HC Deb 07 April 1938 vol 334 cc621-38

7.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, to leave out from "fish," to "to," in line 1, page 10.

When the Bill was in Committee we amended Clause 36 so as to alter the definition of the register of persons coming under the provisions of the Bill. The object of that Amendment was to prevent persons evading the Bill by registering in other ports, which might have been possible if the definition had not been amended. This and the following Amendments are consequential on that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 2, leave out "that boat," and insert: a fishing-boat registered in the United Kingdom or any other part of His Majesty's dominions, or from a British fishing-boat registered at any port of registry established by Order in Council under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Foot

I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, after "fee," to insert "not exceeding five shillings."

This is a comparatively small point. It will be observed that Clause 9 enables the producers' marketing scheme to do a number of things, among others to determine: the period for which any licence granted under the scheme shall remain valid …‥ for the renewal and transfer of licences in such circumstances as may be specified in the scheme, and for enabling the board to charge, in respect of the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence, such fee as may be authorised by the scheme. The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the fee shall be a moderate amount which will be well within the means of all those who want to apply for the licence. As I have pointed out before when a marketing scheme is brought before the House we are powerless to amend it in any respect. Therefore, we have to take it or leave it as a whole. The only opportunity that this House has of dealing with the amount of fee to be levied on the applicants for licences is now on the Report stage. The House should always be very jealous—it has been in the past—of conferring power to impose taxation. In substance this is a power to impose taxation, because a fee has to be paid by anyone who wants to continue his livelihood as a fisherman.

Mr. K. Griffith

I beg to second the Amendment.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I appreciate the object which the hon. Member has in mind. It is, I take it, to make sure that the fees chargeable by the board are restricted to reasonable limits. I would like to put the case on the other side. It is unwise to specify the amount of the fee in the Bill. It is far better to have it in the scheme. The producers' scheme may find it just to impose a licensing fee upon a differing basis. It may not be on a flat rate, but may be on a graduated scale, related say, to the catching capacity of the boats so that the big producers will pay more and the little ones less. That may be found to be the most convenient and just way of fixing the fee that shall be paid.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, to leave out "sold," and to insert "landed."

During the Committee deliberations we substituted the word "sold" for "landed" under a misapprehension. It was my fault more than that of anyone else, for I did not appreciate the way in which the question was put. Consequently, we decided that the matter would have to be remedied later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, after "and," to insert: for securing that any quantity of white fish landed in contravention of any directions hav- ing effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph shall become the property of the board and may be disposed of by the board accordingly; and. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) raised the question of what was to happen to fish that it might not be possible to land legally, or that could not be sold because of the terms of this Bill. This Amendment is the answer to his question. It enables the fish to become the property of the board and to be disposed of in some useful manner.

Amendment agreed to.

7.44 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page II, line 18, to leave out from "fish," to "or," in line 21.

When we had this Bill under consideration in Committee many hon. Members were under the impression that the effect of the words which we now propose to leave out would be to afford some measure of protection to inshore fishermen. I am satisfied that that was a misapprehension. This Clause deals with the licensing powers of the board administering a marketing scheme, and there is no intention of bringing the inshore fishermen within such a scheme. The improved marketing organisation for inshore fishermen is set out in Clause 19. The persons to whom Clause 19 refers are specifically described as persons for whom a marketing scheme would be of no avail, or words to that effect. This marketing scheme is designed to meet the needs of the deep-sea section of the industry, and the inshore fishermen will have their own provision. I have considered this matter closely since the Committee stage, and have found it very difficult to apprehend what the exact effect of the words we are proposing to leave out would be in practice. If they have any meaning, they would limit the discretion of the board in the granting of boat licences. Apart from the necessary safeguards provided in the Bill against arbitrary refusal to grant licences, the fewer shackles we place on the board the better. The consideration which the board have to bear in mind is the good of the white fish industry as a whole. If they are to have regard to these other matters: The increase or decrease since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, of the fishing fleet at the particular port or any other date of that kind, they would be very much limited in their power to licence boats.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Loftus

I moved in Committee the insertion of the words which are now proposed to be left out, and after a very long discussion I carried the Amendment. I think there were only three or at the most four votes against the Amendment

Mr. Ede

Five.

Mr. Loftus

I do not recognise the pur. pose of the Amendment as described now by my right hon. Friend. He said that the purpose for which I moved the Amendment was to deal with inshore fishermen.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

That would not be true. I am certain that my hon. Friend moved his Amendment for another purpose. What I was referring to when I alluded to the inshore fishermen was the great body of support he received in the Committee upon that basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend in his own mind was perfectly clear as to the object of his Amendment.

Mr. Loftus

I am glad that my right hon. Friend confirms my recollection. The object of the Amendment was to secure this: During recent years there has been great variation, ups and downs, in the fortunes of the fishing ports. In some of the great modern ports, such as Hull and Grimsby, there has been an enormous increase in the number of fishing vessels, but simultaneously in the famous old ports, Dover, Brixham, Lowestoft and Ramsgate, there has been a great decrease in the number, and when I moved the Amendment I felt that regard should be had to that fact by the licensing authority. I thought that it would be extremely hard that a port which has been going downhill during recent years, and losing its fleet owing to the competition of the great ports of Hull and Grimsby, should not have an opportunity in happier times of rebuilding in part its fleet. I felt that it should not be stereotyped at its present low level. The object of the Amendment was to help the ports that have suffered the hard fate of going downhill owing to the competition of the great modern ports. That view commanded sympathy among all parties.

Mr. Ede

Hear, hear.

Mr. Loftus

I had a second Amendment designed with the same object, providing that licences should not be refused to boats 80 feet or below in length. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he cannot make some concession and give some assurance that those ports that have suffered so much will have some chance of building a smaller type of boat, not in competition with the big trawlers of Hull. I make this appeal the more strongly because I felt that when I carried my Amendment I might have carried two other Amendments against the Government. However, I thought that there was great virtue in moderation, and that if I rested content with this one victory, my right hon. Friend would not dream of reversing it, but that if I pressed forward and secured three defeats for the Government he might reverse the lot. I hope that he will bear that point in mind. I have not a very clear recollection of all the other details, but there was a case made out for other Amendments which I tried to put forward. I hope my right hon. Friend will do his best to make some concession in order to help the smaller ports.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede

When I saw the Minister's Amendment on the Order Paper I was filled with amazement, because I have a very clear recollection of the discussion that took place in Committee when the words now proposed to be left out were inserted. It was not a decision that was hastily reached. Towards the end of the proceedings on the seventh day, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) moved his Amendment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) suggested that in view of the importance of the matter the Committee might adjourn. On the eighth day, the following Thursday, the 3rd February, the hon. Member for Lowestoft again brought his Amendment before the Committee. It was supported in a speech by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). The Minister replied, and I do not think that his description of his attitude is borne out by what he said in his first reply in Committee to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) followed the Minister, and after my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) had spoken, we proceeded to a Division.

The discussion had been carried on in a very friendly atmosphere, as most of the discussions were, after the Opposition had provided the right hon. Gentleman day after day with a quorum to carry on the business. It was an extraordinary Division, because the Minister was supported only by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Glasgow (Mr. Arthur Young) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I thought it was a charitable act on the part of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, because I understand that he is denied the Whip of the party opposite. To have come to the rescue of the Minister in these circumstances showed a very forgiving disposition. Against the Minister the Government supporters were the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), the Noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), the Senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham), the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence), the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson).

In our endeavour to assist the cause of the enlightenment of hon. Members opposite, those Members of our party who were present threw in their weight with the supporters of the Amendment. Quite apart from our intervention, which might be written off as being dictated by a party spirit, the right hon. Gentleman was well and soundly beaten by those who normally support him. I was present throughout the discussion and have since refreshed my mind, and it was only after the decision had been reached, that the right hon. Gentleman attached any importance to the question of the inshore fishermen as having confused hon. Members of his own party who had deserted him. If a decision taken under such circumstances is to be reversed on nothing better than the statement that has been made to-night by the right hon. Gentle- man, we might as well give up Committee proceedings, because if ever there was an occasion when there was an honest expression of opinion by a Committee against the advice of a Minister, with all the facts in front of them, that was the occasion.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persevere in the attitude that he has adopted, and that he will accept the decision of the Committee. It is a very important matter. We have seen the way in which these regulation schemes can be operated unless some provision of this kind is inserted. I must remind the House of the classic case of hops. The acreage of hops was determined in regard to a year in which the planting had been very low, and every one has to go back to that standard year. They cannot have a greater acreage of hops than that of the standard year. If we are to have a standard number of ships, then we should have regard to the number not in the present depressed state of the industry but something that may be regarded as more reasonably approaching the normal conditions. That was the aim of the hon. Member for Lowestoft in moving his Amendment.

By taking the 1st January, 1927, we should have a date when the number of vessels operating from a port was more nearly what we ought to expect in normal times than the numbers that go out to-day. I do not think that anything the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night ought to alter the mind of anyone who served on the Committee, who heard the discussion and voted against the Government, and if the hon. Member for Lowestoft is minded to divide the House in order to retain his Amendment in the Bill, I shall have pleasure in going into the Lobby with him against the Government.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Beechman

As one of the survivors of the little battle to which the hon. Member has referred, I should like to say what was in my mind when I spoke on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was some confusion on the part of hon. Members because they thought that this Clause related to inshore fishermen. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend deduced that inference from the fact that the Amendment was supported by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), whose division is very much inshore. I was not in any sort of confusion. It seemed to me that in the case of small ports which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has shown, have gone downhill very much, it would be very wrong indeed if the allowance of boats was to be based on those very disastrous years. It is true that the figures which I gave apply very largely to what I may call inshore fishing ports, but there are places where there are larger craft, and what we wish to ensure is that fishermen with moderate-sized craft have their chance. There are not only inshore fishermen and large trawlers, but there are a large number of fishermen who operate with boats about 80 feet long. My right hon. Friend said that it would be unwise to fetter the discretion of the Commission in this matter. Even if we were to accept his Amendment discretion would still be fettered, and if we are to fetter the discretion of a Commission it had better be fettered in the right sort of way. For that reason I hope that my right hon. Friend will, in spite of the confusion which he thought arose in Committee, still allow us to think that that was a decisive victory.

8.3 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson

I am afraid that I am one of those who are repentant. I can only attribute my mistake to a confusion of mind, and I now see how very much better it will be to follow in future the fatherly advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said that what he wanted was to avoid seeing the small ports lose their position owing to the competition of concerns with huge capital in ports like, for example, Hull or Grimsby. He said the new modern ports would get on top of the old ports.

Mr. Loftus

Surely they have already got on top of the old-fashioned ports, and my whole object was to give the latter a chance with a smaller type of boat, not in direct competition with the big ports with their huge trawlers.

Sir D. Thomson

I agree with my hon. Friend that those ports have got on top, and I think that what he wishes is to give the old ports a chance against their new competitors, with a different type of boat, although that is not specifically stated in the Amendment. I have discovered that as far as Scotland is concerned, the effects of the Amendment inserted in Committee would be very unequal. The trade of certain ports has increased since 1927 and that of other ports has gone down. The fishing industry in Scotland as a whole has gone down, but in various ports it has increased and in others declined, and to limit the discretion of the Commission in some arbitrary way would lead to unequal and fortuitous results and would not, so far as the smaller trawler ports in Scotland are concerned, bring about the results contemplated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I hope the House will support the deletion of these words.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Foot

We shall all desire to offer our sympathy to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). I understand that in the Committee he had twenty supporters and that like another famous character: When alone he had gone Halfway down Strath Canan, Of his fighting tail Just three were remaining. Their numbers are rapidly diminishing. It is a remarkable thing that after a decision had been come to by a most emphatic majority in Committee upstairs the Minister should take the first opportunity, on getting back to the Floor of the House, of reversing the position. There is this difference, of course, between Debates in the House on Report stage and Debates in Committee upstairs, and that is that upstairs those who vote have heard the arguments and vote on them accordingly. Obviously that is what happened in Committee on this occasion. Now, if it should come to a Division, the Minister will be able to rely upon a huge majority of Members who have not heard a word of the discussion, and for that reason will, no doubt, loyally support him.

Mr. Petherick

I do not think an enormous number of the hon. Member's party have heard the discussion.

Mr. Foot

We have no responsibility for that, because I do not think there was a single Member of my party on that Committee. I hope that the 20 who were so ready to stand up for the interests of small ports in Committee will stand by their attitude to-day. The Amendment which was inserted upstairs at the instance of the hon. Member for Lowestoft, and which it is now proposed to delete, seems a very reasonable one. There is to be a certain ground on which licences are to be given or refused. The board are to have in mind the sufficiency of the number of licences already in force; it does not say the sufficiency in any particular district or area. In determining the grant of licences the board might have in mind the number of licences in the whole country. They might, for instance, come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient number of trawlers in Scotland as a whole, and decide not to add to them for some time, and that would be a rather unfortunate situation, because they need have no regard to the needs of any particular district.

Let me give an example of what might happen. At the present time only four trawlers are operating from my constituency, Dundee. A year or two ago there were 10 or 11 trawlers, and I hope that we shall again increase the number. Suppose this scheme were in operation and the trawler owners in a place like Dundee wished to increase their fleet. The board might say, "We think there is already a sufficient number of trawlers on the East Coast of Scotland." Dundee is in the position of having always had a small trawling fleet. Though we do not send fish away from Dundee, we supply the local needs. If the words were allowed to remain in the Clause and the trawler owners were to ask for an increase of two or three trawlers, they would be able to point to the fact that although their present total was only four, they had 10 two years ago, which would be a perfectly proper consideration for the board to take into account. I very much regret that the Minister has taken a decision—because I am sure his Amendment will be passed—to override what was very nearly the unanimous decision of the Committee.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I feel that I ought to say a word upon this matter. I deeply regret having to take this course, and I assure the House that I only do so because I feel it to be in the real interests of the industry. I feel the greatest difficulty in asking the producers' board, three or four years hence, when it has to deal with an entirely changed situation in the fishing industry, to limit its decisions by having regard to the position in 1927. That is an arbitrary date, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) has said, if we were to take that date there would be very different results from port to port. I am sure the best course is to allow the board to have regard to the industry as a whole, without being restricted in the way suggested. I share entirely the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) as to the smaller or medium-sized fishing vessels. They are an important part of the fishing fleet, and although I do not think this is the right way to help them, I, and I am sure the Government, will bear their needs very much in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Foot

I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

This is the sub-paragraph which says: On such other grounds (if any) as may be specified in the scheme. We are dealing with a very important part of the Bill, the part which gives power to the board to say to a man whether or not he shall be allowed to continue in the occupation of fishing, or to engage in it for the first time. It is proposed to set up a complete licensing system. The refusal of a licence would be a serious matter for an applicant, because if he had been engaged in fishing before, as would be the case in the majority of applications, he would be deprived of the means of livelihood which he had formerly enjoyed.

Mr. Macquisten

That is, the freedom of the seas.

Sir Robert Tasker

Does that apply to architects?

Mr. Foot

Fortunately for their profession, the Government have not yet started to organise architects. I suggest that the House should be extremely careful when laying down how this quite considerable power is to be exercised. We are not told of any grounds, except one, on which the board are going to proceed. The words are extraordinarily wide: On such other grounds (if any) as may be specified in the scheme. I do not want to repeat what I said on a former Amendment, but we shall not be able to reshape the scheme in this House. We can only accept it or reject it as a whole. I have listened to a good many Debates upon agricultural marketing schemes in pursuance of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. Again and again I have heard hon. Members get up in this House, as representative of agricultural constituencies, and make the most telling criticism of certain provisions of the scheme.

Although the House felt in many cases that there was substance in the criticism, it was quite unable to give effect to them. The Minister in charge of the scheme could not give effect to them, because, under the provisions of that Act, as under the provisions of the Bill, a scheme has to be accepted or rejected as a whole; that is to say, once we allow the Bill to pass to another place we no longer have any control in determining the grounds upon which licences may or may not be refused. The Minister said he did not want to fetter in any way the discretion of the board. I join issue with him there. In matters of this kind when we are discussing whether to deprive people of their livelihood I should certainly like to fetter the discretion of the board. For the protection of those people, the grounds upon which licences may be refused should be specifically set out in the Statute. Not one Member can tell on what grounds people are to be struck off the register and forbidden to pursue their calling in the future. My hon. Friends and I have frequently protested against legislation of this character. We are dealing here with a form of Ministerial order. The marketing schemes take that form. We are giving to those who draft the scheme and to the Department who will put it into effect, a complete discretion and completely wide powers. They can lay down any grounds that they like for the regulations of the particular branch of the industry which we are now considering. We have always protested against giving powers as wide as this, and we shall continue to do so at every future opportunity.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said and I am very puzzled by the actual form of the Clause as it stands. I hope that the Minister will be able to make it clear to me why the Clause has taken this curious form. It starts out at the beginning of Sub-section (2) by saying that schemes do not come into effect unless provision is made under the scheme for certain things, the first of which is that there shall be no refusal of licence except; and then there are few exceptions which are given in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). One specific exception is laid down, and then the Clause says it applies to anything else that the Commission choose to specify. It seems ridiculous. It is like saying that you can only refuse a licence on the 1st April and that you can also refuse it on any other day you choose to select. The second liberty seems to make the first specific restriction unnecessary.

I cannot be answered with the argument that the Commission must specify the grounds of the refusal, because the whole of paragraph (a) deals with the things that they have to specify, and if you try to lay down rules for the things that you have to specify, what is the sense of coming along with an omnibus Clause which allows them to specify anything? I take exception to the Subsection on the general grounds, and also because it does not seem to me that, in its present form, the drafting of the Clause is in any way wedded to the Bill. If the Minister wants to give an absolutely free hand he might as well have said so without attempting to make any specification. I should prefer the course advocated by my hon. Friend and that is that we should now take responsibility in this House for specifying all the grounds which have to be made clear so that those who come into the operation of the Bill may have reasonable grounds of knowing what they have to meet.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment have approached the question as though the Clause were designed to confer powers upon the Marketing Board, but in fact the Clause is restrictive of their powers. All the enabling powers of the Clause come before this provision, which says that the powers shall not be of any effect unless the scheme itself makes provision for certain things. One of the things is what we regard as the very important matter of refusing to grant a licence. The Bill makes it plain that the board shall not have an unlimited discretion in the matter of refusing licences, but can refuse them only on specified grounds and if there are any other grounds upon which the board wishes to have power to refuse licences they must be specified in the scheme; that is, in the scheme on which the producers will vote and make their own arrangements, and which has to be approved by the commision and the Ministers.

Mr. Foot

It could be unlimited as the Bill stands now. There is nothing to prevent a scheme being drawn up in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) and any other ground being put in.

Mr. Morrison

There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, but I should think there would be the strongest opposition from the producers themselves and from the industry. The effect of the Amendment is to cut out sub-paragraph (ii). If that were done we should only have the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (i). What other grounds could be specified? It is not very easy to say straight off, but I could imagine one or two; certainly if there is any other ground they must specify it. I would mention the persistent breach of trawling regulations and general fishing regulations.

Mr. K. Griffith

Why not put it in the Bill?

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I rise to add a few sentences to what the Minister said and to lodge a precautionary note against hon. Members below the Gangway as the exclusive champions of liberty. In their Amendment I think they are barking up the wrong tree, for the reason that there is much greater ground for apprehension that the powers under sub-paragraph (i) will be abused than will those in subparagraph (ii). In sub-paragraph (i) the board are empowered to refuse a licence on the ground that, in the opinion of the board, a sufficient number of licences are already in force. That gives an almost unlimited power for wrongdoing on the part of the board, and the only safeguards are those which apply, not only to restriction on that ground, but to restriction on every other ground. Those safeguards are that every scheme must be passed by the Minister, and that it must be voted upon, and that must pass through this House. I think there is far more ground for apprehension that the board will take an erroneous view, or a view too favourable to their own interests, on the ground that there is a sufficient and adequate demand for fish than on some imaginary ground such as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) appears to think may be utilised under sub-paragraph (ii). It has been said very often in this House that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I must say that the vigilance of the hon. Member for Dundee has not been altogether consistent, because the Bill was before a Standing Committee for many a long day, and that eternal vigilance was not manifest.

Mr. Foot

I was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Garro Jones

I think some of the hon. Member's colleagues were.

Mr. Foot

No.

Mr. Garro Jones

In that case they should have made representations through the usual channels, but there again their vigilance was not manifest, because they were certainly entitled to representation on the committee, and, if their anxiety for the security of the fishing industry was so great, they should have obtained representation on the committee. I do not wish to attack hon. Members below the Gangway; I entirely share their anxiety on these points; but in the particular case they have now brought forward I think that, as I have already said, they are barking up the wrong tree, and I hope they will not persist.

Amendment negatived.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn

I beg to move, in page line 35, after "fish," to insert: and had been continuously in the possession of one or more home producers of white fish since the beginning of the fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven. Sub-section (2) of Clause 9 provides that boat licences may be refused on grounds of redundancy and on such other grounds, if any, as may be specified in the scheme. The time limits are prescribed by paragraph (b) of the Sub-section.

Their effect is that a licence may not be refused before a specified date for a boat which either is in use or laid up when the scheme comes into operation, or was already under construction or contracted for on 4th November, 1937, the date of publication of the Bill. Suppose that someone builds a new trawler now, and the boat, having been built, subsequently comes into operation. The board might wish to refuse a licence for the boat on some ground specified in the scheme, and the owner of the boat would not be protected against such refusal by sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b), because he had not entered into a contract for the building of the boat before 4th November, 1937. On the other hand, if he enters into a contract now, and succeeds in getting the boat built before a scheme comes into operation, he is protected from refusal of a licence by the terms of subparagraph (i). That would be an anomalous position. The only object in introducing the date of publication of the Bill as a limiting date was to prevent people from forestalling the regulatory provisions of the Bill, and if someone infringes the spirit of the Bill by starting to build a boat since the publication of the Bill, it does not seem quite fair that he should be able to "get away with it" merely because he is able to get the boat finished before a scheme comes into operation. Accordingly, it is proposed that, to bring himself within the exemption, he must show not only that the boat in question is already in his possession, when the scheme comes into force, but also that it has been continuously in the possession of a home producer of white fish since the beginning of the day of the publication of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Foot

I beg to move, in page 12, line 30, after "Commission," to insert: and empowering the Commission on any such appeal to confirm, annul, or vary the decision or direction I put this Amendment clown because I was somewhat puzzled by the words which are now in the Bill, and which I propose in my next Amendment to omit. Sub-paragraph (d) provides that any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of the board to grant a licence may appeal to the Commission, and then follow the words: and determining the powers exercisable by the Commission on any such appeal. That means that the powers to be exercised by the Commission on the appeal will be specified in the scheme. As I have already pointed out, we have no control over the details of the scheme, and it may be that when the scheme is produced, we shall find that there is only a limited power in the Commission to reverse or vary the decisions of the board under this Section. When we are setting up a licensing system, we are all anxious, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said earlier, not only that justice should be clone, but also that it should seem to be done. It is necessary that we should have a fair and proper system of appeal, and, therefore, I propose to substitute the words of my Amendment, which would give the Commission, when appealed to, a complete discretion to confirm, quash or vary the decisions or directions of the board. It may well be that this simply represents what the promoters of the Bill have in mind, and, if so, I shall be merely expressing more correctly what their wishes are. It would be unfortunate if we were to leave the Bill as it stands and were to find later, when the scheme is produced, that those who were refused a licence, and therefore the opportunity of making their living in the fishing industry, had not a complete right of appeal to the Commission.

Mr. Acland

I beg to second the Amendment.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn

My hon. Friend proposes that, instead of it being left to the scheme to determine the powers which the Commission may exercise on appeal, those powers should be specified in the Bill. The form in which the Commission's powers would be determined by this Amendment would make those powers as wide as they could possibly be. I do not think it is necessarily desirable that the Commission should be endowed with such extensive powers. After all, the only object of providing for appeal is to protect registered producers from injustice at the hands of the board, not to provide for every act of the board being reviewed by an external authority. For those reasons I think it is wiser to leave it to the scheme to determine what precise powers should be exercised by the Corn- mission on appeal in order to safeguard registered producers from injustice. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the provisions of the scheme in this connection will, like the rest of the scheme, be subject to approval by the Commission, by the responsible Ministers, and by the persons in the industry who are likely to be governed by the scheme. I hope the House will agree that it is better to leave these powers to be specified in due course in the scheme.

Amendment negatived.