FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to the Herring Industry Advisory Council.)

HC Deb 16 June 1938 vol 337 cc434-97

3.59 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after "Council," to insert "other than the chairman."

This is merely a consequential drafting Amendment. It follows upon the Amendment made in Committee which provided that the chairman of the Advisory Council should be a member of the Herring Industry Board. Paragraph r of the First Schedule makes provision for the tenure of office and for the method of resignation of members of the council who are to be appointed by Ministers from sections of the industry and other interests. It does not at present exclude the chairman. In consequence of the Amendment made in Committee to provide for the chairman of the Advisory Committee to be a member of the Herring Industry Board, it is necessary to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 8, after "any," insert "such."—[Mr. Colville.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4 p.m.

Mr. Boothby

As we have come to the last stage of the Bill, before the House parts with it altogether, there are a few observations I would like to make on the general position of the industry at the moment, and one or two questions which I would like to ask. At the outset I would say that I think we are all glad that the Government were able, in the Committee stage, to move an Amendment providing that the chairman of the Advisory Council should be a member of the board. That does away with a difficulty which some of us foresaw, that by having a separate chairman of the Advisory Council we should have two gentlemen of almost equal authority who might clash, and we would not have that unified direction which is now generally admitted to be most desirable in the industry. The Amendment which secures that the chairman of the Council shall be a member of the board does away with any difficulties that might have arisen.

There is another question which has caused me and some of my hon. Friends some anxiety. That is the question of the powers of the board under the Bill. In the Committee stage I wanted to move an Amendment to provide the board with additional powers for the purchase and sale of herring, but I was advised by the Scottish Office that under the original Herring Industry Act the scheme can be amended at any time to give the board additional powers in this connection, should it seem necessary; and I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the circumstances it is desirable that the new board should have some time in office, in order that they themselves should be in a position, after careful consideration of the whole situation, to decide whether they require additional powers, and, if so, precisely what those powers should be. I am sure that this House will not refuse any additional powers that the new board may require; and if they propose an amendment of the scheme at a subsequent stage they will get it without difficulty.

I cannot help reiterating the regret that I expressed, on the occasion of the Second Reading, that more is not being done to meet the immediate requirements of the industry. I made an appeal on that occasion, and subsequently addressed a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that some measures should be taken by the Government to mitigate the severities of the present price of coal. We are doing something for the motor-boat owner, but in this Bill we are doing nothing for the owner of the steam drifter, and he still has a very important part to play in the industry. We have had issued to us, in the course of the last 24 hours, the annual report of the present Herring Industry Board. The board draw attention to the serious menace to the industry which arises out of Dutch competition in foreign markets, and the cut prices they have been able to quote. It seems to some of us who have a great interest in the industry that the price of coal at the present time is one of the main factors in the costs of production in the industry.

I confess that I wish that the Bill had contained some provision to assist those fishermen who are running steam drifters to reduce their costs of production by reducing the price of coal. We already make an exception for the fishermen in the case of the oil fuel duty; they are granted special exemption. It seems to me that the same principle should apply to those who have to burn coal as fuel. During recent months the price of coal to the fishermen has risen from something like 23s. to between 35s. and 37s. a ton. That is an enormous addition to the running costs of the herring fleet. And in this connection, I would quote to my right hon. Friend a passage from a most interesting leading article in the "Times" this morning, regarding this Bill and the general position of the industry. The article says: Certain fiscal concessions have already been made in respect of the oil by which part of the fleet is fired, but the coal-fired vessels are not the least valuable to the national economy, and it would be intolerable if they were driven out of existence by high fuel costs which must offset the effect of any subsidy offered under the Bill. I believe that in the end the Government will be compelled to take some action along the lines of reducing the running costs of production of the fleet. Otherwise it will be difficult to compete against the Dutch under existing conditions.

I would like now to make a brief reference to the report of the Herring Industry Board, which has just come into our hands. It has at every point a direct relevance to this Bill, and no doubt it will be very seriously considered by the new board. The report is, perhaps inevitably in the circumstances, rather bitter; and I feel that the present board is labouring under a certain sense of grievance. You can see in every line of the report that they feel they have been unfairly and hardly treated, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, have had a raw deal. We must hope that the new board will not have a raw deal. Nevertheless this report is definitely more constructive in every way than the report issued a year ago. I would like to quote one or two passages in this report, for they seem to me to be of very great importance. First of all they say, and this Bill confirms it: The redundancy which was described by the Sea Fish Commission in their report as 'an inescapable and major issue' still persists, and so long as it remains the state of the industry will inevitably be unsound. No one will contradict that statement. They go on: It would appear that notwithstanding their original acceptance of the report of the Sea Fish Commission a considerable proportion of the industry are opposed in principle to its recommendations and to the putting of them into execution by the board. They do not desire regulation, reorganisation, or the placing of their business upon an economic basis. Of course, if that is the truth it is very serious. It means that in effect this Bill will be valueless. They continue: What they do desire and have repeatedly asked for is that they should be enabled to continue on their old uneconomic lines and that the losses consequent upon their so doing should be met by Treasury grants and subsidies which ultimately fall upon the general taxpayer. Apart from opposition to the board, the feelings and relations within the industry itself are far from satisfactory. Although it must be clear that they are all dependent to a greater or less degree upon one another there is always an element of mistrust and jealousy existing between, and even within, various branches and sections of the trade. It is manifest that if the present board or any other organisation which may be set up in its place is to be successful in restoring some measure of prosperity to the industry, there must be much greater co-operation both between the industry and the board, and between various sections and branches of the industry.'' This is a very formidable condemnation of the industry as a whole. I dare say that members of the board felt that, as they were in for a penny, they might as well be in for a pound. It was their swan-song, and so they ventured to tell what they felt was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and, in colloquial language, they have said a mouthful. I myself do not think that the internal condition of the industry is quite as disastrous as this report makes out. But that there is a certain opposition to any form of rationalisation, and considerable jealousy between the different sections of the industry is undoubtedly true. If the late board has rendered no other service—I think it has rendered quite considerable services to the industry —it is not at all a bad thing that it should have expressed itself as forcibly as it has done in this report on some of the internal difficulties which beset the industry.

I come now to the vexed question of motor boats as against drifters. On Second Reading I said that I thought the Government were quite right in concentrating this subsidy on motor boats. That view is completely borne out by the report of the board. On page i6, in paragraphs 75, 76 and 77, they say that under existing conditions they do not think there is room for more than about 300 drifters in the fleet, and that in addition the industry can sustain 500 motor boats. The reason they give is that motor boats of from 50 to 70 feet in length can be profitably employed in fishing for white fish. In existing circumstances it is obvious that the diesel-engined craft has a much better chance of making ends meet throughout the year than has the drifter. I congratulate the Government on sticking firmly to their ground in regard to this motor boat question, and in devoting the subsidy during the next three or four years to motor boats. The report also says: There is the risk that the value of motor craft for naval purposes in time of war may be impaired by the fact that they have to be provided with imported fuel. That I think is nonsense, because it applies to the entire Navy as well as to the motor boat. The whole Fleet is oil fired. Therefore, if we in any future war do run short of oil supplies the entire Fleet will have to shut up shop, and we shall face defeat. I do not think therefore that that is a very serious matter.

I come now to the final and most important aspect of the question, upon which I wish to say a few words. The crux of the problem of the industry today is unquestionably markets. The whole trouble here is that we have an industry which we have built up upon the German and the Russian markets, and both those markets are being steadily closed down against us. The report of the board makes that perfectly clear. We find that the German market is going down and I certainly do not view with any great hope or equanimity the prospects for the future so far as Germany is concerned. It may well be that within three or four weeks time we shall find ourselves under the necessity of imposing clearing arrangements so far as our economic relations with Germany are concerned, and that our exports of herring to Germany will fall to an even lower level. Whether that be so or not, the fact remains that the Germans are concentrating upon building up a herring fleet of their own, on catching their own herring—and they are doing that now in increasing numbers—and on restricting the import of herring to the lowest possible figure. As to the Russian market, the falling off has been appalling. The best hope lies in the markets of the Baltic States and Poland, which have kept comparatively steady for the last few years.

There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend, and it is very important because upon it the success or failure of the new Herring Board will probably rest, and that is in regard to the Dutch competition. The board point out in their report that during last year, owing to the cut prices which the Dutch were able to quote for their exports of cured herring—although they have to transport these herring a much greater distance from the fishing grounds to the curing yards than we do—they were able to export 100,000 more barrels of herring to Lithuania, Germany and Poland than in the previous year. The report adds that if it had not been for this fact we should have been able to sell the whole of our cure without any difficulty. I would ask my right hon. Friend to draw the attention of the new board to the desirability—I almost said the urgent necessity—of our coming to some agreement in this matter with the Dutch Government. It is of vital importance to us, and it is as important to Holland as to this country, that we should no longer indulge in this ruinous, cutthroat competition so far as cured herring are concerned. If we can come to some quota agreement with Holland under which all our herring can be sold at a remunerative price, it would perhaps do more good than any other single thing that could happen to the industry.

I beg my right hon. Friend to direct the attention of the new board to the real necessity of our getting an agreement, if possible, with Holland. I see no reason why we should not succeed in doing that. There has been talk of a cartel, which might include Holland, Germany and ourselves. It will probably be impossible to get Germany to come in under existing conditions, but there is no reason why we should not come to terms and reach an agreement with Holland. It has been done in the steel industry and to some extent in the coal industry, and there is no resaon why we should not end these ruinous cut prices which are doing so much damage to our own industry, and do very little good to the Dutch industry. This is a problem with which the new board will be confronted from the word "go."

I should also like to draw the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend to certain other paragraphs of the report of the Herring Board for this year, and I would at the same time make a special appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on this matter, because his influence in connection with it in the North of Scotland would be of very great importance. I want to call attention to paragraphs 70, 71 and 72. It is a matter of very vital importance in the North-East of Scotland, and it may well be a matter which the board will find itself right up against from the beginning. Because under existing conditions action may have to be taken to permit fishermen in the Scottish season of five or six weeks, when the herrings are at their very best and when there is no difficulty whatsoever in selling them, to make the most of those five or six weeks, and not to confine their operations to five nights fishing per week. I will quote what the board says on the subject: In order to overcome Dutch competition it is essential that British fishermen and curers should use the advantages of their geographical position to the full. At present all fishermen when working in Scotland and the Scottish when working in England restrict their fishing to five nights in the week as a maximum, with the result that the curers are often restricted to five or less working days in the week also, and the catch and cure are both rendered more expensive. To deprive workers of any part of their week-end rest is most undesirable on many grounds, but it is a measure which must be considered when the only alternative seems to he a further loss of markets and consequent unemployment of fishermen. It is not necessary to suggest that any fishing should take place on Saturday nights, but it seems most desirable that both fishermen and boatowners should give serious consideration to the question of the vessels going to sea, when market conditions require it, on Sunday nights in the height of the Scottish season in July and the first half of August. The season lasts for only five or six weeks. The report says that this would involve the sacrifice of only seven rest days in the whole season. They might have said in the whole year. I would re-emphasise the fact that these particular herring are incomparably better than any other herring that can be caught in any part of the world; there is always a ready market for them; and if this industry is to continue on any kind of economic basis, every effort must be made by our fishermen to get the maximum catch during the five or six weeks of this critical fishing period.

I should like now to direct attention to an observation made by the President of the Board of Trade in the Debate yesterday when, in the course of a most interesting speech, he observed that while the Russian Trade Agreement with this country was being observed in the letter, it was certainly not being observed in the spirit. He said that he was giving his attention to the matter, and he might find it necessary to take drastic action with regard to Russia. There is no doubt that the new Herring Board will not be able to deal by themselves with the Russian problem. Without the whole weight of the Government behind them they cannot possibly expect to expand our one-time great market in Russia to anything like its old proportions. I do not say that we can ever get back to the old figure of our trade with Russia, but that Russia could buy more than 20,000 or 30,000 barrels at a knock-out price, which affords no profit to anybody, is obvious. I am sure that hon. Members will back up the Government and the President of the Board of Trade in any efforts they may make to bring pressure upon the Russian Government to act up to the Agreement not only in the letter but in the spirit, and to buy herring in return for the many commodities we buy from them.

By far the greatest hope of a revival of our herring industry—although it should be remembered that we can undoubtedly help by expanding the home market—lies in the recovery of foreign markets. And under existing conditions the best hope of all lies in the expansion of our trade with Poland, which is one of the few markets which has kept up during the last few years, and with Rumania. In this connection I should like to quote again from the leading article in the "Times" this morning: What is the objection to enlisting the co-operation of the Board of Trade itself in transactions which may involve the granting of credits or special price arrangements which a lesser authority could not conclude? Why should it be supposed that countries like Poland or Rumania must be unwilling to take more herring in return for larger or more regular purchases of their own produce? There is, as the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, a scheme in embryo for extending our trade in Central and Eastern Europe. The position in Poland and Rumania is particularly favourable for this at the present time. So far as Poland is concerned, they have already considerable sterling commitments in this country which prevent them from buying as many British goods as they wish. Those commitments could be liquidated by the purchase on the part of the British Government of certain commodities in Poland. These purchases would give the Polish Government a sterling balance in London, and an extension of credits could then be granted by the Export Credits Department, part of which could be used by Poland to purchase herring from us. The Poles have privately expressed willingness to purchase herring if further credit facilities can be granted. Exactly the same argument applies to Rumania. She has a frozen clearing in respect of this country which could be liquidated by the extension of medium-term credits. Here, again, there is a great potential market. I beg my right hon. Friend to give the new Herring Board a real chance by ensuring, as Secretary of State for Scotland and as a Member of the Cabinet, that in any efforts they may make to expand our foreign markets—and it is upon the result of these efforts that they will succeed or fail—they will have behind them the whole weight of the Board of Trade and of the Government.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair

The Bill which we are discussing has two main features. The first is the provision for grants amounting to £250,000. Three years ago, when the last Herring Industry Bill was introduced, many of us begged the Government to give grants of only £50,000, which were recommended by the Duncan Commission for the replacement of the fleet, but those pleas were resisted. We now have the satisfaction, after waiting three years, of obtaining five times the amount of money for that purpose which we then modestly claimed. The other outstanding feature of the Bill is the reconstitution of the Herring Board. We all agree that it is vital that the industry under the administration of the new Herring Board should have a fresh start. I am not going to attempt to criticise the administration of the board. We have had many Debates in which criticism has been made of the board, but the fact remains—my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to it, and it is brought out very clearly in the report of the board—that the board and the industry have not been getting on well together. In the board's report they speak of "the spirit of hostile criticism" that exists and refer to "lack of co-operation" and "even definite opposition," and to the "antagonism" which exists between the industry and the board.

It is obvious that as long as the board has to work in that atmosphere it will not succeed in its measures for the benefit of the industry. The new board must make a fresh start, and it must set out to acquire the confidence of the industry. It may be that what has happened in the past was not entirely the fault of the old board, and there is great force in their contention that expectations which were too high were entertained about it when it was created. Some of us may feel that we have no responsibility for creating those high expectations but, undoubtedly, the industry was persuaded to entertain very high expectations of the board, and to that extent the board entered upon its administration under a severe handicap. But be that as it may, let us now have a fresh start. I associate myself with the plea made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen in the Committee stage, that the personnel of the board should be absolutely new and that the three appointed members should be men who come with fresh claims upon the confidence of the industry as a whole.

I agree also with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that it is unfortunate the Government are unable to propose measures which will deal directly with the immediate needs of the industry, and I entirely support what he said about the vital question of the price of coal. Indeed, it was this, as well as other considerations, which was in my mind when I supported certain proposals and cast certain votes when the Coal Bill was before the House a few months ago. I also think it is a great pity that the Government have not seen their way to respond to a plea which I have constantly made in our Debates on this subject and on the question of defence, that a retaining fee should be paid in peace time to owners of boats for the right to use their boats in the event of war. I have constantly argued that case; it is being done in many other directions, and it would be a great help to the fishing industry and fair to the men.

Mr. Boothby

I agree with the right hon. Member, but the difficulty, I think, is that the Admiralty for the last five years have said that drifters will be of no value in the next war, although that point of view is not supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). But that is the reason given by the Admiralty.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am glad to know that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen agrees with me. It would be out of order for me to develop the point to-day, for the Secretary of State for Scotland is not solely responsible, but he is a Member of the Cabinet, and I do make the plea that the question of paying this retaining fee shall not be lost sight of. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has, I know, supported the plea in the past, and I hope he will, with the great weight of his authority, support it again to-day.

The fundamental question of policy which the new board will have to decide is how far they are to proceed with the policy of restriction, which, of course was embarked upon when the first Act was passed by this House. This policy has been pursued ruthlessly in the Scottish fleet during the past few years. The Secretary of State told us on the Second Reading of the Bill that the number of steam drifters has been reduced by one-third during the three years 1934 to 1937. I share the view which is prevalent in the industry that this policy of restriction if pressed too far will inevitably prove to be a policy of defeat. Some temporary restriction may certainly be necessary, but it is being pressed very far and the report of the Herring Board, which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen thought more constructive than the previous report, certainly indicates an intention, on the one hand, to pursue this policy of restriction still further while, on the other hand, it expresses a great deal of defeatism opinion about the prospects of regaining our foreign markets.

I hope the new board will set out resolutely not only to regain a very large portion, and I hope an expanding portion, of our foreign markets, but to do what it can—I believe more can be done— to expand the home market. Nevertheless I have always taken the view in this House and outside that there is not much to be hoped for in the home market; the problem is mainly one of the export market, and there is a great deal to be done with the export market. It is a great mistake to regard the Dutch competition as being invincible and unconquerable or to regard trade policies of Germany and Russia as having been carried so far that these great countries will not be able to take an increased number of herring from us, or that there are no markets in other countries which can be expanded. According to last year's report of Mr. James Mair, the Inspector of Fisheries for Scotland, the world export cure in 1937 was nearly equal to what it was in 1913; the actual figures are 3,100,000 barrels against 3,600,000 barrels. Of course, what is true is that the British share has fallen from 65 per cent. to 32 per cent. While fully recognising the difficulties which undoubtedly do exist abroad I cannot help being convinced that some part of the responsibility for this diminished share is due to the deliberate choice of this policy of restriction, and I am fortified in that opinion by what the Inspector for Sea Fisheries says in his report: There is not the least doubt that the large catches and cure made by the German and Dutch fishermen and curers have enabled them to lower their production costs and undersell the British article. The restriction of production and the maintaining of a minimum selling price for the fresh article forces the prices of the British cured article to a figure which places the exporter in an almost impossible position when faced with the competition of other countries whose policy is one of the direct opposite. The alarming reduction of the British cure during the past years and the steady increase of that of Germany and Holland, due to the progressive policy adopted by them can be seen at a glance from"— the figures of the export of cures.

I hope it will be the policy of the board to reduce as far as possible the costs of this industry and to put it on a competitive basis with these other countries by every means possible, and with the full support of the Government to pursue a policy of regaining and expanding our position in foreign markets. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen about the extension of credits to Poland and Rumania, and, I would add, to other Balkan countries. That, again, was a factor I had in mind when we were discussing yesterday the broad questions of international trade and advocated economic arrangements with the Danubian countries. There are other markets, too. There is a growing market in Palestine, and I hope that in this and in other directions every effort will be made to expand our foreign markets. The most important is, of course, the Russian market. The best transaction we have succeeded in making recently was that with the Russian Government in 1932, and let me repeat what I have said before, that of all the Members of the Government who helped to put that transaction through, the one who deserves the most credit is the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department. He threw himself into that transaction with immense ability and knowledge and we had the best arrangement which has been made with the Russian Government. Then, unfortunately, came the episode of Ottawa with a clause under which the Government felt compelled to denounce the 1932 Agreement, and to inform us that there would now be a new treaty increasing British exports to Russia in proportion to British imports from Russia, whereas, as a matter of fact, the result of the Treaty which has been concluded is that the amount of British exports to Russia has been halved. Under the old Agreement they were £25,000,000, for the four years 1930–33; under the new Agreement they are £13,000,000 for the years 1934–37.

Mr. Colville

I am not quite sure whether I shall be able to answer the right hon. Member on this point when I come to reply to the Debate. I think he is some considerable distance from the Bill when he is referring to a particular provision of a trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker

There is a very strict rule governing Third Reading Debates, and it is that hon. Members must not deal with anything except what is in the Bill.

Sir A. Sinclair

I think the Secretary of State was unduly apprehensive. I was not dealing with the detailed provisions of the agreement, but merely with its effects upon our trade with Russia—to which, indeed, the hon. Member who preceded me referred—and the necessity for improving our trade with that country. That is a matter which is very pertinent to the Bill, since the Bill sets up a new Herring Industry Board, one of the chief functions of which must be to expand our export market, and there is no market that is more important to our herring industry than that of Russia. I think I am entitled to say that at the time when that agreement was made, we begged the Government to include some provision which would deal with the export of herring; and we were told that it was manifest that under the agreement the export of herring would increase, and that it was quite unnecessary to specify any advantage for the herring industry such as was specified in other trade agreements for the coal industry.

Mr. Boothby

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not quite true. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the Russians said that if they had to put herring specifically into the agreement, they would not sign it. We asked them to including herring, but they flatly refused.

Sir A. Sinclair

That may well have been the case. In the course of negotiations, people sometimes say a great many things which they have to retract before the negotiations are concluded. It is certainly fair to argue that if a stronger line had been taken about herring in the case of the agreement with Russia, as was taken about coal in certain other trade agreements, we should have been able to obtain definite advantages for the herring fishing industry. I hope the Government will take a strong line in supporting the new Herring Industry Board in dealing with this problem of the Russian market.

Mr. Boothby

Hear, hear.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am glad that the hon. Member says "Hear hear." If he approves of that remark, he must also be prepared to face the results if the Russians say again, at an early stage of the preliminary negotiations, that they will not deal with us if we insist on herring being included. It is absurd to suppose that Russia could not afford to spend, out of her vast resources, a certain amount of money to buy cured herring which are so much required and appreciated by the Russian people. It is not the case that the taste for herring has disappeared in Russia. People who have been to Russia and made investigations there have told me that it is not the case that there is a decline in the taste for herring. If Russia chose to buy these herring, there would be an ample demand for them from her people. Therefore, I hope that this matter will be pressed by the Government. I have said before in the House, and I have said to my Russian friends—as I have no doubt the hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said to his—that if the Russians value our friendship and value trade with this country, they ought to be prepared, under these agreements, to buy Scottish herring and British manufactured goods. I want all the trade and good will with Russia that we can obtain, but Russia for her part must make the task of her friends in this country easy by taking our Scottish herring, [Interruption.]

Mr. Boothby

That is something which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) can do.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am sure that in this matter we shall have the help of the hon. Member.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, the position is difficult, in that in the report of the Herring Industry Board, it is stated, in paragraph 24: The latest reports from official sources show that the U S.S.R.'s present supplies of herring and other fish are ample for the country's needs and that no imports are necessary. To me that is a very disturbing paragraph. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer it?

Sir A. Sinclair

I would say that the interpretation of that paragraph depends upon the meaning of the word "necessary." It is true that the Russian Government, in order to obtain the supplies of industrial machinery and capital goods which they require, have regarded a very low standard of life for their workers as being the necessary minimum; but in recent years they have been purchasing more consumption goods and trying to raise the standard of life of the people of Russia. There is no doubt that they may be able to maintain the present level of consumption of herring by their people without making any additional import of cured herring—that, I imagine, is the meaning of the paragraph which the hon. Member quoted, and to that extent I agree with it—but I have no doubt that they could easily find a market for additional imported herring if they were so disposed. Herring is an article of food which is extremely popular and still maintains its popularity with the masses of the Russian people. Therefore, I hope that under this Bill we shall have a fresh start with a new board, and that that new board will throw off the atmosphere of defeatism which has hung around the old board, and make a resolute effort to recapture these foreign markets which are so vital to the future of the herring fishing industry.

4.53

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

There is a Gaelic proverb, which I will not quote in its original form, but which is to the effect that when the sounds of war are heard afar off, the price of cattle and men is raised. There are certain things which cause me to be rather suspicious of the Government's purpose in introducing a Bill of this nature. I feel that it is not too remotely connected with pacifying certain "rebellious" elements in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, particularly among the fishermen. I cannot help feeling that we have here something in the nature of a bribe to quieten them while the Government get on with more important things. The Government are throwing the fishermen this sop which will keep them going for a time, not until there is a real re-organisation of the industry, but until the Government can use the fishermen for purposes of war. One cannot help feeling that this is part of the preparations which the Government are making for things to come.

Personally, I do not think that the Bill will contribute very much towards the solution of the problems which face the fishing industry and the people beyond the actual industry who are dependent upon it. In saying that, I do not deny that it makes some small contribution. It is, as it were, another patch among the many that have been put on a very tattered garment, a small patch which is hardly discernible. It is a tiny contribution to a tremendous problem which the Government have made rather grudgingly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the market for herring in Palestine. I wish that the Government had paid as much attention to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, particularly to the fishing industry there, as they have paid to the problems of Palestine, and that they had spent as much money on the Highlands and Islands as they have spent on Palestine. The fishing industry might be the means at this time of guaranteeing an additional food supply to this country in time of peace and in time of war.

Frankly, I believe that the only real solution for the difficulties of the herring industry is to be found in nationalisation. The present system has been tried and it has failed miserably. It is all very well to say that this system has been tried and that nationalisation is only a theory, but we have proved that the present system has failed, with deplorable results not only to the industry but to the thousands of people who are dependent upon it. In order to be able to bring any stability, by which I do not mean rigidity, into the industry there must be long-term planning. I agree that short-term measures are necessary immediately, but there must be a longer policy than has so far been presented to us.

It is all very well to talk about rationalisation, and the reconditioning of the fleet, but for what is it? The whole thing is really a question of markets, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland very properly referred with emphasis. We must try to increase the consumption of herring in this country by making it possible for the herring to be sold as widely and as cheaply as possible, with as few middlemen as possible putting up the price and taking the profits of the people who have risked their lives in catching the fish. But the real solution must be in regaining the markets which we have lost and in getting into markets which we have not yet acquired. Palestine offers such a market. The Government are in touch with Palestine through various Departments, and in dealing with that country it is not as if they were dealing with some foreign Government. They are directly in touch with Palestine from day to day in connection with many problems, and it would be easy to have with Palestine some agreement covering the herring industry.

With Germany and Poland there ought to be not only long-term agreements which introduce some stability into the industry, but some system of price-fixing as well. Only the other day, there was a complete stoppage for a few days of the fishing off the West Coast of Scotland. A large representative fleet of Scottish and English drifters were there. The minimum price had been fixed by the Herring Industry Board, already too low and not an economic price; and then the German Government stepped in, with prices fixed by the German Fisheries Department, and demanded that the herring be sold to them at 6s. below the minimum price which had been fixed by the Herring Industry Board. Germany had a buyer's monopoly and immediately abused it. The Herring Industry Board as it has been and as it is to be gives no real protection against that sort of thing.

An appeal was made to the Secretary of State and to the Herring Industry Board, but as far as I know they took no action, and the new Herring Industry Act does not give powers to take any effective action. The local town council of Stornoway suggested that the Government should assist by giving temporary guarantees. While one can sympathise strongly with that demand in such an emergency, I do not think that that in itself would be a real protection against such emergencies. The idea that the Government should come in on occasions of that sort and break the abuse of a buyer's monopoly may be a good one, although under nationalisation the need for it would not arise. I think there is a lack of co-ordination between the Government Departments which have to deal directly or indirectly with the herring industry. Obviously there arise international questions, Board of Trade questions, questions which have to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and questions which can be dealt with only by the statutory independent authority, the Herring Industry Board.

There is a great lack of co-ordination in connection with the herring industry. Several different Departments of State are concerned with it. Sometimes the Foreign Office has to be called in, and frequently the Board of Trade, while the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has to deal with far too many jobs at once, has also certain responsibiltiy for it. If we are to have any stability in the industry we must have co-ordination among these Departments and some sort of long-term planning in dealing with the foreign markets, which have constituted the real basis of prosperity in the industry. It is not enough merely to have trade agreements to purchase certain quantities of herring at certain given times. We must have some sort of guarantee about prices which will give the industry an opportunity of selling economically.

With all the various amendments and concessions and improvements which have been made, we still find that there is a lack of reliable advice to local area committees and local fishing fleets. Last year at Stornoway a telegram was sent to a private member of the local area committee—not to the secretary—suggesting that the other ports were prepared to open up for fishing and asking whether Stornoway would join in with them or not. The matter came before the local area committee and they agreed to open the port for fishing. They did so and there was a glut of herring at low prices. These people went out and gave their labour and took all the hazards and risks and underwent all the hardships of fishing. They bought coal and wasted I do not know how many hundreds of pounds upon it. No doubt the local coal salesmen flourished, but the fishermen were badly let down as a result of the lack of reliable advice from the board. I lay the blame upon the hoard for not letting the people know in time that the foreign markets were not yet open to buy. Such advice was not forthcoming, and that sort of thing can still happen under the provisions of this Bill. The board, apparently, is still not to be particularly responsible for giving advice of that kind.

Then there is one other point on which I would touch, although it may seem to some hon. Members to be of minor importance. The Herring Industry Board have refused all applications made since 1935 by the owners of any of the few sailing boats left in Scottish fishing ports. There are only two in the Western Isles, and it seems that special regulations were made after 1935 whereby these people have been deprived of any chance of getting a grant of any kind. I cannot imagine why it should have been thought necessary to act so meanly as to introduce a special rule of that kind in order to deal with two or three possible applicants. The fact of the matter is that they have been able to maintain a certain level of prosperity which the owners of many of the more scientifically equipped and more up-to-date craft have not been able to maintain, and I think that the board might have been generous enough to bring them within the category of those entitled to a grant. The amount involved would not, of itself, be likely to bankrupt the resources available to the Secretary of State.

The question of the real position of the Russian market seems to have been entirely overlooked. It has not been sufficiently stressed that the Russians themselves have, very quietly but very efficiently, developed a herring industry of their own. They do not rely any longer upon a supply which, they say, has been unreliable in the past. We must not forget that a British Government in the past broke off relations with Russia at a time when it might have been extremely critical to the Russian people and when this food supply might have been vitally necessary to them.

Mr. Colville

That in no way affects our ability to supply herring.

Mr. MacMillan

I agree that it has not affected our ability to supply herring to Russia; but it has affected the faith of the Russians in our dependability as suppliers. That is the point. Since they cannot depend upon us to supply them in the normal way, since they find that they are liable suddenly to have their supplies cut off, through political spite, even though it is at the expense of our own people, they are anxious to develop their own herring industry, and we cannot blame them for trying to make themselves as independent as possible in this respect. I am not now merely putting forward the plea that the poor Russian Government cannot rely on the British Government to continue good relations. What I am pointing out, not in a spirit of partisanship but as a matter of fact, is that Conservative Governments in the past have broken off relations with Russia and proved themselves unreliable suppliers, and that that has caused the Russians to go into the business themselves. They are trying to develop their own industry, and they are succeeding to a large extent. I am told that the fishing off Murmansk now is more efficient than most people imagine. The Germans are trying to do the same thing, but with rather less success than the Russians.

We must remember these facts and remember, also, that we cannot force these people to buy herring. I only wish that we could put into these agreements a stipulation of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I only wish we could be as firm successfully with the Russians on this matter, as we were when the Conservatives broke off diplomatic relations. But the Government have not shown the same firmness in this case as they did in the past when they ruined this market. We have to consider the Russian point of view. We cannot force our herring on them. If we can sell to them, so much the better, and I, for one, shall bless any attempt which is made to expand or rather to regain the Russian market which was the greatest market we ever had.

The question of the Norwegian Herring Agreement has been before the Secretary of State and the Board of Trade. We of Stornoway supported by other districts have urged on the Government that the agreement should be scrapped. It is known to the Government to be harmful to the herring industry in our own country, Yet for some reason the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office refuse to consider the question seriously, and to remove those obstacles in connection with the Norwegian Herring Agreement which are damaging the industry in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat the matter seriously and give to the industry in our own country that consideration which, apparently, it is considered necessary to extend to the feelings of the Norwegian traders.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman had an Amendment on Report relating to labour conditions in the industry. It appears to have been put down as something rather in the nature of the tail-end of an afterthought. This question has not received anything like the consideration which it ought to have received. Whether the industry is conducted under State control or under the haphazard private enterprise system of to-day, the people upon whom it depends are the fishermen and fisherwomen. Without their labour the industry could not be carried on. It is they who undertake the risks and undergo the hardships. Without private control, the industry could be run as a State industry. Without State control it could be carried on as a private industry. But without the working men and women, who are the real producers, it could not be carried on at all. They are the people to whom the fullest consideration should be given, but apparently they only receive such consideration as can be given at the last moment in the tail end of the Amendment. It is time that stipulations were made regarding the payment of a fair minimum wage to all men and women in the industry. Organisation through trade unions is difficult in the industry for obvious reasons. When these people come under unemployment insurance they are classed as seasonal workers and are penalised in various ways which are well-known to the Minister of Labour. I cannot go into that matter now further than to say that the Minister of Labour must have a rather uncomfortable conscience in relation to the many people who are affected by those seasonal regulations. I suppose nothing can be done about it in a Bill of this kind, but nothing is being done by the Ministry of Labour or by the Government to assist these people in their plight. I think that no class of people in the country have been more neglected in times of peace or have proved themselves more useful in times of war, than the people connected with the herring industry. They are not only herring fishermen but at a moment's notice they can become—

Mr. Macquisten

Mine fishermen.

Mr. MacMillan

Yes, mine fishermen if you like. We know how the Navy was indebted to them in 1914 and afterwards and the services which they rendered throughout the War. But in times of peace they are denied the material assistance which is so urgently necessary for them. It is only now when there are rumours of war, that we are turning again to them and making all sorts of promises to them. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) raised the question of Sunday fishing. While several arguments have been adduced in favour of Sunday fishing, there are strong objections to it. The hon. Member pointed out that during the short intensive season of six weeks on which the prosperity of the industry depends it was a pity that the men should be confined to working only five days a week. We must consider, however, the question of wear and tear both of gear and of men.

Mr. Boothby

The English fishermen and the foreign fishermen do it in the South for a much longer season.

Mr. MacMillan

That is hardly a logical reason why we should do it in the North; but there are many many reasons against it. The idea that there should be fishing every day in the season might or might not be sympathetically received in this House but there are obvious physical and other reasons why people should not work every day in the week and I think that these people in particular ought to be truly thankful for the break at the end of the week.

Mr. Boothby

One day—that is all we are asking.

Mr. MacMillan

But the hon. Member wants them to work on one day in particular. He does not want Saturday—he wants Sunday.

Mr. Boothby

No, what I suggested was that they should take only one day off in the week owing to the shortness of the season.

Mr. MacMillan

I did not understand that the hon. Member was raising the matter in that form. I still understand that he does not agree with taking Sunday off. But there is this point to be considered, that in the case of the other fishermen to whom he has referred, he industry in England is carried on by large companies who can afford the extra wear and tear and the extra expense involved and the employment of extra men to replace those who may be incapacitated by overwork. That does not apply in the case of Scotland where we have to deal with much smaller companies or with share fishermen working on a much smaller scale.

Mr. Boothby

Does the hon. Member, then, maintain that the Scottish fishing industry is incapable of working for six days a week for that very short season of six weeks in the whole year?

Mr. MacMillan

No, I have not suggested anything of the kind. I am expressing a point of view. I have not said they are incapable, but that it is inadvisable, along with many questions of principle, because of the effects of wear and tear on the people in the industry. I am not going to vote against this Bill. It is not a step backward. It does not lead us very far ahead, but at least we are holding our own and not losing any ground by it. Therefore, for the contribution which it does make I think most of us are prepared to give it what little support it deserves.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies

I regret that I did not intervene on the earlier stages of this Bill, but I am glad that this occasion affords an opportunity of expressing oneself with regard to it before we finally part with it from this House. There is one matter which I ought to mention, rather in the nature of an apology. I apologise for intervening in a Debate which so intimately concerns Scotland and, apparently, nobody else. One wonders why a Bill which is supposed to apply to the herring industry around the whole of our coasts is in the charge of the Secretary of State for Scotland, having the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Then I suppose I shall be told that if it were in the charge of the Minister of Agriculture, it would be in the charge of another Scotsman. No wonder there is this paean of joy from Scottish Members when they are receiving a grant from the others of us who have to subscribe £250,000 in one subsidy, a definite gift from which they and they alone will benefit. I regret that it was only this morning that there was put in our hands the very able report of the Herring Industry Board. It would have been better if the Bill itself could have been delayed until that report had been put into our hands, or at any rate if the report had been brought before us earlier. It is a very interesting report, a very able report, a very full report, and I understand from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that it is an infinitely better report than was ever issued before, but if that be so, we should have had the advantage of it before this Bill was considered by this House and given a Second Reading.

The report contains some very valuable material and some very striking facts, to which I hope, with the permission of the House, I may call attention. But this able report is issued by men who are now to be thrown upon the scrap heap, without a word of apology or explanation and without any reason given. I read with very great care the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and when he came to deal with, I think, Clause 2, he said that it was doing away with the old board and was about to create a new one, but not a single reason was given for doing that. There was just the bare statement. He said that consultations had taken place between certain members of the industry and his predecessor and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but what those people said, or when they said it, or who they were, or what were the reasons that they give, we do not know, except apparently that some information was given, and then his predecessor and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries sifted this chaff and, having sifted it, said, "We will scrap the lot."

What is to be put in their place? Three men, whose sole qualification, apparently, is going to be independence of mind, and they are to have the assistance of an advisory council of experts. The more independent minded they are, the less they will seek advice, and when advice is tendered to them, the more independent minded they are, the chances are much more strengthened that they will flaunt that advice. The whole of this matter is now to be handed over to three men who know nothing at all about the industry.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

Does that not apply to directors of companies as a rule?

Mr. Davies

At any rate, those companies are responsible to their shareholders. What is to happen here? How do we know whether these people have acted upon the right or upon the wrong advice? Anyway, we know this, that these people are being dismissed with no explanation and no defence. It is unusual in this House to have attacks made upon persons who have carried out a public service and to have not a single word said in their defence from that Box. There was a quite bitter attack made from the other side during the discussion, I think, of the Money Resolution, and an opportunity was then given to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but not a word did he say in defence of these people, nor any word of gratitude for the work which they had done.

Now may I turn—I think I may claim to say that I am the first of the speakers to do so—to the Bill itself? I have listened to this Debate since about a quarter to four, and I have yet to hear a single word about the policy of the Bill. The most important Clause in this Bill is Clause 4, by which a grant is to be made of £250,000 to build more boats. That £250,000 is to be a third of the cost of building the boats, so that apparently, if one read the Bill and nothing else, one would come to the conclusion that what was needed at the present moment above all other things was more fishing boats, that there was an extraordinarily good market, a growing market, growing so much that you could put down £750,000 worth of more boats. Anyone taking up the Bill would come to the conclusion that there was a good, fat, rich living to be made by anybody who could only put a fishing boat on the water. Yet when I come to read the speeches that have been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others, I find that they have all said practically that the market is gone, that we are in difficulties with regard to the market.

As I read the speech made in support of the Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, really I had to look at it again, because it seemed to me, as I read it, that the speech was one which was delivered in opposition to the Bill and that it ought to have been delivered from that Box and not from this Box. Every reason that he gave was a reason against the policy advocated in the Bill, and put in Clause 4, of building more boats.

Mr. Colville

The declared policy of the Government is not to build more boats, but to replace boats by new motor boats.

Mr. Davies

But where in the Bill do I find a word about replacing boats?

Mr. Colville

I said so in my speech.

Mr. Davies

The right hon. Gentleman's speech is not the Bill and will not be the Act of Parliament, and it is the Act of Parliament that we have to deal with afterwards, not the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. May I remind him of what he said: The main cause of the depression is the shrinkage in our export trade in cured herring. Continental countries which used to buy an immense quantity of our cured herring have taken steps to provide for themselves and to fulfil their own requirements from their own catches. For example, Germany's production of cured herring increased from 250,000 barrels in 1929 to over 1,000,000 barrels in 1937, and her imports from all countries fell from £,100,000 to 540,000 barrels, that is to say by about half. Those are siguificant figures. Russia has also effected a great increase in her own production… Then comes this: Having said that, it is impossible, none the less, for us to escape the conclusion that the total market available for countries who are exporters of cured herring, ourselves and other countries, has fallen to a permanent level which is much lower than that which prevailed before the War, and the balance of policy must be adjusted to meet that fact. It is no use going on saying: 'Provide us with the pre-war market.' It is no use saying that. Why build more boats? Why ask the country to subscribe £250,000? The right hon. Gentleman went on: We must recognise that position and adjust our policy accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1938; cols. 610–11, Vol. 336.] I should have thought adjusting our policy accordingly would be to limit the number of boats, but instead the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and says, "No, my speech points out the fact that the market has gone down, and gone down permanently. I have no hope of putting that right, but at any rate I will do this; I will build more boats."

Mr. Colville

If the hon. and learned Member had been present during these Debates, he would have been in no doubt as to the policy of the Government. As part of the scheme, which is inherent in our proposals, it is intended to replace and not to enlarge.

Mr. Davies

The right hon. Gentleman used the word "replace" once, I think, in the course of his Second Reading speech.

Mr. Colville

We have all used it lots of times.

Mr. Davies

But where is it in the Bill? We cannot deal with speeches, when we are dealing with an Act of Parliament. It is no good quoting in any court of law the words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman or by any of his colleagues at that Box. Nobody will Listen; they will only refer to the Act of Parliament itself. Then, when I come to this report which is put in our hands this morning, I find that on page 6 there is this very significant passage, part of which was read by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen, but I am sorry he did not read the first part: There have been, since the board first came into office, large reductions in the fleet and personnel of the industry, but these reductions have not been on a scale commensurate with the shrinkage of trade, and there are still more vessels and more persons in the industry than it is able to support. That is the crux of the whole matter. I understood from the Front Bench recently that they were a bench of realists. Why cannot they face up to this stark fact, that the shrinkage, although it has been great during the last few years, is still not, in the words of these gentlemen who have carefully considered this matter, on a scale commensurate with the shrinkage of trade. What is to happen? This £250,000 is to be handed over to the board to distribute among the fishermen who show that they require it. The words of the Bill are significant. There is to be a means test, for the grants are to be given for the purpose of assisting in the provision of new motor boats which could not be provided without such assistance. From another part of the Bill one understands that the grant is to be about one-third of the total cost of the new boat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland said just now that I had not followed the Debate, but I read not only the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary, but the speeches of the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. I gather that the cost of a motor boat would be £3,000 as against £10,000 for a steam drifter. Of this £1,000 is to be provided by the board out of money provided by the Treasury. Apparently the other £2,000 is to be a loan from the Herring Industry Board.

A sum of £3,000 is to be spent on a motor boat for a fisherman who cannot provide it without such assistance. That man, having had his boat built, will start in an industry which is already overcrowded with boats, according to the board, and in an industry where there is not an expanding but rather a decreasing market. How is he to find the money to pay the interest on the loan, and if he cannot repay the loan what is to happen? Apparently those who in the industry can make a success of it will be asked to contribute to repay the loan. What a premium that will be upon good economics and the good running of boats, because if a man runs them well and at a profit he will not only have to look after his own boats and his own affairs, but will also be responsible for these payments. It is a policy which I fail completely to understand. It seems to me the sort of Bill that might have appeared in "Alice in Wonderland." What do we find has been the experience according to another part of this report? We know how the imports of Russia, Germany and other continental countries have as a whole gone down. We know that they are now running their own fleets and producing their own herring. When we turn to page 13 we see what was the experience of the herring industry in this country last year. Paragraph 59 says: The figure of £2,180,265 realised by the sale of the whole British herring catch was definitely not sufficient to support the 747 steam and 278 motor drifters engaged in 1937 if the necessary reductions are made for the amount earned by trawlers, ring-netters and small craft. This view was supported by the following statement showing the average earnings of English and Scottish steam drifters at the two main herring fisheries of 1937 and the three previous years. I will not bother about the three previous years, but for 1937 the total average earnings of the Scottish boats was £1,588, and of English boats £2,780. The report then goes on to say: On the basis that a Scottish steam drifter requires to gross at least £2,200 and an English vessel £2,700 in order to meet wages, running expenses and maintenance cost, it is evident from these figures that even with the addition of earnings from subsidiary herring fishings, a great majority of the Scottish drifters and a considerable proportion of the English did not do so. The proportion which earned capital charges and a profit for their owners must be smaller still. There was, apparently, a loss last year of £612 on the average on the Scottish drifters. I know they are steam drifters, but they are engaged in the herring trade, and, as an hon. Member says, are still drifting. Now they are to be helped in their drifting by the addition of a number of new boats subsidised as to one-third by the Government and as to two-thirds by the industry, which will ultimately be responsible for the repayment of the loans when the fishermen cannot repay them. The case only wants to be stated as it is stated in the report to see the fallacy that is underlying the whole of this business. What can be its purpose when, as is pointed out, the market has all the time been shrinking? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made, as he always does, an eloquent plea with regard to Russia, but what is the good? He apparently wants to threaten Russia. How he is going to threaten Russia if he will not go to war or will not put on tariffs I do not know, except it be by exercising his best persausive powers. He begged the Government to be resolute and not to take Russia at their first word; they were bluffers, and the Government should stick to them firmly. The hon. Member for East Fife called attention to what is stated about Russia by the board. It is obvious that the Russian Government are now providing for their own requirements of herring. Paragraph 22 says: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has developed her Murman Coast herring fisheries to such an extent that the output of preserved herring has been increased from a bare 1,000 tons in 1930 to 99,000 in 1935, and although later figures are not available it is known that the increase is continuing. Then, again, paragraph 23 says: At the same time, considerable developments have taken place in the Caspian and Black Sea herring fisheries. The result of this development is shown in the import figures which fell from about 75,000 tons in 1930 to less than 8,000 in 1937. The latest reports from official sources show that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' present supplies of herring and other fish are ample for the country's needs and that no imports are necessary. What hope have we of reopening the Russian market and forcing herring on to it? The story is the same in regard to Germany, and will undoubtedly be the same with regard to the Baltic States. At present they are taking a certain quantity, but at any moment they will be starting their own fishing industry. I was astonished at the statement made that there was no hope of expanding the market in this country. Why is that statement made? There must be a hope of expanding it in this country. I notice that the Herring Industry Board last year spent £24,000 in advertising. I should think that that was money thrown away.

Mr. Boothby

The vast bulk of the cure is the Yarmouth hard salt cure in the autumn, and you will never get the people of this country to eat that particular class of herring. For the sale of that herring we are absolutely dependent on northern and eastern Europe.

Mr. Davies

That does not do away with my argument. The only hope is to extend the consumption of herring in one form or another in this country. On that, apparently, £24,000 has been spent in advertising. I should have thought that that was perfectly useless expenditure for the sale of £2,000,000 worth of herring. Assuming that about £1,200,000 of that total was earned by exports abroad, it leaves only £800,000 spent in this country on herring last year. In order to get the sale of that quantity, £24,000 was spent. I should have thought that any trader would advise that that was useless spending. If the board want to bring herring to the attention of the people, let them spend this £250,000 in advertising instead of building boats which are not required, instead of adding to the difficulties at the present moment on the sea, instead of tempting these poor people to go into a business which is unsatisfactory and uneconomic. Let the board help them in another way, and help them, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen suggested, with regard to coal, in their running expenses, in popularising the article, and in making transport easier and better from the ports to inland places where the requirements are. Do not let them start upon a policy which all the facts point to as being wrong.

I regard with some trepidation the disappearance of the old steam drifters. Their value during the War and especially the value of the personnel which manned them was more than this country can estimate. Whether they acted as mine sweepers or did other things, they were the maids-of-all-work used by everybody for these four valuable years. Now they are likely to disappear and you are going to put on the water a sort of little gadfly, a 75-foot motor boat. What earthly use will they be in time of danger? The board have already pointed to one difficulty, and I rather agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that the objection they have with regard to fuel does not sound a very strong one. Surely the other argument as to the abolition of the steam drifters which were so essential in the last War, and may be essential in the next, is one which ought to give the House the greatest concern. This Bill is obviously an appeal by the Scottish Members on behalf of their constituents. It is only right that a man should stand up for his own constituency. There is one matter to which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) referred, namely, fishing on Sunday. This is not a religious question. I am glad to see that the hon. Member nods his approval, but apparently in some parts it is. I fail to understand the logic because these people when engaged on other work are out on Sundays but in this particular season, for some reason or other, they have not been in the habit of going out from Saturday to Monday. During that period, when the herring is at its best, from July to the middle of August, a period of only six weeks, it would only be a question of giving up six Sunday nights, and, if they like, six sermons, and then they could for the rest of the year go regularly to kirk every Sunday. As an hon. Member reminds me they could get the Sunday services by wireless on the boats. So it cannot really be a question of religion; it is a matter of habit.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

The hon. and learned Member must realise that this is most definitely a religious question among the herring fishermen in Scotland, and nowhere more so than in the Western Isles.

Mr. Davies

I understand that as a general rule it is not a religious question at all, but merely a question of habit. If they would go out on the Sunday nights, as the English fishermen do, the chances are they would add to their income a sum of something like £60,000 or £100,000, not a sum to be thrown away, especially when the industry is asking this House for a grant of £200,000. I again deeply regret that the Government have committed themselves to a policy which, I think, is not justified by the facts in this industry, and that they could have helped the industry very much better by sticking to true economics. When are the Government going to learn that it is the law of supply and demand which is the governing one in all industries?

5.47 P.m.

Mr. Loftus

The Debate has covered such a wide range that I shall not trespass upon the patience of the House in criticising previous speakers. I have not the time to deal with the most interesting speech we have just had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). We have reached the last stage of this Bill. I opposed it on Second Reading and I opposed the Money Resolution on the ground, first, that it did not deal with the urgent and immediate necessities and difficulties which are facing the herring trade to-day, and my second ground of opposition was that it did not subsidise or help to build a type of fishing boat which could face the East Anglian rough autumn fishing conditions. My two objections remain, but I realise that at this stage I have no hope of amending or improving the Bill, as I had in the earlier stages, and I recognise that it does create certain benefits for the trade—and that it establishes the new and most valuable principle of free grants for the building of boats—and I would not take it upon myself to oppose it upon its final reading.

I am going to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland certain questions, and I shall be greatly obliged if he could find time in his reply to answer them, because not only am I interested in them but the English Herring Catchers' Association urgently desires information. The first Clause of the Bill provides for the appointment of a new board of three members. Are they to be whole-time members? If they are, I can conceive that there will be great difficulty in selecting three adequate members. If they have considerable business experience and capacity it will mean paying high remuneration for a very difficult job, and that will bear very heavily upon the poor herring fisheries. And if they are to be three new members, how long will it be before they know anything about the trade and are in a position to act? I suggest that the appointment of an entirely new board means that for at least 12 months nothing can be done. I have been connected closely with this trade for four and a quarter years, and almost weekly I am learning something new about its difficulties, and I cannot imagine a new board, even one composed of super-business men, suddenly coming to this work, being in a position next year, 1939, to frame any policy to meet the conditions in the trade.

Will the board have adequate powers? If they find that they have not adequate powers for dealing with their responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend then introduce an amending scheme if they request it? They might find that it was urgently necessary for them to control trawling. They have no powers to do it. I hope the board will be a success. I recognise the valuable work done by the old board, and I am glad that the "Aberdeen Free Press," in a leading article yesterday, paid them such a remarkable tribute to their services, but without being in any way offensive to the old board—which is the last thing I would do, because I recognise their qualities and their services—I do hope that in three or four years' time we shall not have the herring industry repeating the complaint in the old fable of Æsop, where the frogs complained that they had deposed King Log only to obtain King Stork, who was devouring their substance.

Clause 2 appoints an advisory council and the English herring catchers are a little anxious—"little" is, perhaps, too mild a word—about their representation on this council. They feel they may not have adequate representation and are the more concerned because they have noticed the silence throughout the Debates on the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who, I regret to see, is not in his place. They hope that this advisory council will protect the interests of the English catchers, and that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who represents the English fishing industry, will remember that 55 per cent. of the herring caught are caught by English boats.

By Clause 3 certain powers are given to the board and I wish to know whether those powers allow the board to buy herring and to sell them. I say, frankly, that I should like to see the new board have powers—I do not know whether the Bill or the scheme gives them—to organise distribution at a time of glut. They should have power to buy and to sell, even below cost, especially to the poorer sections of the community.

As regards Clause 4 the first question which calls for an answer is, Can any fisherman get a new boat built with this grant and then sell it again? I particularly press that point. If he can do so, the system is obviously open to great abuse. We might even get new companies and even moneylenders coming into the business. A boat which had cost £3,000 to build might be sold for £2,700 and there would still be a large profit. I wish to ask further whether any of the grants will be available for small motor boats used by long-shore fishermen, because, frankly I think that is the only hope of my constituents obtaining any of this £250,000. Is there any chance of them getting it? Another question concerns the word "motor-boats." The word "motors," according to every dictionary which I have consulted, is not confined to motors operated by oil. I want to ask specifically whether boats fitted with producer-gas engines will be available for oil. Producer-gas engines are being improved month by month. It is an immensely important point, for this reason, that the whole tendency of our national policy for 15 years past has been to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise oil to drive out the use of coal. We have done it in the Navy, and in the scrapand-build shipbuilding programme the plan was to scrap two old steamships and to build one oil-driven vessel in their place.

Sir Douglas Thomson

The scrap-and-build plan was to scrap two old ships and to build a new one in their place, but it was not necessarily to be an oil-driven vessel.

Mr. Loftus

Not necessarily, certainly, but in how many cases were new coal-burning vessels built? What was the percentage?

Sir D. Thomson

I cannot give the percentage, but I can tell the hon. Member that there were coal-burning vessels built.

Mr. Loftus

Only a very small number. If I were a Member interested in the coal industry I should press for an assurance that the word "motor" in this case should cover the modern and very cheap producer-gas engines, because there are vessels being built in Germany equipped with such engines and we have such lorries running on the roads at very much less cost than petrol-driven lorries.

The next point to which I wish to refer arises under Clause 6. There is nearly £610,000 available for loans. Under the old Act £600,000 was granted and only £140,000 was used, leaving an unexpended balance of £460,000. We are adding another £150,000 making £610,000. I think the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire is the point upon which my constituents require information more than upon any other point. These boats cost £3,000. There will be a grant of £1,000 and the balance of £2,000 will come from the £610,000.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

May?

Mr. Loftus

I think the right hon. Gentleman said these small boats would he used for the white fishing for a considerable part of the year. Supposing the white fishing is not remunerative, supposing these boats are a failure and there is a financial loss. Who bears the loss on the £2,000 loaned? Does the whole herring industry bear it? Does the whole fleet bear it? Does the Herring Board bear it? If so, what does it mean? It means that the steam drifters have to bear any loss respecting subsidised boats which fail. That would be such an unjust thing that I cannot imagine any Government or the House of Commons accepting it. Another point is, will any of this loan money of £610,000 be available for building steam drifters? Will it be available at cheap rates of interest? As the steam-drifter side is entirely neglected, surely it would be advisable to let the Herring Board lend it at very low rates of interest for the rebuilding and replacing of steam drifters. That, again, is a point on which my constituents are pressing for information.

I have covered some of the points I had in mind, but there are many others with which I would like to deal, and which were raised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I would refer only to one or two others very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said that the Herring Industry Board report had fixed the figures of the fleet at 300 steam drifters and 500 motor boats. Two members of the board have protested against that statement and have sent in a written protest. My hon. Friend talked about Dutch competition; it has been terribly heavy in the past season. The Dutch sold herring at very low prices, quite cutting us out; but let the House note the result. The result to-day is that for the last five or six weeks the fishermen have been on strike. As a result of the cutting-out tactics they have had such bad remuneration that they cannot endure another year like that, and that is a fact which may well mean that the Dutch trade will come and meet us and will join in a discussion to prevent such absurd, mad, and cut-throat competition.

I opposed this Bill in its early stages, I think rightly, but I am not opposing it now; but I would say something in the nature of a warning, in words that are not mine. I will end by quoting a few words from a leading article in the "Times" to-day, which I believe are profoundly true: Far more drastic measures will have to be taken if an industry so important to national defence both in its equipment of ships and in its production of food is to survive on any substantial scale.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I agree very much with some of the points just made by my hon. Friend. There is a great deal in his suggestion that not all of the present Herring Industry Board should be dismissed. There is something to be said for retaining upon the new body that is to administer this scheme at least one of them who have had experience in the last few years. I would join with my hon. Friend also in asking for information about the new Advisory Council. For example, what size is the council to be? Is it to meet regularly and frequently, and how often and in what circumstances? Will it meet as one body, or will it be divided into sub-committees of itself either to deal with special matters or to represent special interests. Remember this Advisory Council is the only contact that the trade will have with the body which controls it, and it is therefore of the greatest possible importance to the industry. Since we have not been told anything about it yet, it would be helpful if the Minister would take a moment of his time this afternoon to tell us what the council will do, where it will meet, how it will function, and so on. We feel entitled to ask questions on those points.

There is a great deal in the fear expressed by my hon. Friend about the possibility of a grantee, that is to say, one who gets a grant of £1,000, subsequently selling his boat for a profit. There is a real possibility of malpractice here. No doubt the Government have foreseen it, but they have not advised us of their plans, and it might be well if they did so to-day. As to Dutch competition, the workers there have seen the senselessness of the cut-throat competition carried on in recent months. I believe it will have the desired effect of their demanding higher wages and therefore that higher prices will be required for their product. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen struck the right note when he suggested, and indeed begged, that the Government should institute without further delay trade negotiations with Holland to prevent a repetition of such action. The Herring Board Report shows that Holland was selling herring at 10s. per barrel less than we could sell them. That is a cut of about 30 per cent. at least, I should guess, and is completely destructive of our trade. As we have heard, it was apparently destructive of their own industry as well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the suggestion.

The speech to which I listened with the greatest interest was that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I agreed warmly with his concluding sentiments, but I found myself opposed to almost everything else he said. His remarks about the meagreness of the present advertising campaign were completely justified. When the Milk Bill was before this House, a suggestion was made to set aside I believe £50,000 for the advertising of the whole of the milk industry in this country, and I remember representing to the then Minister of Agriculture what an absurd amount that was. I agree that if we are appreciably to extend the sales of herring in the home market, we must adopt modern advertising technique and apply it in a really big way. £25,000 a year is really wasted money. Two or three times that amount would not exceed what is reasonable and necessary.

I do not agree with those who suggest that the home market is of secondary importance. Let them read this report and they will see that we consume at home 600,000 crans of herring per annum, which is only 100,000 crans less than the total cure of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) speaks so much, exported to every country in the world. In fact, the home market consumes almost as much as the total of those markets which take the cured herring, and you cannot say that it is of minor importance. The report shows a welcome rise in the consumption of herring at home as a result of such advertising and selling campaigns as have been adopted. Year by year the number of cran has increased. I would ask the Minister to insist, when instructing his new board, that they shall not put the home market for herring into a secondary place but shall devote very great attention to it.

I pass now to the more controversial part of my hon. Friend's speech. He started off by asking why the old board had been dismissed. It is not for me to answer that question and no doubt the Minister will do so, but I can offer him at least two reasons why the fishermen and the trade which I represent felt that some change was necessary. First of all, if a board of this kind is to be successful, obviously it must gain and hold the complete confidence of the trade. The present board have not retained that confidence. Secondly, the constitution of the present board is calculated to destroy that confidence, even if it existed. As my hon. Friend knows, the present board is composed of independent persons and trader representatives. In this trade, for some reason or other, the various sections not only do not co-operate but, according to my experience, find their interests directly at conflict. We have found that the local feeling between districts was reflected on the board, and that the board had the greatest possible difficulty in coming to important decisions.

Without any disrespect whatever to the personnel of the present board, I think it would be wise to have a new body. I agree that it should be composed of three independent men and I hardly think my hon. and learned Friend was serious when he suggested that those three independent men would not take any advice from their advisers. That is not the experience of himself, I am sure, in the great business which he controls, nor does it agree with the experience which we have had in this House. Independent and competent men will certainly take advice.

Mr. E. J. Williams

Is this a case of Liberal harmony?

Mr. Stewart

No, in this case we are not harmonious. My hon. and learned Friend's main point related to the new boats. I think he rather misunderstood the position. This is not a proposal to add new boats but to replace boats which are falling out of service. If he had been here on 19th May he would have heard the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answering a question of mine on the subject and saying that the number of steam drifters in Scotland on the register in 1933 and in 1937 had been 733 and 459 respectively. What has happened is that, on an average, 70 of these steam drifters have gone on the scrap heap in Scotland every year. They have disappeared, and if they go on at that rate, far from there being an addition to their number, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, there will not be any steam drifters in Scotland at all in another six years. No Government can possibly watch that process without doing something to fill up the gaps.

Mr. C. Davies

Does the hon. Member think that the suggestion is that before a new boat is built and a grant is made under Clause 4, another boat must be scrapped? If so, I would like to see where it is stated in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart

In the last Debate I asked the Government a question almost in the same terms, and I was informed that the grant was to be given for a new boat on the occasion of the scrapping of an old one.

Mr. Davies

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the words of an Under-Secretary are as important as an Act of Parliament, and are we to deal with the words of an Under-Secretary or with the words of the Bill?

Mr. Stewart

That is a matter on which the Government must answer, but I myself would make this reply: My hon. and learned Friend says that this is not in the Act. My reply is that it is in action now, without any Government provision. I would repeat to my hon. and learned Friend that steam drifters in Scotland are falling out of use, on account of age and for similar reasons, at the rate of 70 per annum. That is not an Act of Parliament, but it is action, and it is most deplorable action, of which we must take note.

Mr. Loftus

Are they not being largely replaced, without subsidy, by new motor boats, of which over 170 have been built in the last 10 years without subsidy?

Mr. Stewart

I think that figure covers the whole country, but in any case I am satisfied, speaking for that part of the coast which I know best, that these old boats—the average age of the boats that are left is 25 years—are rapidly falling out of use. What is to be put in their place? My hon. and learned Friend asks, "Why motor boats?" I can give him the answer in the form of two figures which I feel must satisfy him and the House. During the last Debate an hon. Member of the Opposition, representing a coal-mining constituency, made a very reasonable point. He asked whether, if motor vessels were built, the result would not be to take the bread out of the mouths of miners in the coal industry? Let me try to answer him from the point of view of my constituents who have to make their living out of these vessels. Let me take two boats, the one a steam drifter which goes to Yarmouth from my part of the country, the other a motor vessel which makes the same voyage, also from East Fife.

Mr. Loftus

What are the sizes?

Mr. Stewart

They are the normal size of steam and motor vessels. I take two years at random. In one year the steam drifter made a gross income of £636 during the Yarmouth season, and, when it came back, after having paid all its expenses, it was able to hand over to its crew £26 16s. each. The motor vessel, for various reasons, was only able to make a gross income of £381, but, because of its cheapness, its economy of running and so on, it paid out to its men £26 12s. each. My hon. Friend may say that that is not a very impressive comparison. I will give him another year. In this case the steel standard drifter made a gross income of £626, and distributed among its crew 25 8s. each. The motor vessel, on the same voyage to Yarmouth, although its gross income was only £434, was able, on account of its lower running charges, to give its men £27 5s. 2d. each.

Mr. Loftus

Is not the hon. Member comparing very old steam drifters with the most modern and efficient motor vessels? Steam is becoming very efficient and economical now.

Mr. Stewart

I was taking quite average boats.

Mr. Speaker

The question of the earnings of vessels going to Yarmouth is not in the Bill. I think it is time we came to the Bill itself.

Mr. Stewart

I was trying to answer my hon. Friend who had attacked Clause 4. I was trying to show that Clause 4 is fully justified by the facts of the trade. I contend that, when we have the clearest possible examples of the economy that follows the use of motor vessels, and, what is more important still, the monetary advantages that accrue to the men, it is impossible to oppose Clause 4. But I must not detain the House unduly. I will finish on this note: The report which has been issued to the House to-day is a rather grim document. Personally, I do not object that the board have turned upon their critics and trounced them. Indeed, I welcome it. If the board had shown more of that bull-dog spirit last year and the year before, perhaps this Bill would not have been necessary. But the board, having met that criticism, have given us one of the most forcible and informative statements on the herring industry that I have ever read. The report is of the greatest possible value to the House and to the country; I do not know of any document that gives more information in a more courageous and concise way, and the board are to be thanked for it.

They say that the future of the overseas trade is black, that there is no chance of its expanding, and that probably there is nothing but decline in store for the industry. I think we are entitled to ask the Government whether they accept that view. Are the Government of the opinion, as the board apparently are, that there is no hope of expanding the foreign market? Clause 7 of the Bill provides for grants to the board for the purpose of extending sales and market development. The Government have only to look for a moment at the report to see possibilities of extending sales and market developments abroad. Let them look at the reference on page II to America, where the sales of herring this year were 3,700 barrels, as against 18,000 last year and 24,000 the year before. Why is that? It is not because of totalitarian States; it is not because of exchange restrictions; it is probably due to nothing but bad marketing. Again, take the case of the Mediterranean cure, which last year amounted to 83,000 crans, while the year before, on account of the Italian troubles it was only 38,000, and the year before that again 83,000. Here is a steady market, the kind of market that a salesman leaps upon, because he sees opportunities of expanding it. Are the Government satisfied that everything possible is being done to extend sales in those directions? If the Government will look for the opportunities that are to be found, and if the fullest advantage is taken of modern selling methods, I myself am not despondent in regard to this industry. The men in the industry are outstanding for their initiative, independence and determination to "get on" in the world. That is my experience, and I do not believe that they will fall or collapse under the strain of foreign market decline, great as it is. I believe that with the least encouragement from this House these men, who are not hangers-on on the State, will show that the initiative for which their country has been renowned in the past will again assert itself.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has tried to give an explanation of the failure of the board, but I do not suppose that a more childish attempt at an explanation of that failure could have been made. He says that certain sections do not like one another, and that the personnel of the board do not like one another.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I did not say that.

Mr. Gallacher

At any rate, the whole explanation is quite beside the point. The reason why the Herring Board failed, and the reason why the new board will fail, is that the Herring Board was an alternative to a policy. Not until there is a clear policy will it be possible for any herring board to function or carry on any useful work. The hon. Member himself drew attention to the fact that the Herring Board, in their own report, hold out no hope for the future of the industry, and he asked whether this dismal outlook represents the view of the Government. If the Government had a policy, he would know the policy, and would never ask such a question. There is no policy, and it is impossible for any board to function without a policy. To clear out one board and appoint another is not a solution for the problems of the herring industry. I remember that in a previous Debate the hon. Member for East Fife said that the Government were only scratching at the problem. They are still scratching at the problem, and that is the reason why the Herring Board have failed. They are only scratching at the problem instead of facing up to it. Why cannot we get someone who will face up to the actual situation which confronts the herring industry, who will seize the problems and deal with them? They are playing with the industry and the lives of the fishermen. If the Herring Board is to make anything at all of its job, the first thing it has to do is to guarantee a basic wage for all herring fishermen. Will the hon. Member for East Fife agree with that?

Mr. Henderson Stewart

No; it is impossible.

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Member says it is impossible. How is it possible for any board to function when such an attitude of mind is adopted?

Mr. Speaker

That again is quite outside the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher

I thought that, with the introduction of the Amendment to Clause r including within the purview of the Herring Board— the conditions of employment of persons employed therein, —I should he entitled to draw attention to a matter which I raised on the Second Reading, and which I consider to be of fundamental importance in connection with this question. Naturally, however, I accept your judgment on such matters as this, and will not follow that up. I want, however, to draw attention to the fact that the policy that would be necessary to ensure the board carrying on its work would embrace, along with ensuring, as stated in the Amendment, proper conditions for those employed in the industry, facilities for the catching of herring without any restrictions of any kind. The report of the Herring Board draws attention to the fact that the home market consumes practically as many herring as are cured for the foreign market. Anyone who knows anything about it will understand that the home consumption at the present time is only a fraction of what should be consumed. The hon. Member suggested that it is necessary to make wasteful expenditure in the form of advertising. What is the idea of such a suggestion? Advertising arises out of the anarchy of capitalism. If you are going to set up a board to organise an industry you should be able to eliminate that. There are ways to ensure that great communities can consume the herring, which are a very valuable food, and, without the slightest advertising, the 600,000 crans that are now consumed in the home market could be increased three or four times if the organisation of the market is properly taken up. This question of the fishermen has never been viewed in the way it should have been, and as a consequence you are getting new derelict areas in this country. It is a scandal and a shame that such a body of people should be neglected so long. That is the sort of thing that should call for the greatest consideration from Members in all parts of the House, and an end should be put to the playing that is going on with this subject. I agree as to the necessity of developing the foreign market, but one of the first considerations should be the big possibility that there is for developing the home market. The policy should be to ensure the best possible conditions for the men employed, and to allow them to catch all the fish they can, making the Herring Board responsible for seeing that all these fish are used.

In the earlier stages of this Debate there were some interesting remarks by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Russian market, and the Leader of the Liberal party was very anxious that something should be done to force the Russians to take our herring. When the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) drew his attention to the fact that every effort had been made to get the Russians to increase their consumption, the Leader of the Liberal party insisted that the Government had not been strong enough in attempting to force herring on them.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams

Red herring.

Mr. Gallacher

I am not discussing the Independent Conservatives at present. The red herring in that particular direction have not been properly cured, and have become pretty stale. It has been said, "What about the hon. Member for West Fife? Maybe he can do something about the Russian market." I must make it clear that I do not in any way represent the Soviet Government. I have no power or influence with them. But while it is useless turning to me on a question of that kind, I can say that, instead of adopting the method suggested by the Leader of the Liberal party, of trying to force the herring on Russia, I am quite certain that a Government pursuing a friendly policy towards it or any country would quite easily win the confidence of that country and increase our trade in all directions with that country. But while you have in this country, behind the herring board and holding power over the herring board, a pro-Fascist Government, how can you hope to extend your trade? Suspected in every direction, played with by the Fascist States, the Government cannot possibly expect anything else but what is happening. To-night we are discussing the terrible condition of the herring trade. Last night we were discussing the terrible condition of trade in general. We say to the fishermen, and the people of the country as a whole, "Get a Government that is genuine in its sympathy with the people who represent peace and progress. Let us have a Government that represents progress, not one that sympathises with the Fascist Governments."

Mr. Speaker

I do not find anything about that in the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher

The question I am discussing now is how to get markets, which is an important question contained in the Bill. I suggest that it cannot be done with a Government which shows Fascist sympathies.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot continue along that line.

Mr. Gallacher

I will not follow that up, but I am sure that I have made my meaning clear. I suggest that Clause 4 should be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus); that the dictionary definition of "motor" should be applied by the board, and not the restricted definition proposed by the Government; and that every encouragement should be given to the fishermen not only to use motor boats but to maintain and repair their present steam drifters. I consider that the Bill is the meanest possible effort that could be made to deal with this very great problem. It represents the very irreducible minimum to assist the fishermen. While I understand that there is no intention of dividing at this stage, I would ask all hon. Members who are interested in the herring industry or who are genuinely interested in the welfare of those concerned with the industry to watch very carefully the developments that take place following this Bill. I am prepared to say that this board will be as great a failure as the previous board, and not until we get a comprehensive policy for the herring industry, which embraces guaranteed conditions for those employed in the industry, which embraces the widest possible activities in the catching of herring, without restriction of any kind, and a great widening and development of the market here at home and a policy in foreign affairs that will allow of a new attitude so far as the foreign market is concerned—not until this new policy is taken in hand, not by this Government but by a better Government, will the herring industry be saved.

6.40 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes

My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked me to support a suggestion that the Admiralty should pay a retaining fee to the steam drifter fishermen. On the Second Reading I tried to pay a tribute to the splendid work of the steam drifters in the Great War; also, I said that those splendid little ships and the men who man them will be needed in any future war. But, having been a member of the Board of Admiralty for many years, and knowing the great difficulty they have in extracting money out of the Treasury, I appreciate that it is impossible for the Admiralty to devote to this purpose any of the limited moneys they get for the provision and maintenance of fighting ships. I do not think that is any reason why the Government should not assist steam drifters in other ways to complete against foreign vessels. Therefore, I would like to support the plea that steam drifters should be given assistance by the Government to obtain cheap coal, and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) that steam drifters should come in some way to be assisted under this Bill, to enable them to benefit, too, in the way of loans or something else. These vessels were of great value in the last War, and the men who man them will be of infinite assistance in any future war.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten

After the attack by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I cannot have the illusions concerning the Bill that I had to begin with. It seems to me that this money might have been better spent in giving a present of cheap coal, for the price of coal has risen. The coal trade, which carried the community on its back for many years, has now got on to the back of the community, with a guaranteed wage which no one grudges.

Mr. Gallacher

It is not the coal industry that is getting the advantage from the community; it is the royalty owners.

Mr. Macquisten

No, they are disposed of for a relatively small sum. Under this Bill we are to have a new Herring Board. I cannot understand this fondness for boards. Whenever anything is in a difficulty, the Government say, "Let us appoint a board." How that is to help to sell the herring I do not know. We have had marketing boards of all sorts, and all they have done is to increase prices, increase officials and increase enormously the revenue of the Press from advertising. These boards have all followed the example of the London Transport Board and advertised largely. It is impossible to get any criticism of marketing boards into the newspapers, because, naturally, the newspapers would not print anything in the way of criticism of its advertisers. I would not if I were in their place. That is the American technique: to prevent criticism by advertising. That is why you see silly pictures of a bloater or a herring in the papers. The previous board was composed of men engaged in the industry, and I discovered to my astonishment that one of them was a man who dyed kippers—an infamous practice. You see them at the shops. I exposed the practice publicly in this House a while ago. The profits from the dyed kipper are so much greater. You get something like £40 more than you get for a cran of herring.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member is getting far away from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten

Paragraph 56 of the Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board says: These figures show that the kipper, notwithstanding the publicity given to certain ill-founded attacks upon its quality, is by far the most popular form of herring for home consumption. This is not what this Bill does. It provides for a certain amount of publicity, but if you are to get a good sale of herring you must popularise the herring.

Mr. Speaker

Is it that for which the Bill makes provision?

Mr. Macquisten

No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member says that the Bill does not provide for this, and proceeds to say that it provides for publicity.

Mr. Macquisten

It does not provide for the dyeing of kippers.

Mr. Speaker

Then, the hon. and learned Member must not refer to the dyeing of kippers.

Mr. Macquisten

will let that issue die away. The real question—and it is not sufficiently dealt with—is that of distribution. I do not hold the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that the home market is done. It is by no means done. It is not properly exploited. What is the use of talking about the Russians or Germans or others? They are all going to catch fish for themselves. They are catching their own fish just as they are making their own machinery and aeroplanes. Every country is going to be as self-contained as it possibly can be, and all that we can say to them is, "Bless you, get on with it." We have no right to expect a monopoly in those countries, but in our own country we are not making any really serious effort to increase the consumption of the herring, with the exception of advertisements, which only enrich the newspapers and not the fishers. There is no proper system of distribution, and it is that to which I hope the board will devote itself. Only the other day we saw where people engaged in catching fish wanted to send them by motor transport, but the railways came in and choked them off.

If there is one thing necessary to popularise the herring, it is that it must be fresh or properly cured. In the old days, when I was a youth, there was the herring hawker, the man who met the boats and then went over the moors to sell the herring to the farmers' wives, who used them while they were fresh and then salted the rest. That is a line which should be acted upon. Motors should meet the boats so as to take the herring to the countryside immediately in a fresh condition. The herring should not first be sent to Billingsgate and then sent out to the consumer to arrive with the poached-egg eye for the breakfast table, with the freshness gone out of them. The herring should be much cheaper, costing not more than a halfpenny or a penny.

Mr. Speaker

I must ask the hon. and learned Member to confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten

I wish to do so in every way, but I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to popularise and increase the sale of the herring. The Herring Board is for the purpose of trying to sell herring, and I was indicating, as well as I could, how it should be done.

Mr. Speaker

That could have been done on the other stages—the Second Reading and the Committee and the Report stages—but on the Third Reading hon. Members should confine their remarks to what is in the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides for what the board has to do, and I am pointing out some of the things that I hope it will do. For instance, in Clause 7 there is provision for designating the quality of herring, and there is to be an Advisory Council and a consumers' committee. With what more can the consumers' committee be concerned than the cost of the things they are to sell? Surely, this is part of the Bill. I am suggesting that these are methods whereby the herring can be made cheap. Other marketing boards, such as those dealing with milk and eggs, have to meet with many factors in the cost of production, but it is monstrous that the herring should be so dear. You pay no rent for the sea. Fish from the sea should be the cheapest food.

Mr. Speaker

I really must ask the hon. and learned Member to obey my Ruling and confine his remarks to the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten

I am very sorry. I thought that I was speaking to that at which the Bill is directed, namely, the increased prosperity of the herring trade, and I think that the way to do this is to sell more herring. The way to sell more herring is to get them cheap and as fresh as possible, but if you rule that that is not the purpose of the Bill, I do not think I can say any more about it.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member must not interpret what I say in the wrong way. I was only saying that the remarks he was making were not concerned with the provisions of the Bill itself.

Mr. Macquisten

With all deference, Mr. Speaker, how is a Member to speak on a Bill if he is only to refer to what is in the Bill itself and not to make comments upon it? He would then have to content himself with merely reading over the Bill. I submit with all deference, that the comments I am making on the Bill are all relevant to what is in the Bill, which is to promote the interests of the herring industry.

Mr. Speaker

No doubt that is the case, but all these details are not referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Macquisten

The last thing that anyone would ever dream of would be to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you have restricted the lines upon Which I was going, and in these circumstances I have little more to say. I welcome the Bill, but I do not think it will do much to help, because it has not been directed to the real issue, which is, to see whether we cannot sell more herring. The only way to sell more herring is to make them one of the cheapest of the food supplies of the people; to supply them fresh in the countryside and not to rely upon foreign markets which have to be competed for because of political or other reasons.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Edmund Findlay

I would like to join issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who suggested that the Bill would have the effect of increasing the herring fleet. Perhaps he has not read the reports of the Herring Industry Board of last year and the year before. There are so many boats over 25 years old that, with the possible building programme on the slips in Scotland and in England, there is no possibility of the increase of this fleet. The Bill, which I welcome, will provide a subsidy for running expenses, and, consequently, cheaper boats. I am sorry that nothing has been done in the Bill for the coal-burning drifters. Last year they burnt 150,000 tons of coal, and hon. Members from coal-producing areas might have taken a more active part in this matter. It is stated in the report that a 33⅓ per cent. economy could have been effected in the drifter, and I believe that, with that economy, it might still be more economical to burn coal in drifters. I hope that if the price of the coal goes up still further, which it may well do, the Government will come to this House and ask for some further assistance for the coal-burning drifters. If this Bill is used in the way it should be used considerable improvement may be made in the marketing of herring. We have heard this afternoon that the Herring Board has spent £35,000 in advertising. I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) as to the value of advertising.

Mr. Macquisten

You own the "Scotsman."

Sir E. Findlay

Which, after all, brings us much nearer together. It is an unreasonable proportion to spend £27,000 in the home market, £3,000 in the foreign market, and only £3,000 in research in trying to find new methods of processing or selling the herring. I would impress upon the new board, which the Government propose to set up, that they would be much more economically minded if they spent £25,000 on experiment instead of spending it on advertising in this market. I know the views of my constituents in connection with the Herring Board. I admire what the board tried to do. There is no doubt that individually they have completely lost the confidence of the trade, and I do not think that it is necessary therefore—it would be a great mistake—for the Secretary of State to reappoint any one of them. Some of them are members of big organisations, and while I have been going round the herring ports I have heard stories, every one of which I am certain is untrue. But still there are rumours, and people say that there is no smoke without fire. My right hon. Friend will be well advised to start en- tirely afresh and appoint a new Herring Board. It would be very discourteous if I said that without giving my thanks to the people who have served during the last few years on the Herring Board, giving service which perhaps one day will be appreciated more than it is to-day. But it is essential that we should have a new board, not because there is any failing in any particular member of the old board.

I hope that this Bill, with its provision for cheaper boats, will provide sufficient economies to enable us to sell the herring again in the markets of the world. I ask the Secretary of State, because I happen to know something about this particular trade, to advertise his wares and to advertise them abroad. He sold something like 306,969½ crans of herring and only spent £3,000. He increased the sales in this country by only a small proportion, and he spent £25,000 which might have been spent in marketing research. I want to ask him when the board is set up not to spend £27,000 out of the £30,000 in this country but to spend £27,000 abroad and £3,000 in this country.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson

I should like to draw attention once again to the fact that we are giving a grant to motor boats only. I interrupted the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) but I should not like him or anyone else to think that I was not in full agreement with him regarding the doubt with which I look at this proposal. It may be quite right to give the grant to motor boats only, but it is a precedent of extreme gravity. I asked the Under-Secretary whether the same reasons that had led the Scottish Office to favour motor drifters as against steam drifters also led them to suppose that motor trawlers would be more economical than steam trawlers. His reply was that they had not considered the question. The report for last year said it was becoming increasingly more economical to use diesel boats rather than steam boats for trawlers as well as drifters. I invite attention to that matter, because in my constituency we are much more interested in white fish than in herring.

If this should spread from drifters to trawlers in the fishing trade it will become a very serious problem for the country. We have been told that it is a question of cost. Could the hon. Gentleman give a little more indication how it is a question of cost? Is it capital cost or running cost? Is it a question of a smaller crew or of the price of oil being less than that of coal? If it is a question of a smaller crew, we are not getting much further in this very depressed industry if we are going to throw out of employment those who fire the furnaces of steam drifters.

7.3 P.m.

Mr. Alexander

I should like to indicate the view that the Opposition take about this Bill. We recognise that it had to be introduced. The conduct of the finance of the herring scheme made it necessary for some renewal to be made. The condition of affairs would have been difficult for any Government to face in the circumstances of what is admitted to be a dying industry. We are very rapidly losing much of the export market, which we shall not recover because the other nations are fishing for their own herring and treating them for their own use. But when one comes to look at the actual provisions of the Bill there are one or two comments to be made. I cordially agree with the hon. Member who spoke last and with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with regard to the effect that this kind of subsidy provision may have on the herring trade in the future. It is not that we wish in any way—far from it—to check anything in the nature of real progress in the equipment and service of the herring fishing fleet. But we are by no means convinced from the actual report of the Herring Board—and I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that I did on the Second Reading pay a tribute to its work—

Mr. C. Davies

I was only referring to the Government Bench. I made no reference to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alexander

The report of the Herring Board makes it perfectly clear that the most economical unit of fishing for herring is the steam drifter if it is fully employed, and there seems to be a good deal of dubiety about the wisdom of giving capital grants for the provision of new boats of a different type unless you have actually tried the reorganisation of the existing steam drifter fleet. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we beg the Government to see that the condition of many of those already engaged on the steam drifters shall not be worsened by the kind of policy that may be adopted by the board. Whatever is said about the future of the herring industry, it is clear from the latest report of the board that, given really improved conditions of marketing, you can at least save a considerable proportion of the industry by developing the home market. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery as to spending £250,000 a year in advertising for that purpose. I am sure that if we spent that sum he would soon want another subsidy for advertising Welsh mutton to satisfy the farmers in his constituency, and I do not see any advantage in having a whole series of these advertising schemes when the people have only one set of stomachs to fill. You cannot go on indefinitely in that direction. Nevertheless, there has been so far a very satisfactory increase in the sale of herring in the home market in the last two or three years, and it might be very much extended.

Generally speaking, the Government ought to be very careful in their policy of subsidies, whether in this or in any other Bill, to see that they do not injure another industry. The steam drifter fleet consumes a very small proportion of the output of British coal, but it is 180,000 tons, and if you are going, by definite policy, to subsidise some other form of fuel you are really putting a very important handicap upon another form of industry.

Mr. Loftus

It is a precedent.

Mr. Alexander

I would not say it is a single precedent, because there have been others of the same kind, and those who are not very enamoured of the policy of subsidising capitalist industry have pointed it out and will have to point it out again. Of course, it is the human element in this industry, after all, which is the most important. The conditions of the men in the industry are altogether dependent upon the actual amount realised by the catch and upon the division of that amount, shared amongst the fishermen. We have been very exercised in our mind as to how we could best assist those in whom we are most interested, the actual workers in the industry, and because of the nature of the drafting of the Bill we found it extremely difficult to get an improvement. However, in the form in which it leaves the House we have provision made by the Government at our request under which the conditions of the workers within the general framework of the industry come within the purview of the board itself, and we hope that that may lead to some guarantee of improvement.

We oppose subsidies, qua subsidies, for the purpose of profit-making industry. If you are going to give subsidies we should be very much more satisfied if, instead of some of it percolating through in some instances to individual owners or combines who own trawlers and share the proceeds with the fishermen, the help given by the State were really going into the pockets and improving the conditions of life of the workers. In all the circumstances we do not think this Bill will be the last or that it will settle the prosperity of the herring industry. We shall not oppose it but we shall certainly continue to ask the Government from time to time about the conditions of the industry and what is being done to improve the lot of the fishermen.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Colville

I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will feel that we have spent the last 3½ hours very well in discussing this subject. I may not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised because some of the speeches amounted to questionnaires, and some of the questions would require a little examination. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked me a question the other night on a point on which I indicated that I would give an assurance on the Third Reading. He asked me to consider whether an Amendment to Clause 6 might be necessary to make sure that societies which were the subject of loans under that Clause would be of a mutual character having an actual mutual organisation. I have examined it carefully and I do not think any Amendment is necessary, because it is clear from the existing words that the societies must be of a mutual character. It is contemplated that the conditions of any loan will be subject to approval by the Minister and the Treasury, and full control exists in that way. We have the point in mind.

We have before us, on the occasion of this Debate, published for the first time as a Command Paper, the report of the Herring Industry Board. We all agree that it contains a great amount of matter of value. The discussion of it to-day has been helpful. Numerous references have been made to the work of the present Herring Industry Board, and I take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the efforts which the board has made to discharge what we must all recognise as being a very difficult task. The board has been hampered by various difficulties, the difficulties of the external markets and also by its own constitution which in our view, as a result of careful consideration and discussion, we feel has proved defective in practice. I would give one reason for our decision that the present constitution of the board is not desirable, in that it makes the work of the board difficult. The Herring Industry Board differs from other boards because it has various sections of the industry upon it, in contrast, for example, with the Milk Marketing Board which has only one activity. That fact makes the work of the board embarrassing and difficult and it has been decided, by general agreement in the industry, that the board should be reconstituted so as to omit from it representatives of the industry, and that it should consist entirely of a small number of independent members, supported by an Advisory Council.

In an estimation of the work of the board we have to bear in mind the difficulties with which they have to contend, external and internal. Our criticisms should bear those facts in mind and should not detract from our recognition of the services of the board and the efforts they have made on behalf of the industry. For example, questions have been raised about the day-to-day work of the board in facilitating foreign trade. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said that he wanted to get information about a difficulty which had arisen in Stornoway in regard to prices. That difficulty was settled in a satisfactory manner and a satisfactory price was obtained by the Herring Board within 48 hours by direct communication with the German organisation concerned. The board have been able to secure many successes of this nature in their day-to-day work in dealing with the problems that arise. There is close co-operation, and there must continue to be close co-operation in the future, between the board and the appropriate Government Department. Some hon. Members are inclined to be critical about the slowness of such cooperation, but I can assure them, as one who has had experience of the Overseas Trade Department and of our British representatives abroad, that if a complaint is put into the hands of the appropriate Government Department, representations can very quickly be made to the country concerned. It is very important that the Herring Industry Board should have that close liaison with the appropriate Government Department, in this case the Board of Trade, of which the Overseas Trade Department is a part. That contact has been maintained in the day-to-day work of the board, and, as I have said, successes have been obtained.

I agree with most hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon that the question of markets is really the crux of the problem of the herring industry, but I cannot agree with some of them who suggest that that problem of markets has been neglected by the Government or the board. As far as the Government are concerned, far from neglecting the difficulties of the herring industry in dealings with foreign countries, every effort has been made to care for the herring export trade when negotiations were taking place. Specific concessions were secured, for example, in the trade agreements with Esthonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, Italy and Argentina, and also in the trade agreement with Germany. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the conditions in the herring industry will admit that the provisions in the trade agreement with Germany have been useful in the trade.

Mr. Shinwell

Is this in the Bill?

Mr. Colville

No, but criticism was made that the marketing problem which had to be faced—and the criticism came from all sides of the House—had not been fully dealt with by the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member was not here throughout the Debate.

Mr. Shinwell

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that he is making a Third Reading speech, and I am raising the question whether the points with which he is now dealing are in the Bill.

Mr. Colville

Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Shinwell

I was merely making an objection, and I was pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman a matter which I think it is my duty to point out.

Mr. Colville

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. The Agreements cover 89 per cent. of the exports of herring from the United Kingdom to foreign countries, that is, £1,900,000 out of £2,136,000. The question, for example, of the guaranteeing of credits—and this will be an integral part of the work that will be undertaken in assisting the Herring Industry Board—

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent, whether the matters he is now raising are relevant to the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Speaker

Reference has been made in the Debate to these matters. Sometimes they go so far that it is difficult to check them. However, as these matters have been raised it is only fair that the Minister should be allowed to reply to them.

Mr. Colville

I will endeavour to stray from the path no further than I can help, but I think the House will agree that I have to give an answer. The question of credits to facilitate the sale of herring has been raised in the Debate several times and it was the subject of comment in an article in the "Times" to-day. Already, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is prepared to give guarantees in connection with the export of herring, equal with other exports, in cases where it seems to be a sound proposition. Last year guarantees were given in respect of herring to Poland to the extent of £60,000. That represents a considerable facility for trade with that country. The Polish Guarantee has been commented upon to-day. The Trade Agreement with Poland already covers herring, and there is no reason to prevent a larger sale of herring to Poland. The question of credits is now fully under examination.

The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the Russian guarantee. I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words about that. The hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) beams with joy and seems to think that that is a subject that might very well be dealt with. Let me tell him that the Russian market presents peculiar difficulties, because although the Agreement with Russia gives the Russian Government ample opportunity of spending in this country, on herring, the money that they have raised on the sale of goods supplied to us, they have not elected to make use of it in that way. I hope that the Debate that has taken place to-day will not be lost to the ears of those who are big sellers to us, and who might be larger purchasers of our goods. I hope also that the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday will fall on their ears, and especially his reference to the value of our Agreement with Russia if it is properly implemented. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland took the Government to task for not putting into the Russian Agreement a specific provision with regard to herring, I would remind him that the old Russian Agreement, the termination of which he complained about, did not contain any specific reference to herring. It was an ordinary commercial trade agreement which could be determined at six months' notice. There is no reason why under the present Agreement Russia should not buy a large number of herring.

Mr. Logan

I was a member of the committee which dealt with this Bill and I have not so far intervened in to-day's Debate, but I should like to know where I can find in the Bill any reference to the matters with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing.

Mr. Colville

There is a little history attached to this statement, but I do not intend to be led away on that tack. We are very much concerned with the question of foreign markets and we shall lend all the aid we properly can to the herring industry in securing a share of those foreign markets, and I cannot assent to the statement made by some hon. Members that we have not helped. Efforts have been made not only by agreements but in another way, to which I can safely refer, because it is a matter on which the Herring Industry Board takes a clear line, and that is that we sent out some years ago to all our Consular representatives abroad instructions to give information to us on the prospects of selling herring. That information has been collated and the Herring Industry Board is working upon it.

Mr. Logan

On a point of Order. Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to state on what page or Clause in this Bill reference is made to these matters?

Mr. Boothby

May I suggest that those who have a direct and practical interest in the herring industry and who know the Bill can do very well under the guidance of Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. I am very anxious that every phase of discussion that can help the Herring Industry Bill should be introduced, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not desirable that the same rules that apply to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) and myself should apply also to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker

The same rules should apply to all Members of this House. I have already dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member. I think he will remember that I did try to check some hon. Members, but a good many of the matters that are being referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were mentioned.

Mr. Logan

May I remind the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that he was not present at the Committee, and that I never missed a meeting of the Committee. Therefore, his observation falls flat.

Mr. Boothby

I was present at the Committee.

Mr. Colville

Perhaps I can make the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) wise on one point. He is confusing two kinds of fish. He suggests that what I am saying is irrelevant to the Bill. As a matter of fact it arises on Clause 3, which deals with the payment of certain expenses of the board. He will find all the information that he wants there.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) complained that we are going to run counter to the direct advice of the Herring Industry Board by enlarging by a direct subsidy the total size of the herring fleet, and that we are therefore making it more difficult for those engaged in the herring fishing industry to make a living. The hon. Member has not followed our deliberations very closely, because on several occasions it has been made perfectly plain that the purpose of the Government was that a scheme should be prepared to consider the scrapping of vessels and their replacement by motor-driven drifters. He wanted to know where it was in the Bill. I do not think it was necessary to put it in the Bill, but if the hon. Member wants to be quite clear on the point, I would refer him to the declaration of policy which has been made on various occasions—to the two speeches I made and to the two occasions on which the Under-Secretary also made it plain beyond doubt that our policy was not one of an extension of the total numbers, but of replacement. I do not think the hon. Member can complain that he has been left in any doubt as to our policy.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) put nine or 10 questions to me. I cannot answer them all, but there are some which, I think, it is proper I should answer. It is not necessary that the members of the new board should all be full-time men: It will depend on circumstances. As to what new powers are to be given to the board, we must, I think, wait and see. The hon. Member also asked whether there would be a proper representation of English members on the advisory council. He suggested that the answer should be given by the Minister of Agriculture, but if he will accept it from me that the question will be taken into account, I hope he will be satisfied. He also asked whether the scheme could be wrongfully used by a speculator who got a loan, built a new boat and then sold it at a profit. That is clearly outside the intention of the scheme, and we shall see that proper safeguards are inserted. The hon. Member spoke of longshore boatmen. I cannot add anything to what has been said on previous occasions.

Mr. Loftus

There was the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself, whether if there is a loss on a subsidised boat, on the loan necessary to build the boat, part of that loss will fall on the steam drifters?

Mr. Colville

I can best answer that by quoting the relevant passage from the Herring Industry Act, 1935, that is, Section 9 (6): If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Ministers and the Treasury that any sum representing the principle of an advance made to the board for the purposes referred to in sub-section (3) of this section, or part of such an advance cannot be repaid, the Treasury may direct that the liability of the board to the Ministers shall be reduced to the extent of that sum. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that it will be in the nature of a levy, which the hon. Member fears. As to the composition of the advisory council, I cannot go into that in further detail as to the numbers we have in mind or the places of meeting. That will depend largely on circumstances. No regulations have yet been framed with regard to the proceedings of the council, but paragraph (3) of the First Schedule provides that, subject to any directions which may be given by the Ministers, the council shall have power to regulate its own procedure.

Sir A. Sinclair

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the new board will make a fresh start with fresh personnel?

Mr. Colville

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press me on that point. He means, will there be an entirely clean sweep of the old board? I would rather not give an absolute undertaking on that point, because in consultation with my right hon. Friend I want to consider who will best discharge these duties, and in those circumstances I think it will be unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to press me on the matter.

Sir A. Sinclair

They will need to have the confidence of the industry.

Mr. Colville

The important thing is that the board shall act in collaboration and good spirit with the industry. We have that fully in mind, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press me further on the matter.

Mr. Gallacher

The Secretary of State has not yet said anything about giving consideration to those employed in the industry—whether a basic wage for the men will be considered?

Mr. Colville

I did not hear the hon. Member's speech, but I will read it. The board will not be a wage-fixing authority, but it has powers to advise on the conditions in the industry and any recommendation it may make to the appropriate Minister will be taken into account.

I hope the House will give the Third Reading to this Bill. It represents a practical and determined effort to help an industry which has to fight great difficulties; an industry which is struggling with real difficulties at home and real difficulties in foreign markets. It is meeting with greater success in the home market, and I, for one, think it will meet with an increased measure of success in foreign markets if it has the ability to compete. It is this ability which we are striving to give to the industry by the Bill, which I now recommend to the House.