Lords Sitting of 28 February 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (PAYING PATIENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to empower voluntary hospitals in pursuance of orders of the Charity Commissioners to provide accommodation and treatment for paying patients, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Luke.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WIMBLEDON ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1935.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Wimbledon Electricity (Amendment) Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST DEVON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the West Devon Electricity (Extension) Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, this Bill concerns a
1122
body of men whom every one of us would feel it to be the duty and desire of any Government to support and keep in existence. They are a body of men who have suffered troubles, hardships, privation, and loss during the last few years and whom now the Government have decided to come forward and assist. I would not desire to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading by disguising from you that it contains some very drastic provisions. I would, however, impress upon your Lordships that the need for drastic action is strong, indeed essential. What really is the position of this industry? We can say that two points stand out. The first is the loss of its export markets, exports that went in the main to Russia and Germany and also to many other countries, and which before the War amounted to just under 2,500,000 barrels. They are now 800,000 barrels. The Government, through trade agreements which have been made lately and through other negotiations, have been able to bring some assistance to the industry on this side, but only to a very slight extent. And it is not only the foreign market that has collapsed. Since pre-War days the home consumption of herrings has dropped by over 45 per cent. Thus, whereas in 1911–13 we were eating over 8 lbs. of British herrings per head, the comparable figure to-day is 4.4 lbs. In 1929 the total landings of herrings were very nearly twice what they were in 1933. In 1913 the value of the total landings was approximately £4,500,000. In 1934 the value was just over £1,500,000.
Your Lordships will therefore see that the condition of affairs in this industry needed intervention and assistance, and drastic intervention and assistance. Accordingly, in 1933, the Government appointed the Sea-fish Commission, and were fortunate enough to obtain the services of Sir Andrew Duncan as Chairman of that Commission, to investigate and report upon the whole position of the fishing industry. They tackled the problem of the herring industry first. Their Report was to the effect that it would be difficult, if not impossible, owing to the complications of the industry and the great number of interests concerned, and the variety of those interests, to evolve a scheme of self-government for the industry along the lines of the Agricultural Marketing Act. Accordingly they proposed a body to be nominated

1123
by the Government, consisting partly of those who were to be put on for their business and financial experience as disinterested members, and partly of men who were fully experienced in the trade. The main basis of their recommendation is that this body should apply itself to the reorganisation and reconstruction of this industry in all its stages in such a way as to endeavour to increase and develop the sale and the market for the product concerned—namely, herrings. It is for that body to take such steps as are necessary to improve the marketing and distribution services of the industry, and to do everything in their power to study and develop markets both at home and abroad.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government will examine from this point of view any scheme that is put before them for the future government of this industry by the Board to be appointed. But it was also made quite clear by the Commission that no matter how sales might be developed, no matter how the consumption of herrings might be increased, either in this country or abroad, there would still be a number of redundant boats in the industry that could never hope to be employed, and, therefore, provision was made in the Report—and we shall hope to see it made in the scheme—for the purchase and elimination of redundant boats. There are certain differences between the Report of the Commission and this Bill as the Government are presenting it to Parliament. I do not know if I need weary your Lordships with the details of those differences, but there is one most important difference, which is that the Report of the Commission envisaged the Government setting up the Board and the scheme which the Board was to operate simultaneously by one Act. The Government, however, have decided to take the line of setting up the Board and instructing it to work out a scheme in consultation with the industry. We feel that this scheme has ultimately to be operated and carried out by the men who are concerned in the industry itself, and that it is, therefore, important that the scheme when it is presented to your Lordships should bear the imprint of the work, advice, and assistance of those men who are engaged in the practical everyday affairs of the industry.
1124
Some fear has been expressed that this is going to mean delay, but I can assure your Lordships that even now, during the passage of the Bill, there are representatives of the industry sitting together to consider the type of scheme that they would hope to see put forward, in order that the Board, as soon as it is appointed, may be in a position to consider their views. So far from there being any question of delaying the passage of the Bill, I think I can assure your Lordships that the wish of the industry is going to be granted to the extent that we hope to see this scheme in operation in time for the Scottish fishing season in June. The Board will consist of three disinterested members nominated by the Government, and five nominees of the Government nominated for their ability to represent the views of the trade. Your Lordships will see from Clause 1 subsection (6) that, in addition to the preparation of a scheme, the Board have to consider the possibilities after the lapse of two years of forming a scheme based on a fuller representation of the industry itself.
If you turn to Clauses 7, 8 and 9 you will see the financial powers of the Board. They are empowered to borrow up to £1,000,000, of which £600,000 is made available from Government sources. That is for the purpose of the re-equipment of the fleet, possible construction of new and modern ships, the purchase of redundant and out-of-date boats, loans for the purpose of developing the export trade, and for the general assistance of the improvement of methods of running the industry. In addition to that there is a grant up to £125,000 from the Government, partly for initial administration, and also, again, for the promotion of sales and so on, lout not more than £75,000 of that sum is to be used for the purpose of initial administrative expenses. The Board will be clothed with full power for the complete reorganisation of the industry. They will have power to grant licences for operation to all the various interests within the industry, and power to attach conditions to those licences. These are very drastic powers indeed.
As I ventured to say at the beginning, I hope your Lordships will not think for a moment that the Government have it in mind to persuade you to accept this

1125
Bill by belittling is any way the importance of the principles here involved. It is because of the very drastic nature of these powers that we are anxious that the scheme should, as far as possible, be drawn up with the full knowledge, with the full understanding, and with the full consent of all the interests concerned, and if possible, at a later stage, be handed over to a representative body appointed by the trade itself. Drastic as these powers are, the Bill has been fully accepted by the trade and by all the interests concerned, because they realise the gravity of the issue at stake—the issue of their self-preservation. The only criticism I have heard from the trade is on the ground of the possibility of lack of speed and of not having the scheme ready in time for the Scottish herring season. I have already given your Lordships the assurance, and I repeat it, that we have every confidence that the scheme will be ready and in operation in the coming season.
We look forward to the success of this scheme, basing our hope for its success on the co-operation and spirit of good will and the good feeling that we have already found within the trade. We look forward to a continuation of that co-operation between the Board and the trade. We see it as a great experiment in the constructive organisation of an important foodstuff based on a fair price for the producer, on the one hand, but concentrating on the other hand on a fair price for the consumer based, in its turn, on constructive market development. I can assure your Lordships that in so far as there are powers for regulating production in this Bill, the extent to which the Government will be prepared to grant those powers—just as, I think I can say, the extent to which the public at a later stage will be prepared to tolerate those powers—will depend on the energetic operation of the power of sales development, of giving better service to the public, and of cutting out unnecessary charges between producer and consumer. I have every confidence, my Lords, that this is an experiment which your Lordships will watch with the very greatest interest, and will desire to see initiated at the very earliest moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
Loan STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to give a certain measure of support to this Bill, and I want to say at the outset that I agree with every word of the first sentence of the noble Earl, with every word of the last sentence of the noble Earl, and with no other word in his very interesting speech in introducing the Bill. His first sentence spoke of the importance of the herring fishermen, and I wish not only to support that, but to underline it. I am very glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his place. He has held the important office of First Lord of the Admiralty, and, if he will allow me to say so, he showed great interest in the Naval Reserves. I am sure he will bear me out when I say that a flourishing fishing industry is of vital importance for two reasons—firstly, for natural defence, and secondly, for the lifeboat service. As the noble Earl also pointed out, this used to be a very important industry. It still is an important industry. It reaps the harvest of the sea, which pays no rent or royalties to any man, and the harvest is reaped by a very fine type of sober, hard-working, fearless men. Apart from that, and apart from what the noble Earl said in his last sentence about the need for expediting the Bill, I am afraid I have to disagree entirely with his description of it.
It is a little Bill, one of a series of little Bills, drawn up by little men. It is in the nature of a sedative or an ointment to cure a very deep-seated disease. Of course, it is not a cure; it is instead of a cure. The disease, as I shall show presently, is caused by defects in the economic, financial and monetary systems. It is a disease which affects every capitalist society, and it will only yield to very drastic treatment. Failing a real cure for this disease, however, my noble friends feel that we must support a measure which gives passing or temporary relief to the patient. The original Bill was improved in its details in another place. I would ask your Lordships to support the Bill as it will do something to remedy the scandal of the deliberate destruction of prime fish, caught sometimes under very arduous conditions by men at the risk of their lives, because we are told the market cannot absorb this prime fish at a time when we have masses of people suffering great privation and poverty. That is a scandal crying aloud

1127
to Heaven, and something, at any rate it is to be hoped, will be done to remedy it.
But I think His Majesty's Government are open to considerable criticism owing to their dilatory action. This Bill is too late. The noble Earl declared that something will be done, but he did not specify what, and perhaps the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office in this House will tell us exactly what is proposed to be done by the time the summer season opens. Only a little can be done by the nature of the Bill. May I remind your Lordships of one or two facts? The noble Earl and myself used to be members of the same Party, and he is aware that that Party had an advisory committee on sea-fisheries of which I had the honour to be Chairman. He is aware that we put in a great deal of work and research and we presented a report of which he is also aware. He knows that after that and partly as a result of our report the Addison Committee was set up, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the former Minister of Agriculture, by the late Labour Government. That Committee went over the whole ground and presented a very important and detailed Report. The present Government then set up the Duncan Commission, and the Duncan Commission worked very swiftly and very thoroughly. They went over the whole ground again and presented a Report with regard to the herring industry as a matter of urgency on August 8 last.
If your Lordships will look at the Duncan Commission's Report you will see that on page 38 the following words occur:
"The nature of the industry and the nature of the problem would make it exceedingly difficult for the industry to initiate a scheme."
And the whole purpose of their Report was to prove that the Government would have to act.
"Moreover, decisive action is a matter of urgency for the position is in danger of deteriorating beyond control unless remedial measures are taken immediately."
That is from the Report of the Duncan Commission. They then go on to say:
"Having these considerations well in mind we have been at pains to explore the problem with leading members of different sections of the industry, and have had our own opinion confirmed that in the present emergency a scheme initiated by the Government is the only practical course to adopt."
1128
Well and good. Now this is the end of February; the Bill was introduced in another place at the beginning of February. In other words, six vital months were lost; and the Bill, far from implementing the Duncan Commission's Report, proposes to set up a Board; to do what? To explore the ground again, again to interview the spokesmen of various sections of the industry, then to prepare schemes, then to present the schemes to the Ministry; then, after hearing objections, the Ministry must approve them, and then, finally, we hope that something will be done. Delay, delay, and procrastination right through! This Board will have very little executive power at all. At every step they have to consult again and again all the sections of the industry, to consult the Ministry, and then finally, something may be done.
What was the Duncan Commission? Its Chairman was a very distinguished business man, Sir Andrew Duncan, known to your Lordships for his great work on the Central Electricity Board. There was a member of another place, Viscount Wolmer, and I believe that he would not object to being described in politics as a diehard; and there were three other gentlemen who, I believe, are established and reputable business men. There is nothing political about this Commission; it was a business men's committee, with one diehard to represent the politicians. This business men's committee proposed immediate and drastic executive action; and in place of it we get this Bill, with its insistence at every step on consulting and getting schemes approved and hearing objections, and then going to Ministries, and then finally something being done; and when it is done it is really not very much, and it is not what the Duncan Commission recommended in certain important directions.
When the noble Earl says that this Bill is based on the Duncan Commission's recommendations—and I understood him to say that—with great respect to the noble Earl I really do not think that that is an accurate description of this Bill. The Report of the Duncan Commission was businesslike and it was accepted by the industry. This Bill, with great respect to the noble Earl, is not businesslike at all, and it is not accepted by the industry except as a drowning man will clutch at a straw. The protestations from import-

1129
ant sections of the industry have been very important.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps the noble Lord will quote some sections of the industry which have repudiated the Bill?
LORD STRABOLGI: I will explain immediately. One of the most important recommendations of the Duncan Committee was that there should be a grant as compensation to fishermen for scrapping redundant and out-of-date fishing boats. The Government are not doing that.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is not an answer to the question which I asked the noble Lord. I asked him whether he would tell us what sections of the industry he can quote as having repudiated the Bill, as he said it had.
LORD STRABOLGI: "Repudiated" is a word which I immediately qualified by saying that they accepted it as desperate men or a desperate industry would accept anything. "Repudiated" was perhaps a little too strong.
EARL DE LA WARR: A great deal too strong.
LORD STRABOLGI: They do not agree that the Bill goes far enough. That is what I am trying to prove to your Lordships.
EARL DE LA WARR: Will the noble Lord give us a quotation from a speech or letter or something that has been said or written? It would be very helpful.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes. The views which I am expressing were voiced very plainly and clearly by members of another place who do represent the fishing constituencies which are particularly in association with the herring industry. I can give the names if required, but the speeches are all on record.
EARL DE LA WARR: I asked for sections of the industry.
LORD STRABOLGI: Certainly I will give the names. There is Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood, who has, I think, associated himself with the herring section of the fishing industry for very many years and has been a member of another place for many years. He undoubtedly does speak for a very large section of
1130
the industry, and he made exactly the same criticisms as I am now venturing to make before your Lordships. That is the first great criticism, that the grant recommended by the Duncan Committee to enable fishermen to scrap their boats had been departed from. But that is not all, my Lords. The Duncan Committee recommended that the Board itself should undertake the marketing of the surplus herrings. That recommendation will be found on page 43 of their Report, and, if I may, I will quote the Report:
"In the export field organisation is needed to prevent forced selling; to meet powerful buying agencies on an equal footing; to recover lost ground in old markets and to develop new markets.
"We recommend that the Board should themselves assume responsibility for this task, and we feel sure that we are correctly interpreting the general wishes of the industry in this respect."
That has been departed from in this Bill.
All that this Board which is being set up can do with regard to exports is contained in Clause 3. After they have consulted and heard objections and got the approval of the Ministry to the new schemes which they are now to draw up, then they can make loans in connection with export; then they can promote sales and marketing developments; but the bulk sale of herrings for export which was recommended by the Duncan Commission—this Commission of business men without political bias except possibly a Conservative bias—happens to be the policy which the Party to which I belong has been advocating for a very long time—the bulk marketing of exports. It is very remarkable indeed that the Duncan Commission should have come down in favour of that proposal with special reference to the herring industry. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that part of the Duncan Commission's Report is one of the most important features in it, and that is not being implemented by the Bill.
I have referred to the absence of any scheme for compensating fishermen who scrap their redundant boats, and that is, of course, most serious. Now compare the treatment of the fishing industry in this respect, both as regards the delays in introducing this Bill and as regards the financial assistance to fishing boat owners, with what has happened in the case of the tramp shipping industry in your Lordships' House. The shipping

1131
subsidy was introduced without much delay; as soon as there was agreement with the industry, in came the Bill. We made ourselves responsible for a very large sum of public money to be expended to assist the tramp shipping industry. There was no question of recovering as a civil debt loans made to owners for scrapping old ships and building new vessels in the case of the tramp shipping industry. There was a ten years' loan at low interest to owners who would scrap their old steamers and build new ones, and that loan was on mortgage, to be dealt with like any other mortgage. But in the case of the unfortunate fishermen—and many of them are heavily in debt already through no fault of their own—any money lent can be recovered as a civil debt. That is the difference between the treatment of the two industries—shipping on one side with its powerful friends in both Houses of the Legislature, and fishing, a poor man's trade. It is perhaps not surprising that there is this difference of treatment when we consider the general attitude of the Government towards great corporations.
But while the recommendation made by the Duncan Commission of a grant of £50,000 as compensation is not followed by the Government, there is provision of a very large sum of money for administration; £75,000 is provided for administration by more officials and bureaucrats. I would again draw your Lordships' attention to the difference in treatment there. It is perfectly true that there is a large sum of money allowed to be raised on loan for a "scrap-and-build" policy. That is good, except that I think we should have some information—perhaps the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office can tell us—about the terms of the loan, the rate of interest, and the period within which loans must be repaid, and any other information. This is important, and herring fishing-vessel owners themselves would wish to know these things, if they are to take quick advantage of the facilities under this Bill. In connection with that, might I suggest to the noble Lords, both of whom are interested in an official capacity in the fishing industry, that one of the needs of the fishing industry at this time is a better type of boat engine? I have been at pains myself to go into this matter, and I think there is a great
1132
future for fishing vessels with a reliable and cheap form of Diesel engine, departing altogether from steam engines and petrol engines. The small Diesel engine has been successfully produced for agricultural, commercial and industrial purposes, and if a good British Diesel engine could be produced for fishing vessels I believe it would be a great help to the fishing industry.
The noble Earl said there would be help available for next summer's fishing under this Bill, provided there was no delay, and, as I have already stated, my noble friends on this side do not desire to delay the Bill at all. May I ask to what extent that help will be available, what form it will take, and when will the leaders of the fishing industry have the details? I think I have at any rate made a case to your Lordships that the action of the Government has been very dilatory and slow up to now, and I hope they will energise this proposed Board and the Ministry to act without further delay. In fact in these matters the Government remind me of an old lady from my part of Yorkshire, who went for her first
aeroplane trip. She was somewhat nervous, and made the pilot promise to take no risks. She insisted that he should promise two things, one being that he should fly as slowly as possible, and the other that he should fly as close as he could to the ground. The Government's handling of this problem reminds me very much of that old lady. They have proceeded far too slowly in the past, and have overloaded this Bill with too many checks and causes of delay to save a large portion of this vitally important industry.
I would like to ask the noble Earl a question if he will be good enough to allow me to do so. What has happened to his scheme, which received some well-deserved attention in the newspapers, for marketing surplus herrings or distributing them to the unemployed? I saw some glimmerings of hope when I read the remarks of the noble Earl in one or two of his speeches, and I hoped the Government were going to deal with the problem, at all events with a small beginning in herrings. What has happened to the scheme? Has it found favour in high quarters? I would make this comment upon it. Admirable as that scheme is, and far better as it would be to distribute herrings to people who

1133
were hungry, rather than to destroy them, at the same time we must not ruin local shopkeepers. You could manage the distribution through the small local shopkeepers and co-operative societies and other traders. The local shopkeepers have been terribly hardly hit in the depressed areas, they have endeavoured to assist with credit those who are in distress, and you might arrange for the distribution of surplus herrings cheaply in those areas through the shopkeepers without hurting anyone. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell me later what has happened to his interesting proposal in that direction. I do not see anything about it in the Bill. He is no doubt aware what is done in France, where the inland municipalities are empowered to send to the ports, when there is a glut of fish, and transport fish inland by motor lorry, for distribution to the poor. If that can be done in France it can be done here, and perhaps local authorities might be interested in this, where they have a large body of unemployed who would be glad of cheap and good fish.
My Lords, I venture to suggest that this Bill is needed. It is needed for three reasons. The first is that, as the noble Earl has said, and as the Duncan Commission describes, about 50 per cent. of the catch is normally disposed of in the home market. In the home market there is a lack of purchasing power. I do not want to expend that argument. We all know the cause of it. It is partly due to the deflation policy of the Government, and to the policy of cutting wages and reducing the standard of living of the people, which the Government thought necessary in the public interest. The other half of the catch, normally, is exported. I notice that the Liberal Party is well represented here, to-day, by several noble Lords and I am sure that I have their support when I say: What else do we expect? If we refuse to buy from people abroad, how can we expect to sell them herrings or anything else?
In other words, the falling off in our export trade in herrings is partly due to the policy of the Government (1) in preventing foreign goods from coming in; and (2) prohibiting British people making loans abroad. The result is that we cannot sell. The third reason is, of
1134
course, that this Government and previous Conservative Governments—I beg the pardon of the noble Viscount, who leads the House, I should have said a Conservative Government which preceded the last Labour Government—deliberately, for political reasons, cut off the Russian market. That can be recovered to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent, because when we cut off relations with the Russian market, the Russians proceeded to develop their own fisheries, and now in the north they have an important fishing industry developing on the Murmansk coast, and in the Black Sea. Although it is not a herring fishery, it is an important fishing industry. The Russian market is still available, but not so available as it would have been if we had not been the cause of stimulating the Russian fishing industry. Those are the three reasons, really, why the herring industry is depressed—lack of purchasing power, hampering of general international trade, which affects the export trade, and stupidities in the past with regard to the Russian market. We can to a certain extent regain the Russian market for herrings. There are also the Polish and German markets. I only hope, and I know I am speaking for my noble friends here, that this most distressed but help-worthy British industry will benefit from this Bill.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, as one who, if I may be permitted a personal allusion, had the privilege of sitting for nine years as member for a fishing constituency in another place, and of being head of the Fishery Board for Scotland for six years, I feel deeply interested in the fate of this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words with regard to it. It is probably rudimentary to say that when a measure of this type is introduced, two matters arise for consideration. One is whether there is a mischief requiring legislative remedy, and the other is whether the remedy suggested is appropriate. I take it from what I have just heard from the noble Lord opposite that on the first question he would not differ from the view that there is here a mischief urgently requiring a remedy. For there is no doubt at all that in these days of depression the most depressed industry of all

1135
is the herring fishing industry. The shrinkage in the home and in the foreign markets has been almost beyond belief. I find that in the Duncan Report, to which my noble friend has referred more than once—a statesmanlike and judicial document, if I may say so—the condition of fishermen to-day is described as desperate. I regret that that is language which is literally, not metaphorically, true.
If that be so, I think that, with two other considerations which I venture to put before your Lordships' House in the same connection, the case for legislative intervention is fully documented and proved. The considerations I refer to are these. First, this industry, in the condition which I have described, is an industry of national importance; and, secondly, many of the men who are engaged in plying this industry are men who, in a time of national emergency, showed a high courage and a splendid patriotism, which made us their debtors for all time in a debt which we cannot repay. If that be so, I think that the case for legislative intervention is fully made out.
Then the question arises, upon which apparently difference of opinion may exist, whether the remedy proposed is adequate and appropriate. In my humble judgment and—what is much more important—in the judgment of the industry, the Bill deserves the support of this House. I was at a loss to understand, as I listened to my noble friend at one stage, whether he was going into the "No" Lobby or into the Committee room upstairs. At one point in his speech I thought he was opposing the Bill tooth and nail, at another point he urged your Lordships to accept it. All I will say before I deal with the Bill itself is that there are certain antecedent considerations which are very significant and very eloquent in support of the view that the Bill is an adequate and appropriate remedy. The first is that, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, the Bill in its main outlines follows the Duncan Report and its recommendations. The second consideration is that after the fullest opportunity for deliberation by the various sections of the industry—and they are numerous—and after the fullest opportunity for consultation with the Government Departments concerned,
1136
the industry as a whole to-day accepts the measure; and the noble Lord who has just sat down, when challenged to mention any section of the industry which had repudiated it, was quite unable to do so.
The third consideration—and I think it is of some importance—is that in another place neither on Second Reading nor on the Committee or Report stages, nor on the Third Reading was there a single Division taken against the Bill or any part of the Bill. There are few measures which come to your Lordships' House with such a record as that. And then finally, before touching the Bill itself, there is surely this consideration to bear in mind as a matter of practical politics—namely, that there is no competing or alternative scheme which is open to us should this one be rejected. When I consider these exceptional credentials with which this Bill comes before your Lordships' House, then I am not myself prepared to weigh in too nice scales such questions as the noble Lord has referred to—namely, who or what is responsible for the economic depression of to-day, or whether or not this Bill might have been introduced at an earlier stage.
Turning to the Bill, it seems to me that it will repay a full and careful scrutiny. It was described by the Secretary of State in another place—accurately, if I may say so—as a Bill to enable the industry with financial assistance to reorganise itself. Accordingly it deals with two matters, reorganisation and finance. On reorganisation I think the proper line has been taken. It is a Bill which proceeds on the principle that the herring fishing industry should work out its own salvation, that there should be self-government rather than bureaucratic control. Surely it is right that, instead of superimposing a cast-iron scheme upon the industry from outside, the industry should be allowed to develop and form a scheme for itself from inside. This will make for elasticity instead of rigidity; and it will have this further advantage—that the industry will be able to profit by the lessons of experience and to adjust its scheme as time goes on, without the necessity of coming back to Parliament to secure amendments. If that be the principle on which the Bill is based, I think it is a sound principle.

1137
So far as finance goes, I think that in these difficult times the Treasury has been not only just but generous, and speaking, as I think I may say, on behalf of Scottish sentiment—and this Bill very largely applies to Scotland—I desire to acknowledge the generosity with which the Treasury has treated the special interests of that country. May I respectfully congratulate the noble Earl and the Secretary of State upon having the opportunity of presenting this measure to Parliament, and upon seizing that opportunity. I urge upon the Government with all the force at my disposal that there should be no avoidable delay in securing the passage of this Bill. The time for consideration—and there has been lots of time, and lots of consideration—has expired, and the time for action has arrived. I hope very sincerely that the fishing industry in all its branches—and they are numerous, and their interests are not in all cases uniform—will work this scheme with complete good will and harmony and co-operation. If they do not, it is bound to fail. If they do, it is bound, in my judgment, to succeed. I hope with all my heart that this Bill, when it is placed on the Statute Book, will brighten the lot of a breed of men of whom we are justifiably proud, and who have borne their recent hardships uncomplainingly and with characteristic fortitude. It seems to me that the Bill is well fitted to compass the ends for which it is designed, and for the reasons which I have given I cordially support the Second Reading.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of putting one point to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but before doing that I should like to say a word in reference to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who, of course, has greater knowledge of this question, about which I do not profess myself to have any great amount of information. But in regard to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and his attitude on the Bill, the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that he had put to my noble friend an inescapable dilemma, as to whether he was or was not in favour of the Bill. I really do not think that is a proper perspective of the matter at all. The matter, it seems to me, is more like this:—If you have a fire in your house and a man comes along with a bucket or two buckets of water you may accept his
1138
help with gratitude, but what you really want is a fire engine. In a sentence that is more or less the position of my noble friend. I do not say the proportion is quite right, but that is more in accordance with his views than the dilemma which, as it seemed to me, the noble and learned Lord opposite was trying to put.
The question I wish to ask the noble Earl is with regard to Clause 2, which says:
"It shall be the duty of the Board as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act to ascertain, by consultation with representative organisations or otherwise, the opinion of persons engaged in the herring industry…."
Is it quite clear that this clause includes the opinion of persons representing the fishermen? That is the point I want to put to the noble Earl, and we shall want to be completely satisfied on it. I should be very much obliged to him if he would tell your Lordships what his views are on the matter and whether that point, which is one of great importance, is covered. We shall hear what he has got to say, as we always do, with interest, though not always, I am sorry to say, in these days with agreement, and when we have heard what he has got to say we shall be able to decide whether or not to put down an Amendment. I hope the noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, will answer this question.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, with regard to that particular question I think it is perfectly clear from the words "persons engaged in the herring industry" the clause must include fishermen. I am quite prepared to give the noble Lord that undertaking. I am not replying on behalf of the Government—
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps it is asking the noble Earl too much to enquire how it is proposed to ascertain the opinion of the fishermen?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think all workers in this country have their duly appointed representatives, and we can take it that the Board will take such steps as are necessary to get into touch with those who can represent the interests of the fishermen. One other point. I am not replying on behalf of the Government but to a specific point on which I have been asked a question. Reference was made to a speech of mine

1139
with regard to surplus food and with regard to what marketing boards generally are able to do with the powers which have been given to them. The Milk Board are trying a scheme with school children, the Potato Board are trying one with the unemployed, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Herring Board putting into its scheme powers for doing likewise with regard to herrings.
LORD STRABOLGI: Much obliged.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, inasmuch as this Bill is the child partly of the Minister of Agriculture and partly of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have been asked to reply, speaking on this occasion on behalf of the Scottish Office. I must confess that I was disappointed to find that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was not so enthusiastic as were his colleagues in another place about the prospects of this Bill. He described it as a little Bill drawn up by little men, but any one who has had the privilege of sitting opposite him in another place and of appreciating his enthusiasm for the fishing industry and for the fishermen will understand that sometimes his tongue is carried away by his heart in this matter. He suggested that in this matter the Government had been dilatory. He complained of delay in introducing this Bill, but I wish to point out to your Lordships that the Report of the Duncan Commission to which he referred was only received in August, and the Departments concerned then took steps to bring it to the notice of all the interests affected. Only two months later, in October, they invited representatives of twenty-five different interests to meet the two Ministers concerned at the Scottish Office, and a conference there took place at which certain conclusions were arrived at. These conclusions were, I believe, unanimous.
The first was the support given by the industry, unanimously, to the Duncan Report, and the second was the unanimous request that the Government should take immediate action. Owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business before Christmas it was not then possible to get a Second Reading for such a measure, and this Bill was brought on as early as possible in the new Session.
1140
There is no reason to anticipate any particular delay, I hope, in its passage through your Lordships' House. If we can get the Third Reading and the Royal Assent by the middle of March, say March 15, there seems no reason to suppose that the scheme could not be published between that date and a date early in April, say April 8, and thereafter by the middle of April we should be able to get a confirmatory Resolution approving the scheme. The one vital point, as the noble Lord himself said, is to have the scheme embodied and ready in time for the Scottish fishing season at the end of May or early in June.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord make that a little more clear? Will the scheme be with reference to loans for gear and that kind of thing, or will the marketing scheme be ready?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I understand it is the hope of the Government that the whole scheme will be ready by then. With regard to the question of loans, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked about the rate of interest. I understand the rate of interest is to be the local loans rate of 3¼ per cent. The noble Lord also referred to the two departures from the Duncan Report made by the Government in this Bill. If I may take first of all the question of scrapping redundant boats, the Duncan Report recommended that the Government shoed find a sum of £50,000 to compensate for redundant boats, but I think your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it has never been the policy of this Government or, I believe, any preceding Government, to find public money for redundant plant in an industry, and naturally if a beginning were made in one industry there is no saying where such a practice might end. Provision has been made for loans to get new boats built and ultimately cause the scrapping of redundant shipping.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord has stated that the Government have never found money for redundant plant. What about the hop scheme, where you compensate people for not growing hops?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I should not have thought that hops would be counted as plant of this kind, and the noble Lord must ask some

1141
greater agricultural expert than myself about that. The other departure from the Duncan Report which the Government made was on the question of monopoly powers, and there the Government thought these powers were inadvisable. I would remind your Lordships that demands have been made by the industry in the past to prevent the misuse of such powers by forming a voluntary pool, but these have come too late. Noble Lords will notice in the Bill that powers of export sales are given in Clause 3 (i) (i) and (ii) which deal with the export of cured herring by the Board, and so on.
The noble Lord also suggested that a better type of boat might he employed. I understand—but this is only my own information and has nothing to do with the Government—that a better form of Diesel engine is being experimented with. I have no intimation to give the noble Lord on behalf of the Government on this point. It is only my interest in this matter, like his own, which makes me hope it will be possible to produce a better type of fishing vessel in the near future. I think the question which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked about getting the opinion of the fishermen has already been answered. It is the hope of the Government that every interest in this industry will be represented at the forthcoming conference and that a satisfactory means will be found of pulling the industry through this extremely difficult crisis. I very much hope that noble Lords will assist us, as they have already indicated they will, to get the Bill through with as little delay as possible, so that the scheme may be in operation by April and we may hope to see an improvement in the trade in the forthcoming season.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOOTLE EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
  GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SEVERN NAVIGATION (CHARGING POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]

    STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MARLOW WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Lansdowne lie proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Effingham: Read, and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we adjourn, may I ask if the Leader of the House can tell us anything about the business for next week?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, we have quite a moderate bill of fare next week. On Tuesday there are two formal Orders with regard to Sunday entertainments in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Feversham, and we propose also to take the Committee stage of the Bill which has just received a Second Reading. I think everybody will agree that it is desirable to push on with it as quickly as possible. There is at present no business down for Wednesday; therefore, unless any noble Lord gives notice of a Motion, I propose that we shall not sit on Wednesday. On Thursday the Committee stage of a Bill of my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale, the Matrimonial Causes (Amended Procedure) Bill, will be taken, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Rockley has an Address asking for leave to introduce some Bill with regard to life Peers. The Motion will be the necessary pre-

1143
liminary one asking His Majesty's consent to deal with a matter which affects the Royal Prerogative. I do not suppose there will be a very long debate on that, but of course we shall see when the Motion is down. I think that is all the business for next week.