HERRING INDUSTRY. (Hansard, 25 February 1935)

§ Mr. NEIL MACLEAN
I hope that we shall have an explanation of this Vote from the Secretary of State.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins)
On several occasions during recent weeks the House has addressed itself to the question of the herring industry but in view of the appeal of the hon. Member let me say that this estimate is to provide during the current financial year grants in aid of the general administrative and other expenses of the Herring Industry Board and the Herring Fund Advances Account, which will be set up when the Bill which received a Third Reading in this House last Friday becomes an Act. The main item in the Vote is under sub-head (c), £600,000, which is provided for the purpose of making available in 1935 and the four succeeding years advances to the Herring Board for the purpose of making loans for the reconditioning and re-equipment of boats, the construction of 896 new boats, the purchase of redundant boats, the making of loans in connection with the export of herring and the undertaking of operations involving the outlay of working capital. So far as the amount of £600,000 is concerned the estimate is a first step. If the Bill becomes law a sum of £600,000 will be paid into the Herring Fund Advances Account, which will be held by the Treasury. Money will be made available for advances to the Herring Board in the years 1935–9 by further Estimates. In the present financial year the sum of £1,000, under sub-head (a) is to meet administration expenses which may be incurred by the Board. The estimate also enables the Board to spend certain sums of money in a survey of boats and making enquiries in connection with the export of herring. With these few words I hope the estimate will commend itself to the Committee. When the Bill has passed into law, the Board set up and the scheme in operation, this sum will be available for the Board, to be used for the express purpose of helping our fishermen in this industry.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
I notice that a sum of £200,000, but no more, is to be applied for the purposes of making loans in connection with the export of herring and operations involving the outlay of working capital, leaving a balance of £400,000 for the purchase of redundant boats and 897 the making of loans for the reconditioning and the re-equipment of boats and the purchase of nets. I should like to know how this £400,000 is going to be apportioned. The gears of a herring fishing vessel runs into a considerable sum, and the purchase of redundant boats is likely to make a considerable inroad in that sum. I should like to have a more explicit statement as to the manner in which this amount will be dealt with. I take it that the £1,000 for the Herring Board is to enable it to make a survey of markets and to find out the number of redundant boats. We are entitled to know whether the scheme to be applied will be anything of the same character as is now in operation in the National Shipbuilding Securities, which, of course, is not under Government control. There must be some method to find out what boats are redundant. It seems rather contradictory that new boats should have to be built when there are redundant boats which must be removed. It is rather contradictory that we should be asked to find money to purchase boats which are said to be in excess of the number required and at the same time have to purchase new boats for the herring industry.
I should have thought that the law of supply and demand might have been allowed to operate here, just as the cruisers under the control of the Fishery Board in Scotland ought to have been allowed to go out of control through old age and lack of speed. These are matters which should be explained. How are the Government to decide what is a redundant boat? Are boats to be considered redundant because they are too old for service in the fleet? If they are considered too old for service why should money be paid to remove them? If they are out of date they should not be looked upon as redundant boats. As I understand it, redundancy means something that is unnecessary because there is already a plentiful supply of that very thing, not something which is merely too old but something of which there is already too much. There should, therefore, be no necessity to set aside money for building new vessels. The note says specifically, on page 21, that the purpose for which this sum is to be voted is: (a) the making of loans for the reconditioning and re-equipment of boats, for the construction of new boats or the purchase of 898 nets or boats, and (b) the purchase of redundant boats. We want an explanation of these points.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I want to raise a point, not so much with the Minister, as with you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that the Government should ask the Committee for a sum of £600,000 before they have any statutory authority for doing so. In my experience of this House I cannot remember this having been done before. The Government ask for £600,000 to carry out the provisions of certain legislation which is not yet on the Statute Book. I am aware that a financial resolution has been passed, but that is no authority, as far as I know, until the legislation governing it is also passed. I congratulate the Scottish Office on having, for once, got ahead of the Treasury, but as a Member of the House I question very much whether it would not be a, serious dereliction of duty for the Committee to grant to the Government the right to spend money before the Government have any statutory authority for doing so.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I was not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of Order to me or making observations in general to the Committee. If he has put a point of Order to me, I can only say that there are several precedents for this course of action. One of the most recent and one of the most striking was in the case of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, which was promoted by a Government of which, I think, the hon. Member was a supporter. In that case a Supplementary Estimate was passed before the Act received the Royal Assent.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I am sorry that I did not quite catch the end of your Ruling.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
In the case to which I have referred a Supplementary Estimate was passed and acted upon six months before the Act received the Royal Assent. There are plenty of precedents for the course taken to-day.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I can only say that I regret that there are precedents for that sort of thing even supposing they were set by a Labour Government. I think the House of Commons ought to be very careful of retaining its control over expenditure by Governments. [HON. 899 MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] Having heard that round of applause, I am pondering over what I have just said to see whether I have made any mistake. I assure the Committee I am not preaching economy but merely wise expenditure. The point which I wished to make was this. Since the Minister is demanding this power so urgently and since he is likely to get the power to spend this money before the legislation comes into operation, may I ask him to reconsider the statement which he made on previous occasions in regard to anticipating the full operation of the Measure by assisting the men to get their boats ready for this year's fishing season.
When questioned on that matter previously the right hon. Gentlemen said it would be impossible for him to anticipate matters by advancing money to the fishermen for the reconditioning of their boats. The right hon. Gentleman is now to get his £600,000, apparently in advance of his statutory rights. Having regard to that fact, I suggest that he might consider rushing matters a little so that the men who are supposed ultimately to benefit from this legislation and this procedure should get some of the benefit immediately instead of having to look forward to a hopeless year. The men engaged in the herring industry in Scotland have bad years in front of them. They have now got legislation which is supposed to confer benefits on them and I would ask him to expedite the matter just as he has expedited this Supplementary Estimate, so that the advantages of the scheme, if there are advantages, shall come to the fishermen during the year 1935 and not during some year in the dim and distant future.

§ Mr. ALBERY
I have risen to put a question to the Minister because, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I feel we ought to make sure that the House of Commons retains control over expenditure by Parliament. I draw the Minister's attention to these words on page 21 of the estimate: Expenditure out of the grant-in-aid under sub-heads A and B will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I believe it has been the custom in the case of grants-in-aid that the Accountant and Auditor-General should not be called 900 upon to audit the accounts in detail, but the present case seems to be different from other cases for the following reasons. Under paragraph (a), on page 20, there is authority to spend up to £75,000 on general administrative expenditure. Under paragraph (b) there is authority to spend—

§ Dr. ADDISON
On a point of Order. On Friday last two Amendments were accepted by the Government under which these accounts were to be submitted to the Auditor-General. If that be so, I take it that the form of the explanation on the Paper is now out of order.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that is probably the case. I think the Estimate was presented before the House passed the Report and Third Reading stages, and that the Amendment made on the Report stage has not been incorporated in the Estimate.

§ Mr. ALBERY
On that point of Order. I had not the advantage of being present when that Amendment was accepted, but I rather gathered that it was a general acquiescence by the Government in the idea that certain portions of this account would be subject to audit. But before we leave this point, I should like to be assured that that undertaking given by the Government does affect the point that I was about to raise. I had not up to the moment at which I was interrupted made clear the actual point to which I was coming.

§ Mr. MANDER
On a point of Order. Will it not be necessary for this Estimate to be withdrawn and another one submitted in accordance with what took place last Friday?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No, I think not. The Estimate itself, after all, is quite unaffected by what happened on Friday. The Notes are not really part of the Estimate at all.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I think that is a misunderstanding, which I hope I can clear away, and—

§ Mr. ALBERY
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I would like to know whether, so to speak, he is interrupting me or whether I am to continue. Perhaps it would be easier if I finished what I was about to say. Under paragraph (a) there is £75,000 provided 901 as a maximum for administrative purposes, and under (b) there is further provision up to £125,000—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is not the Estimate before us.

§ Mr. ALBERY
Do I understand you to say, Captain Bourne, that the amount referred to in paragraph (b), for which there is a token grant of £1,000, is not provided for in this Estimate?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Most obviously not. The hon. Gentleman must confine his discussion to the Estimate now before the Committee.

§ Mr. ALBERY
Of £1,000? I will endeavour to do that, and I will make my point in this way. There is certain provision under paragraph (a) and certain provision under paragraph (b), and, as I understand it, the amount under (a) must not be exceeded. At the same time in the aggregate a larger amount is provided, and I am quite unable to see how the House of Commons can be assured that the amount expended under that heading has not been exceeded if the Auditor-General is not to audit the account in detail.

§ Mr. H. STEWART
The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) asked a question in regard to old boats and new boats, and I think it is easy to answer that question. It is in the Duncan Report.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
The Duncan Report does not govern this estimate.

§ Mr. STEWART
I was saying that the answer is in the Duncan Report. You cannot leave the herring industry to suffer from a process of cruel attrition. We have to help it by buying up some of the older boats and by buying new boats, because they can be worked at about half the cost of the old boats. If the whole fleet were equipped with new boats, there would not be nearly the distress that there is at the present time. We are dealing with the general administration of a service preliminary to the operation of a scheme, and I hope that the Herring Industry Board, when it is appointed, will this year act with the greatest possible caution, and will not attempt, as other similar organisations have in the last two years, to use all its powers at 902 once. The herring industry looks to this board with hope, but, to be frank, with a certain amount of fear. If the board is to proceed cautiously, let the licensing part of the business be the second part of its activity, and let the marketing activity be the first interest that it has. In order that the scheme may work smoothly and be a success this year, I beg the Government to impress upon the board the necessity for gentle, cautious action in taking its powers and using them.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I will reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). In paragraphs (a) and (b) of the first note on page 20, the total granted-in-aid by the Government for the purposes outlined is £125,000. Of that sum an amount not exceeding £75,000 can be spent according to paragraph (a). If by careful administration the administrative expenses are less than £75,000—suppose for the sake of argument they were only £50,000, the difference between £125,000 and £50,000, that is, £75,000, can be spent by the board for the purposes outlined in paragraph (b).

§ Mr. ALBERY
I am afraid I cannot understand that because paragraph (a) says, "such sums not exceeding £75,000."

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The sum for administrative expenses is not to exceed £75,000. The Government have given an inducement to the board to save money on administration so that public money will be well spent by providing that if it is leas titian £75,000, the amount saved can be spent as outlined in paragraph (b): for promoting the sale of herring or products thereof, promoting marketing developments, or promoting or carrying out schemes of research or experiment. The hon. Gentleman's next point was with regard to the accounting for this expenditure. It will not be accounted for in detail because it consists of free grants by the Government for the express purposes outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b).

§ Mr. ALBERY
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point I would say that he has half answered my question as regards paragraph (a), but I do not think he has quite answered it as regards (a) and (b) taken collectively. 903 There is no safeguard that the actual amount spent under (a) might not, in fact, be more than is authorised. The total amount of money provided may be £125,000 and Parliament has no safeguard that there might not be spent under (a) a greater amount than £75,000, instead of a lesser amount. That is the main point I wish to raise.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The estimate explains that expenditure out of the grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that is, he will not know whether it is spent on salaries or travelling allowances, etc., but he will know the total amount issued under Subhead A and obviously he will see that this does not exceed the sum of £75,000 provided for in the Bill.

§ Mr. ALBERY
If the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will know that that sum cannot be exceeded, of course I must accept his assurance, but I cannot see that it is made quite clear either by the note or the restriction put upon the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I will certainly give that assurance, and I will take further steps to see that the words I have used to the Committee this evening will be implemented in the future when the Bill becomes an Act and comes into operation. Now I turn to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). As my right hon. Friend correctly said through an Amendment to the Bill on Friday audited statements of the application of the Herring Fund Advances Account—this large sum of £600,000 are to be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope with that explanation he may be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was anxious that during the present season the fishermen round our coasts should receive benefits from this Measure, and from the estimates which we are voting this evening, and he pressed the Government to expedite it with all possible speed. He appealed to us to rush the matter. I think he cannot charge it against us that since the Bill was introduced there has been a moment's delay. We would all have liked to see it in operation earlier, but 904 may I recall to his memory that the Bill received its Second Reading only some 16 or 17 days ago, that it passed through the Committee stage on Tuesday of last week, and received its Third Reading on Friday. It is now in another place, and though I cannot give an undertaking on this point we hope it may receive its Second Reading there this week. Therefore, though we may be charged with many things, I think that on this occasion we have gone full speed ahead, and that there has been no delay in passing this Bill, which I hope may produce substantial benefits for the fishermen.

§ Mr. MAXTON
The right hon. Gentleman heard the point of Order that I raised at the beginning, and heard the Chairman's Ruling on the matter, and the precedent the Chairman quoted when he said that six months before the legislation was passed under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act the Estimate was passed and operated. What I was pressing the right hon. Gentleman for was the operation of this Measure at the very earliest possible moment.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I will repeat to the hon. Member the assurance that there will be no delay of any character in putting into operation this Measure and applying the money voted by Parliament.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Can it start to-morrow?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
No, Sir. We cannot start until the Bill becomes law and until schemes under the Bill are in operation. The hon. Member will recollect that the terms of the Bill lay down that the board must prepare a scheme providing for the reorganisation of the industry. A certain time has to be allowed for the scheme to be laid before Parliament and for objections to be heard. After the objections have been heard and considered by the Minister, then the scheme will be approved by Parliament and will begin to operate.

§ Mr. MAXTON
How long are we going to wait for it?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Until Parliament has seen fit to lay down a definite date.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I have just obtained a Ruling from the Chair which entitles the right hon. Gentleman to go ahead and take no notice of the legislation. It was something new to me and I hesitated 905 about it, but now that I have obtained it I urge the Minister to go ahead and use it to the fullest extent in order to get a temporary device by which the fishermen may be aided next week, until the whole machinery is put into operation. I take it that the Minister is declining to do that, and that he must wait for the somewhat cumbrous machinery—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Perhaps I might add one thing which I did not make clear to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). As in the previous case, the case I cited, involved, the passing of a Consolidated Fund Bill, almost immediately after the Supplementary Estimate, and before the Estimate could be operative another Consolidated Fund Bill would have to be passed.

§ Sir G COLLINS
The two cases cited by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are not on all fours and do not make a strict comparison. I am surprised to find the hon. Member entering into the Debate in a new guise, that of constitutional financial purist. I will remind him that in such matters three governing factors have been discussed, I understand, between the Government, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. They are that an enabling Bill or a financial resolution must be introduced before the Estimate is presented—which was done in this case—that the Estimate must be clearly noted as subject to statutory sanction, and that the enabling Bill must receive the Royal Assent before the Consolidated Fund Bill, which gives the Treasury the necessary authority to issue the money asked for in the Estimate. There were three similar cases last year. We are basing our case on precedent—three cases in 1934 and further cases a few 'years ago. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). He asked about the £600,000. Let me explain that more fully. The £600,000 is divided into two sums, £200,000 for working capital for the purposes of the board, and £400,000 by way of loan from the Treasury for the purposes stated on page 21 of the Estimate. He asked whether it was right or wise for the Government to lend money for the construction of new boats and at the same time for the purchase of redundant boats. The money lent by the Government for the purchase of 906 redundant boats is transferred to the board for use by them either for the purchase of redundant boats or for the building of new, boats. I can give no undertaking that the board, in their judgment, will use the money for the purchase this year of redundant boats. They may think that these boats can be broken up, or small amounts paid for them, next year; I do not know, and I can give no undertaking; but I tan visualise that, with the board in working order and with an increased market gained through the skill of the board, they may have regard to what is happening in other countries where expense is being saved by the building of new boats, and they may think that it is in the interests of the industry to lend money for the building of new boats for the herring industry. As the Committee know, these matters are outside the control of His Majesty's Government. The board will decide to do one thing or another, and it will be left with the board, after they have reached general agreement with the Government as to the lines on which they shall travel, to control their own day-to-day working.

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
Surely the House will have an opportunity of criticising in some way any action taken by the board—say when estimates come before it for consideration?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Parliament will retain complete control. Each year, after the end of this financial year, there will be presented to Parliament an estimate showing the sums to be spent by the board on the various items, so that Parliament will have an opportunity of being informed, through these yearly estimates, how the board is proceeding, and will be able to judge of its work.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
Will the activities of the board, and the manner in which the money has been expended during the previous year, also be laid before Parliament for consideration?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Yes, Sir that is expressly provided for in the Bill. The board will make a report to Parliament, and I think the report has to be presented within three months after the end of the financial year. An Amendment to that effect was moved by the right hon. Gentleman, and was accepted by the Government as a distinct improvement. The 907 House of Commons, therefore, will be informed each year of the activities of the board, and will be able to take a survey of its work in the past and to consider whether it has expended wisely the money entrusted to it by Parliament. I have endeavoured to answer the main points that have been put to me. If I did not, in my opening speech, go into details on these points, it was not from any lack of respect to the Committee, but because I have dealt with them on several occasions recently and I feared that some hon. Members right feel that the herring industry had monopolised too much of the time of the House. I hope, however, I have said enough this evening to justify the Government in coming to the Committee to ask for its assent to this Vote.

§ Mr. MANDER
Do I understand you, Captain Bourne, to rule that it is competent for the Government to introduce a supplementary estimate which is based on information that is either inaccurate or may become inaccurate, and that we can still proceed'? Is it not the fact that at the moment we are dealing with an estimate based on information which is now quite inaccurate?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The note in question is not printed in the usual type that is used for explanatory notes to an Estimate, and, therefore, I must hold that it is on the same footing as a financial memorandum attached to a Bill. It is explanatory, but it is not in any way binding if subsequent alterations are made in the Bill governing the Estimate. It is merely explanatory, and has no force as far as the actual Estimate is concerned.

§ Mr. MANDER
If the notes were extremely inaccurate, should we still have to proceed on information which was technically wrong?

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
The speech of an hon. Member introducing a Bill might be inaccurate, but that would not invalidate the Bill.