the men involved in the present dispute: and whether their numbers have increased or decreased?
    Mr. AMERY: I have now received a report from the Governor on the matter from which it appears that, in spite of the efforts at mediation undertaken by the Colonial Government, no settlement of the dispute has so far been reached. I understand that there are no longer any Moors employed to replace the men involved in the dispute.
    Mr. KELLY: Is it a fact that the report indicates that while the Moors have been displaced Spaniards have been brought in to take the place of British citizens?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; a great part of the work has always been done by Spaniards and others outside the civil area, but I am not sure how many are employed.

    COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LIMITED.
    Mr. OTHO NICHOLSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has ascertained the views of the Basle Mission Society on the proposal to transfer the Gold Coast properties now held by the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, to the Basle Mission Trading Company, free from all trust; and, if not, whether he is willing to do so before proceeding further with the negotiations?
    Mr. AMERY: As the properties in question originally belonged to the Basle Trading Company, I can only negotiate with that company. In the course of the negotiations, I have, of course, constantly borne in mind the point to which my hon. Friend attaches importance, and I have good reason to believe that when I am in a position to make a statement on the whole subject I shall be able to give assurances which will satisfy him.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to

    1579
    believe that Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff will undertake any fresh obligations whatever?
    Mr. AMERY: I think, if my hon. Friend will read my answer, that he will be satisfied on that point.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I am afraid that I have a very acute recollection of the answer, and I am not at all satisfied.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, at a special meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, allegations were made concerning the methods by which the policy of the Colonial Office on matters concerning the Trust was arrived at; and will he call for a verbatim report of the proceedings?
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that during the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, attacks were made on certain Members of Parliament and allegations were made about the methods of his Department; and whether he will request the directors to forward to him a verbatim copy of the printed speeches, in order that copies may be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of the Members?
    Mr. AMERY: I will ask the directors if they can furnish me with any fuller report of the speeches referred to than that which has already appeared in the Press. I shall then be in a position to judge whether such report contains sufficient additional matter of importance to justify my laying it upon the Table of the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the proposal made by the Government to repay part of the capital of the Commonwealth Trust with some further compensation, he will inquire as to the expense incurred by the trust in taking the great hall at Winchester House for a meeting of 13 shareholders and the cost of putting a six-column advertisement in the "Times" to record Mr. Lionel Curtis's speech; and
    (2) whether he is aware that, during the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, certain shareholders moved
    1580
    an amendment to the official resolution of the directors urging the board of directors to co-operate with the Secretary of State and, subject to certain conditions, to give him every assistance in a friendly manner in carrying out the decision of the Cabinet, and that, apart from the personal vote of the directors themselves, the amendment was only lost by a majority of one vote of those present; and whether he will call upon the directors to submit to him a certificate showing the number of shareholders, apart from the directors, present and voting at the meeting, coupled with a statement upon the proxies received from those who were unable to be present and to avail themselves of the information disclosed at the meeting?
    Mr. AMERY: I do not think it necessary to make the suggested inquiries into the detailed administration of the company's affairs.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that the directors of this company are subject to the right hon. Gentleman's approval, is he not in a position of trust, so that he ought to be able to see whether the money of the trust is being wasted or not?
    Mr. AMERY: On major issues that is so, but I hardly think that that trust would warrant me interfering on detail points.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: If any of the officers of the Commonwealth Trust lose their positions in consequence of the transfer, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to see that their interests are protected?
    Mr. AMERY: Most certainly.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), stated at the meeting in question that his only object was to get his money back, can the right hon. Gentleman give the necessary assurance?
    Mr. SKELTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in a word what the functions of the Commonwealth Trust are?
    Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that that word would be a very comprehensive one.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a column of the "Times" costs about

    1581
    £75, and that the total amount spent on this publicity was £450, if it was paid for; and is that the way the money is to be expended by a company not making profits?
    Mr. AMERY: I do not know whether that money was spent.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not desirable that the shareholders should have an opportunity of knowing what the Colonial Office has done, and that therefore the expenditure was fully justified?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not desirable that an account of what the Colonial Office has done should come from the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Colonial Office, rather than from an ex-official of the Colonial Office who does not?
    Mr. AMERY: I hope to give that account.
    Mr. DUNNICOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many meetings have been held by the trustees of the Commonwealth Trust; and what is the total amount of money, if any, which this trust has disbursed on behalf of native welfare in West Africa?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no information as to the number of meetings held by the trustees of the Commonwealth Trust. No sums have been disbursed from the surplus profits of the trust on behalf of native welfare in West Africa.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not have been a good thing if the £450 expended on the "Times" account could have been given to the poor natives of West Africa?
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government proposes to notify the Swiss Government officially of the Cabinet decision to restore the properties of the Basle Mission Trading Company in West Africa to the original owners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Negotiations are still proceeding in respect of the properties referred to. When they are finished, I will consider whether it is necessary to make any communication to the Swiss Government.

    IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now inform the House as to what steps the Government have taken to deal with the hardships which are being suffered by many ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland, many of whom have been without salary or pension or other remuneration for upwards of two years, by the reason of the failure of the Irish Free State Government to pay them the pensions and other compensation to which the Privy Council in May last held them to be entitled under Article 10 of the Irish Treaty?
    Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 19th ultimo. I understand that in the great majority of cases, namely, of temporary and unestablished officers, the claim to compensation is doubtful. My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the judgment established the claim of any officer to compensation. It was merely directed to the basis on which the compensation, if any, which might prove to be due to them, should be assessed.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements in the question are correct? Many of these men have been waiting without income or pension for over two years, and many of them are in a serious state, and does he not think the British Government ought to do something to see that they have their rights?
    Mr. AMERY: In my previous answer, I gave expression to the view, which I believe to be correct, that the number of those who were actually civil servants, or were in any sense established, was very limited. There are certain others who were temporary and whose claims to pension have therefore not been established, on whatever basis compensation may be afterwards assessed?
    Sir W. DAVISON: However limited the number may be, does not the right hon. Gentleman think they ought to be paid compensation and not allowed to be without either income or pension for years?
    Mr. AMERY: I hope the matter will be settled as soon as possible.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Have not the British Government a moral obligation, in any case, to deal fairly and justly with these men?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of the Government with regard to these Southern Irish Loyalists is thoroughly unsatisfactory all the time?

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of money that has been expended in compensation for stock destroyed under the foot-and-mouth disease orders for the six months ended to the last convenient date?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The amount of compensation paid in respect of stock destroyed on account of foot-and-mouth disease for the six months ended 24th March was £151,437.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the number of cattle destroyed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, in that period 14,200 animals were destroyed.
    Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I ask from what fund that money is provided?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is provided out of the Cattle pleuro-pneumonia account—but it is a very complicated financial transaction.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that for the great amount of money which is being spent he is getting the best possible means of protecting the herds of this country against foot-and-mouth disease; and are adequate precautions taken to prevent infection coming in from abroad?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is impossible to get full protection, as we know from bitter experience, but two departmental committees have examined this matter, and I do not think that anybody has yet evolved any better scheme.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that when this stock is condemned it is properly disposed of—is it burnt or buried or what is done with it?
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: How does the sum paid in compensation during the past six months compare with the sum paid in the previous six months?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that I could not say without notice.

    KENSINGTON PALACE (FIRE HYDRANT).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the unsightly fire hydrant at the end of the walk on the south front of Kensington Palace immediately behind the statute of William III; and whether he will consider placing this hydrant further to the east where it would be screened by a shrubbery?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The First Commissioner is of opinion that the fire hydrant in question, which has been in its present position for about 25 years, is not so unsightly as to warrant the expense entailed by its removal.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has my hon. and gallant Friend seen the horrible scarlet red of this hydrant against the beautiful rose brickwork of Sir Christopher Wren's building? What is the object of protecting beautiful buildings from vandalism if the Office of Works allow an eyesore of this kind to be retained in a Royal Park?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentle man consider painting this hydrant a bright orange colour?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am quite ready to consider the question of repainting.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider the proposal to change the colour from red to orange?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I have already said that I would consider that.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Would it not be much less expensive to move the shrubbery in front of the hydrant?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Member further consider the matter in some way?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am considering the repainting.
    Sir W. DAVISON: That is something!

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    WIRELESS BEACONS.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the programme for wireless beacons for the year commencing 1st April has yet been approved; whether the details can now be stated; and whether any will serve the Western Isles?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The programme of wireless beacons for the year is not yet finally settled, but I am sending the hon. Member a note showing the beacons which have been approved up to date. The position of these beacons is determined by an expert committee in the interests of shipping generally, and not with the idea of serving particular localities.

    IRISH LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade from what sources the expenses of the Irish lighthouse service are met?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The expenses of the Irish lighthouse service are defrayed out of the General Lighthouse Fund, which derives its revenue from dues levied on shipping in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898.
    Mr. KELLY: Does that answer mean that the Board of Trade are responsible for the working conditions of the lighthouse keepers?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Board of Trade are merely responsible for the general financial control. Detailed administration is in the hands of the three Lighthouse Commissioners.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman fully satisfied that the men in the lighthouses are getting the best possible conditions?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: So far as I am aware that is the case.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment the lighthouse keepers are agitating for much better conditions?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Personally, I am not receiving any communications on that subject.

    ARMS TRAFFIC (HEJAZ)
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to sanction the granting of further licences for the export of arms and ammunition to the territory of the King of the Hejaz?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No application for a licence to export arms or ammunition to this destination is at present under consideration, but should any further application be received I shall follow the usual practice of consulting the Foreign Office and the Service Departments concerned. I am not prepared to prejudge the decision that may be arrived at.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT (REGULATIONS).
    Sir JAMES GRANTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the delay by the Board of Trade in issuing the Regulations under the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Act, 1936, which would affect the sale of petrol from petrol pumps: and the cause of such delay?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There are certain more urgent matters which have had to be dealt with before the Department concerned could proceed with the revision of these Regulations. Earlier attention to this subject would only have been possible if the staff of the Department had been increased. The matters which had to take precedence related to the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, and have proved to be exceptionally difficult. However, as I informed my hon. Friend on 28th March, a provisional draft of the Regulations he refers to is in the Press, and will shortly be published.
    Sir J. GRANT: Can my hon. Friend give any date when these Regulations will be issued, in view of the fact that we have been waiting for them for 2⅓years?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In a, few days' time we shall be in a better position to see when they can be put into operation.

  CHINA.

    HANKOW MUNICIPAL DEBENTURES.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any further statement as to the payment of the interest in arrear on the Hankow Municipal Debentures?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In a recent telegram His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow reported that there had been no further developments as regards the 1927 debenture interest. Provision will be made in the 1928 budget for this year's interest; the councillors, however, do not consider themselves justified in asking the ratepayers to vote a further provision for the 1927 interest, as funds were set aside for this purpose in last year's budget but were squandered through maladministration. The view of the councillors is that last year's interest should be made good by the Nationalist authorities and not from the revenues of the municipality, as these revenues are barely sufficient in normal times, and there will also have to be heavy expenditure on roads during the current year. My hon. Friend is, I think, aware that only a small proportion of these debentures are in British hands, most of them being held by the Chinese Post Office and a French lottery bond company.
    Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that some British subjects put all their savings into these bonds, and owing to this default are very hardly hit, and can he say to whom they are to look for the 1927 interest?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I could not. As far as interest is concerned, I have given my hon. Friend a full statement of the information in my possession. I was not aware that any British subjects had put their whole savings into these bonds, and I can only express my great regret that they did so.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Are those British subjects, who put their money into these bonds, to have nothing for it: no return whatsoever?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given the House the views of the councillors in the matter.
    Captain BOURNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the views of the Nationalist Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I cannot say what prospect there is of the Nationalist Government making good this payment.

    BKITISH CONSULATE, NANKING.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long the British Consulate at Nanking has been occupied by Nationalist troops; whether any protest has been made by His Majesty's Government against such occupation; and, if so, what reply has been received?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Consulate-General at Nanking has been intermittently occupied by Chinese troops since the outrages of the 24th of March, 1927. The matter has been made the subject of frequent representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Nanking, who has from time to time promised to take steps to secure their evacuation, but owing to the impotence of the civilian authorities in China where soldiers are concerned, any action taken in accordance with these promises has had only a transient effect.
    Mr. LOOKER: Are the Government going to lodge any claim against the Nationalist Government for this continued occupation of the British Consulate at Nanking?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of what should follow on the outrages committed at Nanking is now a subject of discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Nationalist authorities.

    BRITISH CONCESSION, CHINKIANG.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Nationalist troops are now in occupation of foreign premises in the ex-British concession at Chinkiang; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Houses in the British Concession at Chinkiang have been occupied by troops of the 13th and

    1589
    46th armies moving towards the northern front. A protest has been lodged, but I have not yet heard whether the troops have vacated the premises.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks his position would not have been very much strengthened in his protest if we had withdrawn from Shanghai outside the International Settlement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I think it would have been weakened.

    PERMANENT MANDATES COMMIS- SION.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has been arrived at since the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations regarding the appointment of a woman chosen from among the nationals of non-mandatory Powers to take the place of the late Mrs. Anna Wicksell on the Permanent Mandates Commission?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

    CATERING TRADES (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of young people employed in the hotel and catering trades, and the normal weekly hours worked by these young people?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton); The number of juveniles in Great Britain aged 16 and 17 insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and classified as belonging to the group—hotel, boarding house, restaurant and club service—at July, 1927, was 19,450, of whom 1,160 were recorded as unemployed at 20th February, 1928. Statistics are not available regarding the normal weekly hours of all the persons in this group, but in 1925 it was found that in the non-licensed catering section the weekly hours of the majority of workers under 18 years of age were between 46 and 51.
    Mr. KELLY: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to make any further inquiries with a view to bringing the information relating to the hours up-to-date?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. The Minister of Labour answered a very similar question a short time ago in which he said that no further facts had been brought to his notice to justify further inquiries.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (MEM- BERS' DUTIES).
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill with the object of providing that a member of a board of guardians who deliberately neglects the,portion of his or her duties which deals specifically with the actual granting of outdoor relief shall be prohibited from seeking re-election when the period for which such person is elected expires or, alternatively, shall after a given period has expired be disqualified from continuing to serve as a guardian?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend does not think that a provision of this kind which it would be difficult to work in practice would materially help towards the improved, administration which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind.
    Mr. REMER: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that for the six months prior to the last few days 11 members of the Manchester City Board of Guardians deliberately absented themselves from doing this work?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hon. Members of this House who often fail to put in an appearance and that many of them only attend now and again?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have heard of the statement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), and I hope the ratepayers will take notice of it at the next election.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that in some cases where the guardians do attend and do their duty they are disfranchised?

    TOWN PLANNING (BETTERMENT).
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health what local authorities have exercised their powers under Section 10 of the Town Planning (Consolidation) Act, 1925, to recover part of the increased value of property arising from a town planning scheme?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Buxton), on 21st March.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has an official record of the results of local government elections; and, if not, whether he will consider the official tabulation and publication of such results?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I regret that there is no such record and I fear I cannot promise to obtain information on the subject.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are certain areas in this country where not a single Socialist candidate was successful at the election last Saturday?

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE (PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, if he has the opportunity next year, he will give a day to discuss the Estimates for the three Fighting Services together so that the whole of the question of Imperial Defence may be discussed before going into Committee of Supply on the details of the individual Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot at this stage make any statement in regard to the business for next year.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is
    the Prime Minister aware that he gave a very favourable indication, or promise, on this matter some years ago during the present Parliament, and expressed himself in sympathy with the idea; and will he bear that in mind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it was a promise. I am still favourable to the idea, but I cannot commit myself. There are great practical difficulties in the way of doing what I should like to see done, namely, the simultaneous publication of all the Estimates and a debate thereon.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether all private schools. whether day schools or boarding schools, including nursery schools, are required to be registered by any authority and are visited by Board of Education inspectors; whether private, day, or boarding schools are required to conform to any regulations as to sanitation, provision of water supply, lighting and heating arrangements, and precautions in case of fire, or whether they are subject to inspection by any authority; and, if so, how often?
    Mr. FREDERICK THOMSON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): Private schools are not required to be registered under the local education authority and the Board of Education have no power to inspect such schools unless they are invited to do so. As regards sanitation, water supply, and ventilation, these schools are subject to the requirements of the general law and by-laws and the local sanitary authority have the right of inspection when it appears to them to be necessary; as regards fire precautions, my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on the 22nd March last, a copy of which he is sending him.

    PRISONS (DIETARY SCALES).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will circulate to Members of

    1593
    the House a copy of the dietary scales in use at the various grades of prisons under his control, together with the tables showing the quantities of ingredients required to be used in making tea, cocoa, soup, and other articles of food?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sending the hon. Member copies of the ordinary dietary scales in use in convict and local prisons, with the particulars for which he asks as to ingredients, but I hope the hon. Member will not press, save on strong grounds, for its circulation, which would involve a certain expenditure.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Will the Home Secretary place a copy in the Library for our information?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the tea and cocoa come from places within the Empire or outside the Empire?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
    Major OWEN: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short personal explanation with regard to a matter which has already been brought before the House on Thursday last, when the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) quoted a letter from the chairman of the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, in which certain insinuations were made. In the same letter, there appeared the following paragraph:
    "For some time past there has been a steady stream of questions in Parliament, criticising the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, in which, besides Mr. Baker, Colonel Wedgwood, M.P., Sir Robert Hamilton, M.P., Major Owen, M.P., and Mr. Kelly, M.P., have taken part. We do not flatter ourselves that this curiosity was uninspired, but it would be interesting to know the source of inspiration."
    I do not exactly know what the insinuation is there. The only explanation I want to make to the House is this, that I knew nothing at all about, and had no connection with, the foreign company referred to; the questions were suggested to me by a shareholder in the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, and, as I considered it a matter of public policy, I agreed to put those questions in this House.
    Mr. KELLY: When on Thursday last this question was raised by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), I was not aware that my name was mentioned in that letter. I want to join with that which has been said both by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken and by the hon. Member for East Bristol, and to say that I have no connection whatever, either direct or indirect, with anything that is hinted at in this letter, but simply raised the question as a matter of public interest.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)"—[The Prime Minister."]
The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 74.

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[3.22 p.m.

Albery, Irving James

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Couper, J. B.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Brass, Captain W.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Atkinson, C.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks,Newb'y)

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Balniel, Lord

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Eden, Captain Anthony

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Campbell, E. T.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Bennett, A. J.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Berry, Sir George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A(Birm., W.)

Ersklne, James Malcolm Monteith

Betterton, Henry B.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Bird, E. R. (York, W. R., Skipton)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fermoy, Lord

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Fielden, E. B.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Finburgh, S.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ropner, Major L.

Ganzonl, Sir John.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Lamb, J. Q.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Sandon, Lord

Goff Sir Park

Loder, J. de V.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Long, Major Eric

Savery, S. S.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Looker, Herbert William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Grotrian, H. Brent

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero

Skelton, A. N.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman

Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Lumley, L. R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hacking, Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Hamilton, Sir George

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

Hartington, Marquess of

Meller, R. J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Meyer, Sir Frank

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Haslam, Henry C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Waddington, R.

Hilton, Cecil

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Nuttall, Eills

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Holt, Capt. H. p.

Oakley, T.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Penny, Frederick George

Warrender, Sir Victor

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Pilcher, G.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hume, Sir G. H.

Preston, William

Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

Hurd, Percy A.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Womersley, W. J.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Ramsden, E.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Remer, J. R.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Jephcott. A. R.

Remnant, Sir James

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rice, Sir Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

Margesson.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Potts, John S.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hirst, G. H.

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baker, Walter

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Kelly, W. T.

Scrymgeour, E.

Batey, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Smith, Rennie (penlstone)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lansbury, George

Snell, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Lawrence, Susan

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Livingstone, A. M.

Stephen, Campbell

Charleton, H. C.

Lowth, T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cluse, W. S.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Mackinder, W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MacLaren, Andrew

Viant, S. P.

Day, Harry

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dennison, R.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

wellock, Wilfred

Duncan, C.

March, S.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Dunnico, H

Maxton, James

Whiteley, W.

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gosling, Harry

Morris, R. H.

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wright, W.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Naylor, T. E.

Groves, T

Owen, Major G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.

Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normaton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1928.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Sir George Hennessy.]

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "in view of the great importance of the fishing industry both as a source of food supply and a valuable adjunct to the Navy and mercantile marine, this House views with concern the present condition of the deep-sea fishing fleets, which, mainly owing to the economic conditions of recent years, have not been adequately maintained by the building of new vessels to replace those which have become too old for efficient service in peace or war, and considers that all practicable means should be adopted for encouraging and enabling the industry to build new vessels and maintain them in a satisfactory state of efficiency,"
    I should like to call attention to the great importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Minister!"] Hon. Members are very desirous to know where the Minister of Agriculture is. I have had a note from him regretting that owing to a very important engagement, connected with his work, he is not able to be here for the commencement of the Debate, but he will be here as soon as possible. I am satisfied that there is no discourtesy on his part. He has deputed the Secretary of State for Scotland to take notes in his absence. When I was interrupted, I was remarking upon the importance of the industry as a national asset, in peace time a source of food supply and employment to our people, and in war time an adjunct to the Navy which proved of incalculable value in the last war. It is the sixth largest industry in the country. That may be a revelation to some hon. Members, who may not regard it as of such importance as I do, seeing that I represent the largest fishing port in the world, and I am very proud of the fact that I do represent it.
    1608
    Directly and indirectly, this industry finds employment for some 264,000 people, and, if you take into account their dependants, over 1,000,000 people are dependent upon the industry for a livelihood. One-fortieth of the population depend on fishing for a living. Therefore, it is indeed an important industry and one worthy of consideration by the House. The range of operations of the fishing fleet is extensive. We go as far north as Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, round the North Cape and along the Murman coast. The North Sea itself, of course, is the most prolific fishing ground of all. Then we go south into the Bay of Biscay and along the coast of Morocco, so the extent of our operations is very great indeed. As regards the war work of our men in the fishing fleet, a great Admiral said:
    "The fisheries are the nursery of men inured to hardship and danger, bred to seamanlike qualities, resourceful, daring and self-reliant."
    When the War broke out, 3,000 of our steam trawlers and drifters were immediately taken over by the Navy with some 52,000 of our fishermen, who are the best seamen the country has. The Commander of the Grand Fleet said, even during the war period, that it was the fishermen who saved the Navy and the Navy that saved Britain. Lord Balfour made a statement in 1916 which I think is worthy of repetition:
    "In mine sweepers and armed trawlers, vast numbers of men, alone, unsupported, in circumstances of great difficulty, often of great peril, have done work of incalculable magnitude. I cannot do justice to all I feel about the work of these men. Necessarily it is little known to the public. Small crews in stormy seas, suddenly face to face with unexpected perils, they have never seemed to fail. The debt of this country to them is beyond all calculation."
    Recently, the King has done a great honour to the fishermen by appointing the Prince of Wales Master of the Fishing Fleet, We of Grimsby and other fishing ports are proud of that fact. We acknowledge His Majesty's graciousness in appointing him to that office, and we are looking forward to a visit he is going to pay to our port in June next. Further, we had a reference made at a recent banquet by His Royal Highness and by the Prime Minister to the work of the fishing fleet. As one who has lived for many years among these men and mixed

    1609
    with them in their workaday life and in their hours of leisure, I am indeed a proud man to represent them. I regard them as the finest and bravest men in the country, absolutely the salt of the earth, and of the sea if you like.
    I remember several incidents that occurred during war time that are worth repeating. In one week, the following things happened to a fine sample of the type of man on whose behalf I am speaking. His home was bombed by a Zeppelin, he himself was responsible for the sinking of a German submarine, and his own fishing vessel was sunk, and he was taken prisoner aboard a German destroyer. They threatened him with a court-martial and told him he would certainly be shot for having sunk the submarine. He did not lose his courage and the German commander, thinking to dishearten him, said: "Where is your British Fleet? We have been looking for it for a long time." This fellow, with the unconscious humour you always find among the fishermen, replied: "You ease up a bit. They are looking for you, and they will catch you." He was not afraid even under these circumstances.
    I hope I have said enough to convince the House that this industry is of importance both as a food-producing industry and for finding employment and also as a valuable adjunct to the Navy in time of war. I want to call attention to certain difficulties with which it is faced with at the moment, and, to do so, I shall have to quote figures as to the trade that is being done. The quantity of wet fish landed, of British taking, in England and Wales in 1926, the latest year for which I have been able to get official figures, was 12,504,000 cwt.—8 per cent. less than in 1925—and the value was £13,202,000–10 per cent. less than in 1925. The total of all kinds of fish landed in Great Britain during that period was 19,000,000 cwts., of the value of £17,000,000.
    There has been a steady decline in the building of first-class fishing vessels for some years, and I want to quote figures to prove my contention. On 31st January, 1926, altogether we had 2,626 vessels—a drop of 91 on the previous year's figures. They consisted of 1,760 steamers, 442 motor boats, and 424 sailing vessels. The main point, apart from the drop in the numbers, is the age of many of these
    1610
    vessels. This is rather a serious matter, particularly to the Admiralty, because they say the vessels for use as mine sweepers must be not more than 10 years old if possible. To show the condition the fishing fleets are getting into, I want to give some tables grouped up in ages of five years. Less than five years old, 52 vessels not suitable for mine sweeping purposes. Over five and under 10, 438. Over 10 and under 15 years, 376; between 15 and 20 years old, 223; 20 to 25 years, 163; and over 25 years of age, 243. I think the House will readily grasp, that unless we have additional vessels built within the next year or two, either with some assistance from the Government or by the enterprise of the industry itself, the Admiralty, if the time comes when they require the use of these vessels again as they did during the Great War, will find that suitable vessels are not available for their purpose.
    During the last year or two, the industry, like many other industries in this country, has been up against very severe foreign competition. This is a matter which requires some attention on the part of this House. In 1926, the imports of foreign fish were the largest on record. The total value, including fresh, frozen and canned fish, was £11,212,000, as against £10,768,000 in 1925. Going back to the first full year before the War, 1913, the value of the imports was £4,887,000. Thus, there has been a tremendous growth in the importation of foreign fish. The value of fresh caught fish landed in 1926 amounted to £4,410,000. Forty-nine per cent, of it came direct to British ports from the fishing grounds, and the balance by cargo vessels, mostly to Billingsgate. I would ask the House to bear with me with regard to this matter for a moment or two, because I am going to quote some more figures. I am bound to do so in order to prove how severe is this foreign competition and how detrimental it is to the work of our own fishermen.
    Taking the imports of the demersal fish, that is, the fish that trawlers bring in— because this directly affects the deep sea fishermen whom I represent—we find that in 1913 the landings of British-caught fish totalled 11,756,304 cwts., or 93 per cent, of the whole amount landed in this country. Foreign catches landed totalled 855,616 cwt., or 7 per cent, of the catch. In 1926—these are the latest official

    1611
    figres that I can get, though I have some unofficial figures for 1927 which are reliable—the total landings of British-caught fish amounted to 10,957,295 cwts., or 83½ per cent, of the total catch, the foreigner landing 2,168,596 cwts., or 16½ per cent, of the total catch. In 1927, the figures were: British takings 11,927,505 cwts., or 84½ per cent, of the total catch, and foreign 2,168,338 cwts., or 15½ per cent; When we come to the question of values, we find that the value of the British-caught fish landed in 1913 was £9,383,443, and the value of the foreign-caught fish landed was £627,061—a percentage of 93¾ per cent, of British-caught fish and 6¼ per cent, of foreign-caught fish. In 1927, the value of British-caught.fish had jumped to £13,478,795, or 81 per cent., and the foreign-caught fish amounted to £3,201,536, or 19 per cent. I want the House to notice the vast jump in the value of the catch landed by foreign fishermen in this country.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether that includes Norwegian herrings?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: No, Sir; it is demersal fish only—trawler fish. It does not include either herrings or mackerel. It comprises what we call the deep-sea or wet fish. There is another matter to which I must call the attention of the House in making a comparison in regard to the landing of British-caught fish and foreign-caught fish. We must find out how the wages run in both cases, because if the foreign vessels had to meet the same amount of expenditure as our own vessels it might be said that this was a question of fair competition. We find this position. I have had the figures prepared very carefully in regard to the competition existing between British and foreign vessels landing at the same port. I want the House to understand that the system of wages on our fishing vessels is rather different from the wages system in operation in an ordinary factory. Some of the men are paid wages and poundage, while the skipper receives a share in the vessel's earnings. We have to take into account, therefore, in the case of the fishermen, wages, plus bonus, and, in the case of the skipper, his share of the vessel's profit.
    1612
    Two vessels—a German and a British—were away for the same length of time. They landed the same day, and their catches realised about the same amount of money. Therefore, in general expenses, there was practically no difference at all between the vessels. It was entirely a question of the amounts paid in wages. The wages and bonus for the voyage, which occupied 21 days, amounted, in the case of the German vessel, to £181 16s., and in the case of the British vessel to £277 4s. 3d. This is a typical example of what happens in regard to wages as between the foreigner and the Britisher. I would never be a party to the slightest reduction in the British fishermen's rate of earnings. He gets paid little enough for the work he does. He earns every penny he receives, and, if there should be any talk about making any reductions in his wages, I should be the first man to say that such a thing should not happen if I could help it.
    I want to ask the House to allow me to give the case of another foreign country and its vessels. It is Belgium. Here we get great competition at the Western ports. There is a great deal of competition at Milford Haven, because the Belgian vessels use Milford Haven considerably. I have had typical balance-sheets prepared for me—in the same way as those from which I have just quoted—in regard to a British vessel and a Belgian vessel landing their catches at Milford Haven. I find that the amount paid to the crew of the English vessel for the voyage was £296 19s. whereas the amount paid to the Belgian crew was £151 8s. 9d. When I quote figures such as these, I think hon. Members will realise that we are almost up against the competition of sweated labour. The fireman of the British vessel was paid £15 17s. 6d., whereas the Belgian fireman received £8 7s. 3d. in respect of the same length of time at sea and for the same amount of work. I can quote other instances, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on this matter. I want to try and make my case clear in order to show that our fishermen are up against unfair foreign competition.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Member tell us his remedy for this competition?
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: That will come later in my speech. I wish to point out another direction where the foreigner is getting an advantage over the Britisher. It is undoubtedly the case that the Governments of France, Germany, Denmark and Norway render financial assistance to their fishing industry, but in what manner it is difficult to ascertain. Possibly the Minister of Agriculture will be able to deal with this matter. I shall be very grateful for any information as to what these foreign countries are doing to assist the fishing industry as regard their own nationals. I know that in some cases loans at reasonable interest have been granted. In other cases, bonuses have been granted, and in other cases definite grants have been made. Let me give the House figures relating to the building of some of the competing countries, which will give an idea of the way in which the fishing industry has grown in those countries. In pre-War days, Denmark had 750 first-class fishing vessels registered at Danish ports. To-day, Denmark has 2,000 up-to-date first-class vessels, mostly seine net motor boats and most of them are owned by individual fishermen and not by large companies, and they have had financial assistance and encouragement from the Danish Government.
    Germany surrendered all her supposed obsolete and up-to-date fishing vessels under the Peace Treaty, and she has built since 1918 some 400 new up-to-date trawlers, every one built with Government assistance, I understand. I hope the Minister will deal with that point in his reply, because it is very important. It is far more important than merely a question of food supplies and competition with our own fishermen. There is something more than that behind the building of these 400 large new trawlers by Germany, because Germany is not a fish-consuming country to the same extent as this country. Most of these boats are landing their catches in English ports and competing with our own fishermen. No one realised more than the Germans in the early part of the War the value of the trawler fleet as an auxiliary to the British Navy, in the way of mine sweeping, and the Germans determined then that if ever they had the opportunity they would encourage the building
    1614
    of similar vessels in their own country, so that they would be useful in time of war. My own opinion is that in carrying out that policy in the building of new trawlers the German Government have in view the building of up-to-date vessels suitable for mine sweeping as well as fishing.
    What can be done by our own Government to assist the fishing industry? The Prime Minister gave a pledge at the last General Election that he would not agree to any taxation of food supplies. I honour him for that pledge and I am not going to suggest that he should put a tax on foreign fish for the benefit even of our British fishermen; but there are certain ways in which the Government can help, which would cost very little money, because they have all that they require at their disposal at the present time, and it is only a question of diverting it to the right channel. My first suggestion is the necessity for exploration. At the present time we have a research department which is doing very valuable work; but the practical fishermen cannot quite see how valuable that work is. They say that instead of carrying on merely scientific research, studying the habits of fish and the migration of fish, a vessel should be equipped for exploration purposes in uncharted seas, and that it should go out to search for new fishing grounds which can be exploited, ready made, so to speak, for the benefit of this country and its fishermen.
    An exploratory vessel was sent out from the port of Fleetwood to explore certain parts of the ocean, and at the time that vessel made the voyages I took particular notice of what happened, and the report which was issued dealing with it. I will give a few details in support of my argument that it would be a very good thing if the Government would carry this exploration work further. The vessel wae called the "Florence Brierley," and the voyage was financed jointly by the Development Commission and the Fleetwood Fishing Vessel Owners' Association. The total cost of the voyage was £l,500, and the object of the voyage was to explore the regions in the neighbourhood of the hundred-fathom line from the North-West of Scotland towards the Coast of Norway, where it was believed that hake could be found, although no commercial fishing had

    1615
    actually taken place in that particular part of the ocean. As a result of the voyages, valuable information, both positive and negative, was gained. New grounds were discovered where hake was found, while examination of other grounds showed that it was no use going there for hake because, owing to natural conditions, it was unlikely that fish of that kind would ever be found there. In addition, valuable scientific data were obtained and a number of new soundings were furnished to the Admiralty. Although the "Florence Brierley" had not the catching of fish commercially as part of her object, she brought in £l,200 worth of fish.
    The fishing industry would like more work on the same lines as those followed by the "Florence Brierley," and that is where the Admiralty can help. The Admiralty have a highly efficient surveying service, of which the general public hear very little. Probably it is not known that the Admiralty provide accurate charts of the whole world for the shipping of all nations. We of the fishing industry know something of the value of their work; we see their ships working from fishing ports, and we know that when we want a new chart of any fishing grounds and we apply to the Admiralty for one, we generally get it even though it involves a special survey being made. Therefore, we are very grateful to the Admiralty for what they do for us. Gratitude is expressed with a sense of favours to come, and we would like them to do a little more for us in the future than they have done in the past. I understand that these ships have recently been fitted with echo-sounding apparatus which enables them to take soundings while the ships are going at full speed, thereby enabling them to explore an enormous quantity of grounds in a short time and to locate new banks, if there are any, very quickly. We hope that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will work in conjunction with the Admiralty in this matter and see that we get all assistance possible.
    It has always been believed by the fishermen that there is a line of banks extending in a southerly and westerly direction from the Faroe and Bill Bailey Banks, and sometime ago a bank in that direction was discovered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    1616
    We would like to ask that one of the surveying ships should run a line or lines of soundings in the direction in which the banks are believed to be, and that if she discovers any new banks their fishing capacity should then be tested at the joint expense of the Government and the fishing industry by commercial vessels working on the same lines as the "Florence Brierley." There are, no doubt, many other regions in which similar methods might be adopted for the benefit of the fishing industry, and at a comparatively small cost to the nation.
    4.0 p.m.
    We consider that this is a matter of very great importance to the industry. Practical fishermen are convinced that in certain parts of the ocean, as yet unexplored, there are fertile fields for the fishing industry, promising great new catches of fish that will be profitable to those who catch them, and at the same time provide food for the nation. It does not require a great deal of money to deal with the matter. Two years ago it was felt that it would be wise to explore the Greenland fishery grounds. The Norwegians had been there and had got fairly good catches. Some of our men had been there, but had not been successful in striking the right bank, and a suggestion was made that an exploration vessel might be sent out. In fact, the fishing industry offered to supply it, provided the Government would put on board an expert hydrographer and a man expert in dealing with fish and their habits. It was suggested that the cost should be divided. I am sorry we did not succeed in getting the Department to help us in the matter. They told us the usual story, that they had no money which they could use for that particular purpose, but I am hoping that it will be possible to provide a little money to deal with this great question. It would help our men very much indeed, and if the Minister would take note of it, I should be very pleased to hear from him that it is the intention of the Government seriously to consider this matter. With regard to research, no doubt there has been a great deal of valuable work in the study of the habits of food fishes, their migrations and, incidentally, the best ways of preventing over-fishing or uneconomic fishing by means of the

    1617
    Ministry's ordinary scientific work on which it appears that over £20,000 is spent annually, and no doubt the industry will benefit greatly from this when the researches are completed, though it will take many years before their completion. What, however, is desired by the industry is a different branch of research which will give immediate results in finding new grounds, and in giving relief to the existing grounds which are, no doubt, hardly worked, which can only be done by exploratory voyages, such as have been suggested.
    There is another matter which has been suggested whereby the Government should assist the industry in the same way as it is suggested that the agricultural industry shall be dealt with, namely, by extended credits. I am in a somewhat difficult position this afternoon in speaking of this because the great trawling industry with which I am connected, or rather those who are members of the industry representing the various ports, have not yet come to a definite decision on this matter. There is no doubt that certain men in the industry think that a system of extended credits would be of great benefit to the industry. On the other hand, there are men who do not quite agree with that point of view. The position at the moment is that all the ports are carefully considering the matter, and when their reports come through and are made up into one complete report, the Members of this House who represent the trawling ports will no doubt receive that report, and possibly a conference can be arranged between the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland and those Members who represent fishing ports for the purpose of discussing this matter.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this will include the longshore fishing of Scotland which the trawling industry is destroying?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question I really cannot answer. I am speaking on behalf of the deep-sea fishermen and the trawling industry at the moment. I believe that the Scottish herring fishermen and the inshore fishermen have made representations for a deputation to be received on the matter, and, if not, they intend to do
    1618
    so. The latter part of the question I prefer not to answer at any length, because, really, an answer is not required. The right hon. Gentleman says that the trawler men are destroying the others. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our trawler men keep well outside the three-mile limit. On the question of the inshore fishermen versus the deep-sea fishermen, I am sure Mr. Speaker would rule that it is hardly a fit Debate for this House, though I should be very delighted to debate the question with my right hon. Friend on any platform in Scotland or anywhere else.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I ought to point out that the question of credits would require an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, it is not open to discussion in this Debate.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: There is another matter which would be of assistance to the industry. I have mentioned it before in this House. Would it not be possible for the Government to provide a retainer for the vessels which are kept up to a certain standard of efficiency, ready for the nation's service if and when required. There was some scheme of this kind in operation before the War, and, as regards the personnel of the Royal Naval Reserve, there is such a thing as a retaining fee being paid to-day. It is felt that it would be wise for the Government to pay a retainer in the case of vessels that are suitable for mine-sweeping and patrol work, provided those vessels are kept up to a certain standard as regards engine power, boiler power, and general efficiency of the vessel. They could be built to suit the Admiralty, and therefore be really an auxiliary force for the Navy, without the Navy Estimates having to be drawn upon to any large extent. I hope that something in that way will be considered by the Government in dealing with the question of assistance to the fishing industry.
    A subject which is of very great importance to my constituency, the port of Grimsby, is that of the Government assisting with harbour works, not only there but round the whole coast, because as I have travelled along the coast—and I am not now speaking particularly for the deep sea fishermen—I find that also in the smaller ports there is a great lack of berth accommodation and harbour space. As the Government in times past

    1619
    have assisted in this matter, I think it is worth while mentioning it here again, and asking that this should be given very careful consideration. It does not matter how good your vessels are or how efficient your fishermen may be, if it so happens that they are crowded out at the time they want to land their fish, thereby missing the market, resulting in the loss of valuable food and the men are not getting what they should receive for the work they put in. In Grimsby we are "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" in a very small space in comparison with a large number of vessels that sail from that port, and the addition of many foreign vessels coming into the port is making it harder for our people to get in at all. Time and time again vessels have had to lie out in the river, instead of coming into the docks to land their catches and get them away to inland markets. There is, consequently, deterioration of fish, loss of time and aggravation all round.
    In 1914, the Great Central Railway, which is now merged in the London and North Eastern Railway Company, promoted a Bill in this House to build additional fish docks in Grimsby. The House gave its consent, and a contract was made, the sum being £500,000. That would have met all the needs of the district. Then the War came, and the Government at that time said, "You must not go on with this work," quite rightly, I agree. But what happened? When the War was over, and these people were asked to go on with the work, which they were quite willing to do, they found in getting out a new contract that the price would be £1,050,000, or more than double what it would have cost in 1914. Naturally, the railway company said that they must wait until conditions were better and prices lower. At that time, schemes were being brought forward for public assistance to provide work for the unemployed, and application was made on behalf of this scheme for a grant under the circular that had been issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee that harbour works and dock works could be included. Everybody thought that we were going to get a new dock at least. The company said that if the Government would provide £200,000 they would go on with the work, taking all their labour from the local Employment Exchange. Something like 5,000
    1620
    men would have been employed on that particular job, and it would have been started right away. We brought the matter before various Ministers and various Governments. I, myself, headed deputation after deputation. Unfortunately, we did not get the answer we wanted, which was "Yes, we will make the grant."
    During that period a very careful inquiry was made by the Ministry of Labour to find out exactly the position of unemployment in Grimsby. Unemployment has varied during the last three or four years from 3,000 men to over 4,000 men on the register, and the amount paid out has varied from £80,000 to £100,000 a year. In 1922, a real attempt was made to get the Government to agree to this grant of £200,000. From 1922 to 1928, the average paid out from the Employment Exchange has been something like £100,000 a year. I ask the House to consider the question. With two years' expenditure we could have kept 5,000 men employed for something like six years, which would have meant a great saving of the nation's money. I am wondering when we are going to realise the position. There are other fishing ports round the coast which require harbour and dock improvement, and I wish them good luck in their endeavours to get Government assistance. If I could get it for my own constituency, I should think I had done a great service not only to that constituency, but to the country, for surely it is better to spend £200,000 in order to find five years' work for 5,000 men, than to pay several times that amount merely to make men sign at the Employment Exchange. It is sound common sense, and I cannot understand why we cannot get even my own Government to see it. It is not only this Government that has turned it down, but successive Governments, including the Labour Government. In my opinion, this is a sound scheme, but evidently, in the opinion of the Ministers of the Crown, it is not so sound, though I require a good deal of convincing.
    I hope that I have been able to convince the House that the fishing industry is an industry of some importance to the country, that it is worthy of being encouraged and fostered, and that it is the duty of this or any other Government to do all that lies in their power

    1621
    to help this industry back to prosperity. Our men are not the men to ask for favours. They are prepared to shoulder the burden, and to try to bring the industry back to a state of prosperity, but they are faced with various difficulties, difficulties such as I have mentioned with regard to foreign competition, difficuties connected even with such a small thing as carriage, which is a matter with which, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) will deal. There is, howver, one figure on that which I should like to quote to show the difficulties we are up against. Take the question of Danish fish which comes from Esbjerg to Harwich and then by rail to Billingsgate. The carriage on that delivered at Billingsgate is 57s. l0d. per ton for prime fish and 39s. 6d. for class 2 fish. They are sending nearly all the fish as class 2, although claimed to be prime when sold in the market. Now take fish from Grimsby to London, and, of course, there is no sea passage. This is simply carriage from Grimsby to London, and there are delivery charges on top of that. Common fish, equal to class 2 fish in the other rate quoted, is 2s. 3d. per cwt., or 45s. a ton, as against 39s. 6d. for class 2 fish all the way from Esbjerg to London, and delivered at that and prime fish 70s. a ton against 57s. 10d. The handicap to the industry may not seem much per ton, but it makes a difference when you consider the vast quantity that is carried. It is a handicap to the industry.
    I should like to refer to the system which prevails in this country of compelling pre-payment of carriage on fish before it is accepted for transit by passenger train. It has caused a good deal of trouble to the industry. It was done during the War, and our people agreed to it as a wartime Measure on the understanding that it would be withdrawn when the War was over. Scotsmen were too canny even to agree to this, and they do not therefore have to pre-pay the carriage. This is also a great handicap to the industry, and you have to pay for a full cwt. even if the consignment is less than that amount. All these are little matters which require attention. If we could get some assistance from the Government, it would help to bring prosperity to the industry. What we want is a fair field and no favour. If the foreigner
    1622
    paid the same wages as we pay; if he contributed in the shape of taxes and rates in the same way as our own people, if he received no subsidies from his own Government, but was in the same position as our own people and had to fight his own battles in the same way as our own people, we should have nothing to complain about, but this competition is distinctly unfair. We do ask the Government, not to keep out foreign caught fish but to assist the industry in other ways; and in all the circumstances we have a right to ask for this assistance.
    Major PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has covered the ground so very well indeed that I feel there is very little for me to say. I should like, however, to emphasise a few of the facts he has brought before the House. In the first place, the House should thoroughly understand the very parlous state of the trawling industry in this country, and unless something is done to place it on a sound and proper basis it must gradually die. No industry can remain stationary. It must progress or go back; and anyone who looks at the trawling industry to-day and compares it with what it was before the War must admit that it has gone backward and not forward. It is absolutely essential if we are going to keep this industry up to date that we should build new vessels if we are to keep them on the fishing grounds. The older vessels are less economic to work, less able to withstand foreign competition, and become more difficult and more unseaworthy. Take the period before the War; what do we find? The number of fishing vessels to-day less than five years old is 52, that means that in five years 52 vessels have been built. In the year 1910, 122 vessels were built, and for the years 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914, 789 trawlers and drifters were built as against about 50 in the last five years. It means that the industry is going backward; that fresh capital is not coming in, and unless fresh capital comes in you cannot keep your industry alive.
    Personally, I do not think that a credit scheme is going to help the industry. If the industry was a progressive one plenty of capital would be available. People with capital, if they saw that the industry was progressing and

    1623
    that an ordinary profit was to be made out of it, would invest their capital in it; but to-day trawling company after trawling company is finding it quite impossible to put anything to reserve; they cannot even meet current expenses. Recently, although the banks have been holding up year after year hoping for better times, it has been the case that in certain ports they have had to realise their securities, and so trawlers on which advances of from £12,000 to £14,000 were made have had to be sacrificed for from £3,000 to £5,000. Many of these boats are purchased by the foreigner. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in a question asked what was a remedy. In my opinion, the remedy is twofold. One remedy for this and similar matters is that which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Grimsby, and there is the bolder policy, to see that we should get fair play for our own people in our own markets. If we suggest a tariff on fish, immediately our political opponents say: "You are taxing the food of the people." But I would ask the House to remember that the figures which have been given to the House show that, in my own port of Milford Haven, we cannot compete with foreign trawlers because of the cost to ourselves. You may send our trawlers to sea and keep them at sea exactly as long as the foreign trawlers. They may come in at exactly the same moment, with the same amount of fish, and sell it at the same price on the same day, yet the foreigner makes a profit and our own trawlers make a loss, because the wages of the foreigner are so much less than those of our own men.
    There is also the cost of food. In a foreign trawler you will see the men sitting round a dish, generally it is a fish dish, each man helping himself. Our own people see that they have the food for which they have stipulated; and quite rightly. There are proper joints of meat, and vegetables served in a proper manner, with a cook to look after them. If we are desirous that our people should be treated in this way, then it is our duty to protect them against the unfair competition of the foreigner, otherwise you are not giving them a chance of treating the men fairly and properly.
    1624
    It must also be remembered that every penny of profit which the foreigner makes at the dockside is taken out of the country; not a single penny is paid in taxation or anything else. If our own people make a profit they have to pay 20 per cent, in taxation. This is unfair foreign competition, and it is something, which could be put right if we had the common sense and feeling of the nation at our back; if the matter was treated without prejudice, not made a party question, and was looked upon as an industrial matter for the benefit of those engaged in the industry.
    There is another point with regard to this unfair competition which affects the port of Milford Haven very much. We ask to be put on the same footing as the foreigner with regard to trawling and the limits within which we can trawl. Some years ago it was suggested that there should be an international arrangement with regard to international waters, that there should be freedom of navigation and fishery on the high seas for vessels of all nations within certain limits and with certain restrictions. Unfortunately this arrangement was not brought about, and to-day we have numerous cases of our own trawlers fishing within certain limits off the coast of Ireland, ten miles away from land, and fishing inside them, seven miles inside them, have been foreign trawlers, yet our own vessels have been seized, the gear confiscated and the men brought before the Irish Courts and fined. The foreigner goes on with his fishing, brings his catch back to Milford Haven and sells it. That is manifestly unfair and unjust, and I hope something will be done to put all trawlers on the same footing. If hon. Members opposite prefer a larger limit than three miles I do not mind, but I think we should all be put on the same footing, whether the limit is three miles or ten miles.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the hon. Member is not speaking for the Government in suggesting that the limit should be three miles.
    Major PRICE: I say let us all be on the same footing. If we cannot go within three miles then other trawlers should not be allowed to go within three miles. Let us all go within three miles or all outside 10 miles. Let us have equality of treatment. Then there is the question

    1625
    of research grants. I suggested some years ago that a research vessel should be detailed for the Atlantic fisheries. We have had no research vessel there. There are large fishing grounds in that area, but nobody knows where they are, at least if the skipper of a trawler is fortunate enough to come across one he keeps it to himself; and small blame to him. I think a great deal more could be done in regard to this research work. I suppose it is a question of funds. The only result of the appeal I made some years ago was that last year we had a research vessel around for a few weeks. It was very nice to see the vessel but it was quite impossible for any results to accrue from a visit of such short duration. Research work must extend overyears; it must be done systematically, and in conjunction with trawl owners and skippers who have a knowledge of the fishing grounds. Research work might also be extended in the direction of the preservation of fish and the canning of fish; the preparation of fish for food in all its forms. If work was done in that direction a great deal of help would be given to the fishing industry.
    I would ask all hon. Members who have the idea that the slightest duty on an article puts up the price to the consumer to remember that the price of fish at the dockside does not rule the price of fish in the market. The price to the consumer does not vary to the same degree as it does on the dockside. You may have fish brought in and sold at £2 per kit and the same fish may be selling the day after at £6 per kit, but the price to the consumer in the retail shops will be exactly the same. Research work in regard to fish preservation would help the industry very much. To sell fish at the lowest price is utterly unremunerative, but fish being such a perishable food it is impossible to do otherwise on certain occasions. I know that the sympathy of the Ministry of Agriculture is with the industry. There are no more accessible or sympathetic officials in any Government Department than those in the Department of Fisheries, but I should like to see it made bigger and more worthy of the great food producing industry with which it deals.
    If we turn to the Estimates we see there something which is agreed to by all
    1626
    parties, namely, a vast expenditure of money on agricultural research. If we look through the Estimates a little further we find that the amount spent on fishery research is an exceedingly small sum. I do not want to quote figures, because it might be suggested that I am pitting fisheries against agriculture. I do not suggest that enough is spent on agriculture, but I do suggest that not nearly enough is spent on fishery research and fishery work by the Ministry. I dare say it is because the Ministry cannot get the money to spend, but I hope they will not be backward in asking for it, as I am certain that they will have the support of the House, for it would be money well spent and in the interests of the country. I feel that the great trawling industry must be taken in hand and must be treated seriously by the Government if it is to be kept alive. I know that it is the wish of the House that the industry should be kept alive. Therefore, I ask the Minister to go forward with a good heart and to be courageous in his demand on the Treasury for the money which would be spent in the interests of the nation in upholding the fishery industry.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have listened to two interesting speeches by the two hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment before the House, but in both cases the hon. Members addressed themselves to what they called the trawling industry. I venture to put in a plea for the inshore fishermen, whose interests are not identical with those of the trawling industry and sometimes are antagonistic. The trawlers undoubtedly are passing through a period of great depression, but I do not think that even the Mover of the Amendment told us the whole story. I listened to him very carefully for about 40 minutes, during a most interesting description of the state of the industry and the proposals that he had to make for its recovery, but he said little or nothing about the financial complications which have done more to cripple the industry than almost anything else. The trawling companies in some districts have been over-capitalised. They went through a period of considerable prosperity, like a good many other trades, shortly after the War, and over-capitalisation has done nothing but cripple them ever since. It is one of the reasons why they are not now able to use their reserves, indeed why they have no reserves to use, for the

    1627
    rebuilding of their fleet. Their problems, therefore, are different from those of the inshore men. It is to a plea for the inshore men that I ask the attention of the Minister. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will lend a ready ear to the appeals from Grimsby, Milford Haven and Hull, but I hope he will remember also the hundreds of fishing villages around the coast which have not as eloquent or forcible or barefaced spokesman, but which are just as much entitled to the support and assistance of the Ministry as are the more wealthy concerns which run the big trawlers and trade all over the world.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I represent more inshore fishermen in my constituency than any other Member of the House.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Then I am all the more sorry that my hon. Friend did not speak on their behalf.
    Major PRICE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the trawling industry of Swansea.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am prepared to help them, too, but I am for the moment out to help the small men. They do not receive the same abundance of assistance, although they need it most. Let me describe the position of the small men, not only in England but in Scotland. They cannot go very far afield; the size of their craft will not permit them to do so. The nature of their industry demands that they shall work, not only near their own harbours, but that they shall be able to link up with some railway terminus whence they can send their fish to market. They have open to them the area within the three miles limit, and nothing is more exasperating or infuriating than to find that, when the fishery cruiser is not about, one or other of the constituents of my three hon. Friends turns up and scours out, not only these bays, but also destroys the spawning ground from which some of the best of our inshore fisheries are replenished.
    Major PRICE: As the right hon. Gentleman has levied a charge against my trawlers, I must ask him to produce the evidence with which to support the charge, because the fishery cruiser's duty is to see that we do not break the law.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not accuse all constituents of my hon. and gallant Friend, but there are black sheep even in Milford Haven, and some also in Grimbsy.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: How many complaints has the right hon. Gentleman had in 20 years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are complaints made every week in the year. The trouble is that we cannot catch the delinquents.
    Mr. GROTRIAN Mr. GROTRIAN rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Let us have one fisherman at once.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: The right hon. Gentleman is slandering the whole trawling industry. The trawlers go to Iceland and Greenland, and never go anywhere near the inshore fisheries.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not wish to slander any class of fishermen as a whole, but everyone knows that every now and again there are men who come into our bays and scour them out. Let me impress on the House this fact: It is not necessary to do this every week in order to destroy the inshore fisheries; one complete scour out of a single bay will destroy a fishery for a whole year. That is indeed the reason why the Minister has to implore the assistance of the Admiralty to protect the inshore men, and the reason why the Secretary for Scotland has to employ a fishery cruiser to protect the inshore men. If there were no offence committed, and if, as the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) said, nothing but the most virtuous trawlers sail out of the ports mentioned, there are some other ports which supply these trawlers that do the real damage.
    Major PRICE: They are foreigners.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If they are Frenchmen let us catch them as well. I do not mind whether they are French or British; if they destroy the fisheries they are both criminals. Let us see how the inshore men are now suffering. They are suffering not only as a result of considerable depression, which appears to be affecting every branch of the fishing industry as well as a good many of our

    1629
    basic trades, but their markets are not as good as they were. Prices have steadily declined during the last two years. As far as one can tell, even during the present year there has been a decline in prices rather than a rise. That may be to the good of the consuming class, but the only way in which the inshore fishermen can make up for it is either by a reduction of their costs or by other means. It is not for them so much a question of wages, for they nearly all work on the share system. The level of French wages or Belgian wages or Dutch wages, therefore, does not affect them. If they are to make any reduction of costs they must each do with a smaller share, or they must be able to embark on their industry with a smaller capital expenditure. The only way in which they can do that is to build at the present low cost of building and with very much lower costs of motors. But a great many of them are already embarrassed with boats and motors bought on a high market.
    The Ministry in the past has done good work in providing credits in a great many of our fishing villages, and without them it would have been impossible for the fishermen to have proceeded with the installation of motors in their boats. The assistance given by the Ministry and the Development Fund in this way was one of the best pieces of work ever done. It has enabled the fishermen to change over their sailing boats into mechanically driven boats, but at the present time the fishermen are embarrassed with mechanically driven boats which were bought and installed at a high cost. So far as I know the inshore fishers, I have never come across any men anywhere who were more grateful for Government assistance. That assistance was given very largely under the guidance of a most valuable Committee, of which Mr. Cecil Harmsworth was chairman, and he has kept up his support of the inshore fishermen through the Fishery Organisation Society up to the present time. Gratitude is expressed to Mr. Cecil Harmsworth and his Committee in every village round the English coast, and, I believe, in Scotland also. Then the Department has also had the assistance of some admirable advisers. Probably the ablest was the late Mr. Stephen Reynolds, who knew the inshore
    1630
    fishermen well, because he lived as one of them himself, and up to the time of his death laboured to secure for the inshore fishermen not only justice in the home markets but an equal meed of assistance with other great industries from the Development Fund.
    At the present time the fishermen are suffering not only from these expensive boats but from the instalments which they have to repay. Though most valuable, the system has been in the nature of revolving credit. It has involved them in having to make their repayments and make them punctually, and in some of our fishing villages they find it impossible to keep up these repayments month by month or year by year. The Department has already, I believe, had to grant release from a good many of these loans. I do not know what the Minister will propose with regard to some of the outstanding loans, but there are still a good many of them which during the present year, I believe, it will be almost impossible for the fisherman to repay. Would the right hon. Gentleman let us know whether he has any proposals to make to the fishing industry for the deferring or postponing of the payment of instalments in the present year. If there were a postponement for 12 months it would be of the greatest assistance to these fishing villages and would enable them to tide over what is an exceedingly bad time.
    The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) who moved the Amendment said there were two things he advocated, and these I would like to endorse. The first was further expenditure on research work. There is no doubt that we still know far too little about the habits of the fish around our island. After all these years we still know little about the habits of the herring or mackerel. The salmon is very much more a matter of river fishing by fresh-water men, although I know that there are still some, very valuable salmon reaches along our shores. The habits of the herring and mackerel are still matters of mystery, for we know very little about them. We have learnt more about the eel than about the herring in the last 25 years. Yet the herring industry is almost as great as the trawling industry; it is of vast importance, particularly in Scotland. There are

    1631
    some hon. Members who would not be in this House to-day if they had not the support of the herring fishermen of Scotland. These men are just as much entitled to expenditure from the Development Fund and to expenditure on research work as are agriculturists; they are just as much entitled to assistance from such funds as are the growers of sugar beet.
    The maintenance of our herring fisheries is a matter of real national importance to us. It is true that the men who sail in the trawlers are amongst some of the bravest of our seamen and that they form an immensely valuable adjunct to the Royal Navy. The men who sail in the herring fishery boats sail in smaller craft and have to conduct their work in uncommonly bad weather; they are subject to the sudden gales of the North Sea and they have developed a trade that is second to none. They are entitled to all the Government assistance that we can give them in the finding out of the habits of the fish which they pursue. The same is equally true of the men who fish mackerel. Especially in the South-West of England you will find men going out in the roughest possible weather trying to get into contact with the mackerel shoals. If they could only receive such guidance and help as the Government could give them, it would mean that they would be able to conduct their industry with much less danger to human life. That, in itself, is one of the prime reasons why more money should be devoted to fishery research.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: What has happened to your pilchards in Cornwall?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They can be caught just as well as other fish. We want to know more about them. We want to pool our national knowledge on the subject, and unless we have knowledge it is certain that we cannot, with scientific accuracy, pursue even the pilchard. Let me come to another aspect of the work which must be done, if we are to help our inshore fishermen. They not only require to have good boats and to be themselves skilled fishermen and to know where to go for the fish—receiving certain guidance from those better informed than themselves, and able to take advantage of national knowledge—but they
    1632
    are also entitled to good harbours out of which they can proceed and to which they can return, in rough weather, and land their fish. All round the coast there are numbers of small harbours which, for the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money on breakwaters or small wharves, could be turned into places in which fishing boats could shelter during stormy weather, places which they could enter no matter how great a wind was blowing or how heavy a sea was running, and places with wharves alongside on which they could land their fish without having a double expenditure on carriage.
    One of the best pieces of national expenditure we could undertake would be to see that these little fishing ports are re-surveyed, and if necessary, in some cases, partially rebuilt. Breakwaters have been washed away in the great storms of this winter. On the North-East coast two of the most important fishing ports have had their outer breakwaters entirely destroyed during the high tides and the heavy gales. The result is that every fisherman in those ports is suffering. They cannot lie inside the harbour without danger to their ships. The deterioration in their boats has been very great even during the present winter. They are crowded together, a large number of craft all landing their fish at the same time, and the crunching and grinding of these vessels, owing to the sea breaking in without the interruption or protection of breakwaters, has done a great deal towards destroying the capital value of the local fishing fleets. Equally, they need to be protected not only from the sea, but also from the heavy landing charges, which in some places almost destroy the chance of a profitable market. I agree with the Mover about the heavy expenditure on carriage by rail. That is one direction in which reform undoubtedly is possible and ought to be pursued, but one of the expenses which bites heavily into the profits of fishermen is the expenditure, not on carriage by rail, but on carriage to the rail. Whether it be by motor wagons, as in a great many places, or by carts and horses as in most of them, the expense of that extra carriage often wipes out the profit on which the fishermen depend.
    I would support the hon. Member for Grimsby all the way in trying to get a

    1633
    reduction of railway rates, and perhaps I may suggest to him that one of the best services which he could do to Grimsby would be to persuade the Coast Lines to call in there more regularly, and to take fish as part of their regular cargoes. I undertake to say that it would be carried cheaper by sea than it is carried by land. But these smaller places have to be linked up with the railway services. We shall shortly be discussing in this House the connection between carriage by rail and the way in which it is linked up with traffic by road. I do not think we ought to stop there. If there is to be an extension of railway activities on to the roads, let there also be an extension of railway activities within the shores of these islands, linking up these little ports and villages in closer connection with the big markets of the country. By an extension of that kind of traffic, by the lowering of the cost of the sending of our herrings and of our harder fish, and especially of shell fish—which we have left altogether out of our discussions this afternoon, although a very important part of the fishing industry—we might do our part towards making the industry, which is now suffering from heavy and prolonged losses, once more a profitable national industry.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The Ministry which is under discussion to-day has been justly called "the Ministry of loaves and fishes," and I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that on the famous occasion alluded to in the terms "loaves and fishes," both articles of food were treated with the same method and advantage. I suggest to the House that the Ministry of Fisheries might take a leaf out of the book of the Ministry of Agriculture, and that the right hon. Gentleman who combines the functions of Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Fisheries should apply to the question of fisheries the same development of regulation that he has applied to agriculture. I allude particularly to the field of marketing, in which the Ministry of Agriculture has displayed marked activity. When we look at this matter from the point of view of marketing, and of the profits to be made—out of which a population has to be maintained—we must take a general and national view of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member
    1634
    for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) seemed to distinguish some rivalry between the interests of the inshore fishermen and those of the deep-sea and capitalistic fisheries, but I think he will admit that a national view can be taken, which covers both spheres, and includes, without any rivalry at all, the whole of this great national interest.
    Although it only represents a production of something like 10 per cent, of our agricultural output, the fishing, industry is yet a national asset of extraordinary value, and it seems to me that, while the Ministry of Agriculture has been extending its activities in very important ways, the functions of the Ministry of Fisheries have been regarded in rather a narrow spirit. Its work and its reports are all of a highly technical character, and I think it might with advantage copy the developments of the sister Ministry. Why should not the staff which has been studying marketing conditions and making suggestions regarding agriculture, and which, I understand, is getting through its labours, go on to devote its attention to the fishery question? I hope the Minister will consider the idea of extending a series, like the series of Orange Books which follows on the Report of the Linlithgow Committee, to the whole question of improving the fishing trade. When one considers the profits that are to be made in this trade, one finds the last Report of the Ministry of Fisheries very depressing reading. The whole output in the last year reported on was less in value than that of the year before. Germany has now become our best customer, and the most striking decline is in the case of the Russian trade. There was an extraordinary drop in 1924 in Russian trade. From 807,000 cwts. it fell in 1925 to under 200,000 cwts., and in 1926 it actually fell to 12,000 cwts.—this, from 807,000 cwts. two years previously.
    Such a drop as that is so striking that I hope the Minister will be willing to defend on its merits the question of the treatment of Russian trade. It is not to be lightly brushed aside with a laugh at the Russian proposals. It is a fact that in 1924 a tremendous development of trade with Russia was taking place, and it is the breach with Russia which has taken away a living from so many of our men. When we look at the home trade we find that the prices have been

    1635
    disastrous for the industry, but the consumer has not by any means secured the advantage which ought to correspond with the lowered prices received by the fishermen. Foreign landings were nearly doubled in the year last under review: and our imports were 30 percent., above 1913, being 15 percent, of our total consumption. The total value of the imports came to £11,000,000. While the Ministry of Agriculture has been developing in various ways, the functions of the Ministry of Fisheries have remained much the same. They began on the same footing. In the case of agriculture it was necessary to form a Ministry in order to make Regulations regarding certain matters, and we have the counterpart in the fishery world of those Regulations. Then we went on to research, and on that point I cordially agree with what has been said as to the extraordinary importance of further research. There might be a vastly greater production if research work were carried further. Take the question of plaice alone. Much might be achieved if the findings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea were put into enforcement by international regulation.
    Next, the Ministry of Agriculture went on to the question of developing resources in regard to small holdings, and, corresponding with that, we have had in the fishery world a certain development of the shell-fish industry more or less of the same kind. Then in agriculture you bad an increased interest in the workers, and I think the Report of the Ministry of Fisheries might display a great deal more interesting information in regard to the position of the men working in the industry. There is a study to be made of their conditions which would be extremely valuable; and, corresponding with the wage question in agriculture—which gets a whole Report under the Ministry of Agriculture—there ought to be a great deal more public interest aroused by the Fisheries Report on this branch of its subject. Finally, there is the marketing question, which is just now proving to be a most important sphere of activity in regard to agriculture. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has called attention again and again to the
    1636
    failure to bring to the public advantage gluts of fish. In the same way there are losses to the public in gluts of fruit, and it is only since we have had systematic investigation turned on by the marketing officers of the Ministry of Agriculture that light has been thrown on the question of what to do. The same advantage would accrue from an investigation into marketing and distribution conditions in regard to fish.
    Let me say a word upon other subjects with which I think the Report ought to deal more fully in further issues. The number of men engaged in the fishing industry fell, it appears from the 1926 Report, from 37,000 to 36,000. There ought to be an inquiry into the cause of that fall. The number of boats also fell, not only first-class boats but second-class boats. We are not given any information as to the methods by which or the categories in which earnings were made or losses incurred by these boats. There ought to be further information, also, on the vital matter of accidents and loss of life. The end of every industry is the support of human life, and while we have the number engaged in the industry falling, we have here a trade in which men are incurring extraordinary risk, and in which the rate of accident and loss of life is very great. I find that 68 lives are recorded as having been lost in the year under review. We ought to know if investigations are on foot for the development of wireless, or other provision to avoid such lamentable loss.
    5.0 pm.
    Then might we not have reports a little more up-to-date? This Report, which is called the Report for 1926, is really in a great measure the Report for 1925, which we only get in 1928, and when we get it it falls very short in the information that it might give us. No doubt those who compile it wait for instructions from the Minister to let the Report cover more ground, and I hope the Minister will attend to that and give a freer hand for the very able men who conduct the Ministry and can make the Report so interesting. It is only once a year, as a rule, that we get any discussion of the fishery question, and, therefore, it ought to be a general review and cover all the important points. It ought to be one of the most interesting discussions of the year. It is not

    1637
    only economically urgent, but extraordinarily romantic. There is nothing to equal the hardihood of the men concerned, the danger that they run, and the courage that they display, and those of us who became acquainted with the writings of Stephen Reynolds could never fail to regard a fishery debate as one of the most attractive and interesting of the year.
    The inshore fishermen, I trust, are not forgotten by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, although they appear to limit their affections to deep-sea men, but it is an extraordinary fact that, viewing the great importance, in numberless ways, of the inshore men, we are allowing their interests to be overruled again and again at our coast villages and towns. These men furnish the crews of our lifeboats, and at intervals they become famous, almost national heroes, by some incident where extraordinary courage is displayed, as was displayed the other day on the Happisburgh Sands, where the men of the Cromer lifeboat risked being smashed on the steamer that was on the sands because by no other means could they get off to the men who were left on the boat. These things illustrate now and then the priceless services which are rendered by the inshore men, and yet you get, again and again, where coast villages are developing into pleasure resorts, an overruling of the interests of the fishermen and a subjugation of their success to interests which are on a larger scale.
    Again and again, I have thought, these men are helpless in the provision of what they need—it may be of windlasses, of shelters, or perhaps of the improvement of some small harbour—because they are not numerous enough, not always skilful enough in political wangling, to get attention from the public bodies concerned; and I think the Ministry might, through its officers, increased if necessary, do something to see that the interests of these men are not overruled, because they are of extraordinary value, not only for the fish which they catch—a not inconsiderable national asset—but because they are a priceless element in the provision of men for lifeboats, for the Navy, and for the mercantile marine. It is true that they carry individualism to a point unrivalled perhaps by any other set of men, but
    1638
    they are not on that account of less interest to us on these
    benches. They are people whose interests ought to be a matter of great public concern.
    Those are the points that we, on these benches, want to urge on the Ministry—more attention to the marketing question, marketing investigation, fuller, more interesting and more up-to-date reports, and more attention to the real interests of the inshore men as well as of those working in capitalist fishing. Therefore, I hope the Minister will authorise a more general report to succeed the one which is now before us, and that he will not insist on its restriction to dry facts, but that he will make it more worthy of the great interests concerned.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: I shall not intervene for very long in this Debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has made such an admirable and complete survey of most of the fishing questions that I do not think there is very much left for anybody else to say, but I should like to associate myself with the remarks that, he made as to the men who engage in these industries. He described them as the bravest in the land, and certainly, in my experience, that is not an exaggeration in the very slightest degree. In that regard, we were very pleased to see the tribute paid to them by the Prime Minister a few days ago. I should like to enter a friendly warning to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, who now represents, and is proud to represent, the premier fishing port, but I have been looking at the figures, and I am afraid that, unless he can instil into some of the fishing people in Grimsby some of the enthusiasm with which he represents them here, the honour of representing the premier fishing port will have passed from the hon. Member for Grimsby to the hon. Member for South West Hull, because, so far as I can make out the figures, in 1927, including herrings and foreign fish, there was lauded in Grimsby 177,000 tons and in Hull 168,000 tons, and the disquieting part for the hon. Member for Grimsby is that, whereas the Hull figures are increasing all the time, the Grimsby figures seem to be more or less stationary. I only give him that friendly warning.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price),

    1639
    who seconded this Amendment, used the expression that this industry was in a parlous state. I do not think any good purpose is served by exaggeration, and that is an exaggeration of the state of the trawling industry, at any rate so far as I know. I am not able—I have not the knowledge—to speak about inshore fishermen, because there are none in my constituency, which is concerned simply and solely with long distance, deep-sea trawling, and although they are not making large fortunes, it is certainly an exaggeration to say that their industry is in a parlous state, and I am sure they will not thank the hon. and gallant Member for so describing it. With regard to the difficulty of getting credits, either from the Government or from the banks, I think that to-day any well-managed concern, which is not over-capitalised, can still get all the credit it wants. In Hull, at any rate, during the last three years we have built 40 new trawlers, at a cost of £17,000 each, equipped for sea, and 20 of those have been built since 1st January, 1926, while there are now, I believe, eight more building and seven in contemplation—that is to say, they are projected, and the plans have been got out. I do not think, therefore, it is quite right to say that, so far as Hull is concerned, at any rate, the trade is in a parlous condition.
    I agree with most of what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, but I really must protest—although there is no one to whom to protest, as there are at the moment no Members on the Liberal Benches, but perhaps someone will tell him that I do protest—that he should utter his Slanders in this House against Hull trawlers and then run away and not hear the answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby), who is just coming in, will convey my message to his right hon. Friend. It is absolutely untrue that the Hull trawlers are fishing within the three miles limit where his men fish.
    Mr. FENBY: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), I should like to say that he is in a Committee upstairs and will be back as soon as he possibly can.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: I am afraid I shall not still be speaking when he comes back, but I will tell him myself. It is quite untrue. All the Hull trawlers fish off Iceland and the Faroes, and they go as far away as Greenland now, but they do not go sneaking around places in Scotland or Wales or wherever it is the right hon. Gentleman represents; and, therefore, that is a slander, which we repudiate. I am sorry my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not here at the moment, because he is the father of this idea of getting Government money for trawlers, and some newspapers which represent his views in Hull had, I saw, a headline "Hull Trawler Heroes; Proposed Help," and then they had what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull would do for them. I do not think the heroes are going to get much of that help. I think that probably it will go to the people whom I have sometimes heard described from the benches opposite as "bloated capitalists." I am not suggesting that that is the language of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, because he is a thoroughly good capitalist himself, and he knows the services which capitalism renders to the country. Perhaps he has not been on those benches long enough to have caught the sort of jargon that we hear from them, such as "bloated capitalists," but, so far as he is concerned, he was in an admirable position, because he might have a chance of getting those credits, and at the same time he and his supporters could represent that it was being done for these heroes who go on the trawlers.
    I am sure he will agree with me that that is not a complete statement of the case. I do not say it is inaccurate, but it is not complete, and I should ask the Minister to be very careful before embarking upon anything of the sort, because I think it would do a great deal of harm eventually. It would simply mean that the inefficient people would be brought into competition with the efficient, by means of some Government subsidy or something of the sort, and I do not think that that would be quite fair or beneficial to the industry. Some years ago the industry was in what I might call an over-built condition, which meant that a good many ships had to be laid up and, of course, men thrown out

    1641
    of work, and I very much fear that the same sort of thing might happen if anybody offered cheap money to speculators and amateurs in the trade with which to build trawlers at this time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    Is the hon. and learned Member aware that in the Prime Minister's election address he said that
    "extended credit facilities in this direction"—
    in the direction, that is, of the fishing industry—
    "will be the subject of inquiry"?
    Mr. GROTRIAN: Who said that?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister, in his election address.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: I have no doubt it will be a subject of inquiry, and I am trying to issue a warning to the Minister that when the inquiry comes he will be very careful how he does anything of the sort without taking the opinion of all the trawler owners in this country. I know that I am not speaking for the Trawlers' Federation of Great Britain, who have not yet met or decided this question, but I can say that the Hull people will thoroughly oppose it. If that be so, I am sure the Minister will be very careful before he embarks on anything of the sort. Many other suggestions have been made as to ways in which this industry could be helped. I could talk about these for a long time, but I promised to be short, and I shall refer shortly only to one or two. Last year upon the Navy Estimates I referred to the question of retainers for up-to-date trawlers, so that the Admiralty might have their services; therefore, I will not refer to that again. The question of exploration and research work is important. The individual cannot afford to do that work, and he finds that, if he does do it, he gets only one or two voyages to the particular grounds which he has discovered, and the knowledge gets about so that everybody benefits from the expenditure to which he has been put.
    One point which has not been sufficiently emphasised is the importance of this country strictly adhering to, and getting other countries to adhere to, the three-mile limit. Most of our troubles come from countries not adopting the
    1642
    practice, which is almost universal. We adhere to the three-mile limit, but Norway and Russia do not, and it makes it very difficult for our men, when they go to other countries, to know exactly where they can fish, I hope that, if ever any discussion takes place, the Government will keep a stiff upper lip on this question, because it is one of the most important things for this industry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to intervene for only a few minutes to reply to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian). It is unfortunate that this Debate should degenerate into a contest between the different interests in this industry—between the trawling interests, or between the Scottish and English interests, or between in-shore and deep-sea fishermen. The fishing industry is a great industry. It is the sixth in the country, and employs, directly or indirectly, 800,000 people; and it is big enough for all of us to try and help it. I beg my hon. and learned Friend to look at it from a national point of view. I do not want to go into the attitude of the British Trawlers' Federation or of the Hull trawlers, but I do know this, that the industry was promised help by the Prime Minister in his election address. I am not the author of the proposal for credit; I happen to have raised it, because credits for agriculture were mentioned in the King's Speech, and I took the first, opportunity of doing it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's own leader is the originator of it, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he has done practically to carry out the Prime Minister's pledge. This is what the Prime Minister said, not in a speech at an emotional gathering of enthusiastic Tories, but in his calmly-considered election address:
    "The interests of the fishing industry will not be neglected"—?
    that is in case the lieges were so ill-advised as to return him to power, and this is what he said he would do in that unhappy event—
    "and with that object in view, the provision of further and extended credit facilities in this direction will be the subject of inquiry."
    Those are the Prime Minister's words, and I am being attacked by my hon. and learned colleague, who tries to help the

    1643
    city of Hull as I do in this House, because I took the opportunity of the King's Speech to remind the Government, three years afterwards, of this promise, and to ask them to implement it.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I had not remembered that the Prime Minister had raised the question, and I did not expect to find him in such good company.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    My hon. and learned Friend is the acme of courtesy, and I do not object to any of his well-meant remarks, which I know he made in all good humour. We all want to do our best by the industry, and to see assistance given to it as a whole. There should not be one section divided off in support of the trawlers, another in favour of the line fishermen, and another in favour of the herring fishermen. We have to look at the industry from the national standpoint. I think I am voicing the Labour point of view when I say that help should be given to the English fishermen in the trawling industry to enable them to become joint owners of their boats, as the Scottish fishermen are. In the Scottish fishing industry, fathers, brothers, sons and nephews can own a boat between them, and I should like to see English fishermen given the same facilities. I do not think they could get them from the great banks. If facilities are given to farmers, the fishermen should be given similar facilities. The distinctive Labour point of view on this important subject is that some of these men, who have been praised by the hon. Member for Grimbsy (Mr. Womersley) and other hon. Members on many occasions for their great work in the War, should be enabled to set up as their own masters in charge of their own boats.
    I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would call together a general inquiry, either an inter-Departmental inquiry, or a Royal Commission, or some other form of inquiry, for the whole fishing industry, on which there should be representation of the Admiralty, the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade, and, of course, the Ministry of Fisheries, to see how we can best assist the whole calling of fishing by better transport facilities, more refrigerator trucks on the railways, better
    1644
    marketing reports, better marketing organisations, credit facilities, if you like, and any other way in which help could be given. It cannot be done by piece-meal methods, or by single deputations to the Ministry, but only by taking into consideration all the facts, and by consultation of the Departments of State which are concerned. The railways could give far greater facilities, and therefore, there would have to be a representative of the Ministry of Transport on such an inquiry. It is high time that that should be done, because, after three years, it is common ground in this House among representatives of the fishing industry, that the industry needs help, and that little or nothing is being done to implement the Prime Minister's pledge.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am sure that the House has valued the opportunity—a rare opportunity—to hear something about the fishing industry. It is an industry which is, in the main, very silent, in spite of the activities of some of its able representatives in this House. We all recognise how much we owe to it, and that it is of national importance that it should be kept efficient, and not allowed to fall into decay. A well-known admiral stated that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the British fishermen. I do not know whether that is an entirely full account of the defeat of the Armada, but there is no doubt that, in the last War, we owed to our fishing fleet, and the trained personnel which they provided to the Navy, a debt which it would be difficult to exaggerate. It is therefore, in the national interest to encourage the fisherman, not only because of the valuable food supplies which he furnishes, but also because he is an important part of our naval defence. Undoubtedly, although the fishing industry has not been going through the difficult times of agriculture, or say, the coal industry, it has had in the last few years to face very anxious problems. It has, to a great extent, lost its old export markets, especially in Russia. These markets at the present time are largely closed, or greatly diminished in their capacity to buy fish of British taking, and there is not a great deal that any Government, however well disposed, ran do by direct action to help the industry.

    1645
    The public have it in their power to do very much more. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that this Debate should take place on the first day of Holy Week, because, in former times, it was the custom to eat more fish at this time of the year than at any other. The Debate we had in this House a few weeks ago showed that there is a great interest in religious topics, and, whatever may be the attitude of the Churches to fasting, I am sure that it would be in the interest of the good health of the community if some of the old-time customs in the way of eating fish could be revived. It would be of the greatest possible assistance to the two industries for which I have to speak if the community would eat more fish and drink more milk.
    The hon. and gallant member for Pembroke (Major Price) suggested that one effective way out of the difficulties which are confronting the fishing industry would be a measure of protection. I should be out of order if I were to pursue that topic in detail, but I would point out that, apart from the great political obstacles to putting what would be called a tax on food, there is a great difference of opinion in the industry itself as to the wisdom of any such duty, because, in the diverse industries which depend upon fishing there are those who are anxious to get cheap sources of supply for the curing of fish, and who would probably urge that they can only compete in the foreign markets for cured fish if they are able to get their supplies under present conditions. It must be pointed out, also, that if we were to have any interference with the present system we might well be faced with certain disadvantages in the way of retaliation, seeing that at the present time we export nearly half as much again in weight of fish as we import, that is taking the figures for fresh fish and cured fish together.
    Major PRICE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the value?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, I am afraid I have not got the value. I have got the values of imports from abroad, and I am glad to be able to say that there was a satisfactory falling off last year as compared with the previous year. We imported £35,000 worth less of foreign fish,
    1646
    and 216,000 cwts. less in quantity of wet fish.
    Major PRICE: Are those figures inclusive of fish landed from foreign trawlers?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think those are figures of the total quantity of fresh fish, imported into Great Britain.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting, I think, 1927 against 1926.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: During 1926, with the long coal stoppage and the general strike, foreign trawlers undoubtedly benefited. We had to compete with them with their cheaper coal from their own ports, and they found here a very good market for their fish.
    Mr. GUINNESS: As I said, I have been rather nervous about straying outside the bounds of Order on a Supply Vote, but I did want to point out that there are different interests in the industry, and certainly there are overwhelming obstacles against imposing a duty on fish, anyhow in the lifetime of the present Parliament. On the question of railway rates, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) pointed out that in certain respects the rate from Grimsby to London compares very unfavourably with the rate from Esbjerg, in Denmark, but he has compared rates per ton from Esbjerg with rates per cwt. from Grimsby. In the case of Grimsby, I am told that where lots are of less weight than four cwts. the rates are cheaper than the rates from Esbjerg, and, of course, it is obvious that all railway rates must give an advantage to those who offer their traffic in large quantities. We must also remember that this rate from Esbjerg includes only about half the mileage over the railway which is comprised in the rate from Grimsby, because the fish from Esbjerg comes most of the way by sea, and is landed at Harwich.
    I was glad to hear the tribute which several speakers paid to the research which is being carried on to help the fishing industry. The fact that we are now so often pressed to start voyages of exploration to new and distant fishing

    1647
    grounds suggests a belief on the part of the fishing industry that many of the nearer grounds are in danger of being over-fished. It may be that we have too many boats at work. It may be that with our modern and more intensive methods we are killing too many young and immature fish. Perhaps research will find a way of fishing more efficiently, and therefore more economically, but none of these results can be achieved except by patient effort, biological and statistical, extended over a considerable period. The scientific staffs of the Fisheries Department of the Board of Fishery in Scotland, and the various unofficial institutions to which the Government afford financial support, are steadily adding to that knowledge upon which alone improvement in our methods can be based, and I should like to pay my tribute to the admirable way in which the officials under the Ministry of Fisheries and other scientific workers are carrying out their task. We are now starting on a new side of the research, thanks to the financial help afforded by the Empire Marketing Board. We are fitting out two new ships for research, at a cost of about £18,000, to discover the best methods of preserving and treating fish after it has been caught, and I am sure that hon. Members in touch with the problems of the industry will agree that this is a field of research which is fertile in promise.
    Reference has been made to the advantage that was gained by the exploratory voyage of the "Florence Brierley." That voyage cost a good deal less than we anticipated, owing to the fact that they brought home a valuable cargo of fish. Their task was to explore in the region of the 100-fathom line from the north-west coast of Scotland to the coast of Norway, and the chief object of that exploration was to find new hake grounds. They were very successful, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby that it would be to the great advantage of the fishing industry if the experiment of the "Florence Brierley" could be repeated. The Admiralty might perhaps help in the preliminary work. I have not discussed it with them, but I will be glad to do so. It is quite true, as I think my hon. Friend pointed out, that the Admiralty, by means of the
    1648
    modern appliances for echo sounding, are able to locate banks when steaming much faster than was possible by the old methods, and if we could get the assistance of the Admiralty in carrying out—perhaps in the ordinary course of their work—the location of banks at suitable depths, it might be possible and profitable to send fishery research vessels to explore the fish life which may be found upon them. My hon. Friend suggested another way in which the Admiralty might help our fishing fleet, and that was by paying a retaining fee to suitable ships. That, again, is a matter which I will be glad to take up with the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I have no idea what attitude he may take on it.
    The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) raised the case of the in-shore fishermen, and pleaded for more favourable treatment in the case of those men who have been able to buy boats with the help of State credit. Hitherto, nearly one-third of the loans which have been advanced for this purpose to the in-shore fishermen have been written off, and it is obvious that it would be neither consistent with the interests of the public nor fair to those fishermen who have loyally carried out their obligations, and done their best to pay off their loans, if any indiscriminate writing-off were to take place; but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are administering these loans in a very reasonable way, and are not unduly pressing for repayment from those fishermen who are unable to pay in view of their present circumstances. My right hon. Friend also raised the question of the small harbours. I am glad to say that at Port Isaac, in North Cornwall, work is starting this week on the improvement of the harbour. The Government are finding £22,000 towards the cost of these works, and the locality is finding £11,000, of which the Cornwall County Council provide £2,000 and the Bodmin Rural District Council £5,000. Port Isaac Harbour has been a very difficult problem ever since I have been at the Ministry, and I am very glad that a solution has at last been reached.
    Perhaps the most disquieting fact which has been brought out in this Debate is as to the age of the vessels; it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke. The

    1649
    age of our trawlers is unduly high; and in the case of our drifters where the average age is about 18 years the position is even more disquieting. The drifter fleet has considerably diminished in comparison with what it was before the War. It now numbers only about 1,200, as compared with 1,600 in 1913, but owing to the unfortunate drop in the demand for herring from Continental countries, it is still doubtful whether the fleet is not capable of providing more than markets are able to absorb. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) mentioned the undertaking in the Prime Minister's election address that the question of providing credits for the fishing industry would be the subject of inquiry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The phrase was:
    "The provision of further and extended credit facilities in this direction will be the subject of inquiry, and the interests of the fishing industry will not be neglected."
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have inquired. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, there has been a good deal of discussion recently in the area which he represents, and we have got strong evidence that there is by no means a unanimous opinion amongst those who might be expected to take advantage of this State credit if it were provided.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Certainly the owners in Hull have said that they do not require credit, but they do not represent the whole of the industry, and various ports are considering this question. When the reports come in from the central authority, the recommendation will be sent to the Ministry, and I hope he will not say now that he is against granting credit. I trust he will keep an open mind on the subject until these reports have been received.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not suggest that the partial information which has reached us hitherto from the industry would be a fair ground for coming to any definite decision. I do not, however, think it is right to argue that because we propose to provide credits for agriculture we ought necessarily to do the same thing for the fishing industry. The two industries are run on an entirely different basis. In the case of agriculture the need for long-term credit
    1650
    is caused by the method of organisation, because it is carried on by individuals, and by hundreds of thousands of small capitalists who are largely shut out from the normal methods by which other industries obtain their capital and credit. That does not apply to the fishing industry to anything like the same extent. The House is aware that a large proportion of the fishing industry is based upon joint stock enterprise, and it has facilities which have grown up for the benefit of that form of enterprise which are not easily applicable to agriculture. The problem therefore cannot be compared with that which confronts the farmer. As regards short-term credit the fisherman carries on his business under conditions which in comparison with the farmer may be described as a cash business. He sells his fish before he has to pay for his requirements. He does not have that long delay between seed-time and harvest which characterises those engaged in the agricultural industry, and which is so serious a problem in that industry.
    The inquiries I have made in various directions lead me to think that there is no urgent need for capital in the fishing industry at the present time and that capital will probably be forthcoming as soon as the building of new ships becomes a really paying proposition.
    I am sure the House will agree that it would not be helpful to the industry to furnish capital and an artificial stimulus to building before the demand for fish and the general position of the industry justified such a measure. There is evidence that we are now going through a transition period. The cost of building has not perhaps yet been stabilised, and there is doubt whether in the case of drifters motor engines may not replace steam engines. Under these conditions of doubt any artificial stimulation might do great damage, and might do the most damage to the small men whose interests are in the minds of many of those who are anxious about the present position. If by providing State credit we encourage people to build ships before such a course is economically justifiable, it would only mean the scrapping of a lot of old ships with a great loss of capital to a number of the smaller men. I am quite sure that it would be a mistake to press

    1651
    the industry to build ships until they are satisfied that the new construction is justified on the basis of paying its way.
    There are great difficulties at the present time and great uncertainties although we must not forget that conditions in certain respects show an undoubted improvement. Coal is now several shillings cheaper than it was a year ago, and naturally coal is the biggest outgoing in this industry. On the other side of the account, the landings of the fish last year showed that they were 500,000 cwts. up on the year before, although it is true that the total value did not show much difference. It is a satisfactory position that while the cost in this most important respect of coal is down, the receipts have not been decreasing accordingly. I hope that the improvement in the financial position which seems to be shown by these developments may enable the industry itself to find a way of removing those causes of alarm which have been expressed this afternoon chiefly owing to the ago and obsolescence of our fishing fleets.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I want to say a word or two about the Scottish herring fishing industry, which is quite a separate branch. I do not think any fishermen have more claim upon the consideration of this House, and I believe they have a greater claim than those engaged in the other parts of the industry, because these men are absolutely vital to the security of the Fleet in time of war. During the first 18 months of the War the Fleet could not have existed without these drifters, and Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty have paid their tribute to the services rendered by these fishermen. I wish to put one or two points which concern the Secretary of State for Scotland more than the Minister of Agriculture. I want to raise the question of the obsolescence of the fishing fleet which is causing us a great deal of anxiety. I agree that this is not a matter of great urgency just now, but it will be in another couple of years, or even less. I think something will have to be done to help these fishermen to replace their craft, as they begin to go out of action in very large numbers and simultaneously. I should say that several hundreds of them have not more than three or four years to run. This matter is of sufficient
    1652
    urgency to warrant the serious consideration of the Department of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The Minister of Agriculture referred to joint stock companies running the trawling fleet companies, which he said might be able to raise capital for replacement purposes in a short time. The position is quite different in the herring fishing industry, where the same confusion obtains as in agriculture, and no difference can be drawn between the two. The fishing fleet is largely owned by the fishermen themselves, and they are the sort of men who cannot raise capital unless they have two or three amazingly good seasons. It cannot be suggested that on this account the fleet should be allowed to rot. When this question of credits comes up in the future, I think the herring fishing fleet should be put in a different category from the trawling fleet, because the drifter fleet cannot raise capital in the same way, and a difference must be made. While there is a considerable difference of opinion among the trawling fleet as to the advantages of credit, there is no difference of opinion in the herring fishing industry among the drifter owners that when the time comes to replace the drifters they will require credit, and some form of assistance from the Government will be necessary.
    There is only one other point I want to mention with regard to credits. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not yet quite certain whether the future of the industry lies in the modification of the present steam drifter or a new kind of craft altogether, with a new internal combustion engine. Now is the time for the Government to carry out a series of experimental tests to find out which of these crafts is the most suitable. Personally, I think we shall require a certain number of both types. We shall require the steam drifter for considerable distances and the small craft for inshore work. There is no doubt that the herring fishing industry is suffering from the total absence of the Russian market, which in former years was its chief market. I believe that about 75 per cent, of the export trade in herrings went to Russia, Poland and the Baltic States. Consequently, the position is not quite so bad as hon. Members opposite are inclined to make out when they quote that figure as being the total for Russia. As a matter of fact, we have only lost that

    1653
    portion of the herring export trade which does not include Poland and the Baltic States.
    Recently there have been many rumours concerning some great deal involving a large amount of capital in this country which has been arrived at between certain representatives of the herring fishing industry in Scotland and Poland, whereby a very large quantity of herrings will receive preferential treatment if they are imported into Poland through a new port near Danzig. A lot of rumours are current to the effect that this scheme will do a lot of harm to the herring fishing industry, while others say that the scheme will mean the salvation of the industry. In the interests of all concerned, the sooner the full details of this scheme are published the better it will be for the herring fishing industry and for Poland and the Baltic States as a whole. I think the time has arrived when we should know the full facts in regard to this scheme. The policy of "hush, hush" should not go on any longer, and I am perfectly sure that these rumours ought to be stopped.
    6.0 p.m.
    I would urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to stir up the Department of Overseas Trade. He is no longer there, but, while he was there, he did a great deal to promote the sale and export of herrings, and I would urge him, and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to keep stirring them up, and to do everything that they possibly can to get any barriers removed that may be set up by Poland or any other European country, so that the export and sale of British cured herrings all over the Continent, and particularly in Germany, Central Europe and Poland, may be facilitated.
    There is another aspect of the marketing question. Canada and the United States are capable of affording an immense outlet for cured herrings from this country. This is a matter which the Empire Marketing Board, in conjunction with the Imperial Economic Committee, might well take up and carry through, because those two markets have been for all practical purposes entirely unexploited. I would also urge my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary
    1654
    of State for Scotland, when he is considering his harbour policy on the North-East of Scotland, not to waste time and money on little harbours which are only capable of sheltering six or seven drifters, and cannot shelter anything like a substantial part of the main fleet. The fact that two of them are in my own constituency does not prevent me from saying that there are only three harbours on the North-East of Scotland, namely, Wick, Fraserburgh and Peterhead, which are fit to be kept up to full pitch and tune for the purpose of conducting the summer fishing in an efficient manner. Money will be thrown away if it is spent on keeping up little harbours which can only take two or three drifters, which can only work in connection with small inshore boats, whereas at Wick. Fraserburgh and Peterhead large and necessary schemes have been held up for the last two or three years, and these must be carried through if the fleet is to be maintained during the height of the season. Those schemes have been held up by lack of funds, and I would urge my hon. and gallant Friend to get these big harbours kept in good trim, even if it means sacrificing some of the smaller harbours.
    With regard to scientific research, I know that a depot has been established at Aberdeen for the purpose of research work, but that is entirely concerned with the white fishing and the trawling industry. Obviously, that is going to be of immense value, because, if it is possible, as it is hoped it will be, to keen the fish in fresh condition for over a week, the result will be enormously beneficial to the industry. I also think, however, that some research ought to be carried out, as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), in connection purely with the herring fishing industry and the herring itself. We know nothing about the herring. We do not know where they spawn, we do not know where they come from, or where they go to; we do not know the right time at which to start fishing for them, and, really, we know nothing about their habits or their life. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will support me when I say that a great deal more research might properly be conducted into the habits of the herring, in

    1655
    spite of all his own research work in that direction.
    There is also room for a great deal of research into what can be done with the herring when it is caught. A great many things can be done with it besides eating it. It can be converted into a most valuable fertiliser, oil can be extracted from it, and there are various processes which have been conducted, but up to the present, I am sorry to say, to a large extent in Germany. Experiments on these scientific processes for dealing with the herring might well be conducted in this country as well as in Germany, and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will press on with the development of scientific research in connection with the fishing industry in every possible way. We have a market which is capable of still further development in Europe, and we have one that has hardly been touched in the United States and in Canada; and I do solicit the support of the Empire Marketing Board in helping us to get cured herrings across there. What fills me, however, with absolute amazement is the way in which the people of this country have flatly declined hitherto to eat herrings in any reasonable quantities. We have heard a great deal about the distressed areas in the minefields; we have heard about the lower standard of living, and the miserable wages paid; and yet, throughout those distressed areas, you hardly ever hear of herrings being sold, although I am certain that they are the cheapest food that can possibly be obtained, and by far the most nutritious.
    It is not merely a question of the fresh herring. In the coalfields of South Wales, Durham, Northumberland and so on, no cheaper or more nutritious food could possibly be sold than cured herrings. It is libellous to say that cured herrings are unpalatable, if they are properly prepared. If the salt is boiled out of them they can be made practically as good as fresh herrings, and they are the best tasting fish of any. I have eaten many of them myself. We shall be glad of the assistance of this House, of the Empire Marketing Board, and of anyone whom we can enlist in support of our efforts to popularise the herring. Here we have these swarms of herring round our coasts; we catch them
    1656
    in millions, we cure them, and where do we sell them? Everywhere but to our own people, who stand in the most need. I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture was right when he said that far too much meat is eaten in this country, and I am quite ready to join him in a fasting campaign—
    Mr. GUINNESS: I did not say that too much meat was eaten; I said that there was too little fish eaten.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: —I agree, but I will go further, and say that there is too much meat eaten, and I am perfectly certain that, until this country gets back to oatmeal and milk and herrings and potatoes as the staple diet of the people, we shall never be the people that we have been in the past.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: No one can say that my hon. Friend who has just sat down is not a keen advocate of the herring, and I am only sorry that, at this late stage of the Debate, I have to weary the House with a few more remarks on the same subject. I certainly should not do so if the matter to which I desire to draw attention were not one which I believe to be of considerable importance. No reference hitherto has been made to it in the Debate, except the brief reference by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). We all know that the greater part of our herring trade is an export trade, and that, without the export trade, the herring fishery could not be be carried on. As my hon. Friend has said, a very important part of our export of herrings at the present times goes to Poland, and Poland now takes a very large proportion of the herrings which used formerly to go to Russia. Considerable difficulty has been placed in the way of that export trade during the past few months. There has been a system of licences by the Polish Government, under which the number of herrings allowed to go into the country is restricted, and the industry has been faced with considerable difficulties on that account. There is also a very high tariff—something like 12s.—against our herrings, and, unfortunately, they give a preferential treatment to Norwegian herrings, which is supposed to be based merely upon the size and type of herring, but which in fact operates most unfairly against the herring fishery of this country.
    Mr. J. JONES: You agreed with it.
    Sir F. MEYER: That interjection seems to me be so irrelevant that I decline to follow it up. The Polish Government, as my hon. Friend has just said, recently adumbrated a scheme whereby, in combination with certain British members of the herring industry, it is proposed that they should set up a herring fleet of their own and an import industry of their own. Anything which would encourage the herring industry, and result in more herrings caught by British fishermen and cured in Britain being sent to Poland, would naturally receive the support, not only of Members representing fishing constituencies, but of the House as a whole; but the crux of the matter, and this is the only reason why I am putting it before the House, is that a company is to be formed for which the subscription of British capital is to be invited, but which is to be controlled by Polish capital. There are to be British directors, but, as is usual in these cases, the deferred shares, which will probably be of the shilling denomination that is so popular at the present time, and in which the control of the company will rest, will be held in Poland.
    These facts in themselves would not necessarily condemn the scheme if it would provide a market for British fish, but the only way in which that can be done is by getting over the present tariff against British herrings, and this, in turn, is only possible if the herrings are not landed in any country other than Poland. If they are landed anywhere in Britain or in any other country, they at once become liable to the tariff. Again, the Polish Government cannot give preferential treatment to their own port of Gydinia as against Danzig, because they are prevented from doing so by treaty obligations. They cannot differentiate between the herrings caught by the boats of this proposed company and herrings caught by British boats or boats from other countries, this, again, being prevented by treaty obligations. The only way, therefore, is to cure the herrings on board. That has been tried in the past—
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my hon. Friend quite certain that, under the terms of this scheme, the herrings caught would have to be cured at sea, and not landed or cured in either Scotland or England,
    1658
    before they could be imported into Poland?
    Sir F. MEYER: I can only say that they cannot get preferential treatment, which is the sole object of this company, if they are landed in Scotland or in England. Therefore, the only way is for them to be cured on board. That has been tried by certain Dutch fishing interests in the past, but it has never been a success. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they know anything about this scheme, and whether they have given it their blessing or regard it in any way favourably. I also want to issue a warning to the public, in case this scheme comes to early fruition, and in case the public are invited to subscribe capital—no doubt preference capital—to it. If they do so, they will not only be subscribing to something which is going to take work away from British fishermen and British curers in order to put it into the hands of Polish fishermen and Polish curers, but they will be embarking their money in what I am firmly convinced will be a hazardous gamble. The Polish market in the past has only been able to take the very best herrings from this country, cured by the most skilful people, who have had generations of experience. The Polish market will not absorb herrings cured at sea, and, if any British investors are induced to put money into the scheme on the basis of preferential treatment for herrings caught by the fleet in connection with this scheme, they are, in my opinion, certain to lose their money. The Polish Government are, if I may use the expression, "on a good thing to nothing," and the putting of money into this scheme will deal a severe blow to the British fishing and curing industry. For this reason I am grateful for this opportunity of stating in the House what I believe to be the facts about this scheme of an Anglo-Polish Fishing Company, which the public may shortly see put before them in the newspapers.
    Mr. RENTOUL: I only desire to intervene for a few moments, one of my reasons for doing so being to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) on having afforded us this opportunity of calling attention to some of the more pressing

    1659
    problems and difficulties which confront our fishing industry to-day. I am afraid that the importance of that industry, in spite of the sympathetic references which are generally made to it whenever it is discussed in this House, is not sufficiently realised by the nation at large. It is an industry which, as we know, is not, highly organised, is not represented by any powerful trade union, as are other industries; and, consequently, its interests are occasionaly apt to be overlooked. Therefore, I think that those of us who are brought into close touch with this industry, and recognise the work that it is doing and the difficulties under which it labours, should be glad to seize any occasion such as the present one of raising the matter in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, in his most interesting speech, strayed some distance away from the actual Amendment which he put down. He gave us, all the same, an admirable survey of the position of the fishing industry as a whole at present. He also made one or two practical suggestions, some of which have commended themselves to the Minister and from which we hope some result may be forthcoming.
    I am a little surpirsed that more attention has not been paid to the altogether invaluable Report published last year by the Imperial Economic Committee, because in that Report most of the points which have been raised to-day are considered and commented upon. The hon. Member for Grimsby mentioned that certain other countries give State aid to their fishing industry. It would be interesting to know a little more about that in detail, because I notice that on page 30 the Committee say:
    "Whilst it certainly appears from the evidence which has been placed before us that wages on German trawlers are below those paid on British vessels, we have received no evidence of direct foreign subventions, though certain Governments have afforded facilities to their own fishing industries by means of loans to enable them to refit their vessels or to equip them with steam or motor power."
    Possibly, that is what my hon. Friend had in mind. The importance of research has been emphasised by many who have spoken, and undoubtedly if you study the Report you are led to the conclusion that, if we could by means of research only discover some better method
    1660
    of preserving fish, many of the difficulties that confront the fishing industry as a whole would be solved, because by that means you would be able to equalise the supply and to deal with what is undoubtedly the greatest difficulty that faces the industry, namely, these periods of glut and shortage; and, secondly, if some improvement of cold storage could be discovered it would, I think, be of enormous benefit to the fishing industry as a whole.
    With regard to the question of credits to which some reference has been made, speaking of the area I represent, I agree with what the Minister said, that certainly it is by no means clear that there is any unanimous opinion at all in favour of such a scheme coming from the industry. We should not look upon this question as altogether decided. To a certain extent, it is necessary to preserve an open mind until we receive the considered opinion of those who are entitled to speak on behalf of the industry as a whole. I quite agree it is important not to lose sight of the herring fishing part of the industry, because that is of the greatest importance both in its effect on food supply and also in view of the special problems that arise in connection with it. There has undoubtedly been a decline in the herring side of the fishing industry. It is not quite clear what the causes of that decline are. There has been a decline, to begin with, in consumption. The Committee in their Report' suggest various reasons for that decline. They say, for instance, that it may be due to the inability of people to get herrings, or the failure of supply, but they go on to say that they have had no evidence of any failure in supply. Then they suggest that it may be due to the fact that herrings have undoubtedly become more expensive than white fish, either actually or relatively, and they refer to various other causes. No one who is brought into touch with this industry can fail to appreciate that, great as is the importance of the trawling side of it, under no circumstances must we lost sight of the herring fishing side of the industry.
    The Amendment itself refers to what is undoubtedly a most disquieting feature, namely, the decline in shipbuilding which has been going on for some years past. There is no place in the country that has been harder hit in that connection

    1661
    than my own constituency. Here, again, we find one or two very significant facts in the Report of the Committee. In paragraph 52 they say:
    "Two-thirds of the steam trawlers at present on the register are over 10 years old and one-sixth are over 25 years, which is usually considered to be the limit of the useful life of a steam vessel. Again, it is customary to lay up the vessels for a time in the summer months for repairs. The practice in the last few years has been to extend, not to curtail, that period of compulsory idleness. If these conditions persist for long, men will tend to leave the industry."
    While appreciating all these difficulties, of course we are anxious to discover practical methods that can be applied for dealing with them. It is admitted that to introduce any general scheme of protection for the benefit of our fishermen would be a breach of the Prime Minister's pledge. It has, on the other hand, been suggested that a definite campaign might be initiated to induce people to eat more fish. That is one of the recommendations contained in the Report. The Committee suggest that the help of the Empire Marketing Board might be called upon in order to carry through such a campaign, and I should like to have heard from the Minister whether anything has been done to carry out the precise and definite recommendations of the Report both in regard to the provision of additional vessels for research and with regard to better marketing and more publicity for the fishing industry, it being borne in mind that if we could increase the consumption of fish by 30 per cent., which after all is not very much, it would place the industry in a position of prosperity compared with the difficulties with which it is contending to-day. At all events if this discussion does nothing else it will have served a useful purpose in having called attention to the special problems which confront one of the hardest working and most essential industries of the country to-day.
    Mr. J. JONES: This has been, so far as I have been able to hear it, a very fishy discussion. The red herring has been brought in, and all sorts of herrings, and the relative possibility of getting more people in every part of the world to consume herrings. When hon. Members opposite talk about research in the matter of fish they are leaving out the real essential in not asking for research
    1662
    to discover what fish are made of. There are all kinds of herring, but hon. Members opposite are adepts at the red herring. They find them at every election when red letters are missing. While they are talking about the necessity of people eating more fish they are doing their best to reduce the purchasing power of the people so that they cannot buy fish. Red herring for the worker, salmon for the other fellow! I will undertake to say that hon. Members who have been speaking to-day do not consume a dozen fish of the herring type in the course of 12 months.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: You are wrong.
    Mr. JONES: You can get them in a hotel as part of your breakfast, but you do not consume them as a meal. It is only part of a meal. You advise the workmen to eat them as a whole meal. That is your idea of the relative value of fish. We want to know what you mean. The Government have to find the money to subsidise an industry in the matter of research and in the matter of equipment. If the industry is so poor that it cannot afford to carry on, why not hand it over to the nation and run it as a national industry? Are we to find the means and equipment to subsidise private capital? It is not good enough. The Minister paid a tribute to some of us on these benches when he said Holy Week was a good week for the fishing industry, yet he has been one of the most bitter opponents of the idea behind the organisation which has Holy Week for one of its principal weeks in the year. Fish goes up in Holy Week. The price increases enormously. It is the best week in the year for the fishing industry, and the Orange men make a big profit out of it. [Interruption.] Do not contradict me, because it is a fact. If is the best week in the year for Orange fishmongers. They are all here cheering to the echo.
    I believe the time has arrived when, if you are going to subsidise industry at all, you have to own it and control if and not subsidise private owners to run their own industry. If they cannot run it without subsidies they ought not to be allowed to control it at all. The only one thing between us is the question of ownership, the right of the people to own the industry on behalf of the nation.

    1663
    There is no right to subsidise any industry in the interest of private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman talked about coal. He was pleased to know the price of coal had gone down, which is helping the fishing industry. What a confession! Coal has gone down. The miner is being starved to death almost in order to reduce the price of fish production. The miner cannot buy herring because his wages have been forced down till it is impossible. An hon. Member wished he could urge people to consume herrings. They have consumed so many herrings that hon. Members opposite are in a majority in this House.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: It has gone to their brain. They voted for the right party.
    Mr. JONES: Yes, they swallowed the herring. At the next election you will find that their digestion has been over-stressed. As the result of their experience of the red herring provided by the Government they will turn them out as unanimously as they put them in. Your herrings have been indigestible and you are asking the Poles to swallow what the British working man will not swallow. I have been abroad a bit. A shilling for a herring, soused in vinegar and prepared by clever people who know how to do it! In England we can get them cheaper than that. The worker in this country is not used to herrings except at election time. The best of everything is good enough for us. I would not go to my constituency and tell them to eat herrings. I want them to eat salmon, and not in tins. You tell us what we ought to eat and drink, how we ought to live and what we ought to do. Do it yourselves. If herrings are good enough for us they are good enough for you. I do not see you eating them. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, as a beginning to your breakfast in the morning. You do not eat them as a staple article of food; you eat them when you fancy them. You want the workers to eat them as a matter of course, regientalised—red herrings all in a row, and we are not having it.
    I want to see the herring fishing industry grow like other industries. If you cannot carry on the industry as a private enterprise, let us nationalise the fishing fleet. Make the fleet national property and make the people organise the industry
    1664
    for a public purpose. You want the Government to subsidise it in order to help the lame dog over the stile and enable the cosmopolitan patriots who sing "God save the King" in broken English to make profits out of the deal. If the fishing industry cannot live without the Government subsidising it, the nation ought to take it over. We can keep a fleet to kill people; why cannot we keep a fleet to feed people? When the Navy Estimates are debated in this House, hon. Gentlemen opposite ask for more and more power, and for more and more national enterprise to be shown in the direction of having our Fleet prepared. The fishing fleet is a fleet to feed the people. Why cannot we use it as a, national concern? No, it is to be left to private ownership, and the Government are to come along, help it over the stile, and find the money that it has lost. Who is going to get the profit when it wins? The gentlemen from Grimsby and Lowestoft.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The fishermen get their share.
    Mr. JONES: They get the last part of it; they get what is left. The fishermen always get the smallest share, and hon. Gentlemen know that as well as I do. There are members of my union working on trawlers at Grimsby. We know what they get. They get all the risks. Some of them lose their lives. Owners never lose their lives. It is the men who go out in the ships who lose their lives. People who put their money into these concerns do not lose anything but their money, and they get that back again later on by gambling, because all their eggs are not in the same basket. The people who go out in trawlers risk their lives, which are more important than considerations of money. They only receive votes of thanks and read passages in the newspapers about their heroism. If you are going to subsidise the industry, make it a national industry and make it responsible for feeding the people of this country. If herrings are good enough for the workers of the country, they are good enough for other people.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I wish to say a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and to other speeches delivered

    1665
    from that side of the House. In the first place, I should like to say that in that part of the country to which I belong, the owners of fishing vessels very often lose their lives like the fishermen. I think it ought to be emphasised that it has been laid down clearly and definitely this afternoon by a representative speaker of the Socialist party that he wishes to nationalise the fishing industry in this country.
    An HON. MEMBER: If the owners cannot manage it.
    Commander WILLIAMS: That may or may not be the proposition, but really you cannot nationalise part of the industry and not the other part. You must deal with the whole thing, or not deal with it at all. I do not intend to be led away on these lines, but I would like to emphasise that point. During almost the whole of the discussion on this Amendment we have not heard anything said, or, at any rate, very little, on one of the most important aspects of it, that is, the position of the fishing fleet as a recruiting ground for the Navy in the future, and, indeed, for other Services. Unfortunately, at the present time, as far as the West country is concerned, at any rate, you are not getting the recruits into the fishing fleet, with the result that sooner or later you will get an older standard of fishermen which must in the end lead to a great restriction of the industry as a whole.
    There is another point which I should like to emphasise and that is that the Minister of Agriculture should his utmost to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can to get fresh capital into the industry. Very great sums have gone to agriculture and to other industries, but I do not think that sufficient attention has been given by the Ministry in regard to devoting money to the progressive side of the fisting industry. We have heard a great deal during the last few weeks about the very heavily depressed areas in the coal trade and other trades. There are equally depressed areas as far as the fishing industry is concerned. I say quite frankly that the Minister of Agriculture should, as far as it is his duty to do so, place the matter clearly before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and should urge that when the
    1666
    Government deal with the question of the reorganisation of rates, they should not merely deal with the question of the reorganisation of rates in these particular areas, but should also see whether it is not possible, instead of putting continuous and increasing burdens on the small fishing harbours, to give them some additional help, and to encourage them in the future rather more than has been the case in the past. I think that it is one of the principal duties of the Minister of Agriculture to fight for the good of the fishing industry as a whole, and I believe he can put up a really good fight on its behalf.
    Main Question again proposed.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I desire to draw the attention of the House in general, and of the Government in particular, to the position of a very large trade, which, for the last six or seven years, has been in a state of crisis previously unknown in its existence. I do not know whether any of those Members of the House who are not familiar with Lancashire have any idea at all of the colossal development of the cotton industry. I do not know of any industry in the world where there is such a concentration as there is in the cotton counties, Lancashire being the centre and putting out tentacles into one or two of the other counties adjoining. Certainly the Ruhr valley, which has been said to be the largest industrial concentration in Europe, bears absolutely no comparison with the formidable and gigantic development of the cotton trade in the Lancashire area. For instance, if we consider the development of this trade, we find that we have in Great Britain alone—nearly all in the county of Lancashire—over 60,000,000 of cotton spindles, or, roughly, more than one spindle for every inhabitant of the country. We have some 767,000 looms in Great Britain, and in the county of Lancashire alone, there are almost a quarter of the looms of the whole world.
    I think my contention that there is no concentrated industry like this anywhere else in the world can be justified by

    1667
    facts of that kind. The concentration that applies to the county applies also to the towns. I know one small Lancashire town with a population of 25,000 or 26,000. When I was connected with it there were 6,000 members of one trade union alone—the weavers—in that town, which is equivalent to saying that almost one out of every four of the population was engaged in weaving. Adding the preparatory processes and other trades, shopkeepers, millowners, the concentration will be seen to be more formidable. I hope I shall not weary the House with too many figures—I am trying to drive home my point about its formidable development—but if we take a town like Oldham, we find that it has more spindles than many of the countries which are accused of competing against us. Burnley has some 51,000 voters on the register, but it has 87,000 looms in its weaving sheds. This trade—I am speaking of the time before the War—was an enormously prosperous one. It had a history of profits, and, if I may say so, of capacity, that no other industry in the world in the same line possessed. It made cotton cloths for all the world. It still makes cotton cloths for all the world, but the developments since the War have been of such a kind that this great industry, formerly so prosperous, and in which there never has been any question either of incapacity or of lack of desire to work, or of inferiority to others—this great industry, which is certainly equal in technique and in its work to any similar industry in the world, during the last six or seven years has been under a cloud, and the present position is so bad that one writer describes its state as "Lancashire under the Hammer." This is a book written by the editor of a Lancashire paper. It is a thought-compelling book, and ought to be in the hands of every man and woman who not only know Lancashire, but who, like those of us who are Lancastrians by birth, love Lancashire and want to see Lancashire flourish. The book, "Lancashire under the Hammer," has been written by the editor of the "Lancashire Daily Post," and, while I do not pretend to agree with all the conclusions of the writer, the book is worthy of being read by every Member of Parliament,
    1668
    because the condition of an industry which was the greatest exporting industry in the country is of vital importance to every Member of Parliament, whatever his party or political colour may be.
    It was always easy, perhaps too easy before the War, to make fortunes in this industry. Fortunes were often made in it whilst the workers were being paid very low wages. It was the common thing for the butcher, the baker, the tinker and the tailor to go into trade with a small capital and become rich in a comparatively small number of years, and going into cotton meant a certain fortune if one were prepared to work in the ordinary way. That state of things has disappeared. Now, we have to face a condition of affairs in which nearly every spinner and manufacturer is protesting against the dangers of the future. Many of them are at their wits' end how to get along in the immediate future, and very many of them are fearing bankruptcy in the not distant future. If ever there was an industry where it might have been claimed that the competitive system was justified, it was this industry of the Lancashire cotton trade. Whether now anybody will claim that competitive industry can be justified by the success of the Lancashire cotton trade is a matter of another colour.
    So bad have the conditions become that the employers have made very definite demands from the workers in the industry. They have made certain investigations and they give certain reasons, arising from their investigations, for the demands which they have made. The demands they have made are for a 25 per cent, reduction of the additions to wages and for an increase of the working hours from 48 to 52¼ I am not going to attempt to argue the rights or wrongs of the employers' demands. This is neither the discussion nor is this the time to enter into a Debate of that character. I am stating facts, in order to confirm my argument that the trade is in a state of chaos and that the future is very dangerous. There is evidently in the trade a great desire to find a way out. It is useless arguing that the old system of individualism in capitalism has broken down. We see the results of it; the breakdown is there. There is no

    1669
    question about it. The only point is how best to act and how best can the Government and the House of Commons help in order to bring back prosperity in this industry.
    That a reduction of wages would help us is, to those who know the industry best, ridiculous. When one considers the prices of Lancashire cloth relative to the prices of competing cloth of other countries, the question of wages that are paid to spinners and weavers is a mere bagatelle, as I hope to prove by a few-figures. Many of the mills are running 32 hours and 34 hours a week, and most of the weaving sheds are not running all their machinery. I give the broad facts to show that we cannot even run the 48 hours which have been agreed upon, much less the 52¼ hours that are demanded. If I may add a personal word on this matter, it is that, outside the employers' association there is an attempt being made to introduce the 55½-hours week, which can only be to the disadvantage of the good employer. The Government could stop that in two days. A one-Clause Bill would stop that completely, and I am hoping that those particular employers will hear very definitely from the Government in the immediate future that there are methods of stopping any attempt to introduce the old 55½-hours week in the county of Lancashire, against the interests of the workers and the better type of employer.
    I will quote a few passages from the book which I have mentioned, which will give a better idea to the House than I could do, by any extempore speaking. Under the heading "Seven Terrible Years," the author says:
    "At least 400,000 men and women working less than 35 hours a week.
    No dividends; next to none, or not-easily-arrived-at dividends for the best part of two-thirds of the whole cotton industry.
    Yarn and cloth produced at a loss in many cases; at a pre-War rate of profit in exceptionally few.
    Where it had been left in spinning and manufacturing, boom money melted like snow.
    The accumulated wealth of the rich days before the War dwindling away.
    An unending tale of deeds of arrangement, moratoria and bankruptcies.
    Spinning mills and weaving sheds unsaleable, or obtainable in the open market at scrap prices.
    The clutch of the banks on Heaven-alone-knows what proportion of the industry.
    1670
    The growth of a hardly concealed panic amongst cotton men."
    That is a terrible picture of the condition of Lancashire, and it is a true picture. It is a picture following on an orgy of speculation which has never been exceeded in this country except, perhaps, in the time of the South Sea Bubble. It would be easy, if I had the time and the inclination, to deal with the position of the workers in the industry, and, frankly, I am more concerned with the position of the worker and his or her wage than I am with the position of the employer and his profit. My experience in Lancashire, and I have had a fairly considerable experience of dealing with the employers, is that they are perfectly well able to look after themselves, as a general rule, and they certainly do not need my assistance in order to look after their own interests. There is one thing to be said for them, and every honest man must say it—and perhaps that is the reason why during all this time of crisis there has been no violent outbreak in Lancashire—and that is that, while the Lancashire employer is as hard as nails, while he will drive a bargain as hard as any Greek who ever lived, once his word has passed, the workers know that that word will be honoured. When the Lancashire worker knows that he has an agreement with his employers, he knows that there will be no shuffling and no evasion, and that every letter of the agreement will be kept. It is for that reason that the Lancashire workers have gone through this period of bad trade without becoming in any way violent.
    I remember in the worst of the boom, a fantastic state of affaire which simply beggars imagination. Let me quote a few figures from that unhappy time. There was the Cairo Mill with paid up capital of £l 15s. per share which were sold for £22 10s. per share. There was the Don Mill with shares of £3 10s. which sold for £20 per share; the Dale Mill, £3 shares sold for £20; the Delta, £l 10s. sold for £15 10s.; the Fern, £30 shares sold for £270, and the Leesbrook, £1 shares sold for £20. There were men in those days who became very rich through that kind of speculation. None of them went to prison, but some of them got titles. It would have been infinitely

    1671
    better had there been no titles and more prison.
    Let me turn to the question of what is hampering the trade in many ways. I would like to quote, not Labour opinion but the opinion of the employers. They make a demand for a reduction in wages. Although the sum stated is 25 per cent., it is in reality, roughly, about 12½ per cent, of the real wages, because the deduction is not from the whole of the wages paid but from the additions to the base rate. I do not wish to quote a lot of figures, and particularly figures of a technical character which are exceptionally difficult to understand by hon. Members who do not know the trade, but here are figures relating to a standard cloth, called dhootie. The total proportion of the price on this cloth paid for spinning and weaving is 29.4 per cent. If the reduction of wages were made, the total result would be less than 3½per cent, on the total selling price of the cloth. That in no possible way could help us out of the present difficulty. There is a standard shirting in which the reduction would mean 2¾ per cent, from the selling price and there is a printer standard where the reduction would be about 2 per cent. Therefore, even if the reduction in wages took place it would need very much more than that in order to achieve the object we are aiming at.
    7.0 p.m.
    What do the employers say are the chief causes of their difficulties? They suggest to the workers that every effort should be made to reduce manufacturing costs, yet the employers in this trade are surrounded by a ring of combines who make their own prices, and the employers are in the grip of this ring of combines, who remorselessly squeeze every drop of blood they can out of the industry. The employers, further, propose a reduction both in local and national taxation. We do not need to argue that point in this House; it has been argued ad nauseam. They ask for the abolition of the Dyestuffs Act, which has affected the cotton trade adversely, in foreign competition. I suggest that the Government might review its policy with regard to dyestuffs. When the Dyestuffs Act was passed, and the Government found money for the development
    1672
    of the industry in this country, it was on the ground that we could never let a key industry escape again, and we must make certain we had this industry in our own hands. It was quite openly stated outside the Chamber that we could never allow ourselves to run into the danger of another country having such a terrible advantage over us. We invested a great deal of money in the industry. I remember, in 1924, a proposition was made that the money we had invested in the dyestuffs industry should be withdrawn and the industry be allowed to go on its own way. That proposition was turned down. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to let us know if it be a fact that not only has that direct national interest in the dye industry, which in 1918, 1919 and 1920 was necessary in order to guarantee the future safety of this country, been withdrawn, whether that money has been turned over to private hands and whether the British Dyestuffs Corporation with the capital which they have turned over has actually entered into an agreement with the Germans to share the profits. We ought to know definitely. I assert that the Government have sold out, and that they have sold out with the definite knowledge that this Corporation was going to enter into this agreement with the Germans in order to share the plunder, and all our plans for making this country safe have gone. That is one question the employers are pressing.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Dyestuffs Act is not open to consideration to-day. We must not deal with legislation.
    Mr. SHAW: I suggest that another thing employers want is an inquiry into the question of freights. I am told that for exactly the same type of goods shipped from Liverpool in the one case and Antwerp in the other to the same market, freight charges are often three times as high to the British manufacturers as those from Antwerp. If this be the case, there is good ground for inquiry. Then there is the question of finishing and dyeing charges. I have a letter written by an employer to the "Manchester Guardian," in which he makes an extraordinary statement about the prices charged to

    1673
    Lancashire manufacturers for dyeing and finishing, and compares them with charges for exactly the same work in the United States. He makes the extraordinary statement that charges in America on the definite goods which he names made by his own firm are exactly one-half what the charges are in Lancashire, and the difference in these charges is more than the double cost of spinning and weaving wages. If that be so, I suggest it is the business of the Government, of this House, to insist on a full inquiry as to what exists in the trade and how best to remedy this state of affairs.
    Then there is the question of markets, in the past—and this is not unknown—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows it and it is certainly not unknown to the hon. Gentleman the head of the Overseas Department—in the past Lancashire spinners and manufacturers have been content to take large profits and not to care afterwards where their goods were going and at what prices they were being sent out. It is time that ended. I think an inquiry would prove that the present system of merchanting is capable of being altered and developed in such a way as to remove many of the difficulties that now exist. Take the case of a manufacturer who is making goods, or has been making goods, for the Levant, the Near East. He turns out his stock and he goes into the Manchester office of a foreign firm of shippers. He knows nothing more about it. He does not know where these shippers may determine the goods to go or to what country. The actual maker of a cloth has not the slightest idea where the cloth is going. That is another thing, I venture to say, in which an improvement can be made, but all these improvements must be hinged on an understanding of some kind between employers generally, in order that the best advantage may be taken of the situation. The old idea that the man should go on producing without letting his neighbour know anything, that he should go on for ever and ever in the old-fashioned way, is as dead as a doornail; and unless Lancashire recognises that fact, there is a bitter awakening, even more bitter than we now have, for employer and employed in the industry of which I know a little, because I spent
    1674
    21 years of my life working among the people to whom I am proud to belong.
    It is the bitterest thing in the world for a Lancashire man who has left that district for some years to go back into a Lancashire town and talk with the friends of his youth, the workers in his trade, men and women who used to be proud and independent—perhaps the most independent body of workers in the world, who did not care for anybody, because they knew they were genuine and independent—genuine, golden-hearted people, who would not do a wrong or mean thing, and who would scorn to accept charity, but who are now gradually drifting and drifting, despairing, into a desperate plight. It is the business of this country in an industry of this kind not to wait until it is asked, but to go as far as it can by an inquiry of a most public kind into the circumstances, and to see on which of all the circumstances a remedy can be based. One well-known man in Lancashire, the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), will not be of my opinion as to the eminence of this authority, but Mr. J. L. Tattersall, in an article, states:
    "It is generally admitted: That our competitors abroad have captured much of our trade by modern methods of production and of marketing."
    He goes on:
    "The spinner is not to blame for this lost trade."
    I myself think that is justified. My personal opinion is that the combines have the trade by the throat. He continues:
    "That charges for finishing by the combines are too high.
    That our merchant shippers are not pursuing energetic selling methods, nor are they supplying standard cloths to compete with those offered by manufacturers abroad."
    I suppose what he means is the making of fewer kinds and making them in standardised qualities. I think all these five matters are worthy of investigation, and there is certainly evidence to prove that with regard to three of them there is little doubt Mr. Tattersall has stated the truth. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to think for a moment what Lancashire men are. They are intensely proud, perhaps intensely prejudiced, and I am certain they would never willingly ask for Government assistance or intervention at all. I am speaking now of the manufacturing employer.

    1675
    The thing is in the blood of the whole Lancashire people—workers as well as employers. They have always taken the standpoint, "Keep Parliament out. We can manage our own business, and we do not need any interference. Leave us alone." They have managed it to the position described in the passages I have given. That is to what the absence of organisation or co-operation or arrangement from a centre has brought us. We are past the time when the Lancashire man can say he can keep his own end up.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the directions of the same Mr. J. L. Tattersall there has been co-ordination of the trade and combination amongst spinners, and the results have been disastrous in the last two years?
    Mr. SHAW: I think the hon. Gentleman has forgotten one or two essential facts. The first is that the organisation left out altogether one big section of the trade, and there was every probability that if the organisation had been complete the thing would have been of great benefit both to the workers and the employers.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: What about Japan, India and other foreign countries?
    Mr. SHAW: We have heard a great deal about Japan and India, and it is assumed that their condition is what it is because of the extraordinary advantages possessed by these two countries. I have had an opportunity myself of making an investigation in India. I found that wages were shameful, and that the condition of the workers was quite different from that of our own people. But we have to use a sense of proportion and remember that we cannot compare European conditions with Indian conditions. I found also that while a Lancashire man was working on four looms a weaver in one of the finest firms in Madras had one loom only, and one loom wages cannot be compared with wages for four looms. On automatic looms two of our weavers in Hyde, Cheshire, would work 40 looms, which would work out—I am speaking from memory and subject to correction—I think, including cleaners, bobbin fillers, cut carriers, etc., at eight per worker, whereas in Madras with the
    1676
    same type of loom it would not work out at over two per person. When we talk about wages and hours we must observe a sense of proportion, and realise the other conditions, and when we do so it is extremely doubtful whether the Indian employer—I am not speaking of Japan—really has an advantage in the actual wages cost over the employer in this country.
    There is a gentleman named Sir Charles Macara who has written very voluminously and very interestingly on the cotton trade. Whatever views he may share with his fellow employers he certainly does not share the view that Eastern countries have a tremendous advantage over this country. He says:
    "I have pointed out ad nauseam how on balance of price and per capita production there are few if any advantages remaining with the spinner and manufacturer abroad."
    Sir Charles Macara has claimed that the Lancashire cotton trade has lost millions by gambling in cotton, which losses could have been avoided if there had been understanding honourably kept between spinners to prevent, as they could have prevented, these speculations. In a circular I have here it says that in the case of one crop no less than £300,000,000 was added to the value by these gambling transactions, which fell, of course, not on the people who did the gambling but largely on the unfortunate people who had to carry on the trade. We cannot go back to the days when with one halfpenny per pound profit on yarns, dividends of 7½ per cent, on capital could be paid. In the fantastic boom years that halfpenny per pound went up to 5d. and 6d. and 7d. and 8d. and 9d., 18 times the normal profit. The same was more or less true of the price of cloth. Mills were sold at prices that were simply ridiculous, and the question now is can this trade ever recover unless a radical revision of the capital of these concerns is made? Can any trade expect the workers to work for wages which will give a profit on these inflated capital sums? If we had a thorough inquiry into this trade, which I hope the Government will institute, it would be possible to bring some relief to the position of affairs we have in Lancashire to-day.
    I do not want to paint too gloomy a picture. I am not as pessimistic as the author of the book "Lancashire Under the Hammer." I do not believe that Lancashire is under the hammer, but

    1677
    unless Lancashire puts her house in order she will come under the hammer. There are certain things which are evident to 98 per cent, of the men and women of Lancashire to-day, there are certain beliefs which are common to over 90 per cent, of workers and employers. One is that the old system of individual working is dead, that it can only lead to bankruptcy. Another is that unless Lancashire can escape from the grip of the combines and arrangements that are squeezing her to-day there is very great danger for the industry. There are Lancastrians who think that there ought to be a very searching inquiry into the relations between the banks and the spinning and manufacturing firms. I see the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) in his place, and I nope he will lend his aid to this Debate, because on that subject certainly he does know what he is talking about. The hon. Member will pardon me for putting it in such a clumsy way.
    There are Lancastrians who think that unless we have a totally different method of merchanting there can be no hope for the trade, and there are Lancastrians, amongst whom I am one, who want to see a much heavier proportion of British firms engaged in the merchanting trade. I hope the spinners and manufacturers will be their own merchants. That would be the best system of all. My final word is this. It is essential that the most searching inquiry should be made into the whole circumstances, from the capitalisation of the mills to the merchanting of the cloth, and on the basis of that investigation there should be a, rearrangement which will give Lancashire the chance of returning to her old state of comparative prosperity. Whether it is I, a Socialist, believing finally in the ownership of industry by the people of the country, to be worked for the benefit of the people of the country, or hon. Members opposite who believe in the capitalist system as the best system, no matter what view we take, our first object ought to be to see that every man and woman who is willing to work shall have something on the table to eat and decent clothes to wear.
    That is the problem which is before Lancashire to-day. The old days of safety and steadiness of trade have apparently gone for ever, unless we adopt different methods. I plead with the
    1678
    Government to institute an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances connected with this trade, believing that by so doing they will render Lancashire invaluable service. The wholc tradition of Lancashire is against the Lancashire people themselves asking for it. They cannot swallow everything they have said about independence and non-interference all at once. They are going down the slope now, and going quicker every day. it is possible by a comprehensive inquiry to bring a ray of sunshine into the trade. One thing is certain. We still possess as good workers as there are in the world; we still possess employers and technicians who are as good as any in the world; and I do not see why, if a proper use is made of our skill, our machinery, and our technical superiority, with co-ordination, good will, and cooperation amongst employers and workers, Lancashire should not emerge successfully from her present position.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The
    right hon. Gentleman has made a speech in which I think everyone in the House has been deeply interested. He has said many things about the present condition of the cotton industry and the difficulties it has to encounter at the moment, with which probably the great majority of hon. Members will be in agreement. But the object of his speech was to move a specific Amendment to the effect that this House should insist that the Government should establish an outside inquiry into the conditions of this industry without delay. On that point, I join issue with him, and I will explain to the House the reasons for which I consider, while in sympathy with much that he has said, that a Government inquiry would be the least helpful thing one could do for the cotton trade at the moment. I am sure hon. Members opposite will recognise that I speak with as sincere a desire to put this trade on its feet as the right hon. Gentleman himself. Let me just make one remark on an observation of the right hon. Gentleman which was out of order, with regard to the Dyestuffs Act, and that is that the Labour Government did not attempt to repeal it when they were in office, and we do not propose to repeal it now that we are in office.

    1679
    I come to the larger issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that there should be an outside investigation into the conditions in this industry at the moment. Let me point out that the industry comes within the purview of the Balfour Committee which has been inquiring into the condition of various industries in the country. They will publish a report in the course of the next few weeks, which will cover the whole of the textile trades of the country. That report is to be followed by their final report, in which they will make their general recommendations as to policy. In so far as any inquiry is desirable from outside, I really do not see what investigation could be undertaken more useful than what has already been done by the Balfour Committee. We should be only duplicating the work of this Committee; I do not see that it is necessary to set up another Committee which will make exactly the same sort of inquiry.
    I have, however, a more fundamental objection than that to setting up a Government inquiry at the present time. The result of any Government inquiry is to stifle activity in the trade itself, and that is one reason why it is the least desirable thing to do at the moment. The fact of the Government setting up an inquiry puts the trade on the defensive. Everybody has to come and give evidence, to present his case; we have seen it in every coal inquiry that has ever taken place. The people who ought to be engaged in settling their own differences, in improving their own methods of manufacture and in developing their marketing organisation, when they come before an outside tribunal are much more intent on making out a forensic case than in doing anything else.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Does that apply to the Safeguarding of Industries Tribunal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, because that is an inquiry for a very simple and specific purpose, and is followed by immediate action. It would be quite improper for me to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman, because the action involves legislation. At any rate,
    1680
    I do not think my hon. Friend is going to differ from what I am saying now. If he does we shall see, not Satan rebuking sin, but engaging in sin.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I am not rebuking the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish he would be as consistent as I am.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I find the hon. Gentleman's consistency one of his great personal charms, but one of his great political disadvantages. I have no doubt that the result of a Government inquiry is at once to put people on the defensive, to make them engage in fighting a forensic case instead of getting on with their job. An inquiry would have a worse effect on would-be reformers in an industry—those people who feel it is their business to go ahead and carry reforms and try to bring others into line with them. They get discouraged, and their enthusiasm gets damped down. They do not know what a Government inquiry is going to propose, and they hesitate to come forward on their own account. The result upon the slack people who want everything to go on as before, is worse still. They regard a Government inquiry as the greatest possible encouragement to sit still and do nothing. They say, "Now that the Government is going to inquire, the Government will have to do something." Therefore, to their hope that Providence will provide them with something in the future, is added the expectation that the Government will do something.
    So you get the keen people made much less keen and the slack people made much more slack. In the meantime what advantage comes to all those firms who have to meet an actual situation day by day, who have to make arrangements with their creditors, to make their accommodation with the banks, to employ their workmen and carry on their buying and selling? What earthly good is an interminable inquiry to those people? It is not going to bring efficiency to the industry or to bring more money into it. It is just going to act as a damper upon any efforts which are being made. Indeed, we have heard enough of moratoria in industry, but the imposition of a Government inquiry now would be to impose a moratorium on all effort and all enterprise and all initiative in that industry. In that I observe I have the

    1681
    support of the President of the Operative Cotton Spinners' Association, who said:
    "The only useful purpose of such an inquiry would be to expose the rottenness and corruption of what had taken, place a few years ago."
    Mr. MACKINDER: Hear, hear!
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If hon. Members like to have an inquiry of some kind into some flotations that took place that may be an interesting investigation. Nobody defends those flotations. They have done the greatest possible harm. I am perfectly certain that those flotations are not going to be made in Lancashire again, and that if any of the floaters set foot in Lancashire they will receive short shrift.
    Mr. MACKINDER: They are still there.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then you ought to turn them out.
    Mr. MACKINDER: There are several in this House.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am stating my personal opinion of those flotations, and I have never concealed it. I have always said that they were the very worst possible thing that ever happened to Lancashire. We do not disagree about it. But what is the good of having an inquiry into the wicked things—if you like to describe them so—done by irresponsible or scheming people years ago? What we want to know is, what is best for this industry in the future? I am not in the least fearful of Lancashire going into notations of that kind again. We do not want an inquiry to expose the misfortunes which Lancashire has suffered. The only justification for a Government inquiry would be, either that there were facts of benefit to the trade to be ascertained, which could not be ascertained in any other way, or that there was no chance of the necessary action being taken within the trade itself. As to the facts, I think they are sufficiently well known without any inquiry. As regards action I have something more to say. I am glad to see signs that action is being taken. I see that a Committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has been set up. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it was vital to the industry, if it was to win through,
    1682
    that there should be an understanding between the employers generally and an understanding between the different sections of the industry. That is exactly what the Chamber of Commerce committee is seeking. It represents the four great sections of the industry. It is dealing with the whole of the business transactions in the industry, from the first process to the sale in the most distant markets.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Are there any workers on it?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. That point may be quite arguable; it may be arguable that it would be desirable to have the workers represented. I do not propose to argue that question to-night. This is not a Committee of my constituting. Moreover, it is not dealing with the question of wages and hours. That is deliberately excluded. The four sections of the industry are getting together. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pick holes in anything that is done, but I am presenting to the House this thesis: That if you get a movement within an industry itself and that movement is likely to be damped down by the further imposition of a Government inquiry, your duty is to encourage whatever movements there are in the industry and not to damp them down. The other movement which I see on foot is a movement to secure amalgamation in the American section.
    As regards the facts, we know that no inquiry is necessary. We know that this industry depends, as to 85 per cent., on its export trade. We know the comparative value and volume of the trade that was done before the War and to-day. The facts have all been published. We know exactly in what markets we have lost ground, in what articles we have lost ground, and to what competitors we have lost ground. We know the effect of the development of national industry in other countries.
    The right hon. Gentleman said, "But there are freight rates." We discussed that subject at considerable length a fortnight or three weeks ago, and I think the House on that occasion was in general agreement that the way to deal with freight rates was not to set up a Government inquiry but to do what the Imperial Shipping Committee itself recommended,

    1683
    and is being done in the Lancashire trade, as in others; that is to get representative organisations of traders and shippers to discuss the question of shipping rates with the shipping conferences and get settlement where they can and then on any broad question of principle, if a serious grievance remains outstanding after the representative bodies have discussed the matter, let the case go to the Imperial Shipping Committee. That is the right way and not the setting up of a new ad hoc Government inquiry into this particular question.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said, "We want an inquiry into the finishing charges." That is exactly the kind of thing that this Manchester Chamber of Commerce Committee is qualified to do. The Committee consists of four lots of five people. One lot is nominated by the spinners' organisation, another lot appointed by the manufacturers' organisation, a third lot by the finishers' organisation—the bleachers and dyers and so on—and a fourth lot by the merchants. Could you have a better body to go into the question of the charges for finishing? The proof of that is this: Since that Committee was set up the bleachers have made a reduction of their charges just in those directions in which it was considered the greatest encouragement would be given to the export market. When you get business like that being done, let us go ahead and encourage it and do not let us set up some new Committee.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "We must have an inquiry in order to inquire into the gambling in futures." I do not believe that an inquiry into that subject is necessary. I do not think that any inquiry will ever eliminate a certain amount of speculation in any commodity. I do know that what really causes uncertainty in this industry is the doubt as to how large the American cotton crop is going to be. If we could get certainty about that, we would get a certainty that would be far more valuable than any control of gambling in futures.
    We know of the market opportunities that exist. Difficult as the position is, there are opportunities, if we can only take advantage of them. I was given a
    1684
    forecast of the immediate future by one of the ablest merchants, who knows all the markets. He said that the Far East is distinctly better. India, which has been improving, is buying still more. Indian purchasing power is undoubtedly increasing, and there is a closer relation between the price which India gets for what she sells and the price she has to give for what she buys. Though a large amount of the coarser trade will be done by India herself—I am not basing my opinion on any impressions of my own, but of those with whom I have discussed it, both merchants in this country and people in India—I have no doubt that the trend of purchasing power in India is going up, and we may look for a not unreasonable increase in our opportunities there. South America is very good, my informant said, and home trade above the normal.
    Then we also know, without any inquiry, what are the conditions existing in the Lancashire industry to-day which handicap it in taking advantage of these opportunities. I do not want to go at any length into what I discussed the last time we debated the subject, but what I regard as the most striking thing about this trade is the divorce of one section of the trade from another. We have the situation in which one set of people spin, sometimes associated with manufacture but very often spinning alone; another section manufacturing; a completely separate section of people doing the finishing trade; and then in the case of the great bulk of goods, the selling in the markets of the world is done by a wholly separate set of merchants. That was all right when the world was your oyster, when you had only to make cotton of any sort you liked, and anybody who wanted to avoid being naked had to wear whatever you chose to give them. But we are all agreed about that and there is no need to inquire into it.
    The thing to do is to get these people together. I agree that it is vital that there should be a closer link between the manufacturer and the merchant. That is what the Chamber of Commerce is doing, and I want the House to encourage them in going forward on those lines. You have these four sections sitting together and working at these problems in the most direct way. You have a committee of manufacturers presided over by a merchant, and a committee of finishers presided

    1685
    over by a manufacturer. I know enough of what is going on to be in a position to say—I think with certainty—that not only are these matters being discussed, but that we have every reason to hope that from those discussions very definite action will come which will be for the mutual benefit of all sections of the industry. Certainly, there can be no better way of meeting this great problem of the divorce of one section of the cotton trade from another than the way which the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has adopted. No Government inquiry is needed for that purpose.
    There are, of course, the very serious difficulties of the American section. In regard to those difficulties, I do not think many people would deny that, first, there is a serious financial position. There is the gross inflation of capital due to these ill-starred promotions. Then there is the heavy load of debt which weighs down one firm after another—and if a firm goes into bankruptcy, somebody may buy up the bankrupt mill and be able to compete at an even cheaper rate in the market. The financial position has to be faced, but that means a drastic writing-down in the different concerns themselves, and arrangements for reconstruction, into which shareholders and creditors alike have to enter. Shareholders have to realise that the great bulk of that which they thought they had, has been lost, and that many of them have only liabilities and not assets.
    Not only is there the great load of debt to which I have referred, but I do not think it will be denied—again I only quote the best opinion I can get on all sides in the trade—that the units themselves are uneconomic. You want much larger concentrations of mills—not floaters' combinations, but genuine producers' combinations, and that, of course, can only be got by large considered schemes of amalgamation into which the companies will come and into which the creditors will come, thus creating economic units and giving the industry a chance to rescue itself from this load of debt. Such a reorganisation will provide the industry with a chance of producing at a price which will compete with its rivals and also with a chance of obtaining finance in the future. A question of this kind faced the fine spinners years ago. I do not think it unreasonable to say that the
    1686
    problem with which the fine spinners were faced was the same in kind, or much the same in kind, though, no doubt, different in degree, compared with the problem with which the American section is faced to-day. The fine spinners faced it by amalgamation. It was much easier in those days, no doubt, but still that amalgamation took place and the fine spinners are on a very satisfactory footing at the present time. They are working and employing their labour full time. That is exactly, as it seems to me, what ought to take place in the American section. Let us encourage the attempts at amalgamation which are being made at the present time.
    I am not going to ask the House to consider, nor am I going to pronounce an opinion upon, the particular details of any scheme of amalgamation, but when people are making carefully considered attempts at amalgamation, when a movement is on foot in the industry in that direction, for Heaven's sake do not let us deter them by setting up a Government inquiry which may block every effort of that kind. It certainly will not be a help to super-impose a Government inquiry on them. We can help them most, not by doing so, but by encouraging them to proceed, and I hope that we may find that other people who are concerned in this matter, especially the banks, will also give encouragement.
    I know the difficulty with which the banks always feel themselves faced, the difficulty about "the limits of prudent finance" as they are called. I should have thought, if the limits of prudent finance meant the safe lending of money, that those limits have been passed somewhat in a good many cases; and I should have thought that the business of the banks now was to encourage the present movement. But I know the difficulty of dealing equally as between one client and another. A bank must deal equally fairly with all its clients, otherwise its clients may leave it for another bank. That I know is a consideration which must weigh with the banker equally with moral considerations; but it is, I submit, a reasonable proposition, as I am sure any banker would agree, that where you find, after great efforts have been made to finance an industry, that it is vital that reconstruction should take place and

    1687
    that amalgamations should be brought about, then surely it is good finance, and is fair as between one client and another, to give encouragement to those who are advancing any sound scheme of reconstruction and amalgamation. I do not think in any quarter of the House there is substantial disagreement as to the nature and the seriousness of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman has stated, though there may be disagreement as to the remedies and solutions which ought to be found for it, but I submit that a Government inquiry would discourage an industry which has always relied upon itself. It would cause delay while doing no good and would serve to damp down co-operatwe effort—where individualism is, to-day, if anything, too strong. I ask, should not we from this House send to this distressed industry the best message we can, which is to say: "Get on with the job yourselves"?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having furnished me, an unrepentant Free Trader, with certain new and effective arguments in favour of Free Trade. Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of the Fine Spinners' Association as being one of successful amalgamation. Undoubtedly, it is a case of successful amalgamation, but, I am afraid, as an analogy for the present action by the American section of the spinning trade in Lancashire, it is useless. The trouble is not the over-capitalisation of the mills, but the over-pledging of the mills on debentures and loans. It is easy to get rid of excessive capital. A stroke of the pen does it, and nobody loses a penny, and it has not the least effect on the industry or the concern in question. But the real trouble in the American section of the cotton trade, and particularly in my own district, is this—that, in case after case, the loans and the debenture payments on the mills are probably in excess of the actual values of the mills" as profit-earning arrangements. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that matter really belongs to past history. Those terrible times, beginning to be at their worst about 1918, and going on to
    1688
    the end of 1920 or the beginning of 1921, are what Lancashire is suffering from at present.
    It may be said—I think with a certain amount of truth—that Lancashire brought its troubles on itself, and that the folly of those years has to be expiated by those who committed it. But I suggest that it is not fair to blame the majority of those unfortunate people who were deceived, because, in case after case, in these mill flotations they did not know with whom they were dealing. The habit grew up of transferring shares from one name to another. There were names which stank in the industry to such an extent that nobody would have touched a flotation under those names, but, owing to the transfer of shares to another name, the people did not know with whom they were dealing and they were deceived to their own undoing. In these discussions, a certain amount of blame has always been thrown upon our local banks in Lancashire, and I think the local banks themselves would be quite ready to admit that their policy was, on the whole, not as wise and prudent as it should have been. But contemplate the position during that wild rush of flotations. Sundry gentlemen from London, and one of the "big five" banks had taken a hand in this affair, and the profits were so gigantic that there was, immediately, a great deal of pressure from anybody who held control of mills or waste companies to refloat on an exorbitant scale. Our local banks found that they were already losing their customers. Customers—mill companies—would say, "Will you finance the flotation of our concern? If you do not, we know who will, and you will lose our custom."
    The situation developed with very great speed and in such a way that our local banks felt obliged to take part to some extent in this wild rush, and they have been very sorry for it ever since. But, once having got over those hectic days, what should be the correct policy of our local banks? Surely, their policy should be to disentangle themselves at the earliest possible moment, without having any too much regard to what happens to the cotton trade itself. After all, the banks' position is this: Apart from the interests of the banks themselves, surely it is highly desirable that even the smaller local banks should be in as strong

    1689
    a position as possible. What on earth is going to happen to the other industries of Lancashire, if the local banks are to be saddled with the obligations of the cotton trade, which it is beyond their power to bear and which will render them unable to finance other local industries? Therefore, although cynical people may say that it is pure self-interest on the part of the local banks, there is no doubt that, if self-interest could be set aside altogether, national duty would demand that they should strengthen their position as early as they can and as well as they can without too much regard to what may happen to other concerns.
    8.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) painted a very gloomy picture, and it is undoubtedly a true one as regards the greater part of the American section, but at the same time we have this phenomenon: We have mills, in many cases of very small proportions, mills in private hands, which throughout this crisis have not been doing altogether badly. In some years they may have made smallish losses; in other years they have made quite respectable profits, but, on the whole, they have managed to carry on when some of the great modern mills have absolutely failed to justify their existence. Therefore, in advocating amalgamations and in advocating the increasing size of spinning units, let us bear in mind, in our general estimate, these smaller concerns that have managed to keep their heads above water. I know of several cases in my own district where very old-fashioned concerns, very small comparatively, have been able to make profits when their larger and more modern neighbours have failed to do so.
    That brings me to the whole root question of amalgamation. It is no use amalgamating and increasing businesses by amalgamation unless you have the right men to deal with them when they are amalgamated. We have had exactly the same question in the coal industry of this country. We have been told by everybody—by the Press, the politicians, and the Samuel Commission—that we must get the coal mines of Great Britain into larger and larger units, but what is the good of doing that unless you have got the men who can control and manage those units? Our experience in
    1690
    the coal industry—and really in this matter it is very analogous to the cotton-spinning industry—has been that under the ordinary play of the market, if there is a man who obviously can manage a really big concern, that man, by the ordinary nature and course of events, will ultimately, in default of very bad luck indeed, find himself in charge of concerns as big as he can manage. We have several very clear cases in the coal industry of this country, where probably there are not more than half-a-dozen men at the most who can manage concerns employing in the neighbourhood of 20,000 colliers, and in three cases, at any rate, those men, by the ordinary nature and course of events, have found themselves in control of 20,000 men more or less.
    If we follow on the lines of Mr. J. L. Tattersall's proposals, and amalgamate, without knowing who is going to direct that amalgamation and whether these people are really capable of doing so, it seems to me that the last stage of the cotton trade will be even worse than the first. It does not follow that if you have two millstones, and you tie them together, they will float when they are tied together although they sink when they are separate. The amalgamation of a large number of concerns, of which a considerable number have practically their whole value represented by debenture debts, is a very different thing from the amalgamations which produced the Fine Cotton Spinners' Association, the Calico Printers' Association, or the Bradford Dyers' Association; and the mention of those names reminds me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston was guilty of a somewhat grave inconsistency in the course of his speech. He drew attention to the awful evils arising from the Bradford Dyers' Association and the Calico Printers' Association in throttling the trade, and then, in the very next breath, he suggested that we should have a similar association in the American cotton-spinning section. He must make up his mind which he does want, whether he wants monopolies in every branch of the industry, which is really, I believe, the policy of his party, or whether, on the other hand, he wises to preserve that independence of Lancasire of which he

    1691
    spoke with such enthusiasm in a different part of his speech.
    What the Government can do by any administrative action—and it is to that aspect that this Debate must be limited to-night—it is almost impossible to say, but I would suggest this, that it is possible, through the Companies Section of the Board of Trade, to conduct a systematic inquiry, instead of a spasmodic inquiry, as has hitherto been the case, into the circumstances under which a certain number of the flotations were made; because, after all, the Government are responsible to a certain extent in these matters. Having passed Companies Acts, and having taken steps to see that the Companies Acts are properly administered, I think it does devolve on the Board of Trade in these instances to do what it can, by administrative action, to make certain that unfortunate people, if they are going to be cheated of their money, will not be cheated of their money in exactly the same way as they were cheated during 1919 and 1920 in the cotton industry. I cannot help thinking that the publication of a true and unbiased report as to how those flotations were made and how the shares were transferred from one name to another, might, as I say, save a very large number of unfortunate people in the future from being cheated of their money, although it might cause a certain amount of disturbance in the process.
    Mr. FIELDEN: One hundred and fifty years ago my great-grandfather started in the cotton spinning and manufacturing trade, and I am the fourth generation carrying on the same trade, on the same site, but not in the same buildings, nor with the same machinery. Therefore, I may claim to have some interest of a sympathetic nature and also of a practical nature in the question which we are now discussing. The whole of the trade is in trouble, but I think the trouble lies mostly with the spinning section of the industry, and the truth is that we have in Lancashire to-day a great many more spindles than are called for by the demands of the world. If we could reduce the number of those spindles in active operation by a third, there can be little doubt that we could sell the production of the two-thirds at prices which would be reasonable and which would cover the
    1692
    costs. Why the world will not take the whole of our possible production is a matter into which we need not enter to-night. Other nations have started spinning and manufacturing, and the producing power throughout the world has increased more rapidly than the consuming power. Some few years ago we, in Lancashire, thought that a good time would come when the prices of raw cotton came down, so that we could bring our production more within the range of the people who bought. The prices of raw cotton have come down—they have been very much lower than they are to-day—and practically no relief has been found from that cause. I am quite sure that we could obtain equilibrium if we could stop a third of the Lancashire spindles. Is it possible to do that?
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I know he is an expert, and I should like to ask if he is speaking of the American section of the trade, or of the Egyptian section, or of both together.
    Mr. FIELDEN: I am speaking of the American section. The reduction of the number of spindles would bring about equilibrium. Is it possible to bring about that solution? The leaders of the Masters' Federation have attempted to do this. They have proposed that the whole industry should accept short time, and it has been tried twice, and on each occasion the position has improved rapidly. The moment improvement took place, however, members of the Federation fell away and began to undersell. There was, therefore, no object whatever in maintaining the restriction as to production, and the signal went up again for "Go as you please." The result has been that our buyers abroad know quite well the position in which we find ourselves in Lancashire. They know that we are needy sellers, and, therefore, they take very good care to keep offering extremely low prices. I do not blame them, but why these low prices are paid is a question that requires some explanation. I hope the House will not think I am going to give them an explanation, because I do not know what the answer is. The fact remains that they are selling at very much below the cost of production, and they are cutting each other's throats all the time.

    1693
    Who are the people who are interested in these mills? The shareholders first, the loan holders next, and the people who have advanced money to allow the owners of the mills to pay for the cotton and to pay the wages. If we take those in order, the shareholders in a very great number of cases have really ceased to have any interest in the mills, unless their shares are only partly paid, and then their interest is such that they would very much like to be relieved of it. The loan holders are steadily trying to get their money out, with only a certain amount of success, and, therefore, we can scarcely look to them to find a solution; and we must look to those who have advanced money, through overdrafts and in other ways, such as by mortgage—in other words, the banks. The industry to-day is practically in the hands of the banks. I have tried to find out what is the policy of the banks with regard to this question, but I have been unable so far to do so. The banks maintain silence on the subject. They are supposed to be led by able men, and silence may be a sign in this case of ability, but some people think that the banks, having got into the hole by lending this large amount of money to the industry, do not see a way out, have not got a policy, and are, like many of the spinners, hoping that something will turn up. What attempts have been made by the leaders of the industry in respect of this position? They proposed that production should be restricted. When this failed, they look round for some other alternative, and they put forward the proposition that production should be largely increased by lessening the cost of the article, to be brought about by reducing wages and by longer hours. The two proposals were made within a few months of each other, and they seem to me to be utterly contradictory. Therefore, one can scarcely look for any relief or leadership from those who represent the masters.
    Then, if the banks have no policy, the question arises where the trade is going, or whether anything can be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) suggests that an inquiry should be instituted by the Government. That might be a good solution, if the trade were not in the condition in which it finds itself, but an inquiry of that nature would probably take a year
    1694
    or 18 months or two years, if it were going thoroughly to sift the whole matter. That delay would be fatal. There is sitting at the present time in Manchester a Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has referred, instituted by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and they are going into the question of costs, finishing, dyeing and transportation, as well as the cost of merchanting and selling. They have already made one Report. I have no means of knowing when their next Report will come out, but it is generally understood in Manchester that it will not be long before it makes its appearance. If this be so, we shall get most of the information that we require in a comparatively short time. When that information is before us, the question whether any action by the Government can be of use may be carefully considered. To me it is more a question of action than of a long drawn-out inquiry. Therefore, although the proposal before the House is very attractive, I feel that in a sense it will not have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman who suggested it hopes, and that, if we wait for the Report of the Committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which we expect within a few months, we shall attain the end that he and those interested in the cotton trade have in view and at heart. A very interesting paper was read before the Statistical Society in Manchester last autumn by Mr. Ellenger, and at the end of that paper were sonic notes by Mr. Gray, a manufacturer of cotton cloth in the Burnley district. He compared the price of manufacturing cloth in his mills with the cost of manufacturing cloth in Japan. There was nothing to do with merchanting, or finishing, or any of the other processes. It was purely and simply the cost of the cloth as it came out of the weaving machine. We may take as correct the figures of his own mills, because he is a man who has been in the trade for a long time, and has kept very careful costs. Whether the figures which he gives for Japan are correct, I cannot say, but I have never yet heard them challenged. The result which he brings out is that, if anything, the cost of the cloth in Lancashire at the door of the weaving shed, is slightly lower than the cost at the door

    1695
    of the weaving shed in Japan. If that be so, when we have carefully considered all the inquiries that are going on to-day as to the cost of marketing, finishing, transportation and other things, we may find that, after all, the Lancashire cotton trade, although it may have lost its world-wide supremacy, is by no means down and out.
    Mr. KELLY: The subject with which we are dealing to-night is that of a demand for an inquiry into the position in the cotton trade of this country. I notice that the last speaker had some doubt as to the advantage of this inquiry. The only trouble that he seems to have on the matter is as to the right moment for the inquiry, and he asked that we might wait until the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had, through the Committee now sitting, reported the result of their investigations. That has been the position in the Lancashire cotton trade for some years—putting it off and putting it off in the hope that somebody will show some direction that will lead out of the difficulties bearing so heavily upon the industry. If the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman be correct that it is essential that there should be some investigation and some conclusion arrived at, surely this is the moment to engage upon it. My only fear is, that we have waited rather too long; this is an inquiry we ought to have engaged upon some time since.
    The hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) have given us excellent reasons why this inquiry should take place at once. The Member for Mossley said we ought to be careful about amalgamations, and not suggest them unless we were quite sure that we had the management for them, though he saw advantages in them providing we had the people to control and manage them. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester reminded us of the interesting statement made last autumn by Mr. Ellenger, which showed that despite all that has been said about the low costs of production in the East the costs of production in Lancashire have been even lower. There, surely,
    1696
    are two important points which need investigation, apart from the many other questions which could be submitted. I put this to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division: If we can produce cotton goods at that low figure in Lancashire, and, as we know, the world is not supplied with all that it needs of the products of Lancashire, how is it that we are not able to get our goods into the hands of the people who need them? How is it that there is such a difference in the price of the goods before they reach the consumer? If this point were investigated we might find that it is not the manufacturer who is responsible for so much of the difficulty, but somebody who comes between the manufacturer and the consumer.
    There are other reasons why this investigation should take place, and without delay. There is the hardship suffered by the people engaged in the industry who for the last five, six or seven years have been either unemployed or underemployed, and who, with a patience which has almost got beyond the stage of virtue and has become almost vicious, have tolerated wages so low as not to give them the standard of life which ought to obtain. Surely those people have a right to consideration, and I think first consideration ought to be given to them by this House. Because of this hardship, and because at the moment there does not seem any bright prospect for these people, the Government ought to start this investigation instead of waiting for the results of the investigation by the Chamber of Commerce. I am not going to make any attack upon those who are conducting that inquiry, but I suggest that it would have been greatly strengthened if representatives of labour in the industry had been taking part in it. On the other side of the House there are hon. Members who have spent their life in the cotton industry, and I am sure there is not one of them who will not admit that the operatives in the cotton industry know as much about manufacture as the owner of the mill or the manufacturer himself.
    Another good reason why the inquiry should be granted by the Government is found in a point put forward by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division. The power exercised by the banks over the many mills throughout Lancashire is well

    1697
    known to those of us who are closely interested in the industry. The hon. Member said the banks have no policy, that they are silent upon the position. Is it not time that the Government ought to get to the bottom of the position by having an independent investigation? We are asked to wait for the Report of the Balfour Committee on Industry and Trade, which may be reporting upon this particular section of their work within a few months, and then, we are told, the Government may find some reason for granting the inquiry for which we are asking. There is yet another reason why the inquiry should take place promptly. It has been one of the big features of the Lancashire cotton industry that people who could ill afford it have often loaned money in sums of £5, £10, and a little more to many of the mills. These people, as one knows full well from the reports from the districts, are feeling very insecure about their position, and it is time the Government helped us to assure these people that the industry is not down and out, as some are inclined to believe. There are also those shareholders, many of them workpeople in the mills, who have taken up small holdings of shares. Anyone who knows what these Lancashire operatives have suffered during the last few years knows that every call of a shilling or two on those shares has meant the selling up of their homes, has meant borrowing from moneylenders, and to-day there are many people in Lancashire who would make you a present of the shares which they hold in these cotton mills. Surely these people have a right to some consideration, and that is another justification for asking for the inquiry.
    I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade thinks he justified his refusal to agree to the request for this inquiry. He told us that the burdens at present borne by the industry are the outcome of rather a bad past, but that we ought not to trouble about that in the meantime. He had some hard things to say about "floaters" as against manufacturers, but surely the burden which was placed upon the industry by those happenings needs to be investigated, so that the whole truth about these flotations may be known, and we may guard ourselves against anything of the kind occurring in the future. This is an industry where £19 10s. was paid for £3
    1698
    shares, and £22 15s. for £3 15s. shares, and where individuals took promotion fees of £10,000. People who were directors and were appointed only for a year or two, at a salary of £50 to £100, or at the most £200 in the case of the chairman, were compensated for loss of office by payments of £1,000 and £2,000.
    When we find those things have gone on, and the industry is now bearing the burden, and the holdings of the small operatives have become so burdensome to them that they would be better off without them, surely we ought to undertake an investigation into the position of affairs. This is a subject upon which, if one attempted to go into all the details which ought to be the subject of inquiry by a Commission, would take up a great deal of time. I cannot see any justification on the part of the Government for refusing to set up this Committee of Inquiry. To tell us now that the industry is going along by its own efforts and is trying to bring about amalgamation knowing full well that many of those efforts in the past have failed, is not the kind of assistance which we expected to receive from the Government. There is still a great need in the world for the supply of cotton products and by means of an inquiry we might find out the real reason why the cotton industry is in its present condition. Despite the statement which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade, I hope the House, by its vote will decide in the Division Lobby to give an opportunity to have this Commission of Inquiry, and so help one of the greatest industries in the country to get out of its difficulties.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: I am rather surprised that the Opposition should put an Amendment of this sort on the Order Paper to-day. When the Labour party were in office in 1924 they appointed what is known as the Balfour Committee to deal with the conditions of the export trade of this country, and that Committee took evidence of a very extensive character from the cotton trade organisations. On that Committee there were representatives of Labour, so that, if there be any point in regard to what is happening in reference to the Manchester Committee at the present moment, the same objection cannot be taken against

    1699
    the Balfour Committee, which had a number of Labour representatives upon it. The cotton trade, including the manufacturers and the spinners, have presented a detailed statement of the difficulties of their trade to the Balfour Committee, and they did that three years ago.
    There was a provisional Report issued by that Committee, in which they surveyed the overseas markets, and it was interesting to find the conclusion which that Committee provisionally arrived at. They dealt with the decline in the exports of our manufactured goods, and they found that the principal market, in India, had declined by 2,000,000,000 yards in the course of a year. They found that four-fifths of that decline was not caused by somebody else taking the trade, but by the high price of our commodity and the diminished purchasing power of India. Surely that state of things was not the fault of any organisation, nor was it the fault of the trade in Lancashire. The high price was due to the scarcity of raw materials and the high price of cotton in comparison with other agricultural products. With a decline in the price of raw material and a larger supply during the last two years, the price of Lancashire cotton goods has reached a nearer approach to the value of the goods which are produced in India, and our trade has undoubtedly increased in that great Empire. If we look at the figures of the exports to India and to China, we shall find that we have an increase in those two countries of justover 2,000,000,000 yards in the last year as compared with the quantity which we sent out in 1913.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Surely the hon. Member means a decrease.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Yes, I mean a decrease of 2,017,000,000 yards, 1,400,000,000 yards less to India and 617,000,000 yards less to China. I do not say that the Government or Labour, or the capitalist is at fault, but what I ask is whether there is any inquiry in this country which would enable us to send a single yard more to China than we have sent during the last year. It is not the fault of the organisation at home, but it is the fault of world conditions. I suggest that, instead of the Government
    1700
    interfering with the internal affairs of our trade organisations, they are exercising the proper sphere of their duties when they take action such as they took in sending out the troops to Shanghai last year. That was the real province of Government, and Lancashire is beginning to receive the benefit of the action which was then taken by the Government. Our troops in Shanghai enabled peace and order to be kept there, and the establishment and restoration of easier conditions in that part of China has enabled Lancashire traders immediately to seize the position, and take advantage of the easier conditions by disposing of their goods at the auctions there. Orders are coming through from China for considerable quantities of Lancashire goods, which could not have happened if the Government had not taken the action which they took last year.
    If the Government, instead of acting on this suggestion to set up an inquiry into the trade here, will deal with extensions in India—if they will induce the Government of India to go in for larger schemes of irrigation, the extension of railways, the development of roads, and the education and uplifting of the people of their country—they will be doing far better for Lancashire than anything that could be done by an inquiry of this sort. That has always been the policy, so far as I know, of the Conservative party in relation to India. At the present moment there is the great Sukkur barrage, which was instigated by the Conservative party and which is being carried out by the Government of India. If we have a common policy, on which all parties in this House are agreed, for benefiting India, let us pursue that with unanimity, and let us get the development of our Lancashire trade by the uplifting of the Indian people. That, I suggest, is a better policy than interfering and stirring up bitterness within the trade itself.
    We do not want an imitation of what has occurred in the mining industry. We do not want these inquiries, which embitter feelings and would sap that good will which undoubtedly does exist in the Lancashire cotton trade at the present time. Therefore, I rejoice that the President of the Board of Trade has decided not to entertain this proposal

    1701
    for an inquiry. After all, do we not look too pessimistically on the condition of the Lancashire trade? Do we not have it drilled into us, as though the whole Lancashire trade was depressed and, as is suggested, under the hammer and down and out? It is no such thing, and it is a wrong idea, in this House and in the country to speak of Lancashire as being absolutely depressed in all its trades. What are the facts? There are 58,000,000 spindles. The depressed part of the trade does not cover more than 25,000,000 spindles, and at no time has it ever been found possible to get more than 22,000,000 spindles to join together in trying to improve conditions. Then there is the great portion of the trade which spins the Egyptian cotton and the finer classes of American cotton, and there is also that which spins the lower grade, or the coarser counts, as they are called. Those sections are certainly not losing money, and it is folly for us in the country or in this House to cry "stinking fish," as though the Lancashire trade as a whole were down and out.
    I would like to remind the House also that this industry is exporting £150,000,000 worth of cotton goods now, and you cannot say that a trade which has that great export each year is down and out, and is not being looked after by those engaged in it. That is £150,000,000 out of £700,000,000 of exports; it is double the amount of any other trade. Therefore, when we think of the Lancashire cotton trade, let us remember that it is not all that is bad, but that it is one particular section that is wrong. What are the figures in regard to employment? I admit—and, indeed, it is very disastrous—the underemployment of those who are employed; that is a most regrettable feature of the trade; but, to show how the trade is being kept together, how the organisation is being kept together, I got the unemployment figures from the Ministry of Labour, and they are rather significant. There are 561,000 people employed in the trade, and the number wholly unemployed is 20,000, while the number temporarily stopped is 28,000. Those wholly unemployed are 3.6 per cent of those employed in the industry, and those temporarily stopped are 5.1 per cent., so that the total number unemployed,
    1702
    whether wholly or temporarily, is 8.7 per cent.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I know that the hon. Gentleman is the very soul of honour. Will he kindly explain to the House how many people are working for really full wages, and will he give some estimate of the number of people in the trade who are getting a week's wages after having done a week's work?
    Mr. WADDINGTON: As I have said, the under-employment is the serious feature in the trade. I tried to get those figures, but they were only available in relation to about 80,000 workpeople, which I did not think was a fair test to give to the House, They showed, however, that 9 per cent, of those workpeople were under-employed. From my own experience, I should be very happy to think that that percentage was not being exceeded in Lancashire; I am afraid it is. But I was not making the point so much that everyone was in full work, because I thought I made it clear that they were not in full work by speaking of underemployment. The point that I was trying to make was that the machinery of organisation was there, ready to take advantage of any return of trade, and it is a matter of gratification, I think, to Lancashire operatives, that they have been kept employed as fully as was possible, even although it has meant under-employment.
    The next point with which I should like to deal before concluding is that in connection with manufacturers and merchanting. I have spoken both in Lancashire and in this House, of the danger of present conditions of trading as between the manufacturing side and the merchant side. I think that, among all of us in Lancashire, there is a consensus of opinion that there is room for great improvement in that direction, but it is not necessary to have an inquiry to establish that fact. It is already established, and steps are being taken in many ways to deal with it. It may interest some of my hon. Friends opposite, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who is so keenly interested in the trade, to know something of what is happening in regard to the improvement of the finishing trade. The finishing trades have very special representatives in different world markets. It is costing them a good deal of

    1703
    money every year. Those representatives either come home to Manchester or send in their reports, and the whole object of the finishers is to bring the merchants and the manufacturers into touch. They show the finishes that are wanted in different countries, and by that means they are bringing about a combination of manufacturer, finisher and merchant, so that the process is more complete than it has been in the old days.
    The same thing is happening also in the bleaching trade. I have been present at meetings in Manchester where there has been a representative from the Overseas Trade Department. One of the trade commissioners has gone down to Manchester, and we have had at such meetings representatives of the cotton spinners, manufacturers and merchants, with a view to seeing if it was possible to improve the export of our Lancashire goods in particular markets. I mention these points because I do not want it to be thought that within the trade itself nothing is being done to improve its condition. A real effort is being made, by those who are in the trade, to improve it. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston say that he wants to see co-operation in this trade, that he wants to see a continuance of the good feeling between the various sections of the trade. I certainly reciprocate that view, and I hope that that good feeling will continue. It will continue quite, as well without an inquiry of this sort as it would with such an inquiry.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I am not in the Lancashire cotton trade, nor have I had had any connection with it, but I have some knowledge of the woollen textile trade, and there is not such a great difference between the two industries, except in the raw materials. The cotton trade is, of course, the greater, but the effect of the two trades on the exports of this country is similar, and I have not heard a single speech from any Member of the Government giving a reason against an inquiry. As a matter of fact, some of the statements of hon. Members on the other side of the House and below the Gangway have given reasons for an inquiry. If various statements which have been made are true, I should imagine that they would be duplicated a
    1704
    hundredfold if they could be taken from responsible people outside the House. For instance, the hon. Member who has just spoken, whose opinion and knowledge of the trade is respected by everyone on this side, has spoken of India and China. Surely the reason of our depression over there is worth inquiring into. Surely it is worth inquiring whether we can get our trade back again. If we can find the cause of our trade being lost in those parts, if we can cure it, surely it is worthy of inquiry. I have been told one of the reasons the Japanese are so successful in India and in China is that they have concentrated on a certain number of qualities of cloth—one might call it mass production. I do not know if that be true, but, if the Japanese can concentrate on mass producing a certain number of qualities of cloth, surely we can do the same, and we shall not do that by merely having an abstract argument in this House, or even in chambers of commerce, as to whether or not it can be done. We shall have to get down to an inquiry and find if it can be done.
    9.0 p.m.
    Some few weeks ago, travelling home, I got into conversation with a merchant who had just returned from South America, and he was in high glee. He had done such a very fine piece of trade that he felt he must tell me about it. He did not know I was a Member of Parliament. I do not know his name nor did he know mine. He had concentrated on getting South American trade from the United States, and after three years' hard work he succeeded in the field he was exploring. He said that he brought back several samples of cloth from South America which had been very extensively sold by people from the States. He brought them and showed them to manufacturers here and said, "What can you produce this at?" And they all gave him an answer which left him at least 10 per cent, over and above the market. They could not produce it at the price. He was convinced that they could if they would adopt the mass production methods of the United States people and put a certain number of looms on this particular work. Instead of shifting people about from one class of work to another, let them concentrate on producing the maximum amount at the cheapest possible cost. He took the risk. He got one manufacturer to put 50 looms on this work, and he took the

    1705
    responsibility. Now he is five per cent. below the market of the States. I am sure, if the Japanese are gaining the China and India trade by means of mass production, that we can. This knowledge and the almost inherited genius of our textile workers is beyond comparison with any other people in the world. Another hon. Member has quoted authority that our production at the loom is as cheap as that of the lower paid workers of the East. Something ought to be done. All the time men are losing money, and buildings and materials are depreciating. At the same time, the moral fibre of our people is deteriorating. The textile worker and the miner are the most sturdy and self-respecting people in this country, but they are losing, through no fault of their own. Trade is going down, exports are getting less, and the people who are suffering the most have the least to say about it. They are not allowed to have a say about it. An hon. Member opposite asked plaintively, what is the policy of the banks? He is a spinner. I suppose he has some dealings with the banks. He asked what is the action of the banks going to be, and he does not know. Surely that in itself demands an inquiry, to get to know what effect the action of the banks is going to have upon this most important trade.
    If hon. Members who are interested in the trade do not know what effect the action of the banks will have, it is time the House got to know, because this House has a responsibility, not only to the banks, not only to the people who have their money invested in the industry, but it has a responsibility for the lives and bodies of the men and women working in the trade, and up to the present it has done nothing. The same hon. Member said it was a question of action rather than inquiry. You cannot get action before inquiry. I should like to know what kind of action he would suggest. I know it is a case of action. We feel that it is a case for action, but we feel that before any action is taken we ought to know what is the cause of the depression and loss of trade, not only abroad but in our own country. We might at least find out how the reduced purchasing power of the millions of people in this country will affect Lancashire trade. The hon. Member for
    1706
    Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said the folly ought to be expiated by the people who caused it. He was referring to the fictitious value created in the cotton textile industry round about 1919–20. I do not know. It has been suggested to me that if the folly that was created by some people could be expiated, this House might be denuded of a Member or two. I am not casting reflections upon certain very honourable gentlemen for whom I have a great deal of respect. We know whom we are talking about. The same hon. Member said he disagreed with Mr. Tattersall. Of course, the hon. Member for Mossley is an expert in everything. He is an expert in coal, in cotton, and in what is called back chat, and he certainly disagrees with the gentleman referred to by the name of Tattersall, who is also an expert. At all events, he is in the industry, and the letter he wrote is certainly worthy of a great deal more respect than being merely passed on.
    This is not a party question. I am delighted to find that it is not being taken up as a party question, unless one might say the resolute resistance to the suggestion of an inquiry by the President of the Board, before hearing the whole of the Debate, is some slight indication that it is going to be a party question. The lives and the health and the very existence of such a large number of people is more than a party question and, if an inquiry will bring anything into it, at all events we ought to have some light let in on it. I know that it has been put to us time after time, even in this House, that the Chamber of Commerce are going to make an inquiry, or that they are making inquiries. How on earth can we have an inquiry into an industry which is already faced with a proposal for a reduction of wages and an increase in working hours? How on earth can anybody call it a full inquiry if they deliberately preclude from consideration those two most important features? It cannot be an inquiry at all. Whatever happens to the cotton trade, or to the textile trade generally, or to any other industry, if wages go down and working hours increase, you cannot exclude those facts from an inquiry which is intended to put the most important exporting industry we have in this country upon its feet. It is perfectly ridiculous in this year of 1928 for any section of the people, whether bankers, spinners,

    1707
    manufacturers or financiers, to say that they are the only people who can have a proper inquiry. If the hundreds and thousands of textile workers are to be precluded from giving to an inquiry any evidence and knowledge that they possess, and which may help, how can it be an inquiry? It is not an inquiry; it is merely a farce. I contend that the operatives can help in such an inquiry. The operatives ought to help. I maintain that no Commission, no Board of Inquiry can possibly sit unless it is going to take evidence, not only from the people who are interested in the trade financially, not only from the banks, not only from the people who have their money invested in it, but from the people who have their lives invested in it.
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave many excellent reasons for an inquiry, including the lack of cohesion between the various sections. Incidentally, it is a curious thing, not only about the cotton trade but about the textile trade generally, that we have the various sections almost in watertight compartments. There is no connection between them except in regard to the selling, or the buying, of the finished work of one section and the raw material of the other. I think it is time that a number of successful men who understand the industry made inquiries as to whether there is any possibility of creating the necessary cohesion and of bringing those watertight compartments a little nearer to each other. Surely, there is no reason at all why spinning should be almost an industry of itself. I say that an inquiry is needed if only to show how far the lack of cohesion between one section and another is responsible for the present deplorable state of affairs. Everybody who knows anything about textiles and anything about cotton is satisfied that there is something wrong with the trade. If it can be put right as a result of people getting together and collaborating, something on these lines ought to be attempted. It will not be made right by the information which is tabulated by the Board of Trade remaining in the pigeon-hole. It will not be made right, if one section of the trade is going to have an inquiry and is going to ignore the other section.
    1708
    The figures which the President of the Board of Trade quoted are a disgrace, and there is no doubt that they have materially helped to bring down the position of the cotton industry to its present level. You cannot alter shares in value from £1 to £25 and expect to get a return which will not only give a wage to the employé but will also give a return on the capital. You cannot do the two things. An inquiry ought to be held. It might disclose some very ugly things. I think the President of the Board of Trade used a harsher term. I think he used the word "corrupt." It ought to be known how far that kind of corrupt practice has had its effect. It has been said that over-capitalisation has had a lot to do with the position in which the trade is to-day. If that be so, we ought to know about it. These are only statements. No one has produced what may be called definite evidence. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to produce evidence. There may be something in it, but I believe that the evidence he will produce will have no effect. I suggest that if an inquiry were held and if it definitely established that the industry was being held to ransom, it might have some effect, or at least it would be more likely to have some effect than hundreds of speeches such as the hon. Member and myself might make in this House.
    We ought to know, the workers ought to know, and the country ought to know what is the true state of affairs. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that an inquiry is necessary, and that after an inquiry the matter ought not to be allowed to rest. We have had inquiries and Royal Commissions galore. We want something more than an inquiry. We want action after an inquiry. If there are people who have done things which are wrong and which are likely to affect the lives and conditions of hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country we ought to know the facts. On these grounds, I press the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider his decision and to let us have a full and frank inquiry as to the reasons why this most important of our export trades has suffered to the extent that it has. And then, after the inquiry, let us have action. Let us do

    1709
    something to bring the trade back to the premier position it ought to hold and the premier position it would hold if all the people inside the trade would pull together.
    Mr. FINBURGH: I have listened with keen interest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder), and I think that if any arguments were necessary in opposition to the Amendment we have before us, he has supplied them. He says that we have had Royal Commissions galore, that we have had inquiries in abundance, and that nothing has resulted from them, because specific and determined action is necessary. It is for that very reason that I cannot support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). The hon. Member for Shipley wanted to know why it was that Japan was more successful than Lancashire was in its cotton trade. Let me acquaint the hon. Member that the methods of Japan were such as to deprive all and sundry of their rights and belongings so long as they obtained the business. I was, and am, a great sufferer from Japan copying my registered designs, and being able by one means or another to capture the business. But I am glad to say that even that section of business is returning to Lancashire. The hon. Member for Shipley said that everybody knows that there is something radically wrong with the cotton trade. We are suffering, and have been suffering for a number of years, from various causes. I could very easily give the reasons why Lancashire is suffering from the present depression. It is no great secret. It is due to many causes, and if I can claim the indulgence of the House in trying to give a few of the reasons, I think it will more than suffice to satisfy those who have any doubts on the subject.
    The first, and perhaps the most difficult question that Lancashire has to face, is that the prices of her products are too dear. That arises from various reasons, the first of which is that the charges for processes which have been forced upon the trading community, the calico printers or by the bleachers, or by the Bradford dyers and others, who have taken advantage by imposing high prices upon the raw manufactured cloth, make it utterly impossible for us to compete in
    1710
    the markets of the world. An inquiry would serve no purpose there.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I have made no such statement. I have said that it has been urged that that is the reason of the depression. Is that statement true? If so, we ought to know about it.
    Mr. FINBURGH: I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. Member, and I apologise if I have led anyone to believe the contrary to what he did say. He did suggest that it would be very advisable for Lancashire to adopt the process of mass production. For the purpose of mass production it is necessary to have such a production in our own country that we are able to sell what remains in foreign countries; to dump it abroad. We are suffering from dumping here. We are getting the surplus of production from other countries, and that is one of the difficulties against which we have to contend. I have just returned from a business tour of Holland and Belgium, and I find there that in an industry similar to that in which I am engaged all the processes take place under one roof—the calico engraving, the bleaching, the dyeing, the printing, the shrinking, the mercerising, the packing, all under one roof. Is it any wonder that on my return to London I found representatives from that particular firm selling large quantities of their goods to London buyers? They certainly can beat us, and they are doing it, but even with that, I am not afraid for the prospects of Lancashire. Lancashire can hold its own, providing the high prices for processes were reduced, so as to make it possible for us to compete.
    A second great point for consideration. and it is a matter in regard to which we have lost a great deal of our business, is the long credit which competing firms abroad are able to give to their customers, and which we are not able to give. I made it my business to inquire, and I found that the bankers there help the manufacturers considerably. The manufacturers give six months' credit to their customers; they accept bills of exchange, which are paid by them into their banks in Italy, in Czechoslovakia, in Germany and other countries, and then these very bills are sent to London and are being discounted, and we are providing the money to help our own competitors to do us all the injury they

    1711
    can. That is a positive fact, and we are suffering from it.
    I think the inquiry suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be disastrous to Lancashire. It would be disastrous if we were to institute a Government inquiry to ask the reason why this depression exists. We know what Government inquiries are. We know what Royal Commissions are. They are merely set up, in the majority of cases, to shelve a question. The question of the Lancashire cotton trade is one of great importance and requires immediate action. It does not want any long-drawn Government inquiry, and I have no confidence in such an inquiry, therefore I cannot support any such proposition. It would be very advisable, I hope after the Easter holiday, to try to institute a conference of the cotton trade in Manchester and to invite all those who are engaged in the very many sections of the industry to sit in conference, to appoint committees, and to see what can be done to reduce the cost. If we could succeed in that, if each section could do a little and if in the aggregate we could reduce the costs by 15 per cent., we should at once overcome the difficulties and every loom and spindle would, no doubt, find more mork than at present. I feel certain about that.
    Our workmen are losing their cunning, and we are becoming discouraged, in a sense, but Lancashire is not dead yet. We are not afraid of the prospects. We only have to be true to ourselves, to recognise that blunders have been made, and to face the situation, and if such a conference could be convened—I am hopeful to have Lord Derby to preside for the first day or two and other gentlemen of similar eminence taking part—and pressure could be brought upon the various sections to reduce their charges, it would be possible to compete in the markets of the world.
    I wish to say, without a moment's hesitation, that the proposal to reduce costs by reducing wages, or increasing hours, is no remedy at all. I would not sanction it. I am in the business, and I can speak feelingly because I am in it and cannot get out of it. We are hopeful. We see signs of improvement already. True, it may be, perhaps, the spoonful
    1712
    of broth to the patient, after a long illness, but there are signs that things are getting better. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Fielden) asked why the banks were silent with regard to their mode of action, and why certain things are allowed to continue. It is a most difficult thing for any manufacturer to stop his mill, whether it be a weaving shed or a spinning mill, because so long as he goes on, he can obtain credit for his yarn and so forth, and he pays on account and keeps his mill going; but if he were to close down everybody would demand what is due, and very few have the strength, financially and otherwise, to carry out what they would like to do. I think that is the reason why our banks are silent and have been prepared to tolerate a state of affairs which is not healthy for the industry, but which cannot be helped, and so they are hoping for better times to come along.
    I have been struck particularly with the fact that whereas eight or 10 years ago one saw a lot of foreign buyers in the streets of Manchester, unfortunately one does not see them now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank goodness for that!"] I do not agree, because these buyers placed orders with Manchester firms, and it helped to provide work for our factories and workpeople. I should be very glad to hear any hon. Member who can contradict me on that point. I put the depression at the present time down to the fact that we have lost the majority of our customers in the various markets both in the Near East and the Far East. As far as this inquiry goes, I cannot possibly support it. It would be disastrous to the interests of Lancashire, and the trade itself would resent it most strongly and look upon Government interference with anything but favour. Rather let the remedy come from the trade itself. Let there be a determined effort made by the trade itself to set its house in order. It is in that direction that I strongly support the opinions which have been expressed from the Front Bench.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate will feel considerable disappointment at the lack of co-operation which we have had from hon. Members who are interested in various aspects of the textile trade. I

    1713
    should have thought that every independent person listening to this Debate would have come to the conclusion that the case for an inquiry was amply proved. The President of the Board of Trade, in his speech, was so strongly opposed to it that, much as we regret it, I am afraid that we shall have to protest against Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, not that we do not feel considerable sympathy with Mr. Speaker—although, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it means that greater responsibilities devolve on you—but because that is our only means of making a protest against the line which has been taken by the President of the Board of Trade. We have heard in the speeches to-night repeated references to master spinners, manufacturers and shareholders, but there has been very little reference indeed to that enormous army of over 500,000 operatives who are engaged in the cotton textile industry, and who, with their families, amount to a very substantial fraction of the people of this country.
    We have statements of optimism as to the future of the cotton trade. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), whose sincerity I think we all recognise, felt very strongly that there was a future for it. The hon. Member who has just sat down, while admitting that we had lost the majority of our customers abroad—which I think is a little exaggeration of the facts—yet feels that there is an optimistic future for this industry. What are the facts? The truth is that this great staple industry, one of the most important in this country and still one of our fundamental trades, has passed through seven lean years of the most extraordinarily difficult kind, and during that period it has lost one-third of its export trade—and one-third represents a great deal in Lancashire. You have an industry where four out of every five looms that turn are working for the foreign markets. Two-thirds of that trade remains, but one-third has vanished for the time being. If we take our biggest markets, our export trade in India to-day is one-half of what it was before the War, while the export trade to China is one-third of what it was before the War. The number of spindles in this country since the War has increased by an almost microscopic amount. The number of looms to-day is actually less than the number before the War, and
    1714
    during the last seven years at least three-fifths of those 500,000 people in the industry have suffered from chronic underemployment.
    The hon. Member for Rossendale quoted figures of unemployment. Those figures are utterly fictitious as regards the cotton industry. Everybody knows that there are people to-day—not merely scores but hundreds of thousands—who are working 48 hours in the week and bringing home half a week's wages. There is the weaver who goes and works his two looms. There is no record of that in the Ministry of Labour employment figures, and no one knows the extraordinary volume of hardship that there is among the great mass of Lancashire workers. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) that there is no more independent body of workers in this country than the Lancashire cotton operatives. To-day scores of thousands of those people are in receipt of out-relief. Hundreds of thousands of Lancashire people have been in receipt of out-relief at some time or another in the last few years, people who would have said before the War that they would die rather than go to the Poor Law guardians. That is the state of affairs—shrinking trade,, chaos in the industry and lack of cooperation between various sections of the industry—which the President of the Board of Trade has admitted as a fact, and then we are told, in spite of all those seven years of difficulty in one of our staple trades, that all we have got to do is to leave it alone.
    That is really the case of the President of the Board of Trade, as I understand it. It is that the trade is best left alone. After all, there is a Committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce! Well, far be it from me to utter words derogatory of Manchester or of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, but what is the Manchester Chamber of Commerce? It is not the Lancashire cotton industry. It speaks with no authority on behalf of the Lancashire cotton industry and no authority, even as regards the employers in the industry Yet we are told: "Here is this Committee, let it continue its investigations." In that investigation which is being made, we are told, as a justification for the employés not being considered, that they are not discussing hours and wages. Queen Anne is dead but the President of the Board of Trade

    1715
    belongs to her age! To be told in this year of grace that wages and hours are the only thing with which the workers are interested, is to carry our minds back at least a century. I make this claim on behalf of the trade union movement of this country, that on no industrial or commercial question can there ever be a proper inquiry, unless we are associated with it. That surely is so in this great industry which affects the livelihood of 500,000 workpeople and the standard of life of perhaps 2,000,000 inhabitants of this great County of Lancashire. Suppose that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce issues its report, what earthly use is that report? It does not carry any authority with it. There is no justification for believing that its recommendations, if it makes any, will be accepted. The situation afterwards will be precisely what it is to-day. A year may go by and the situation in this staple industry, in all essentials, will be what it is to-day.
    The President of the Board of Trade tries to escape from the responsibility of establishing some committee of investigation by saying that we know the facts. I do not agree with him. It is true to say that most of us know many of the facts, but none of us knows the real economic position of the cotton industry to-day in the markets of the world. Even if we did, the real point of an inquiry is not merely to diagnose the economic situation. Surely it would be to come to some understanding as to what treatment ought to be followed if the situation is to be improved. It does not help us to say that we know the facts and that therefore, there is no need for an inquiry. If the facts are known, why is it that for seven years this great trade has staggered in this way, tending, as a great part of it is, towards the bankruptcy court. It is no exaggeration to say that if it had not been for the steps taken, of which I approve, to keep the trade on its legs, half of it would be bankrupt. And that situation is not improving. If the facts are accepted surely we have arrived at a stage when there should be some agreement as to what is to be done for the future and what lines of co-operative action may be followed in order to recover the markets we have lost.
    It is no use looking to the home market. Englishmen may swathe themselves
    1716
    in cotton goods and it would not recompense us for the loss of our foreign markets. They are essential to the industry, and something might be done if there was proper co-operation. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted to-day, and it has been admitted on previous occasions by hon. Members opposite, that the units are not large enough, that there is not proper co-operation between the various sections of the industry, and the problem on which an inquiry might throw a good deal of light and also obtain a considerable amount of agreement is the way in which these various sections might combine for the common good of the industry. Within the last few days a fresh attempt has been made to bring about some consolidation of forces in the industry. Mr. Tattersall is one of the most able men on the employers' side of the Lancashire cotton industry and, accepting our analysis of the situation and our view of the difficulties of the industry, he has set himself, within limits, to bring about some form of amalgamation. That is all to the good, but nobody will ever persuade those who have considered the situation that an amalgamation in the American branch of the spinning industry will solve the problem of the whole trade. Everybody knows that whatever you may do by increasing the size of units on the spinning and weaving side, until you do something to deal with the bleachers, finishers and dyers the trade will be held to ransom by that section of the industry and, therefore, every effort should be made to get a common policy for the industry as a whole.
    The President of the Board of Trade in replying to me two weeks ago virtually admitted—he did not use these particular words—that the industry was too individualistic, that it was not prepared to co-operate in the way that it should. Why should we in this House, who are responsible in large measure for the welfare of the people of this country, stand aside and do nothing because various groups of employers in the industry are unable to co-operate? It is no use arguing that this will interfere with the course of trade. The course of trade has been interfered with, and we are asking that steps shall be taken to bring together the people engaged in one of our great trades for a common purpose.

    1717
    The inquiry may not be completely successful; but why is it that the Conservative party has a horror of knowledge and that whenever they can they burke an inquiry? There is no hon. Member opposite who would allow an inquiry into any industry in this country however bad its circumstances might be. Why is it? Why is it that people who are engaged in an industry, people who are supporters of the captains of industry, are always afraid of an independent inquiry? It does not imply guilt if you accept an inquiry; but there is something that suggests guilt on the part of the people who refuse to listen to a suggestion for an inquiry. I say that those who are opposed to an inquiry in this industry are afraid of the disclosures which would be brought to light. The President of the Board of Trade says that all this is ancient history. Ancient history is determining the situation today, and if the ancient history of seven years ago has led the industry into the condition in which it is to-day, we are entitled to know how that situation arose and to learn the method of escape.
    The demand for an inquiry is reasonable. I do not believe that a voluntary inquiry would carry the same authority. There is something to be said for the Government itself taking the initiative in a matter of this kind. Voluntary inquiries have no power and carry little authority, but an inquiry set up by the Government into the textile industry would carry enormous weight and authority and it would convince a good many people of the seriousness of the situation and the need for doing something. The time has gone by for mock heroics about the cotton industry. I do not believe that it is going down to final destruction, but I am not optimistic about its future. When hon. Members opposite get up and wave the flag, and say that the industry will be all right, we have to remember that for some years it has not been all right; it has been all wrong.
    It is time that we really faced the facts. Mere sham optimism about the future will do no good. Mere flag wagging will do nothing for the trade with India or China or some of the other markets. Mere expressions of optimism will do nothing whatever to beat the Japanese or even the Italians in the markets of
    1718
    the East. What is needed is a good deal more than that. What is needed is a sincere attempt on the part of all branches of this great industry to view the industry as one great economic unit, with one great economic purpose in the world. What is needed is a new attitude of mind on the part of people in the industry. I grieve to say that the Government have done nothing to assist in bringing together the warring elements on the employers' side. There is unity on the side of the 500,000 workers in the industry; there is disunity on the part of every large group of employers. It is that disunity, that old-fashioned early nineteenth century individualism, that has brought the industry where it is to-day. It is being beaten to-day in the markets of the East because Japan has proved itself capable of greater powers of co-ordination and organisation. We are not being beaten because labour costs in Lancashire are higher than they are anywhere else in the world. Labour costs in Lancashire are low, and Lancashire labour is the most efficient in the world. Where we are being beaten to-day is not through defects in labour here; it is not in the lack of skill of the operatives, but in the lack of vision of the employers, who cannot get themselves out of the pre-War frame of mind.
    I do not say that in order to make a point. I say it in all seriousness, as an indictment of the people who to-day are standing in the way of the recovery of this great industry. If the President of the Board of Trade has his main concern in master spinners and manufacturers and shareholders, I would remind him that Lancashire became what it was because of the excellence of the labour in that great trade in Lancashire. We have a right to claim that the interests of 500,000 and more Lancashire cotton operatives should be considered in this House. It is their deliberate view that there should be an official inquiry, and they are prepared to do everything they can to help such an inquiry. What fundamental objection can there be? There is none except the fear that is common to almost all branches of employers in British industry—the fear of facts and the fear of knowledge, the fear that they may have to subordinate their own petty interests to the larger interests of the industry to which they belong

    1719
    There is to-day no escape for Lancashire along the lines of nineteenth century individualism. The only way in which we are going to maintain the standard of life in that county is by a new outlook upon the problems of the industry, a good deal closer co-ordination of all the sections in it, and by the employers realising that in future the voices of the workers have as much right to be heard as those of merchants and manufacturers. We are speaking, not on behalf of shareholders or master spinners or manufacturers or merchants; we are speaking on behalf of 2,000,000 people in this great county, whose very lives depend directly upon the cotton trade, and millions more whose standard of life is in part dependent on it. There is time even now for the Government to reconsider its refusal of an inquiry and to agree, without tying its hands, to a full and complete investigation. I do not believe that in any case it will deter reorganisation, as was suggested. On the contrary, I believe it might hearten many people in the industry to know that the Government were taking an intelligent interest in a fundamental and basic trade. I am not at all certain that the Government will change its mind, but if the Government are determined that there shall be no inquiry, then I am afraid that, so far as we are concerned on this side, we must register our protest in the Lobby.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) is back in his place, because in the earlier part of this Debate he introduced a curious argument regarding the banks and the cotton trade. As far as I understood him he said that the machinations of one of the London banks had forced local banks to advance more money to the cotton industry than they considered desirable, and he proceeded to argue from that that the business of these local banks was to divest themselves of responsibility in connection with the cotton trade, and to look after the remainder of their customers. If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has stated, that the situation was caused by the action of the various banks in trying, one against the other, to obtain the business of various Lancashire cotton concerns, and by so doing adding considerably to the inflation of capital—if that
    1720
    is the case, those banks cannot properly divest themselves of the responsibility for rescuing the industry from that overcapitalised state which they were so instrumental in allowing to be brought into existence.
    I would like particularly to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). All of us who are closely acquainted with the cotton trade will appreciate that his analysis of the situation was essentially accurate. After all, the cotton spinning trade is the largest manufacturing trade in this country, and we cannot absolve ourselves in this House from responsibility in connection with a trade which supplies so large a proportion of the employment of this country. But, agreeing, as one must, with the broad facts of the statement, which was, if paraphrased, that the production of cotton goods and the consumption of cotton goods all through the world is increasing and that Lancashire's share is gradually decreasing—admitting that to be the case, I listened carefully to all that the right hon. Member had to say and I wondered when one was to come to the fundamental and most important point, namely, the suggestion of the remedy, but that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was never delivered.
    The Opposition have not put forward any practical proposals. They say, "Let us have an inquiry." If it is going to be an inquiry which will merely be dilatory action to enable the events that ought to be tackled here and now to be put on one side, then I say that it is not going to do any good. The facts are well known. The Lancashire cotton trade presents two salient features. One is a general situation. The other is a more particular situation. The vital necessity of the situation is to find some method of harnessing the sections of the trade together, of getting the producing end and the consuming end into touch with one another. The different sections of the trade at the moment are completely isolated. There is no link between the producer and the consumer. The users of cotton goods throughout the world are not the customers of Lancashire. They are the customers of the individual merchants. In the days gone by, when Lancashire was responsible for the production of

    1721
    practically all the cotton goods used in the export trade, naturally, those merchants had to go to Lancashire for their goods, but now they buy in the cheapest markets and supply their customers with goods which are not necessarily Lancashire goods. Therefore, the selling organisation on which we have to rely is one which, in many circumstances, sells not for Lancashire but for Lancashire's competitors.
    Another point is that the various sections of trade are not co-ordinated. The spinning section and to a lesser extent the manufacturing section must rely for prosperity on large-scale production—on mass production. Much more important to them than the ratio of profit, is the quantity of the trade which goes through, but the other sections of the trade such as the finishing, printing, packing and so forth can organise themselves for profit on a partial production basis. Instead of relying on large-scale production they merely rely on the ratio of profit. It is obvious that if Lancashire, considered as a producing county, has not got co-ordination in these various sections, we cannot have the prosperity to which we think we are entitled. A proposal for bringing the various sections into line and co-ordinating their interests is being considered by the special committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. In connection with that matter, I would point out that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce is interested more in those particular sections which, as I have said, can organise themselves on a partial production basis. This House obviously must bear in mind the national interest and we must consider this fact that, from the point of view of the nation, the mill employing 500 operatives is much more important than the office with two men and a boy.
    10.0 p.m.
    The second problem—I may call it the special problem—is the definite problem of the spinners. It would be conveying a wrong impression if one were to say that the whole spinning trade is in bad circumstances. The Egyptian section is a profitable section and compares with any other trade in the country in regard to the provision of employment. It is only in reference to that section—two-thirds of the trade—which uses American cotton that there is any serious problem. It is obvious that, if we are to make
    1722
    the American section prosperous, we must return to an economic figure for financial overhead costs. A good deal has been said about gross overcapitalisation. The fact that 169 recapitalised concerns, the paid up capital of which was something like £8,200,000, were sold for a figure of over £50,000,000, which means that there was something like £42,000,000 of inflated money. That situation has to be met. If it were only a matter of dealing with shareholders it would be a simple proposition. The whole of the shareholders' money has been lost, but the problem concerns not only shareholders' money but loan money and bank overdrafts. A scheme to which several speakers have referred has been put forward by the Yarn Association, and it is one which, in my view, attempts to deal with this problem in a businesslike and workable fashion. To my own knowledge, there are at least 60 mills in Lancashire which ought immediately to apply, on the published conditions, for inclusion in that corporation. I feel myself that though this may not be the identical way in which the problem will be solved, yet it is on lines like these, which will enable the loan money and the bank overdrafts to be dealt with, that a solution will be found. Even if we do get the American section, with respect to its financial overhead charges, back on an economic basis, we have not solved the whole of the problem. I would remind the. Labour party that if we only got 48 hours' production from our spinning mills, we should be in a much better position in regard to cost of production than we are at the present time. We are getting much nearer 44 hours than 48, and though this is not the time for referring to the Washington Hours Convention, it should not be forgotten that in America, where three States went in for the 48 hours, two of those three have already re-enacted laws which make it legal to work for 54 hours instead of 48. I think there will be common agreement with this broad analysis—that there are two paths which have to be examined. One relates to the question of the broad organisation of the trade, and the other to the question of these financial overhead costs in the American section. I understand the attitude which the Government are taking up is,

    1723
    as regards the first, to let the examination by the special committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce go forward; and, as regards the other, to give encouragement to the proposals for amalgamation. I submit that that policy is a reasonable one. But what is the policy of the Socialist party, beyond asking for an inquiry? I should like to know whether the official policy of the party opposite is that stated by Mr. Albert Law, prospective Labour candidate for Bolton and himself a cotton operative who, speaking at a Labour Conference at Bolton on Saturday, on the position of the cotton industry, said:
    "Co-operation and amalgamation are not proposed not so much as remedies, but rather as a cloak under which the dread disorder of the industry may remain hidden and still go on with its deadly work of sapping the vitality of the industry. The disease of debt and false values must be rooted out. The quickest way is clean-cut bankruptcy in order that the industry may have a chance to continue its growth in a soil of honesty and ability."
    I should like to know whether that is the policy of the Socialist party.
    Mr. SHAW: I think the hon. Member was quite plainly told in my speech what our policy is. Get the facts.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If the policy of the Socialist party, after seven years of this depression, is to say, "We want to know the facts," when most people in the trade are very well acquainted with what the facts are, I say that in this matter Lancashire is going to get very cold comfort from the Socialists. I thought that the circumstances of this trade would have provided a very useful practical opportunity for the Socialist party to put some of their theories into practice, and I will make an offer to the right hon. Member for Preston and his party whereby he can put some of his theories into practice. Without any cost, I am willing to provide, not one, two, or three, but up to 20 mills, which he can take over without cost provided he will look after their liabilities. [Laughter.] The Labour party, like any other party, must face the facts as they are.
    Mr. SHAW: I am open to take the hon. Gentleman's offer. If he will give me any number of mills, I will accept the lot.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: He must take over the mills as they stand.
    Mr. SHAW: I will.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: With their existing obligations.
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. Gentleman surely does not want to ruin a concern by individualist theories and then say, "You are a Socialist. Take this bankrupt concern, and bring it back to prosperity."
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: What I would like the right hon. Gentleman to do is to apply his theories to the mills as they stand, but I very much fancy that that offer will not be accepted, and that all that Lancashire will get from the Socialist party in respect to this very difficult problem is a request for another inquiry. My own personal view is that there are two paths along which the Government are determined to help. It may be that those two paths may end, like so many explored paths have done in the past, in cul-de-sacs. If that is so, we shall have to adopt new methods. After all, England's greatest exporting trade and the welfare of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen are much more important than party cries and the shibboleths of party warfare. It may be that all these schemes will be rejected and that the only policy will be bankruptcy, but, if that is so, rather than see the industry of my native county dwindle and decay, I should be prepared to come to this House to speak and to vote for those concerns being made to do by legislation what they would refuse to do by the incentive of human reason.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I think we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) for bringing this matter before the House, because it is very rarely that the cotton industry of Lancashire is discussed across the Floor. I cannot agree with him, however, that there should be an inquiry into the industry. It has been pointed out by many Members that it would be quite futile, because the troubles from which we are suffering are well known to all of us. One hon. Member referred to the over-capitalisation of the mills, and I quite agree that at the time when these mills were floated it was nothing more nor

    1725
    less than a swindle on the British public. Personally, I did not take a single share in them, and I am well off in not having done so, but let me point out that that over-capitalisation has nothing to do with the depression in the cotton trade, for this reason, that you are paying no dividends on that capital, and, therefore, your overhead charges are not increased on that account; and it is not owing to that cause that we have the present depression in the industry. I think very often hon. Members seem to forget the enormous strides that foreign countries have made in the last 20 years. I have been in the cotton trade for 30 years, and we are being competed with now by Japan, Italy, the United States of America, and Holland to an extent that the cotton trade of this country has never known before.
    I can give you an illustration with regard to Japan. It was mentioned by an hon. Member opposite that Japan is taking at the present time a large part of the lower grade cotton trade. The remarks he made are quite correct, and today practically Japan has got the whole of that trade. She can only do it in one way, and that is by working longer hours of labour and by giving lower wages. I defy any country to come up to the ability of our cotton operatives or our printing or dyeing operatives, and it is only in those conditions that she can compete so successfully with us in England. Let me give another illustration. Holland is to-day putting goods into the London market at 11d. a yard. Our cost of production is 1s., and the retail shops in London are selling that article at 2s. 11d. a yard. There is talk about reducing the wages of the operatives, but I do not believe that any reduction in wages or the lengthening of hours will have the slightest effect. We ought to look more at what is inherently depressing the cotton trade. If hon. Members only took the trouble to think for a few minutes, they would see that the cotton has to go through a number of hands. There is first the broker who wants his profit; then it is delivered to the spinner, who makes a profit, and then to the weaver, who has to make a profit, and then to the dyer, the printer, or the bleacher, who also make a profit, and then it has to be delivered to the merchant, who wants a
    1726
    Profit and eventually it goes to the retailer.
    Mr. SHAW: And he makes the biggest profit of all.
    Lieut-Commander ASTBURY: Yes. There are six hands through which these goods have to go, and if you put the low estimate of a profit of 5 per cent., you have 30 per cent, profit to make before you calculate anything else for wages or overhead charges, and I am confident in my own mind that it is only in this direction that a real solution of the depression in the cotton trade can be found. You are not going to do that by a Government inquiry. You will only set up the backs of the different trades in Lancashire by having an inquiry, because, to be quite candid, they do not believe in a Government inquiry. They think the Government should keep out of industry, but I am quite sure that the time will come when these five different sections of the trade will have to combine, and produce goods as one firm, and purchase goods as one firm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here!"] You will not do it by nationalisation. Let me tell my hon. Friends opposite that, as far as individualism goes, the individual firms in Lancashire that are outside the combine are making the biggest profit. I do not want to be egotistical, but my firm has been going for 25 years, and the Cotton Producers' Association have never been able to do me any damage.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will you give us your industry?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: One point has not been mentioned, and I do not refer to it in any controversial spirit. Before the coal stoppage, the cotton trade was showing signs of revival. We first had the coal stoppage, and then the general strike, and there is no doubt that these two stoppages alone put the cotton trade back for two or three years.
    Mr. SHAW: Is the hon. Member aware that the cotton trade was not going up, and that 1925 was worse than 1924?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That might be so, but we do not get at once the effect of a stoppage in a strike like that. The repercussion comes afterwards, and what we were
    suffering form a few months ago was

    1727
    the direct effect of the stoppage. I am only too glad to be able to say that to-day the cotton trade is doing better, and I am sure that if there were less pessimism talked in this House and in the country, and a little more optimism and faith shown in ourselves and in those who work
    with us, this depression would very soon pass away, and we should again be pre-eminent in the cotton trade.
    Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES.

    [10.18 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Albery, Irving James

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Preston, William

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Ralne, Sir Walter

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Ramsden, E.

    Atkinson, C.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Remer, J. R.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Brlacoe, Richard George

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. Ives)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R,

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rye, F. G.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Sanders, sir Robert A.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hopklnson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Savery, S. S.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)

    Cayzer, MaJ.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Christle, J. A.

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Jephcott. A. R.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Couper, J. B.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    king, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Tasker, R. Inlgo.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Long, Major Eric

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lougher, Lewis

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Luce,Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

    Waddington, R.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wells, S. R.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Finburgh, S.

    Meller, R. J

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Merriman, Sir F. B.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Forrest, W.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfleld)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Morris, R. H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Withers, John James

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Owen, Major G.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Pennefather, sir John

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Penny, Frederick George

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Warrender.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Griffith, F. Klngsley

    Riley, Ben

    Ammon, Charles George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

    Baker, Walter

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hilton, Cecil

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kennedy, T.

    Tnurtle, Ernest

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, George

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Viant, S. P.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Day, Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wright, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charle

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Edwards.

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

  CLASS VII

    REVENUE BUILDINGS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £889,180, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices Abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Departmet." [Note: £444,600 has been voted on account.]
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Vivian Henderson): This Estimate may be divided into three parts, the Customs, the Post Office and the Revenue buildings, and these Estimates show a decrease of slightly over £60,000. The first part of the Estimate deals with the Customs and Excise buildings required for the accommodation of the Customs and Excise Department not only at the headquarters but also for local offices. The Vote for new works is a small one for the provision of new offices at the West India
    Dock, which is necessary owing to the demolition of the existing premises due to an improvement which has taken place on the Dock Estate. Another section of the Vote provides for the Inland Revenue buildings in London and the provinces and local offices throughout the country. This expenditure is required in connection with the Inland Revenue Valuation Department and the staff of the Taxes Department, the estimate for which is anticipated to amount to £11,229, and the number of districts dealt with is 710. So far as the Land Valuation Department is concerned, there is a total staff of approximately 754, and there are 104 local offices.
    The section relating to Post Office buildings applies to the provision and maintenance of Post Office, telegraph and wireless buildings, and the maintenance only of telephone exchange premises. In regard to new premises, there are four general grounds which have to be shown before new premises are built, and the Treasury has to be satisfied on one or other of those four grounds. One is that the premises are insecure so far as tenure is concerned; a second is that there is danger to the health of the staff in using the existing premises; a third is that, in the case of combined postal and telegraph buildings, that there are telephone requirements; and the fourth is

    1731
    that the present buildings are not adequate owing to an increase of Post Office development. Considerable progress has been made during the last few years in regard to the standardisation of Post Office buildings and equipment, and, in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee which sat some years ago, not only are building plans standardised to a large, extent, but also the accommodation and fittings. In certain cases it has been necessary to make a re-vote for some Post Office buildings, owing partly to adverse weather conditions, partly to difficulties in obtaining supplies, and partly to delays in completing drawings and tenders. As I think the Committee will realise, in connection with the erection of a large number of buildings all over the country it is almost impossible to avoid delay. For that purpose it has been the custom to make a certain lumpsum deduction from the Post Office Buildings Vote, and that has been done this year to the extent of £27,000.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £185,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings." [Note: £92,750 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I move this reduction in order to draw attention to certain expenditure in connection with the new British Embassy that is to be built in Washington. About a year ago, when we raised this question, we were told that the contract had not yet been granted, but we were assured that when it was made a Fair Wages Clause would be inserted in it, and we gathered at that time that by "fair wages" was understood the trade union rate of wages that would be then prevailing. Since that time there has been a great deal of discussion, particularly among the building unions in the United States of America, and a great deal of speculation as to who was going to receive this contract. I understand that the firm which has got the exclusive right
    1732
    to construct the new British Embassy in Washington is certainly not a firm which has a great reputation from a trade union point of view. Indeed, I have correspondence from the responsible trade union secretary of the Plasterers', Masons' and Bricklayers' Union to the effect that Mr. Wardman, who has received this contract, is one of the worst employers of labour in the United States from the trade union point of view. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary, if it be true that Mr. Wardman has this contract, whether he is really satisfied that the Fair Wages Clause, which I understand is in the contract, and trade union conditions, are being observed?
    I have information which would lead me to believe that there is a very great deal of disquiet among the relatively well organised unions of this industry in America. They are complaining that in practice Mr. Wardman employs a kind of non-union labour, and has not hesitated in times past to employ even negro labour as a substitute for highly skilled labour in the building trade. I shall be specially glad if we can have some definite assurance as to what is really meant by the Fair Wages Clause, and whether the words used a year ago really mean that it is free union labour paid at trade union rates, and whether we can have a guarantee that nothing except trade union labour will be used in the building of this Embassy.
    There is a second reason why we are concerned about this grant of money and it arises from the fact that this is not a private house that is being built but is the British Embassy across the Atlantic, that is to say, it is a building which in a real sense represents symbolically the British nation on the other side of the Atlantic. I am informed that if the Embassy is built by non-union labour it will be the first Embassy in the United States to be so built. It is to our honour and our reputation that if we weight our interests in one way or another it ought to be on the side of the best rather than the worst paid labour when we have dealings with a country like the United States, and the mere fact that it is a British Embassy means that it gives the trade unions of America a particularly good opening for launching an attack which goes much wider than merely industrial interests. Particularly at this

    1733
    time, more than at any other time in our history since 1776, it is very important that we should take every conceivable care in our dealings with the American nation, and there is plenty of evidence in the Press of America and in the activities of the trade unions that they are using this incident of badly paid labour in the building of the Embassy to suggest that we are trying to undermine American standards of labour. Mr. Wardman himself has British interests. He is, as a matter of fact, part proprietor of a considerable number of British hotels, and it is merely because of his English interests that he has been allowed to get this contract, and in this way we are having a very widespread propaganda released which can only damage, in far wider ways than the economic ways, the relations of the people of Britain with the people of America. Therefore I should like to ask whether the Minister in taking adequate care to see to it that our ideas of self-respect and our ideas of a Fair Wages Clause are really being carried out in this contract, so that in the years that lie ahead, when the American plasterers and masons and bricklayers go to Washington and point to our British Embassy, they will not be able to point the finger of scorn but will be able to say, "This Embassy, in the third decade of the 20th Century, was built by the very best labour, paid by the best recognised standards that America had."
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I will endeavour to answer the points that have been put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) as briefly as possible. I had a question put to me on this subject last week, the answer to which I hoped would clear up a certain amount of misunderstanding on the part of certain hon. Members opposite. I am quite aware, and my Noble Friend is quite aware, that there is a certain amount of disquiet on the part of a certain number of officials and members of American trades unions on this question. It is true that the contract has been awarded to Mr. Wardman. The reason it was awarded to Mr. Wardman was because the tender was the lowest. But we have not disregarded the points which the hon. Member made, because we have inserted a definite clause in the contract
    1734
    to the effect that Mr. Wardman shall pay the union rates of wages in the district and will observe the usual union hours. Under those circumstances, I do not think that there is any likelihood of his undercutting—in fact, he could not do so without breaking his contract—and there is no likelihood of the hon. Gentleman's fears being realised. I think, in view of the definite fact that we have these terms in the contract, that we could not do other than accept that contract because it was the lowest.
    Mr. SMITH: Will that clause be inserted in the original contract?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means. There is only one contract. As far as I know, it was in the original contract, and as far as I know there has been no revision of contract.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Was the condition implied when the Government issued an invitation asking for tenders for the contract that they were expected to pay trade union wages and also to observe trade union conditions?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes. The Fair Wages Clause of this House applies to all contracts.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Was it pointed out to those who were tendering for this contract in America that they wore expected to pay trade union rates of wages and also to observe every trade union condition?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: As far as I know.
    Mr. PALING: The answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not seem very decisive. It appears that the Clause was inserted all right, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said that there was some disquiet of which he was aware. Is it possible that this disquiet has arisen because of the fact and in spite of the Clause being there that the Clause is not being carried out? Has he made inquiry, or is he prepared to make inquiries to see that now the Clause is there the contractor carries it out, and that if there is any disquiet he will remedy the matter at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say who is responsible for seeing that the terms of the contract are carried out?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: In usual cases where there is a large contract there is either an architect on the spot or there is a representative from the Office of Works to see that the contract is carried out. I cannot actually say what the proceeding is in this particular case without inquiring. The hon. Member must realise that I have not received notice of this question from any Member on the other side. I do not think that the hon. Member's point is really a point of substance, because the reason I was aware of some disquiet was that questions were addressed to me on the subject over a week ago.
    Mr. YOUNG: Will the hon. and gallant Member see that someone is in charge, to ensure that the terms of the contract are carried out?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I have seen statements in the newspapers with regard to this matter. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that Washington is the headquarters of the American Federation of Labour, the centre of the trade union movement in America, and caution ought to be exercised in regard to the firm chosen for this contract. I do not know whether inquiries have been made as to the character of the firm; I remember that one building, a large hotel, was held up for over 12 months in America, and I am sure we do not want to have anything like that to occur in regard to the British Embassy. Great care should be exercised in a country like America to see that no black mark is put against any building belonging to the British Government.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: We will take special care to see that the terms of the contract are carried out.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is there not a permanent official of the Office of Works attached at the Embassy of Washington, who superintends the erection of buildings?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: There is, I understand, an architect on the spot now representing the Office of Works.
    Mr. VIANT: The disquiet in Washington at the present time is undoubtedly due to the fact that the firm entrusted with the contract have a poor reputation in regard to the employment of their workmen. It is important that the Department, before placing any contract, should see that it given to a fair firm. I am given to understand—of course, it may be quite contrary to the fact—that the contract has not been given to the firm which made the lowest tender, but rather the reverse. My information may be incorrect, but I am given to understand that this firm's price was not the lowest.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member is wrong; it was the lowest.
    Mr. VIANT: I am prepared to accept that statement. I am only giving the information which has come to me this evening. I understood that it was the custom for the Department to have a list of what are known as fair firms. It is not sufficient for a firm to quote for work and be prepared to carry out good conditions for this work only. I am given to understand that, in all probability, a large proportion of this work will be given to sub-contractors, and that not only have this firm a bad name in not being prepared to square up to the terms of the contract, as recognised on this side, but that the sub-contractors will contravene the Fair Wages Clause. That is no new thing in this country. We have from time to time drawn the attention of the Department to instances of sub-contractors contravening the Fair Wages Clause, and we are entitled to ask, even although this Vote may be passed to-night, for some definite information that will allay the distrust and disquiet that obtains amongst the building trade operatives in this country on this subject. We are bound to get information from the American Federation of Labour, and they will naturally expect us in this House to find out from the Department what steps are being taken to see that Messrs. Wardman are conforming exactly to the Fair Wages Clause. That information cannot be obtained unless we have a clerk of works on the spot, who is prepared to review the books from time to time and see that the conditions are respected. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Estimate will give us

    1737
    at least a guarantee that we shall have some later information, because we appreciate the fact that it had been somewhat sprung on him as it has been on us.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £185,4000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 199.

    Division No. 66.]

    AYES.

    [10.51 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Riley, Ben

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardle, George D.

    Ritson, J.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Baker, Walter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistune)

    Broad, F. A.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lee, F.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dennison, R.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunlermilne)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maxton, James

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T,

    Paling, W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Albery, Irving James

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Atkinson, C.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dixey, A. C.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Henn, sir Sydney H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Fanshawe, Captain G. P.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Blundell, F. N.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hilton, Cecil

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fielden, E. B.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Finburgh, S.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Forrest, W.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Foster, Sir Harrgy S.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Hume, Sir G H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.( Berks,Newb'y)

    Galbraith, J. F W.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Ganzonl, sir John.

    Iliffe, sir Edward M.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Campbell, E. T.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Christie, J. A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Long, Major Eric

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Lougher, Lewis

    Couper, J. B.

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    McLean, Major A.

    Makins, Brigadier-Genaral E.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Thom, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Meller, R. J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Merriman, Sir F. B.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Rye, F. G.

    Waddington, R.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.( Kingston-on-Hull)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J,

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew.W.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Oakley, T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Penny, Frederick George

    Skelton, A. N.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

    Wolmer, viscount

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Preston, William

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Ramsden, E.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Styles, Captain H. W.

    Major the Marquess of Titchfield

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    and sir Victor Warrender.

    Remer, J. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £355,630, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health and the Scottish Board of Health)." [Note: £177,800 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HARDIE: I would like to ask some information about sites which have been purchased by the Department, whether in any way they have been taken before the Land Court, or whether there has been arbitration in regard to the price paid. Is the Department satisfied that sites have been obtained at a fair and reasonable rent or value?
    Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to know how far progress has been made with the new Central Employment Exchange at Glasgow?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Members the information for which they have asked, because they have not given me notice that they intended to ask for it. On points of detail of this kind it is not possible for me to answer immediate questions unless I receive some communication beforehand.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Surely it is customary for the Minister in charge of a Vote of this character, when he asks for money to be given to his Department for a specific purpose, to come to the Committee armed with the information that it is necessary to give to the Committee? Here the hon. and gallant Member is asking for £17,000 for one building alone, and when he is asked for information he rises and says that he cannot give any information unless he is first notified that information is to be asked for. Before the Committee votes away such large sums of money, surely it is entitled to know what it is voting and the purpose for which the money is being granted. It has never been the custom since I have been a Member of the House, and, so far as I know, from my reading of the Debates, it was never the custom before I came to the House, for Ministers to get away with an excuse such as that made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am very sorry that I have to speak in such a strong tone, but if the Minister cannot give us the information, I wish to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. MAXTON: I am rather surprised—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must put the Question forthwith.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided:Ayes, 71; Noes, 185.

    Division No. 67.]

    AYES.

    [11.4 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hardie, George D.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. Ives)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Connolly, M.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sullivan, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Day, Harry

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Fenby, T. D.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maxton, James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morris, R. H.

    Wiggins, William Marun

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    NOES.

    Aacland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Finburgh, S.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Albery, Irving James

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forrest, W.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Atkinson, C.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Galbraith. J. F. W.

    Long, Major Eric

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Looker, Herbert William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Lougher, Lewis

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Blundell, F. N.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Meller, R. J.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col.Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Merriman, Sir F. B.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'v)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Moore, Lieut-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Harrison, G. J. C,

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Christie, J. A.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Oakley, T.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Couper, J. B.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    pownall, Sir Assheton

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Preston, William

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ramsden, E.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Remer, J. R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Everard, w. Lindsay

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Salmon, Major L.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wells, S. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wilson, R. R, (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Savery, S. S.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Shapperson, E. W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Smith, R. W. (Abard'n & Kinc'dins,C.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Waddington, R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Major the Marquess of Titchfield

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    and Sir Victor Warrender

    Stanley, Lieut,-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. MORRIS: I wish to ask a question in regard to the figure of £7,790 in respect of furniture on page 30 of the Estimates. That figure is the Estimate for this year, but last year the Estimate was £3,175, so that it has more than doubled in the course of the year, for London alone. When I turn to the rents for London, I see that the sum in respect of rents has decreased by nearly £1,000 and the sum for new works has also decreased, so that the furniture cannot be in respect of new premises nor in respect of additional premises. Then why has that Estimate more than doubled during the year? Have they refurnished the whole of these offices with new furniture, and in respect of what furniture is this sum being expended?
    Mr. HARRIS: The Under-Secretary for the Home Office has now had time
    to get some information on the Vote. I feel considerable sympathy with him, because, after all, there is no more Industrious and efficient Minister in the House, but this is not his job, and he has ample to do in looking after his own Department and assisting his senior Minister in the arduous task of looking after home affairs. This is one of the disadvantages of not having the Office of Works represented in this House. At a time when we are supposed to be looking after the money of the country, surely the spending House, the House of Commons, should be complimented by having a Minister in charge of this expenditure to represent his Department here, and not in another place. If the Minister is handicapped by being in another place, we are entitled to have—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I do not see what that has to do with this Vote.
    Mr. HARRIS: I do not think, Mr. Hope, you realise that in your absence the Minister said that he had not this information, and was not in a position to give it. Of course, he is not, because it is not his Department I was trying to protect him. I was showing what a disadvantage it was to him and to the House that this big Department was not directly represented here, in order that the House might have an explanation as to what is being done with the money. I have a very important point to raise which affects the interests of my constituency. That is with regard to the Shoreditch Employment Exchange. That is a building which is a disgrace to the Ministry of Labour and the Office of Works. It is old, antiquated, unsuited to its purpose, inconvenient, liable to be burnt, has no proper ventilation, is surrounded by high buildings, and at any moment it may burn with all the valuable records and documents it contains. As for doing its work, the staff are overcrowded and the applicants, who at the present time number many thousands, have to sit in a crowded and foetid atmosphere.
    captain BOURNE: On a point of Order. Is not the figure for the Shore-ditch Employment Exchange the Vote for 1927 and not for 1928?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been looking through the list, and so far I have not found anything for Shoreditch.
    Mr. HARRIS: In Vote 3, page 19, the figure appears.
    HON. MEMBERS: That was last year.
    Mr. HARRIS: That is just the information I was hoping to get from the Minister, but he was unable to give me any information. Had he been able to give

    1745
    me the information, as to what was going on, this discussion could have been avoided.
    Mr. HARDIE: If the Minister can give the details of furniture and removals in columns, cannot he give us the price paid for land? We are always told the site value in such a way that we cannot separate it. Can he not, in future Estimates, put in a column showing the price paid for the land, or what is called the site? On page 27 there is the purchase of a site at Glasgow. What did that cost? There is the purchase of a site at Greenock. What did that cost? There were others at Kirkcaldy and Leith. What did they cost? It is easy to calculate what is paid for furniture once you get the average size of the rooms, Any expert could do it at once. I want to ask in regard to this taking of sites in Scotland how much trouble has the Department had with the people who have had the land to sell. What trouble has there been with Conservative owners who, knowing the Government were going to buy, were prepared to bleed the Government? Can we have comparative figures with what was paid for sites in other years? I know something of the trouble the Post Office has when it wants a site, and the difficulty of Employment Exchanges getting sites seems to be on the increase. It is the idea, with Tory landlords especially, that this is an occasion when they can get a bit off the Government; they want to act unjustly to show their real patriotism. I want to have all the evil things which take place disclosed. We all know the difficulties which are placed in the way of the Government acquiring land, and I would like the hon. Member in charge of the Vote to give some information as to the price of these sites and how it compares with the price of other similar sites in the same towns, and also to tell us whether in future he will be able to give us a separate column in the Estimates showing the price paid for the sites.
    Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. Like the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), I feel that the Minister is one of the few occupants of the Front Bench I should wish not to harass, and I do not want to raise
    1746
    any point he would find difficulty in answering, but to say on an important Vote like this, that items of £9,000 or £10,000 are matters of insignificant detail which he does not need to be briefed about is treating the Committee in a rather contemptuous fashion. If he has no regard for the Opposition, he ought to have some thought for the decent citizens and taxpayers who live in the places where these Employment Exchanges are being erected. A large number of new Employment Exchanges are being built, and I wish to know whether it is his Department or the Ministry of Labour which is responsible for the designs and for the arrangement of the accommodation. I am particularly anxious that any new Employment Exchanges should be designed in a way which will prevent unemployed workmen having to stand in the streets. The accommodation ought to be sufficient for those who are summoned to the Exchange for a particular hour of the day, and the waiting rooms ought to be of the type that hon. Members on both that side of the House and on this would like to find there if they themselves had to wait.
    Not only in my own constituency, but in practically every place to which I go, I see unemployed men, not unemployable men, not social derelicts, but decent citizens, the people who actually keep the country going, having to stand in long queues for long periods outside the Exchanges while the cases of the men ahead of them are being considered. There was an excuse for this in the early days, when the whole system had to be developed from nothing, and when a large number of the Exchanges were in temporary buildings built for some other purpose and converted into Exchanges.
    The Employment Exchanges are established institutions which remain as a part of our national life. These new buildings are being erected, and surely it is not too much to ask that when a new building is being put up the architects concerned in the designing of the building, the Ministry of Labour officials, who have had experience in handling this work should be consulted in order that the premises can be arranged in the most convenient way for the officials to do their work and also to secure decent treatment for the unemployed citizens who have a right to be treated with all

    1747
    the courtesies with which Members of this House desire to be treated in their comings and goings and their social relations. The new buildings are more conveniently arranged for the comfort of the officials, but, in my opinion, the comfort and self-respect of the unemployed man has not received full consideration in the designing of these buildings. I want to know if this question will be given more serious consideration in regard to these buildings in the future.
    Mr. KELLY: I want to raise a question with regard to the Camberwell Exchange, for which £16,000 has been asked—whether in the designing of that building special provision is being made for the work of the juvenile centre, so that it may be kept separate from the adult department? Another point I wish to raise is with regard to the Exchange now being erected in my own constituency of Rochdale. Is provision to be made there to prevent people having to stand out in the open air during bad weather? In Rochdale we have had cases as far as the women are concerned where special attention has had to be given through fainting because of the inadequate accommodation in the present Exchange. I hope that question will be taken into account in the building of the new Exchange in that particular place.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am sorry that I was unable to give the information asked for at an earlier stage in the Debate. I am afraid it was due to a misunderstanding as to the information that was requested. I now gather that hon. Members wish to have more information about the Central Exchange, Glasgow, which I am now in a position to give. The Exchange is the one in Sauchiehall Street, at the corner of Douglas Street and Waterloo Street, and the purchase price was £8,500 for the site. The cost was defrayed out of the Urgent and Unforeseen Works Vote, and the erection of the building will cost £20,000. So far as I know, in every one of these cases it has been possible to fix a fair price without going to arbitration, but I would point out that it is sometimes difficult to have information on a particular factor like that unless one is informed beforehand that the point is going to be raised.
    1748
    As to the furniture, that is due to the flooding of the Record Office at Kew in January, which necessitated the provision of new linoleum and certain other furniture which was damaged; and I should like to add that had it not been for the devotion of the staff employed there at the time the expenditure would probably have been very much greater. As regards the Shoreditch Exchange, I am sorry to say I am unable to satisfy the hon. Member, because I should be out of order if I attempted to do so. The question raised by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is really not a question for the Treasury or the Office of Works. The form which the Estimates take is a matter for the Estimates Committee, and it would be out of order for me to express an opinion on that subject, though I am quite ready to see that the attention of the Estimates Committee is drawn to it.
    So far as accommodation is concerned, the Ministry of Labour say what they require, and it is for the Office of Works to try to carry out those works, with the help of their architects. There is continual consultation between the two Departments. I would remind the Committee that until last year the general provision of Employment Exchanges was very largely a question of hand-to-mouth; there was no definite policy. Last year the Estimates Committee took up the whole question, and, if hon. Members have read the Report of the Estimates Committee, they will have seen that a definite policy has now been drawn up, by which the whole of the Exchanges in the country have been divided into three categories, and, as the Treasury have accepted that arrangement, progress will be made in the future on definite lines. I can assure hon. Members that provision will be made, certainly if I have anything to do with it, for accommodation for juveniles. I think I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I
    desire to comment one point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned, namely, the necessity for having information before he can reply to points raised on these Estimates. I quite agree that it is convenient for a Minister to have such notice, but that is only one of the politenesses of the House. This is Committee of Supply, and, when Supply is put down for a certain day, I think it is reasonable

    1749
    that a Minister answering for another Department, all of whose Estimates he may not have at his fingers' ends, should ask for notice of any points that Members may wish to raise in Committee of Supply. I am well aware that Committee of Supply, as a means of checking extravagance and preventing waste of public money, has in these days become almost useless, but at one time it was held behind closed doors for the purpose of examining into the then much simpler and, fortunately for the taxpayers of those days, less expensive Estimates. We may possibly be able to get back to that situation, and in the meantime it is a privilege of Members to raise any question or grievance, before Supply is voted, with or without notice.
    Mr. HARDIE: The answer to my questions has been given in one case, namely, as to the value of the site which cost £8,000, on which there was to be a building costing £20,000. If I knew the expected life of that building, I could judge in my own mind whether or not the sum paid for the site was more than should have been paid. I gave notice in my speech that I wanted to know the values of other sites. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always talking about economy, and we are told that every question put on the Paper costs £1. To-night I should have been able to save the Government £6 if that information had been available, because I must have that information in regard to those sites that I mentioned, and therefore I shall be obliged to put down questions that are going to cost the taxpayers £6 because the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge cannot get the information.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A question does not cost £l.
    Mr. HARDIE: It does not matter if it only costs 5s.; it is money that could be saved if we got our business organised in the House. No Department should come to the House to deal with money questions unless they have every detail with them. The Estimates are presented to the House for full investigation, and we are supposed to take an interest in every detail in connection with the spending of the nation's money. If we could get some idea of what was going to be the life of that £20,000 building on an £8,000 site, we could then get to know the amount of the swindle so far as the land site is
    1750
    concerned, because I am convinced that, taking a relation of 40 per cent., there is a huge swindle. I know the district very well. In Glasgow, we used to sell or buy land by the acre, but the price got so high that we could not get a relation between site and building cost. Then we had to bring it down to yards to get some sort of mental relation, and now we are down to the square inch.
    Mr. VARLEY: May I ask a question as to an item on page 23 for the purchase of a site for the erection of a building—£8,050—of which only £720 will be required before 31st March of this year and £4,000 is asked for, leaving a balance of £3,300. Is that an indication that at Mansfield, where of all places expedition in the building of this place is necessary, with the rapid growth of the population, the building is to be more than 12 months in completion?
    Sir V.
    HENDERSON: As regards the question of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), so far as Kirkcaldy is concerned, no sites have yet been actually purchased, but provision is taken in the Estimates to the extent of £l,000 for the purchased of a site at Kirkcaldy and to the extent of £l,500 to purchase a site at Leith. Until they are purchased I cannot give the figures. So far as Mansfield is concerned, I understand a freehold building in Victoria Street has been purchased, and I presume that is the one to which the hon. Member is referring. It frequently occurs that provision is taken in these cases for purchasing a site, but delays occur, and the money has to be re-voted in a subsequent year.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £875,090, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum. necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Itrompton Cemetery."—[Note: £437,600 has been voted on account.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On
    page 52 there is an item for the provision of a new pavilion, but rather meagre information is given.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: It refers to the item above.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is
    that the pavilion for the Institute of Mental Defectives?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I
    understand. May I refer to page 58—Maintenance and Repair of Ancient Monuments? I wish to ask whether the Government will now be able to remove the wire fence at Stonehenge which I and many other Members consider disfigures that very ancient monument. I do not wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer me now, but I hope he will represent the matter to the First Commissioner of Works, as he knows that a number of public-spirited people have subscribed towards the removal of many of the disfigurements. I think that the next step should be to remove the wire fence. I believe that the public can be trusted not to abuse the privilege at Stonehenge. One reason stated for the need of the fence was that it would keep away the cattle. I understand that there will be no cattle in the vicinity of the stones in the future. Therefore, the wire fence might be removed, and I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make that representation to the First Commissioner. What is the item on page 60 of the Civil Estimates of £500 for stores at Osborne in respect of? What is Osborne used for now?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Osborne is used as a home for invalid officers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In
    that case, I am sorry the money is not more.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: My Noble Friend, the First Commissioner of Works, was down at Stonehenge on Saturday. I have not had an opportunity of seeing him since, but he is looking into the matter that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. MORRIS: May I ask a question? On page 58 there is an estimate for the payment of £1,170 to the Bucks County Police authorities for providing police protection at Chequers. It seems an exorbitant amount to pay for police protection
    1752
    at Chequers. How many police officers does that money provide for and what is the character of the police protection obtained for that sum?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Liberal party are not going to object to the provision of proper protection for the Prime Minister's residence so long as it is needed. The least we can do is to provide protection for the Prime Minister. When I called attention to the expenditure of £60,000,000 on the Navy, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) was not in his place, and now he comes forward with this pettifogging complaint. Surely to goodness the Prime Minister should be allowed to have all the reasonable police services he needs.
    Mr. MORRIS: It is not that the Liberal party object to the provision of protection. All we want to know is what it is in respect of. We are equally as anxious as the Labour party that the Prime Minister should be properly protected.
    Mr. MACLEAN: From whom does the Prime Minister need to be protected—the Liberal party or the Tories?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: When the Prime Minister is in residence at Chequers, or wherever he may be, police protection is provided by the Metropolitan Police in the ordinary way as part of their duty in the protection of Ministers, but it has also been decided—it was decided some time ago—that even when there is no Minister at Chequers it is desirable that the building should receive special protection, because of its great historic value. The reason £20 is provided more than last year is because it has been decided that officers of longer service and greater experience should be employed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 17th April.—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

    GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
    Resolved,
    "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Little-hampton Gas Company, which was presented on the 12th March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Williams.]

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven o'Glock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.