§ 6.32 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This sub-paragraph gives to the Commission power to restrict supplies of white fish. In order to understand what is conveyed by that, we must consider the present situation in the industry. There is at the present time an embargo on the landing of white fish which operates during three months of the year. Until recently it operated for four months of the year, but it was thought advisable to limit it to three months. The purpose of that embargo is to assist the producer by raising the price level, as it is felt that, owing to very heavy landings of fish, a glut on the market is created, as a consequence of which the price sags, to the detriment of the producers of the fish. But if the Commission have power to continue, under this Measure, what amounts to an embargo which may operate during any part of the year—if they are given the power to limit the landings of fish—we feel that it will have very adverse effects on the persons whom it is intended to benefit by this Bill, that is to say, the producers themselves.
Recently, I received a copy of a periodical devoted to the interests of the fish trade, and I learned that in one of 605 the largest of our fishing ports, Grimsby, as a consequence of a decision which had been announced regarding the intention of the Grimsby Trawlers Association to tie up many of their trawlers, it was expected that half of the North Sea fleet might be tied up by the summer. Obviously that would mean a limitation in the supply of fish landings. But it has other consequences which I beg hon. Members to note. The most serious consequence is that it would force out of employment a large number of the men. I observed from the periodical that meetings of fishermen thrown out of work by the restriction were being held both in Grimsby and in Hull, and I noted also that the hon. Gentleman the Assistant Postmaster - General, who represents Grimsby, and the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), were in touch with the fishermen and were looking after the interests of the crews in Grimsby and Hull. It was further suggested that, because of the serious effect on the men arising out of the tying up of the trawlers, a deputation would be sent to the Minister to ascertain whether it was possible for him, in this Bill, to devise some expedient which would enable the trawlers to operate and thus provide more regular employment for the men. There is another factor to which I ask the House to pay some attention; it is the effect on the price level of fish, not to the ultimate consumers, but in the fishing ports. It was stated in that periodical that, owing to the restriction, prices were soaring and the trawlers were paying. They do not always pay, but because of the accelerated restriction, as it may be properly described, they were paying; and the statement went on to say:We have had quite a number of trips well over the £1,500 mark, and two deep-water boats have nearly touched the £2,000 figure.Things were rather better than usual.
§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley)
It was the bad weather.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I do not know whether the bad weather had anything to do with it, but according to the periodical, the restrictions placed on landings had something to do with it. Those restrictions were partly voluntary in character, although they were to some extent stimulated by the 1933 Act. In this Measure 606 we are to have restrictions by Statute, which is quite a different thing, and we must consider what the effects will be. I wish to make it clear that hon. Members on this side of the House are not opposed to regulation and reorganisation in this industry, for we appreciate the need for it, as indeed we appreciate the need for it in respect of other national industries; but although we are not opposed to regulation where it benefits the producer, we are very much opposed to it if it brings about a kind of restriction which can afford no possible benefit to the producer and if it leads to excessive unemployment. Therefore, we propose that the power which it is proposed to vest in the CommissionFor determining from time to time the quantity of white fish which may be sold by any person registered under the scheme.should be deleted from the Bill. It is true that, unless some other device was found for causing a greater consumption of fish, the proposal I am making would defeat its own purpose; and it is to that aspect that I will now turn. In the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, I said that the malady which troubles the white fish industry is not so much an excessive supply as a low consumption of fish. It is true that in certain other industries devices have been employed to restrict production. It has been done in the coal industry, for example, but that is a contracting industry, in regard to which it appears unlikely that, if things remain as they are, it will be possible to gain new markets and to expand the trade. The fishing industry is an industry that ought not to be contracting. It supplies a necessary article of food. If it could be demonstrated that people were consuming too much fish, the case would be made out for restriction; but as we saw from the report of the Duncan Commission, the people of this country are consuming—I will not commit myself to the figure I used in the Second Reading Debate, but will take a more generous one—no more than from 30 to 40 lbs. of fish per head per annum. That is a small consumption. The question arises whether the commission ought not to devote itself rather more to stimulating the demand for fish than restricting the supply.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. This Bill affects to a considerable degree a section of the com- 607 munity which renders a very useful service; I refer to fish friers, who are affected by restricted supplies, more particularly by the reaction on the price level. Recently, they have made some grave complaints about the effect of the embargo and the restriction employed in the industry. I have seen several figures, but I think it may be said with truth that the consequence of the embargo, which affects the sort of fish ordinarily used by the fish friers—cod, which comprises rather more than 50 per cent. of the fish landed on our shores—is that they have either to force up the price of the article to the consumers, who cannot afford a high price because they are usually impoverished working-class people, or—and this is their allegation—to close down their premises. Those are not facts within my own knowledge, but are statements made by the fish friers individually and through their association, statements which frequently appear in the periodical associated with their interests. I believe that hon. Members have received deputations from these people. Clearly, if we are to bring about a greater consumption of fish, the very last thing we should do is to force the fish friers to pay higher prices, for that would lead to a lower consumption and not a higher one.
In view of these considerations, which could be further amplified, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to delete from the Bill this power which it is proposed to vest in the Commission, and ask the Commission to occupy itself rather more with the means of expanding the market by keeping the price at a relatively low level. That would have the effect of reducing the overhead expenses of the trawler owners and those responsible for the distribution of fish supplies, and would maintain more regularity of employment among fishermen. I understand that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, as, indeed, I am sure it is of all hon. Members, to do something for the fishermen in respect of wages, arising out of the price level, and in respect of employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these matters.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. R. Law
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that he and his friends were not opposed to the principle of regulation and control in the 608 industry, but were opposed to the principle of restriction. I put it to him that, in practice, it would be impossible to get any reasonable control by the Commission or the Board unless there was, at any rate, some measure of restriction as well. To take only one case, the case of the trip allotment, I think the hon. Member will agree that the trip allotment is probably a desirable thing, not so much from the point of view of increasing the price of fish, as from the point of view of improving the quality. If boats stay out too long, until they are packed up to the hatches with fish, the fish is bruised and spoiled. You must, therefore, if you are to improve the quality of the fish, have a restriction on the quantity in the form of a trip allotment.
The hon. Member says, further, that the trouble with the producing side of the industry is not over-production but under-consumption. I am prepared to agree with that view, but whether it is due to over-production or under-consumption, the fact remains that there has been in the last few years a fundamental lack of balance in the fishing industry. That lack of balance has already had terrible effects and unless you can remedy it, you will never be able to increase consumption because the producing side of the industry will just drift from bad to worse. If the hon. Member considers what has happend since 1929, I think he must agree with that view. In 1929 the proceeds of the fishing industry in this country were in the neighbourhood of £15,000,000. In 1937 that figure had dropped to £12,000,000. In 1929 the catch was in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 hundredweights, and in 1937 it was 16,000,000 hundredweights. In other words, a much bigger catch realised a much smaller price. That is a lack of balance in the economics of the industry which must be rectified immediately and it can only be rectified, at the moment, by some restriction on production. The hon. Member referred to the Northern Waters Order and he will not consider me discourteous if I say that I did not quite understand the object of his reference. I am not sure whether he was maintaining that the restrictions under the Northern Waters Order were ineffective for their purpose, and that there- 609 fore the restrictions under this Bill would be ineffective for their purpose.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The argument which I was trying to use was that, so far, the effect of the embargo had been to put a large number of trawlers out of action, and to cause excessive unemployment.
§ Mr. Shinwell
In respect of the embargo to which the hon. Member referred, the fish friers have made great complaints about the effect on their trade of the embargo period.
§ Mr. Law
I agree, and I now follow what the hon. Member was maintaining about the Northern Waters Order. That Order had a serious effect on the fish friers as he says but if there had been no Northern Waters Order the effect on the producers might have been much worse. However, that is hypothetical. I think the hon. Member ought to bear in mind that under the Bill there is no obligation to continue the Northern Waters Order.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The point to which I was addressing myself was that in this Bill there was a general power vested in the Commission, which might have the effect of operating the embargo, not through three months of the year, but through many more months of the year.
§ Mr. Law
I see the hon. Member's point, but until this Bill is on the Statute Book, the Minister is compelled by the Act of 1933 to institute the Northern Waters Order. This Bill is intended to amend the Act of 1933 to this extent, that there will no longer be that compulsion on the Minister, and it is far more likely, I hope and believe, that the effect of the Bill will be not to increase the period of restriction under the Order from three months to 12, but to reduce it from three months, say, to one month, or perhaps do away with it altogether and substitute some more reasonable form of restriction.
§ 6.51 p.m.
§ Mr. Foot
The House will have observed that my hon. Friends and I have also put down an Amendment for the deletion 610 of this sub-paragraph, but we have done so for reasons which are slightly different from those of hon. Members above the Gangway. As a general rule, we are strongly opposed to any Measure which is designed to restrict output. Unlike hon. Members above the Gangway, we are believers in the principle of private enterprise, and in our view it involves the complete destruction, of private enterprise when you prevent a man from enlarging his business. That is what you are likely to do when you introduce a provision of this kind which limits the quantity that a man may sell. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) has spoken of the Northern Waters Order. He will agree that, in that case, a measure of restriction was brought in, but it was brought in for an entirely different purpose.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to point out that in the fishing industry there was a case to be made out for a form of restriction, that is to say, restriction on the quantity of fish which is being taken out of the sea. I think it is agreed that the North Sea is being, and has been for a considerable period, over-fished, and we are feeling the results of that process. If the Government were able at some future time to enter into an agreement with the other countries which fish in the North Sea, as a result of which there would be a general limitation on the quantity of fish taken out of the North Sea, and if they were then to introduce legislation to implement that agreement, as far as this country is concerned, I should be in favour of such legislation. But as I read the Bill that is not its purpose. Its purpose is entirely different from that which was intended by the Northern Waters Order. As a result of this we may limit the quantity of fish, of British taking, which may be sold, but from the point of view of the future of the industry, that is not going to be much use if other countries are still to be free to increase their fishing capacity, as I believe some of them are doing, and to continue taking larger and larger quantities out of the North Sea. Therefore, I draw a distinction between the two forms of restriction. I say that this form is designed to prevent the man engaged in business from increasing his business, by giving him a definite quota of output which, probably, he will not be allowed to exceed. For that reason, 611 we shall certainly support the Amendment.
§ 6.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Petherick
I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) though for somewhat different reasons from those advanced by him. The idea of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in this Amendment is, I think, fairly consistent with the general view of his party. He seems to take the view that any possible board administering any sort of marketing scheme should not have the power to limit output and catches. He suggests that such a power is implied in the Bill as at present drafted. I suppose the view which he expresses is consistent to this extent with the views of the party opposite, that his hon. Friends to do them justice have always objected to what they call "organising scarcity," in other words causing restrictions. I can see nothing particularly objectionable in restriction of output when it is the result of agreement voluntarily entered into by the people concerned, but I think we have to be extremely careful about giving a board powers to restrict output in this way.
My particular objection to the Bill as it stands is that it is limiting the output of our own people or giving the board power to do so, while we are doing nothing to restrict further imports of foreign fish. I must be careful not to transgress the bounds of order on this point, and I will therefore deal very briefly with it. If one considers the Duncan Report and the previous report, which stated that the British fishing industry could supply all the needs of this country, with fish caught by our own boats, one wonders why we should go on with proposals to limit the capacity of our own fishing fleets, and at the same time take no further steps to limit the imports of foreign fish. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) referred to the fact that 20 per cent. of the trawler capacity in Hull has been laid up in the last few weeks. As one whose constituents in Cornwall suffer sometimes from the depredations of trawlers from up-country, I might be expected to be rather pleased about that, but I am not. Looking at it from the broadest point of view, it is deplorable that we should lay up 20 per cent. of the Hull fishing fleet 612 and still allow all this foreign fish to come in. Therefore, although I do not in general object to restriction schemes where they are advisable, I must wholly object to a restriction scheme, particularly with Governmental sanction, applied only to our people in this country when nothing is being done to limit the import of foreign fish.
§ 7.1 p.m.
§ Mr. Loftus
We all dislike the idea of restriction. We all feel that we want to increase the sale of fish to a very great degree, and that has been done in other countries. It has been done recently in Germany. You will never get increased consumption of fish unless you get a general level of good quality, and you will never get a general level of good quality unless you have power to restrict. If the big trawlers that go out from Hull make comparatively short voyages and land their fish as quickly as possible it is of medium good quality, but if it is kept a long time upon ice it is of poor quality. If you sell poor quality fish it lowers consumption. The herring trade has been repeatedly damaged by bad quality fish being landed and sold. Some power of restriction of landing is necessary in the interest of bringing about increased fish consumption. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that there was over-fishing in the North Sea and that possibly in the future international regulation might come, and then would be the time for the Government to seek these powers. But these conventions and international agreements may come quite suddenly. We already regulate the size of meshes and the size of fish to be landed. That has come during the last 12 months and there, again, for the sake of the preservation of the fishing grounds themselves, you must have power to regulate, and later on by international agreement the Government can go still further in conserving the stock of fish in the North Sea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) referred to the landing of foreign fish. It seems difficult to accept the limitation of the catching power of British vessels if at the same time there is to be increased landing of foreign fish. But I take some comfort from the fact that in Committee we got very definite assurances from the Minister that the Government would see 613 to it that, if there were this power of regulation, they would pledge themselves that that reorganisation would not be wrecked by increased imports of foreign fish.
§ 7.6 p.m.
§ Sir D. Thomson
Speaking for Scottish ports, and particularly Aberdeen, I hope very much that the Amendment will not be accepted, and that the limitation will be retained in the Bill. I agree that the real thing we want to do is to expand the market, and we do not want to see foreign fish landed while our trawlers are laid up. But we feel that the balance of the trade is upset when there is too much cheap fish coming in, distant water fish of low quality, and the taste in fish is being reduced. High-class fish landed in the north is falling into disfavour. I was disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) say that the Northern Waters Order might lapse after the Bill came in because I remember that the Duncan Report stated that a large quantity of the fish that arrives in the summer months is in thoroughly poor condition. I hope nothing will be done to permit the landing of fish from these northern waters which is not always in good condition, and thereby prejudices the market throughout the country. I hope the limitation will be kept in the Bill and that the Commission will have power to limit the landing of excessive quantities, which may do harm to the market throughout the country.
§ 7.9 P.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I am glad to hear that the Liberal party at last seems to recognise that there is a danger in the importation of foreign fish.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I must have entirely misunderstood the hon. Member, and I think everyone else must have misunderstood him. I am sorry he has gone back on what he said. I do not think it is recognised what a difference there is between fish and ordinary agricultural commodities, because when you limit ordinary agricultural commodities you store them, but you cannot store fish. For that reason alone it is necessary to 614 have power to limit landings. While there may be an argument for some form of cold storage introduced into ships for time of emergency, such as war, it is entirely necessary that there should be power to restrict landings. Then the consumption will grow more and more. I say that to the Liberal party.
§ Mr. Holdsworth
I know nothing about the Bill, but I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out to me where it limits landings.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
May I leave it at the hon. Member saying that he does not understand the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister if there is any way in which an undertaking which has landed surplus fish can hand it over to a manure factory. It would be a great pity if it had to be dumped into the sea.
§ 7.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Ede
I think the House might well be reminded of one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) which must have come as a surprise to many who served on the Committee, that over half the fish that is landed is disposed of through fish friers' shops and reaches the consumer in that way. Everyone who studies the social development of the countryside knows the difference that has been made to the standard of food of large sections of the people by the growth of the fish-frying industry in recent years. One received representations during the Committee stage that some of the restrictions previously imposed had made very considerable difficulties for the fish friers in maintaining an adequate supply. I hope that in any future restrictions, if the Amendment is defeated, whoever is responsible for administering them will have the history of past restrictions in mind so that that may not occur again. I do not accept the view that restriction is a good thing in itself. I believe the proper thing to endeavour to do is to increase consumption. I am sure that the sale of suitable fish by fish friers—and I say advisedly "suitable fish"—has been a very considerable contribution to the 615 improved nourishment of the people, and I hope that one thing that the organisation set up by this Bill will do will be to encourage people in the consumption of fish and make it possible for wholesome fish to be supplied to them at all periods of the year in quantities sufficient to enable the price to be such as will allow the poorest people to afford it. Anything that interferes with that process, I am sure, will be ultimately to the detriment of the industry, which can only stand to gain if fish becomes increasingly available for persons of the smallest means.
§ 7.16 p.m.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that his motive in moving the Amendment was not to interfere with regulation but to increase the consumption of white fish in this country. He also said that he wished to regularise employment. These are also our objects and the objects of the Bill. I entirely agree with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman. He gave figures in regard to the consumption of fish per head, but those that I have are slightly higher. According to our figures at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the consumption of fish per head from 1931 to 1934 was 45 lbs., in 1935, 46 lbs., and in 1936, 48 lbs. I believe that is the highest consumption per head of any country in Europe.
Yes. I agree that it is desirable to increase the consumption of white fish. How is that to be done? By reorganising the industry, and by increasing the demand for white fish. The principal means of achieving that in this Bill is by regulation under marketing schemes, the desired effect being to check surplus landings from distant quarters and to secure landings of a higher proportion of fish caught in near waters and in a fit condition. That is the main object of the marketing proposals—to reduce the import of fish brought here from a great distance in a bad condition, which, by being thrown on the market, may spoil the demand for better quality fish. We believe that, by pursuing that method, we shall in the long run regularise the employment of the fishermen and place it on a more secure basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that 616 he and his party supported the Amendment from motives differing from those of hon. Members above the Gangway. He said he was in favour of the Amendment because, unlike the party opposite, he was in favour of private enterprise. I also am in favour of private enterprise, but I think we ought to distinguish between private enterprise and industrial anarchy. I believe that the Anarchists and the Communists, who are now fortuitously united in the conflict in Spain, are in reality diametrically opposite to each other in their outlook upon life.
On a point of Order. Are we to be permitted to reply to the hon. Gentleman on this very interesting subject?
The statement was very specific as to what were the objectives of these combined Anarchists and Communists.
It was an example prompted by the remarks of my hon. Friend, but it seemed to me interesting and relative to the point at issue. The object of marketing policy is to steer the best course between anarchy on the one hand and Communism on the other. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dundee acted for the same reason that he opposed the provisions of the Coal Bill, to which the hon. Member for Sea-ham referred. I do not think the analogy is a bad one, because I should say that there are lots of people in the country who ought to buy more coal, as well as lots of people who ought to be eating more fish. Of course, the effect of the policy of rationing coal may be in some districts to throw some men out of work, although we believe that in the long run the proper organisation of the industry will lead to more facilities for employment. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, which would prevent the producer marketing boards set up under this Bill from possessing the power of the quantitative regulation of sale; that is the power conferred on marketing boards set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) put it very well, 617 the chief lack of the fishing industry is a lack of balance, and it is in order to redress that lack of balance that this power is an essential part of the Bill.
§ 7.23 p.m.
It is interesting to learn that the kind of political policy that is behind this Bill is to steer a middle way between anarchy and Communism. I hope that we are not to understand from that that the kind of corporate legislation of which the Government are now becoming so prolific means that their idea of the middle way between anarchy and Communism is something in the nature of Fascism.
I do not want to pursue it in a general way, but only to deal with what the Under-Secretary has been saying about the powers of regulation and restriction, because when he begins to use these two extremes and to say that he is going in between the two, I begin to remember what is called the corporate State, and this is the kind of thing which is dealt with usually in what is termed the corporate State. All that we are really asking in our Amendment is that the power given in the Clause to restrict the sale of fish should be removed. It seems to us that at this time, when working people over and over again are unable, with their restricted incomes, to buy what is requisite and necessary to keep life at a decent standard, to restrict the sale of fish, which is available and which has proved in the past, through its distribution by the Fish Friers Association, to be so valuable, is really nonsense.
§ In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put before the House with regard to the experience of the Fish Friers Association in that respect, I think there is a very strong case for the Amendment, which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in his pursuit of various opinions about anarchy and Communism, has not answered.
§ 7.26 p.m.
§ Mr. Holdsworth
I had not intended to speak on this Amendment but for the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. What did he mean by anarchy in this connection? The Amendment asks that there shall be no restriction of sale, or, in other words, that the poor people of this country who like to eat the best white fish shall be enabled to take advantage, if there is a landing, of the opportunity of getting cheap food. The Liberal party stands for that. I do not mind the noun that the Under-Secretary attaches to that particular thing, and I make no apology whatever for believing in some form of distribution which will enable the people of this country to enjoy God's gifts to men. If I am the one who, more probably than any other Member, can plead guilty to believing that men should have the opportunity of enjoying all the gifts of Nature, I do not mind what the Under-Secretary terms it. If the hon. Gentleman presses the Amendment, I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it, even if it is termed anarchy.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 109619
|Division No. 170.||AYES.||[7.27 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Butcher, H. W.||Dawson, Sir P.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Campbell, Sir E. T.||De la Bère, R.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P, G||Cartland, J. R. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Cary, R. A.||Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)|
|Allen, Col, J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Eastwood, J. F.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)||Channon, H.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Apsley, Lord||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Ellis, Sir G.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Clarry, Sir Reginald||Emmott, C. E. G. C.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Erskine-Hill, A. G.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Cox, H. B. Trevor||Findlay, Sir E.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Furness, S. N.|
|Brooklebank, Sir Edmund||Crooks, Sir J. S.||Gower, Sir R. V.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Cross, R. H.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Cruddas, Col. B.||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yaovll)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Marsden, Commander A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Spens. W. P.|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Hannah, I. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Storey, S.|
|Harvey, Sir G.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Strauss, E. A. (Soutbwark, N.)|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Peake, O.||Tasker. Sir R. I.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Higgs, W. F.||Proctor, Major H. A.||Titchfteld, Marquess of|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)||Ramsbotham, H.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Holmes, J. S.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Rayner, Major R. H.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Raid, W. Allan (Derby)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Hunter, T.||Remer, J. R.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Keeling, E. H.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Leech, Sir J. W.||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Salmon, Sir I.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Lewis, O.||Salt, E. W.||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Loftus, P. C.||Samuel, M. R. A.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C, G.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|McKie, J. H.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen).||Captain Hope and Captain|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Paling, W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Parker, J.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Ammon, C, G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Grenfell, D. R.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Banfield, J. W.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Ridley, G.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Riley, B.|
|Barr, J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Ritson, J.|
|Bellenger F. J.||Groves, T. E.||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benson, G.||Hall, J. H. (Whitaechapel)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bevan, A.||Hardie, Agnes||Silkin, L.|
|Broad, F. A.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Holdsworth, H.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hopkin, D.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Jagger, J.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Daggar, G.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Thorne, W.|
|Dalton, H.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Thurtle, E.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Kelly, W. T.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Day, H.||Kirkwood, D.||Viant, S. P.|
|Do[...], W.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lathan, G.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Ede, J. C.||Leonard, W.||Watson, W. MeL.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Leslie, J. R.||Westwood, J.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||White, H. Graham|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||McEntee, V. La T.||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||MacLaren, A.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Foot, D. M.||Marshall, F.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Frankel, D.||Maxton, J.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Noel-Baker, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Oliver, G. H.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Owen, Major G|
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
§ 7.37 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after "adapted," to insert "offered or exposed."
The object of the Amendment is evident from its language. It is to include in the powers that may be conferred on a producers' marketing board under this Clause the power to determine the manner in which white fish shall be offered or exposed for sale by or on behalf of registered producers. Distributors' boards have that power, and it is only reasonable to give the same power to producers for their own fish.
§ Amendment agreed to.