Sitting of 23 February 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the prayer:
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
Referred to the Committee of Supply.

RENTS, GLASGOW.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I beg to present a petition signed by 2,523 householders and electors in the burgh of Port Glasgow praying that the maximum rents allowed to be charged on controlled houses be reduced to the pre-War level.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
St. Helens Corporation Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
DURHAM CORPORATION BILL,
"to extend the boundaries of the city of Durham and Framwelgate; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  HOURS OF WORK.
  Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour if he will state on what grounds the representative of His Majesty's Government at the recent preparatory technical conference of the International Labour Organisation opposed the majority decision in the proposal of the 40-hour week as a remedy for unemployment?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) on this subject on the 9th February.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are going to change their mind in regard to the hours?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: Not until we know the facts.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of all the facts relative to the hours of employment; and does he not think that his Department will always be in difficulty until the hours of labour are reduced?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in industrial circles there is a very strong feeling that to make any drastic changes of this character at the present time would add to unemployment owing to the increased difficulties which would obtain in some of our export trades?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I am well aware that that view is held in many quarters.
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, as the nations were unable to reach agreement on the 48 hours' week, it is absolutely useless to waste so much time discussing a 40 hours' week?
  Mr. THORNE: And our Government are the worst offenders of the lot.
  Captain MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour at the instance of what nations the recent inquiry into the proposal for a 40-hour week was instituted by the International Labour Office?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: The recent discussions on the subject of a reduction of hours of work by the International Labour Organisation had their origin in reports of the unemployment committee of its governing body, in subsequent decisions of that body, and in a resolution passed at the International Labour Conference of 1932. The discussions were expedited as a result of a request of the representative of the Italian Government that a special session of the governing body should be convened to consider the adoption of an emergency procedure with a view to exploring the possibility of framing proposals, capable of immediate application, for the reduction of hours of work internationally as a means of combating unemployment. In consequence the governing body decided that a preparatory conference to discuss the technical problems should be held in January.
  Captain MACDONALD: As it is impossible to reach an agreement in regard to a 48-hour week, is it not an absurd waste of time to talk about a 40-hour week?
  Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether between now and next June this question will come before the Cabinet for their decision, with a view to getting a 40-hour week?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not for me to say what will come before the Cabinet.
  Mr. CAPORN: Is it part of the policy that the 40-hour week should be applied to agriculture? If so, what will be the effect on the price of milk?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE INDUSTRY SCHEME.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Insurance Unemployment Board, which controls the insurance industry special scheme for unemployment insurance, is charging insurance agents full quarterly contribu-
    1874
    tions as employers if they employ collectors, even for a few days in case of sickness or holidays, if one of the days of employment is the board's quarter day; that Rule 7 of the special scheme provides that weekly contributions for occasional employment be paid on quarter day as they have accrued, while clause 38 of the scheme states that an employer must pay a quarterly contribution for an employé who is employed on a quarter day; and whether he will take steps to compel the board to apply Rule 7 in every such case or indicate how those concerned may obtain redress?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The financial arrangements of the insurance industry scheme are based on the payment of a quarterly contribution to cover the ensuing quarter in respect of persons actually in employment on each quarter day, irrespective of the length of time for which they have been or will be employed. Rule 7 is intended to cover the case of persons who, owing to the casual nature of their employment, would not otherwise be covered under the general arrangements at all, and according to my information the application of that rule would not have any effect in reducing the employer's obligations in the class of case which the hon. Member mentions. In any case I would point out that the application of Rule 7 and also any proposals for modification of the provisions of the scheme are matters which are left to the discretion of the Insurance Industry Board.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet a small deputation to discuss the effect of this matter, which is operating so unfairly on the insurance agents in the country?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I shall certainly be only too happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any deputation which he may care to bring.

    MEXBOROUGH.
    Mr. MOLSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Mexborough in January, 1932, and in January, 1933?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of unemployed persons on the register of the Mexborough Employment Exchange was 5,044 at 25th January, 1932, and 3,953 at 23rd January, 1933.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Lancashire County Council has sent out instructions to the public assistance committees in the Leigh area that in determining transitional payments under the Needs Act, 1932, the wounds or disability pension only shall be reduced by one-half and that the allowances for wife and children are not to be treated similarly; and what steps he proposes to take in view of this violation of the provisions of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As was made clear in the explanatory circular issued after the passing of the recent Act, the rule relating to disability pensions applies only to the personal disability pension and not to allowances in respect of a wife and children. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision in the circular is contrary to the opinions which are held on this side of the House, and will he give an opportunity for a discussion in order to ascertain the opinion of the House on the matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The circular states the effect of the Act passed by this House.
    Mr. TINKER: In view of the unsatisfactory state in which the matter is left, I give notice that on the Debate on unemployment on the Minister's salary I shall bring this matter forward.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for supplementary benefit under the means test in the county of Durham who have had a personal interview with any of the three commissioners?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Applicants who are dissatisfied with their determinations are referred, in the first instance, to the appropriate area officer. If thereafter they still consider that their circumstances have not been properly dealt with it is open to them to request a personal interview with the commissioners. Only one such request has, so far, been received. This request was granted.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister correct in saying that only one request has been
    1876
    received? I can show him a letter showing scores of cases.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the information I have received. If my in-formation is wrong, I shall be only too glad to receive information from the hon. Member.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployed miners living at Sunnybrow Colliery, County Durham, who are allowed to occupy colliery houses without paying rent, have had 3s. 3d. and 4s. 3d. per week deducted from their unemployment benefit; and whether he will state on what grounds the commissioners have adopted this principle in dealing with cases of rent-free houses?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This is a matter within the discretion of the commissioners who no doubt are prepared to take all the circumstances into account.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that we must approve of this action? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister appealed over the wireless for charity towards the unemployed and that these owners have practised it; and is it right that the Commissioners should take advantage of the position?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. We discussed this matter the other night. I am well aware that this is a very difficult question, and it refers to what I believe is known as "double offtake". Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should make representations to the Commissioners if all the circumstances, which are very complicated, are not fully taken into account.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that Members of this House should make representations to the Commissioners rather than to him?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a matter which we discussed the other day. The Commissioners will always receive representations on matters such as this, and it is to them and not to me that they should be made.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am talking about Members of this House. I ask the Minister seriously if he is suggesting

    1877
    that Members of the House should run round to his subordinates putting cases to them?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As I explained the other night, I am expressly precluded from dealing with these cases under Act of Parliament passed by this House.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: When does my right hon. Friend expect the report on this matter?
    Sir H, BETTERTON: I cannot say.

    MINING INDUSTBY.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the mining industry in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932; the number to whom training was given; and the number successfully transferred to other industries?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The average numbers of insured persons in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in 1930, 1931 and 1932 were 219,230; 297,624 and 355,325 respectively. Statistics are not available regarding the number of coalminers to whom training was given nor the number transferred through the Employment Exchanges to other industries.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right ton. Gentleman give any idea why the figures have increased by 145,000 in the last few years?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have answered the question on the Order Paper.

    BENEFIT (WOEKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that persons whose compensation is suspended under the Workmen's Compensation Act pending the decision of the medical referee are not allowed to sign on at the Employment Exchange, and if the decision of the medical referee is against them they are ruled out of unemployment benefit from the time of suspension until the decision of the medical referee; and will he consider taking steps to meet this situation?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Such persons are not prevented from signing the register by any rule of the Department, but in
    1878
    order to claim benefit they would have to sign a declaration that they are capable of and available for work at a time when they are contending for the purposes of workmen's compensation that they are not capable of work. It has been decided by the Umpire that a person who is contending that he is not capable of work cannot be available for work and is therefore not qualified for benefit.
    Mr. TINKER: Does not the Minister see the difficulty in which an applicant is placed? First of all, he thinks that he is not fit for work, and then the medical referee declares him to be fit for work, and that causes the difficulty. Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he brings in legislation, consider this point, so that applicants can get over the difficulty?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I will consider it, but the hon. Gentleman forgets that he is contending that a man is not capable of work because he is under a disability. If he is making that contention on the one hand, it is almost impossible, I should think, to make the submission that he is fit for work.
    Mr. TINKER: The medical referee says that he is.
    Mr. CAPORN: Is not the Minister aware that there are many cases in which a man is contending that he is not fit for full work but is fit for light work, and the question arising on arbitration is: If he is able to get light work, cannot he enter himself at the Employment Exchange as fit for light work, or is he not to be allowed to do so?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I should like to see the question on the Paper dealing with the facts which the hon. Member has set out.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If a man were to sign on at the Employment Exchange during the period that he was awaiting the report of the chief medical officer, who decided that he was fit for work, would not that fact entitle the man to benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I should think, off hand, that that would be a case for proper consideration by the court of referees.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour how many cases of transitional payments have been dealt with by the public assistance committee in the county borough of Barnsley from the committee's inauguration to 31st October, 1932; in how many cases have full benefits been allowed; how many cases partial benefit;

    Determinations by the Public Assistance Committee for the County Borough of Barnsley on applications for transitional payments between 12th November, 1931, and 5th November, 1932.

    Period.

    Total number of applications.

    Payment allowed at maximum benefit rates.

    Payment allowed at lower rates.

    Needs of applicants held not to justify payment.

    12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932.*

    7,030

    5,867

    882

    281

    25th January, 1932–5th November, 1932:

    Initial applications

    2,665

    2,117

    329

    219

    Renewals and revisions

    23,000

    18,679

    3,981

    340

    32,695

    26,663

    5,192

    840

    * The figures for this period include renewals and revisions as well as initial applications. Separate figures for initial applications are not available.

    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some public assistance committees are deducting the whole of the weekly proportion (5s. 3d.) of the Army reservists' pay from the award made under the means test in transitional unemployment benefit; and will he issue instructions which will guide these committees to ignore entirely the pay of these reservists in arriving at the award to be made?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This is a matter within the discretion of authorities and I have no power to issue instructions to them on the subject.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications received since 1st December, 1932, for transitional payments in the county of Durham; and the number of cases reduced and the number refused up to the latest available date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Determinations were given by the Commissioners for the administrative county of Durham on 80,362 applications for transitional payments between 5th December, 1932, and 4th February, 1933. In 18,998 cases payment was allowed at rates lower than
    and how many applicants have failed to sustain any claim?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    the maximum benefit rates, and in 5,124 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payment being made, the remaining 56,240 cases being allowed at full rates. These figures include renewals and revisions as well as initial applications.
    Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the burden upon the local rates has been intolerably increased by this state of things?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: There are no particulars to enable me to say how far the hon. Member's question is correct.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Minister of Labour upon what Vote and Sub-head the salaries of the Commissioners appointed to administer the means test in the county of Durham are borne?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The remuneration and expenses of Commissioners appointed to administer the needs test are borne on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour, and are charged in 1932–33 to a special Sub-head (G.4) opened for that purpose.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that being the case, the Commissioners have differed most essentially from the Public Assistance Committee who did the work before they were appointed and that their administration is questionable upon that Vote?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The time to raise that point is when such Vote is being discussed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman the right to make a charge upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund for these Commissioners seeing that they are not entrusted with the paying out of the benefit which is chargeable to that fund? Should not the whole cost be borne by the Government, as is the transitional payments to these people?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question which the hon. Member will no doubt develop when we have the Estimates before us. I cannot reply to that point by way of question and answer.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Labour how many additional persons have been engaged by the Commissioners in the county of Durham since their appointment to assist them in connection with the administration of transitional payments?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Fifty-five additional officers have been engaged temporarily, mainly in connection with the work of investigation. Thirty-seven officers are on loan from my Department.

    JUVENILES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of juveniles between 14 and 18 years of age at present in employment; and what is the number out of work between 14 and 16 and between 16 and 18?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Owing to the fact that insurance against unemployment does not begin until the age of 16, there is no information available on the first part of this question. As regards the latter part, all the information available is published monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is about time the Government had some informa-
    1882
    tion as to what is happening to the children between 14 and 16 years, both employed and unemployed?

    DONCASTER.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the Doncaster district on 1st February, 1932, and on 1st February, 1933?
    Sir H, BETTERTON: The number of unemployed persons on the register of the Doncaster Employment Exchange was 8,610 at 25th January, 1932, and 9,442 at 23rd January, 1933.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why unemployment has fallen at Mexborough and increased at Doncaster?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. If there is a diminution at Mexborough and not at Doncaster, I am not in a position to explain it.

    WOEK SCHEMES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the volunteer work scheme in Germany, whereby work has been provided for 200,000 youths on schemes of communal service; and if he will consider introducing a similar scheme into this country?
    Sir H. BETTE.RTON: I am aware of the scheme to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member will appreciate that a scheme appropriate to one country may not be suitable for another. I am, however, giving the matter careful consideration.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not better to form a scheme appropriate to this country, instead of having no scheme?
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right lion. Gentleman notice the recent changes that have taken place in Germany when he is considering this matter?
    Mr. PEATasked the Prime Minister if he would lay upon the Table a schedule of suggested schemes for the alleviation of unemployment made by Members on the Floor of the House which has been tabulated by the Government for consideration; and if he will have marked with an asterisk those schemes to which the Government are prepared to give further consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The suggestions to which. I referred on Thursday last were those mentioned by hon. Members in the course of the Debate on Unemployment in November. As the Debate is on record, no purpose would be served by my laying upon the Table the schedule to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be helpful to all Members of the House if such a paper were laid on the Table, so that we could know definitely which of the schemes, if any, the Government have in mind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the House will not ask that a precedent should be set for the Government issuing a sort of schedule of schemes that have been referred to in the course of debates, to which every hon. Member can refer if he will turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. PEAT: Does the schedule mentioned in fact exist?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind my hon. Friend that I said it did, and therefore it does.

    POOR LAW RECIPIENTS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the number of cases in any convenient recent period in which unemployment benefit has been supplemented by grants by public assistance authorities?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): During the week ending the 4th February, 1933, in England and Wales, 11,101 insured persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and 27,782 insured persons in receipt of transitional payments were also in receipt of outdoor poor relief.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour what has been the total British expenditure in connection with the International Labour Office since its inception; and what has been the total amount received in emoluments by British members of its staff?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: The total expenditure out of moneys provided by Par-
  1884
  liament, in the period of about 13 years to 31st January, 1933, in connection with the International Labour Organisation since its inception is £417,885 including £28,229 in respect of travelling expenses and subsistence allowances to British members, delegates, and advisers attending meetings of the governing body, annual conference and other meetings in connection with the organisation. I am not in a position to state the total amount received in emoluments by British members of the staff of the organisation.
  Captain MACDONALD: Considering the need for national economy, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time to end this wasteful and useless expenditure?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: I would point out that the International Labour Office is set up by and is part of the Peace Treaty.

  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to bring before Parliament at an early date legislation authorising local authorities to make by-laws relating to the hours and conditions of employment of juveniles?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave to questions on this subject by the Noble Lady on the 24th October last and by the hon. Member for Whitechapel and St. George's (Mr. Janner) on the 22nd December.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that a definite pledge was given by the Home Secretary that the Government would soon bring in a Bill to regulate the hours of juveniles? It was a definite pledge to the House. Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, there was a pledge given, but it was subject to an improvement of the industrial situation.
  Mr. MANDER: Will it take 10 years in this case?

  PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary whether it is now the practice for the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek his approval before applying for process against individuals under the statute of Edward III. or the equivalent common law provisions; and under what statutory authority he acts in giving such approval?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is not, and never has been, any such practice as the hon. Member suggests. It is, however, well established that in a case involving questions of public policy the views of the appropriate Minister on that aspect of the case would be ascertained before proceedings were initiated.
  Mr. COCKS: Does that mean that these proceedings are political prosecutions?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. There has been no departure from the previous practice in this case.

  MADAME VLORA (DEATH).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary what action has been taken by Scotland Yard in response to the two applications from Avry Bey Delvina asking for information regarding the death of his sister Madame Vlora; and why that information has not been furnished?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As this death has been the subject of a coroner's inquest, Mr. Delvina was advised by the Commissioner of Police on the 18th instant that any application for official information concerning the circumstances of Madame Vlora's death should be addressed to the coroner, whose name and address were furnished to him.
  Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what circumstances led to the death of this lady?

  NATIONAL UNEMPLOYED WORKERS' MOVEMENT (ARRESTS).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary by whom he was consulted as to the giving of his approval to the application for process by the Director of Public Prosecutions against Mr. Tom Mann and Mr. Emrhys Llewellyn; and upon what date?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Home Secretary is generally responsible for the maintenance of law and order, particularly in the Metropolis, and it was accordingly, my duty to consider what steps ought to be taken to guard against breaches of the law which seemed likely to result from the proceedings of a body of which the two individuals in question were responsible officials. I therefore referred the matter in the ordinary course to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after considering the available evidence and with the approval of the Attorney-General, applied to the chief magistrate for process against the persons concerned.

  ZOO, COVENTRY STREET.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the existence of a Fun Fair Zoo in Coventry Street; and if he is satisfied that the accommodation provided for the animals and the conditions under which they are exhibited are satisfactory?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not previously been called to the existence of this zoo, but the Commissioner of Police informs me that the police have recently visited the place and found nothing to justify any action by them in the matter. I understand that frequent visits are made by inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and any suggestions made by the inspectors are fully carried out by the management of the zoo.

  POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary what provision, is made for the pension of the widow of a policeman in the event of the man dying two years after entering the force?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Under Section 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the widow of a member of a police force of two years' service is entitled to a pension if he dies from the effects of an injury received on duty without his own default. If he dies while in the force from any other cause his widow receives a gratuity.

  WINCHESTER AND PARKHURST PRISONS.
  Captain MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement regarding the recent occurrences at Winchester and Parkhurst Prisons?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There has been no occurrence at either of these prisons calling for special notice. My hon. and gallant Friend no doubt has in mind a report which appeared in a Sunday newspaper on the 19th instant of an alleged attack with razor blades on prison officers by two convicts at Winchester Prison and an attack on a hospital officer at Parkhurst. So far as Winchester Prison is concerned, the report is entirely untrue. As regards Parkhurst, the report proves on inquiry to relate to a prisoner who had been certified insane and was awaiting removal to an asylum. I had occasion on Monday last to deny a report which had appeared in a previous issue of the same newspaper regarding an alleged disturbance at Wandsworth, and I hope that those responsible for its publication will take due notice of my reply to this question.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to giving the House the name of the newspaper?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It was the "Sunday Dispatch."

  EDUCATION (OPEN AIR NURSERY SCHOOLS).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the total number of children who entered school at five years of age last year; and what proportion of them were suffering from mental or physical defects?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have no information which would enable me to give the precise figures asked for. Of all children who entered public elementary schools for the first time in 1931—the last year for which information is available—19.4 per cent, were found to require some form of medical treatment. The corresponding figures showing the proportion suffering from mental defects are not available. Such defects are frequently not diagnosed until a later stage.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the Chief Medical Officer in his report says that 27 per cent, of the juveniles in elementary schools are physically defective, and also that there are diseases which could be easily prevented, and that the best way to treat them is by open air nursery schools? Do not the Government think that this is a good time to establish open air nursery schools?

  POOR LAW

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (RELIEF, WEST RIDING).
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the public assistance committee of the West Riding County Council has decided that all disability pensions shall be taken into account in assessing the needs of applicants for poor relief; and whether he will issue a circular to public assistance committees on this question?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have seen the regulation to which the hon. Member refers and I am sending him a copy of it and a copy of the circular letter issued by me in relation to this question.
    Mr. PRICE: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to get uniformity by extending the benefit of ex-service pensions to people in receipt of out-door relief, which was the desire of a majority of the House and is in accordance with the Act of Parliament?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I invite the hon. Member's attention to the expressions in the circular, which I am sending him, dealing with the matter.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations issued by the West Riding County Council are causing considerable resentment in the West Riding, and will he see that they are amended by the West Riding County Council in such a way as will be acceptable to the people?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the question, I must point out that the effect of the regulations in question is not accurately stated in the question. The discretionary power in granting outdoor relief and of applying rules contained in the Determination of Need Act, is excluded from the discretion of guardian committees and reserved for

    1889
    determination by public assistance committees, who consider each case on its merits.
    Mr. LUNN: What is there for publicly-elected persons who sit on guardians committees to do if they have no power whatever to give assistance to the people who come before them?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is now trying to have it both ways. My reply to the supplementary shows that there is no substance in some of the apprehensions that are felt.

    TEST WORK.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health what steps are take by his department to ensure that, in the administration of test work, care should be taken that other men are not thereby deprived of regular work and that the grant made bears some reasonable relation to the standard rate of wages for such work?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I make it a condition of my approval that test work shall not be of such a nature as to displace regular wage-earners. The mount of relief paid in any case is governed by the needs of the applicant's household, and bears no necessary relation to the rates of wages paid for ordinary employment.
    Mr. MANDER: If I bring a complaint which I have received on this point before the right hon. Gentleman, will he be good enough to give it careful consideration?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly. I will give careful consideration to any such matter the hon. Member brings to my attention.

  FOOD AND DRUGS ADULTERATION ACT.
  Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the comments in the Report of the Milk Reorganisation Committee on the unfairness of the Food and Drugs Adulteration Act, 1928, to the milk producer; and whether he will now consider legislation to amend that Act by distinguishing between the wilful adulterator and persons who act in complete good faith?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the comments referred to. This matter will be considered in conjunction with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, in the light of the recommendations of the Commission as a whole.

  RATES (ASSESSMENTS).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Minister of Health the result of the inquiry by the Central Valuation Committee as to the desirability of issuing a communication to local authorities regarding the assessment of houses upon which work has been done as a result of local campaigns to relieve unemployment?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that the Central Valuation Committee have not yet reached any decision in this matter.

  RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
  Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether, in order to avoid the unnecessary expense entailed by a revaluation every five years, he will consider amending the Rating and Valuation Act for a revaluation every seven years?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on 9th February to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson).
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not the case that local authorities have suggested this procedure in order to lighten their expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have received representations on the subject, and, if the hon. and gallant Member will consult the answer to which I have referred, he will find that the grounds for the present action are really the interests of the individual ratepayer.

  INFLUENZA.
  Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the number of deaths from annual influenza epidemics, which in the first few weeks of this year amounted to over 10,000, and of the dislocation of public services and of industry arising

  1891
  from the widespread character of the epidemics, he will consider making influenza a notifiable disease?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I fully appreciate the gravity of the effects of influenza and the question of making it a notifiable disease has been frequently considered. I am advised, however, that this course would not be likely to reduce either the morbidity and mortality from influenza or the dislocation of public services and of industry to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The many clinical forms which influenza takes and the many uncertainties of its diagnosis would in any event make it difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions from notification figures. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that acute influenzal pneumonia is already a notifiable disease.

  HOUSING (LOANS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether his reply to the Ardsley (Yorks) Urban District Council, refusing to sanction the raising of a loan to build 50 houses for aged people until it is proved that private enterprise has failed to provide houses for the working classes, is to apply to all local authorities who submit housing schemes to the Ministry?
  Sir H. YOUNG: There has been some misapprehension on the point raised in this question, a statement was recently issued on my authority for the purpose of clearing the matter up, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
  Mr. LUNN: Are we to understand that the Government are not only withdrawing subsidies for housing but also withdrawing sanction for loans by local authorities? What is the Government doing to meet housing needs?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The assumption of the hon. Member is entirely unwarranted. If he will consult the statement to which I have referred, he will find what is the actual position of the matter.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXPENDITURE (1920 PRICE LEVELS).
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated expenditure for the current financial year in terms of the wholesale price level of 1920?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): In view of the numerous different elements of which the Budget expenditure is composed I do not think it would be possible to make any useful calculation of the kind suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    TEA DUTY.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase or decrease in the taxation of tea in 1931–32 as compared with 1913–14?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rate of duty on tea in the year 1913–1914 was 5d. per lb. The Tea Duty was repealed as from the 22nd April, 1929, and no duty was in force on tea in the year 1931–1932. The present duty of 4d. per lb. on non-Empire tea and 2d. per lb. on Empire tea was imposed in the current financial year under the Finance Act, 1932.
    Mr. LEWIS: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great disparity between the taxation of tea and other stimulants?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that people do not do ridiculous things and go to prison for drinking tea?

    BANK OF ENGLAND (GOLD PURCHASES).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold purchased by this country in America since the payment of the last instalment of the American debt, and the purpose of such purchases?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon.
    Member has in mind recent purchases of gold by the Issue Department of the Bank of England, I may refer him to the published statements of the Bank. As he is aware, particulars of the dealings of the Exchange Equalisation Account are not published. It is, of course, common knowledge that for various reasons large amounts of foreign money have been coming here recently which are bad money in the sense that we cannot rely on retaining them. If no precautions were taken, these capital movements would result in a sharp rise in sterling to be followed later on by a sharp fall. I do not think anyone doubts that such fluctuations which are very harmful to trade should be limited as far as possible, but it is not in the general interest to state what particular methods may be adopted to check them.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that these recent additions of gold are to be regarded as merely flexible additions to the Bank's gold, and that it would be improper to regard them as a permanent addition to the gold reserve which might be used in future for external payments?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is so.

    BEER DUTY.
    Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many standard barrels of beer were charged for duty in 1914, 1930, and 1932, respectively; and what was the duty levied upon beer in those three years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The numbers of standard barrels of beer charged with Excise Duty in the three calendar years 1914, 1930, and 1932 were respectively 34,745,000, 18,839,000, and 13,248,000. The amounts of Excise Duty charged thereon were £15,591,000, £71,961,000, and £70,339,000. The figure for 1914 includes the whole of Ireland, while the figures for 1930 and 1932 include Great Britain and Northern Ireland only. The rates of duty in the respective years were 7s. 9d., 103s., and 134s. per standard barrel, subject as regards 1930 and 1932 to a rebate of 20s. per bulk barrel.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the brewers still pay from 5 per cent, to 55 per cent. dividends?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he hopes to be in a position to inform the House as to whether any Minister or Ministers of the Crown will be going to Washington to discuss the settlement of our War Debt to the United States of America?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an assurance that in the conversations with the United States of America
  1894
  the policy of the Government will not go beyond the policy laid down in the Balfour Note?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Our policy in these matters has been frequently stated. It would not be desirable for me to say more than has been already said, pending the forthcoming discussions.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    OTTAWA AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the Prime Minister if he proposes to set up any machinery for the purpose of supervising the working of the Ottawa Agreements in the interests of British industry and commerce?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The working of the Ottawa Agreements, in relation to the interests of the industry and commerce of this country, is continuously under review by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I see no reason, therefore, for setting up any special machinery.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the existing Government Departments are sufficiently occupied with their statutory duties, and in view of the great importance of developing Empire trade, does he not think it wise to appoint a special authority to deal with this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but for the wider question now raised, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a specially appointed committee which is still sitting and has not finished its work.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Prime
    Minister whether he can indicate when the work of the Government will turn, as promised, from contraction to scientific expansion; and whether he will further indicate the manner and methods of that expansion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, and I myself, stated in the Debates on unemployment last week the principles which are guiding the Government in

    1895
    the examination of new schemes designed to promote the expansion of trade or the extension of works which may be justified on merits and also the steps which have already been taken in pursuance of those principles.
    Mr. MABANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large and important body of opinion inside this House and outside which is prepared to support a bold policy of expansion internally without regard to what is happening in the rest of the world?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If that is so, it will be found that the Government is very much interested and prepared to do what is possible on those lines.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE:
    In considering this question, will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the necessitous areas, especially on the north-east coast?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are never out of our mind.
    Mr. MAXTON: In thinking over the matter will the right hon. Gentleman remember the dictum of a previous Minister of the Crown, that you cannot take rabbits out of a hat?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At the moment I am not quite so confident of that.
    Mr. BATEY: When may we expect a report from this sub-committee showing what schemes they are proposing to develop?

    MOST-FAVOUBED-NATION CLAUSE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the interviews recently granted by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for War to the Danish newspaper "Berlingske Tidende," stating that they are doubtful of the continued utility of the most-favoured-nation clause; and whether these views represent the policy of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention had not been previously called to the interviews in question, but I am now informed that neither my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, gave any view as
    1896
    to the utility or otherwise of the mostfavoured-nation clause. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr.. MANDER: Is it not really beyond doubt that no far-reaching results can be obtained unless the most-favourednation clause be amended?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper, as to whether that view was given. I say that the view was not given.
    Mr. MANDER: It was published in the "Times."

    IMPORT DUTIES (EMPIRE CONTENT).
    Mr. A. RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what proportion of Empire labour content is demanded by the respective signatories in respect of preferences given under the Ottawa Agreements?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information for which he asks in regard to the Dominions which were signatories of the Ottawa Agreements, and Southern Rhodesia. I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India to supply the hon. Member with similar information in regard to India.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arbitrary figure of 50 per cent. Empire labour content accepted by the Government is doing considerable hardship to this country by permitting foreign goods to come through a Dominion corridor and defeat the intention of the Import Duties Act?
    Mr. THOMAS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will first see the statement. I may say that the agreement and the decision were based on experience and were made after consultation with the industries concerned. If he has any specific point to raise and will put down a question, I will endeavour to answer it.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some industries in this country disagree entirely with the Board of Trade's decision in accepting 50 per cent.?
    Mr. THOMAS: That is quite true, but, if you consult different interests, you must determine on balance, and the majority think the other way.
    Mr. RAMSAY: I do not agree.

    Country.

    Qualification for Preferential Tariff Treatment.

    Note.

    Canada

    50 per cent, of value of goods to be represented by Empire labour and/or material (33⅛ per cent, in case of cotton yarns and fabrics).

    Australia

    Goods wholly produced or "wholly manufactured" in the United Kingdom.

    "Wholly manufactured" implies no process done outside the United Kingdom which is commercially performed in the United Kingdom. The manufacturer is allowed the use of:

    (a) basic raw materials of any origin.

    (b) certain raw materials of any origin in a more advanced stage as specified on a list drawn up by the Australian Minister of Trade and Custome and amended as occasion requires.

    Goods not commercially produced in Australia 25 per cent, of United Kingdom labour and/or material. Other goods, 75 per cent, of United Kingdom labour and/or material.

    The Minister specifies these goods on a list amended from time to time.

    New Zealand

    Goods wholly produced or wholly manufactured in other Empire countries.

    Unmanufactured raw materials of any origin may be used and also certain specified semi-manufactured materials.

    Goods partially produced or partially manufactured in such countries, 50 per cent.

    Union of South Africa.

    25 per cent, of value of goods to be represented by Empire labour and/or material.

    Southern Rhodesia

    Generally, 25 per cent, of value of goods to be represented by Empire labour and/or material.

  TEA (CONSUMPTION)
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase or decrease in the consumption of tea in 1931–32 as compared with 1913–14?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am unable to supply this information as no figures are available as to the consumption of tea in the year 1931–1932 when no duty was chargeable on tea.
  Mr. G. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of this agreement at Ottawa, for every miner he has put into employment he has put 10,000 miners out?
  Following is the statement:

  CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present state of the negotiations between his Department and the directors of the Cunard Steamship Company in regard to the completion of their ship?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to what I said on this subject on Thursday last during the Debate on Unemployment, to which I have nothing further to add.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the remarks that he made in that speech a certain amount of interest and hope was created in the West of Scotland, and will he say whether there is any ground for that hope?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No ground for adding to or detracting from that hope at present.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement hopes were held out to a large number of very decent hardworking people that they were likely to get a job on this boat, and as it is very important, could he make some sort of statement showing that these men who had this hope are likely in the near future to be given a job or not?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One of the difficulties about making any statement of any kind on this sort of subject is that irresponsible people hold out the hope of something more than has been jusified by the statement made. I do not want to encourage that sort of thing, and that is the reason why at this stage I think it advisable not to add to what I said before.
  Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the cause of all this trouble is that the White Star Line want to load a lot of obsolete ships on the Cunard Company?

  LAND REGISTRY, NORTHERN IRELAND (MESSENGERS).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the annual issue of vests and trousers to the messengers attached to the Land Registry in Northern Ireland has been suspended since 1931 for reasons of economy; and whether, since the attire of these men is in some cases worn out, he will investigate the need for renewal at the earliest possible date?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that no issue of uniforms was made last year to the messenger staff referred to. Replacements have, however, been authorised, as and when necessary, by the Supreme Court authorities. I understand that
  1900
  instructions have been given for the issue of new uniforms to the staff generally in the month of May next.
  Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the old practice of an annual issue of these garments is to be suspended indefinitely or until a time comes when these men will be almost indecently clad?
  Captain HUDSON: I understand that the hon. Member is unduly alarmed about these trousers. Replacements have been authorised, and if there is any fault it is the fault of the local department and not of the Treasury or the Home Office.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FLAX-GROWING (EXPERIMENT, NORFOLK).
    Sir SAMUEL ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress is being made in connection with experiments in home-grown flax; and if he is in a position to give any information as to the (possibilities of flax-growing in Great Britain on a paying basis?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I understand that the Linen Industry Research Association is proposing to sow this year, in Norfolk, about 110 acres of pedigree flax, which will subsequently be processed at the association's research station at Lambeg, Northern Ireland. The method of the processing introduces certain new features devised at Lambeg which, on an experimental scale, has given promising results. As regards the latter part of the question, it is doubtful whether, at present prices for seed and fibre, flax could be grown or manufactured in Great Britain on an economic basis, unless soine new process can be introduced which will materially cheapen the cost of production of fibre. The purpose of the enterprise in Norfolk is to ascertain how far progress is possible on these lines.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that during the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease round Reading travellers from various firms visited farms to sell their disinfectants or other wares, no steps being taken to stop them spreading infection from one farm to another;

    1901
    and whether, in any future outbreaks, notices at all infected farms will be put up forbidding any traders on the premises?
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware that complaints have been made to the effect stated in the first part of the question. Under the provisions of Section 13 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, if an occupier in an infected area has affixed a notice to his premises forbidding entry therein without permission, any person not having by law a right of entry and entering without such permission is guilty of an offence against the Act. These provisions have been brought to the notice of the Berkshire branch of the National Fanners' Union. As regards the last part of the question, a rule made under the Foot-and-Mouth Order, 1928, prohibits under penalty the entry into an infected place of any persons other than an inspector of the Ministry without the prior written authority of the inspector, and posters warning the public to this effect are exhibited at the entrance to all infected places.

    BARLEY (PRICE).
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the average price of barley grown in England in 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, respectively?
    Major ELLIOT: According to the
    returns furnished to the Ministry under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921, the average price per cwt. of 112 lbs. of British barley in the years mentioned was as follows:

    s

    d

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    9

    11

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    7

    11

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    7

    11

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    7

    7

    Sir H. CROFT: In view of the steady decline in the price of barley, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considering whether any relief can be given in respect of this crop by any form of legislation?

    HOP GROWING.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of persons employed in hop growing in the years 1914, 1930, and 1932?
    Major ELLIOT: I regret that the information desired is not available.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES (APPOINTMENTS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how the staff of the Protectorates in South Africa is recruited; and whether he will consider appointments from the Colonial Service?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Appointments to the services of the territories of the South Africa High Commission are ordinarily made locally in South Africa, but vacancies are filled from time to time by the transfer of officers from the Colonial Service or by appointments from this country.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same principles as to our trusteeship of native interests prevail in these Protectorates as in the Colonial Office?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should say "Yes," but if there is any specific point upon which my right hon. and gallant Friend desires information perhaps he will put it down.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, in view of the serious decline in the amount of coal exported to the Irish Free State since the imposition by them of duties on British coal in reply to the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, he will enter into negotiations with the Irish Free State Government with a view to exempting equivalent Irish produce from duty in return for withdrawal of the Irish duty on British coal?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: While I regret that the action which the Irish Free State Government have seen fit to take in pursuance of their dispute with this country has caused loss to United Kingdom exporters of coal, I am satisfied that any attempt to reach a partial settlement on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would not be likely to be useful. At the same time, as I have frequently explained to the House, the Government remain desirous of a friendly settlement with the Irish Free State, provided that it proceeds on the basis that the validity of existing obligations is accepted.
  Mr. McGOVERN: In giving continual accounts of the revenue drawn from his tariffs, does the right hon. Gentleman consider, on the other side, the unemployment benefit which has to be paid in the coalfields as a result of that policy; and does he consider that the result of throwing people out of employment in this country justifies the imposition of these tariffs?
  Mr. THOMAS: Before arriving at a decision which was endorsed by this House the proposition before the Government was this: Are the British people entitled to pay an obligation that is due from other people? We decided that they were not, and we took this course as the only course open to us.
  Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it was the wish of this House that that policy should be carried to an extent which would bring injury to our own people? Does he remember that he proceeded to Canada to negotiate a coal agreement some years ago—with considerable success, I understand—and will he not do the same with Ireland? There was a question of ships, too, in that case.
  Mr. THOMAS: With regard to the last part of the question, when I negotiated the agreement with Canada, the export of anthracite coal from Wales was in the vicinity of 400,000 tons. As a result of my efforts last year it was 1,200,000 tons.
  Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to these results—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question is about Ireland. We cannot go from there to Wales.
  Mr. MAXTON: I said that the right hon. Gentleman had made a considerable success in that case.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons who have been recommended by the Glasgow Corporation health department to their housing department for a change of house, due to members of the family having tuberculosis?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The number of recommendations made since April, 1929, when the practice began, is 1,464.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State in a very friendly manner, by way of a change, if he would not consider making representations to the Glasgow Corporation to re-house in small apartments these families who have children suffering from tuberculosis in order to prevent the spread of this horrible disease among young children?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's recommendation, but as at present advised I do not think I have very much power in the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that a number of people who are recommended for houses are offered houses the rent of which they cannot pay, will the hon. Gentleman seek to have a conference with the Glasgow Town Council on the whole of this question?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will consider that matter.

    MAGISTRATE'S CONVICTION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the conviction, under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, registered this week against a Glasgow magistrate; and whether in view of representations made to him by a majority of the town council in 1930, requesting a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, he will now take steps to ascertain from the competent investigating officials in Glasgow dealing with offences of this nature the desirability of now promoting such an inquiry?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the allegations in 1930 are concerned, these were fully investigated on the information then available to the criminal authorities. No grounds for criminal proceedings were disclosed, and it was decided that the allegations were not such as to warrant the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry under the Act of 1921. In view, however, of the recent conviction my right hon. Friend has the matter under consideration.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong opinion that is held in Glasgow that the previous refusal to set up an inquiry has been inclined to encourage those who are criminally inclined, and will he also undertake to pay special attention to the unanimous newspaper comments on the significance of the prosecuting counsel s reference to other members of the council and to the discussion, the details of which have not been disclosed, and the anxiety that this is causing to members of the council as well as of the community?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have nothing to add to the answer I have just given.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In the unfortunate absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman make representations, before he comes to a definite decision, that an adequate opportunity shall be given for representations to be made by public persons and bodies on this question, and will he ask that the fact that the Labour Government previously decided against an inquiry of this kind should not be allowed to prejudice the matter under consideration?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have dealt with the previous inquiry, as the hon. Member will see if he reads my answer. With regard to the present situation, very full consideration will be given to it.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    EXPOSTS (SPAIN).
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the further restrictions proposed on British coal imported into Spain; and in view of the effect which these restrictions will have on the coal industry in South Wales, what steps, if any, the Government propose taking to deal with the matter?
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make regarding the embargo on the importation on British coal into Spain?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I know of no embargo or suggested embargo, but I am aware that certain proposals have been submitted to the Spanish Government,
    1906
    which, if adopted, would result in a reduction of the amount of coal imported from the United Kingdom. Instructions have been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid to impress upon the Spanish Government the serious issues involved in such proposals.
    Mr. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman received representations from the Mining Association upon the matter complained of in these questions?
    Mr. BROWN: I received representations a week ago.

    BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE (DISPUTE).
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, arising out of a stoppage at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, in 1930 to 1931, an official of his Department negotiated a settlement under which work was to be resumed and the men formerly employed by the company were to be reinstated and no fresh employés taken on in the meantime; that from time to time difficulties have arisen owing to the action of the company in not adhering to the agreement; that latterly the company have refused to observe the agreement, with the result that another stoppage has occurred and the company have refused to meet the workmen's representatives; that the company state that they were advised by the Department that they could keep the agreement by reinstating the men and then giving them 14 days' notice; whether this advice was given; and whether he will instruct a representative of the Department to endeavour to secure a settlement of the dispute and observance of the agreement in question?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the second and third parts, I am aware that successive difficulties of interpretation have arisen, and that another stoppage has now occurred, the alleged reason being as stated in the question. No such advice as is suggested in the fourth part of the question has been given by the Mines Department; and as regards the last part, I would remand the hon. Member that the Department has no power to intervene in disputes of this kind, and only does so upon invitation by both sides. No such invitation has been received from either side in connection with the present stoppage.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman's Department has been in these negotiations and helped to effect a settlement, is it not up to him to see that the agreements 'are carried out; and, secondly, since he denies that his Department advised this colliery company how they could carry out the agreement and still get rid of men, is not the honour of his Department at stake until that state-men is withdrawn; is he aware that the Department made this definite statement before the executive of the South Wales Miners' Federation and the coalowners; and will he inquire into this matter with a view to having the statement withdrawn?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot be expected to assume that every statement made in a public newspaper or elsewhere is to be taken seriously. As my hon. Friend knows, disputes have been going on in this particular mine from as long ago as November, 1930, and my Department has made continuous efforts at conciliation. This is not a matter that I can debate across the Floor of the House by question and answer, but, if my hon. Friend has any points with regard to the present dispute to bring to my notice, I shall be happy to see him about them.
    Mr. EDWARDS: As the hon. Gentleman says his Department was a party to the settlement, is it not up to him to see that it is carried out?
    Mr. BROWN: If there is any lack of carrying out the agreement it is surely the duty of those who think it is not being carried out to call the attention of the Department to it. As I said in my answer, at the moment we have received no representation from either side.
    Mr. G. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman send his conciliation officer down to see whether a settlement of this dispute cannot be arrived at, seeing that it is being waged around an agreement that he himself effected?
    Mr. BROWN: I should be willing to use any efforts of mine or of my Department in this direction, but the hon. Member will understand that it is not always easy to go down unless there is some desire and some basis for that desire.
    Mr. HALL: Try it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what will be the business of the House for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, Committee 'stage. A Debate will arise on the situation in the Far East, and I might say that a White Paper will be circulated to-morrow.
Tuesday: Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, Committee stage, and, if there is time, Local Government (General Exchequer Contributions) Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday: Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, Report stage. I understand that the Ministry of Labour Estimate will be considered.
On any day, if time permits, other business may be taken. As usual, Wednesday and Friday are private Members' days.
Mr. MAXTON: I want to be quite clear. Do I understand that the Committee stage of the Vote on Account on Monday will be purely formal, and that we shall proceed at once to discuss the Far East?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, the Foreign Office Vote will be put down.
Mr. MAXTON: But how much of the day is to be devoted to the Far East?
The PRIME MINISTER: The whole day.
Mr. MAXTON: Then the Committee stage of the Ministry of Labour Vote is to be purely formal on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Monday's Debate will be on the Foreign Office Vote.
Mr. MAXTON: Entirely?
The PRIME MINISTER: If the House likes. It is not our business to decide that point, but if the Debate on the Far East ceased, other matters could be discussed.
Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand that the arrangement is that, should the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote end early, we should proceed to discuss the Ministry of Labour Vote, which we had originally put down and which we have held up in order that we might discuss the

1909
Far East, and that then on Thursday we would continue the discussion on the Labour Ministry Vote?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is exactly as my right hon. Friend says.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.

BLIND VOTERS BILL,
"to amend the Ballot Act, 1872, so as to enable any blind voter at a poll regulated by that Act to avail himself of the assistance of a friend; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by Captain Fraser; supported by Mr. Edwards, Major Hills, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Kerr, Mr. Lansbury, Sir Ian Macpherson, Mr. Rea, Sir Herbert Samuel, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Captain Strickland, Mr. David Lloyd George and Sir Arthur Shirley Benn; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill [Lords])
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
  1910
  had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Crossley; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 10 Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill [Lords]): Sir Reginald Mitchell Banks, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Dingle Foot, Viscount Knebworth, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Captain Peter Macdonald, Major Milner, the Solicitor-General. Mr. Donald Somervell, and Lord Stanley.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Dog Racing (Local Option) Bill): Mr. Oliver Stanley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hacking.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Housing (Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balniel; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Agnew.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.50 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I must ask for the indulgence which the House always gives to one who addresses it for the first time in an official capacity. While one can always rely on physical support in the position which I now occupy, I rely more on the moral support which the House always extends to one in my present position. At the end of 1931 Parliament passed the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Act, which authorised a reduction of pay of servants of the Crown in India by 10 per cent. That Act was of temporary operation from the 1st December, 1931, until the 31st March of this year. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the provisions of that Act for a further year, that is, up to the 31st March, 1934, and to reimpose the abatements in pay of the previous Measure at the rate of 5 per cent, instead of 10 per cent. The Bill is a simple Measure and re-enacts with this difference the provisions of the old Act.
  The reasons for this legislation coming before Parliament were made clear during the previous Debate on this subject at the end of 1931. It may be helpful if I recapitulate them here. Under the Government of India Act, 1919, officers recruited before that date by the Secretary of State in Council were entitled to statutory protection for their pay, that is, it could not be reduced except with the consent of Parliament. Officers in this category are a comparatively small class, but it contains the majority of the highly paid men. It was thought at that time invidious for the Governments in India to impose cuts on their own Services while these men had no cuts. It was therefore necessary to seek the sanction of Parliament to a cut in the pay of officers who enjoy statutory protection in order that a general cut in the pay of the Indian Services might be made.
  1924
  The House will remember the grave financial position in India in 1931. It was very similar to that prevailing in many other countries at the same time. The Secretary of State, when he introduced the previous Measure, made clear that it was for the purposes of a temporary financial emergency, and he caused Civil Service Associations in India to be informed that he had no intention of continuing the cut unless the financial situation made its continuance unavoidable. Unfortunately, though an improvement in the financial position has been shown in India by dint of stern economies and heavy taxation, it is not sufficient to meet the possibility of restoring the whole cut. While the withdrawal of the whole cut is impossible, in pursuance of the undertaking given it is proposed to reimpose a cut at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. instead of 10 per cent.
  The continuation of the cut is to be accompanied by the withdrawal of certain Income Tax concessions. When the Finance Member introduced the supplementary Finance Act of 1931 in India, he imposed a surcharge on the Income Tax rates which had been included in the previous Finance Act of that year. At that time those who had been subjected to the 10 per cent, cut were let off the Income Tax surcharge which the Finance Member had introduced. It is now proposed to withdraw those concessions from the Services. This helps us to find the money to restore a portion of the cut. It also means that the Income Tax law will now be applied equally to all sections of the community, and that the Civil Services will not receive an exemption as before—a point often referred to by the commercial community in India. Perhaps I shall make clear to the House the effect of this combination of the restoration of part of the cut and the withdrawal of the Income Tax concessions if I take the case of individual officers. The advantage of this method is that it will mean that the Government are putting quite clearly before the House the exact nature of their proposals and not attempting to conceal anything.
  Let me take the general range of relief which will result to officers as a consequence of the proposal. It will range from approximately 4.3 per cent, for an officer drawing 400 rupees a month to approximately 1 per cent, for an officer drawing from 4,000 rupees to 5,000 rupees

  1925
  a month. If I take one or two individual cases, I can explain it more clearly. Take the case of a man drawing £618 a year under the 1931 Act. He will be a man of four or five years' service in the Indian Civil Service, or from six to seven years in the Indian Police. He will receive relief under our proposals to the extent of 4.2 per cent. Take a typical case of a district officer with 11 years' service, who would be drawing £l,260 a year expressed in English money; he will receive relief under our proposals of 3.2 per cent,, while a commissioner drawing £2,130 a year will receive relief under our proposals amounting to 1.5 per cent.
  The House will see clearly that this combination of a restoration of a part of the cut and the withdrawal of the Income Tax concessions helps the junior man most. It therefore gives help where it is most needed. At the same time the provisions of our proposals will apply to the personnel of the Army, Air Force and the Royal Indian Marine serving under Indian rules. In so far as the original Act was imposed on the fighting services, the modified cut will now be applied to them, and it will be right to say here that there may be certain individual cases as a result of our proposals which may find themselves not better, but worse off. We wish to say that in those cases adjustments will be made so that no one is actually worse off under the proposals we are now bringing forward.
  The House may be interested to hear the saving to Indian Revenues under our proposals. The imposition of the 10 per cent, cut brought in approximately £4,500,000. The House must remember that we are dealing in this question with a great many different Budgets—the Central Budget, the Railway Budget and the different Budgets of the Provinces, so that I can give estimates in general terms only. If we take £500,000 as coming in by the withdrawal of the Income Tax concessions, we find that we will save approximately £3,000,000 to Indian Revenues by the proposals we are putting forward if the Provincial Governments follow the lead in this matter.
  It is with the greatest regret and reluctance that the Government have come to Parliament to ask it to continue the cut at all, and it is very definitely our intention, at the first possible moment,
  1926
  that these cuts shall be removed. India, like most other countries, has to continue to economise by cuts in pay, and we hope that the remission of part of the cut will be of some help to the Services in their special difficulty. Government servants in India find a reduction of their expenditure more difficult than many of us do at home. They have, in many cases, a higher standard of living to keep up, particularly if you take the district officer, to whose particular condition I drew the attention of the House a few minutes ago. They have a public position to keep up. One of the chief problems is, of course, for the married man. He, very often, has to keep up two establishments, and he has to consider the education at home of his children from whom he is very often separated. As one who was educated in these circumstances, I sincerely hope that the investment on my education has been worth while, if it enables me to move a Bill affording some slight relief to a class of the community whom I may be biased in regarding as the very best of our country. Moreover, their cost of living in India has not decreased. Very often important articles for the household cannot be purchased in the internal market, and have to come in after being subjected to high tariffs.
  Standing as we do on the brink of a great constitutional change in India, I think there are also strong reasons for relieving their financial embarrasments and giving to the Services in India practical proof of Parliamentary control. We hope by the reduction of the cut and by the undertaking that it will be removed at the first possible opportunity, we shall be doing something to set their apprehensions at rest. There may, perhaps, be one further source of satisfaction to the Services. There can be no continuation of the cut beyond 31st March next year, unless a new Bill be introduced in this House. This, in fact, is the best help that, under the exceptionally difficult financial circumstances, we have been able to give the Services in India, and though the help we give may be small, it carries with it our understanding of their apprehensions, our admiration for their conduct in difficult circumstances, and our definite assurance that the trust they place in the protection of Parliament will be, as on this occasion, not in vain.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. ATTLEEI should like to congratulate the hon. Member upon his very admirable speech in introducing a Bill for the first time as a Minister of the Crown. He said that he was conscious of his own limitations. I think after his speech he must be the only person in the House who is so conscious. I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to this Bill and its effect. The Bill was necessary owing to the fact that cuts in pay were to be reduced in the various services, and it was thought right that services which were in a specially protected position should be brought into the same position as the rest. I should like to ask whether this extension at a reduced rate is going to apply to the provincial services, because that, after all, is the chief point of this Bill. We want to know the total effect. The fact that a cut is necessary is, we understand, due to the fact that, though Indian finances are a great deal better than they were, they are not yet wholly restored. I notice that there is an improvement with regard to the central finances where, we are told, the Budget has been balanced. That certainly does not extend to all the provinces, and that is why I want to ask whether, as a matter of fact, this reduction from 10 to 5 per cent, in the cut is being extended to the provincial staffs. Bombay, for instance, still has a heavy deficit.
  The next point I would like to raise is that of the general policy underlying this Bill. When the former Bill was introduced, proposing the 10 per cent, cut, we on this side of the House said that we objected to the principle of cuts altogether, and we suggested that there might be other ways of finding revenue in India, just as we had suggested that there were other ways of finding revenue in this country apart from cuts. Although the cut is continued, we must welcome its reduction, and I think that we should congratulate the Government in India on their realisation of sound finance. I was reading the speech made by the Viceroy in Delhi. He said that at the earliest possible moment, as soon as the Budget was in any way balanced, they were at once proceeding to reduce the cut and that they were proceeding, in fact, to expand public expenditure. The Viceroy said:
  1928
  "We are now, I hope, approaching times when, aided by the consolidation of our financial position and the improvement of our credit, to which I have already referred, and with prospects of cheap money, we may be able to initiate plans which will not only permanently improve the economic productivity of the country, but in their execution help to set the money in circulation which is so necessary in the present depression."
  I take it that that speech was made with the full approval of the Secretary of State for India and the full approval of the Cabinet at home. I wish that the Secretary of State for India could convince his colleagues in the Cabinet here that the right thing to do at the present time is to restore the cuts made in the pay of so many classes of officials in this country, and particularly of the unemployed, and to take advantage of cheap money both for setting people to work and, as the Viceroy said, for setting the money in circulation. It seems to me that the Finance Member of the Government of India has a truer idea of economics than the Chancellor of the Exchequer at home. He realises that it is no good saying, "We have got cheap money, we have brought down the rates of loans, we have a balance at the bank and we are going to leave that money idle." He says that the right thing to do with that money is to keep it circulated, and he thinks that can be done in two ways, one by increasing the purchasing power of that very large class, the official class in India, and the other by setting on foot works which will not only permanently improve the economic position of the country but distribute the purchasing power of the country. I could wish that this Government would take an example from the Government of India.
  There is one further point. There has been an agitation in India that, instead of restoring the pay of the people who work, there should have been relief to taxpayers who, in many cases, receive money for doing nothing. I am glad to see that the Indian Government has resisted a clamour to relieve various classes, commercial and so forth, before restoring the cut. There, again, I hope that the lesson will be taken to heart by this Government, that before there is any relief to persons who pay taxes from unearned incomes, they will restore the cuts both in pay and in unemployment benefit. It is very pleasant for us

  1929
  on this side of the House to be able in this matter to congratulate the Government of India on having sound economic views, though it may be all the sadder to think that we have a Government at home that is so unsound. I would like the Secretary of State to tell us, when he replies, a little more about the financial position in India, particularly with regard to the provinces.
  This is a temporary Bill, and one gathers that in the last 12 months conditions have improved in India. I should like him to tell us something as to the prospects in India, especially with regard to the finances of the Provincial Governments, and also with regard to the point that was made by the Under-Secretary as to the rise in prices in India. I understand from him that prices are rising in India. We know that it is the policy of this Government that prices should rise, and it is quite clear that the Services are apprehensive that if there is a rise in prices, what they may get back by the reduction in the cut, or the ultimate abolition of the cut, may be taken away from them by a rise in prices. There is a similar feeling in this country. They have no prospect at the present moment of any restoration of the cuts made in the salaries of officials and police; on the other hand, we are told by Ministers that the great hope is in rising prices. Therefore, I hope that the apprehensions of the people in this country will be as much appreciated by the Government as are those of the Indian Civil Service. In conclusion, I think they have followed a thoroughly sound principle in restoring these cuts by tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, that is to say, giving the greatest amount of benefit to the poorest of the population. That, again, is in curious contrast to the action of the Government at home, who, when they wanted to "save the situation," as they said, proceeded to hit the poorest of the poor.
  4.16 p.m.
  Sir REGINALD CRADDOCKThe Under-Secretary of State for India has put the case for the Bill with great lucidity and with considerable sympathy; in fact, if I may say so, he inherits an aptitude for dispensing soothing syrup. He has explained to us that although we are supposed to get half a loaf that, as a matter of fact, at the end of the
  1930
  period of giving and taking, we shall be left with only a quarter of a loaf in the case of those members of the Services with whom I am, for the moment, identifying myself. Of course, that is disappointing to the Services, and one has to understand more of the details before one can judge what the real effect is. The House may be tempted to think that when a country is in a state of financial stringency the Services have not much to complain of if they lose only 7½ per cent, of their pay, but they have been affected not alone by the cuts in pay but by the fact that the Income Tax is much higher than it used to be and by certain cuts in allowances in the provinces. This whittling away of some of the allowances which those in the provinces used to enjoy, which are distinct from the pay, and are given for specific purposes, has been going on for some little time, and I am given to understand that the process is continuing. I have not the details before me, but I am assured that that is the case. The Under-Secretary, in spite of having put his facts very clearly, does not disclose everything, because I understand that whereas the Income Tax will go to the Central Government the loss by a reduction of the loans will fall on the provinces; that is to say, the Central Government gets all the halfpence while the provinces get all the kicks. When the Secretary of State replies I would like to be told whether that is the case.
  The real hardship of these cuts is manifest to one who, like myself, was a member of the Royal Commission on the Services only so short a time ago as 1924. We had innumerable family budgets presented to us, and we were in a position to appreciate how much those in the Services had suffered in the matter of the education of their children, and in all those small luxuries and ordinary comforts which people serving in India and occupying a certain status expect to have and ought to have. Recently the cuts have gone much further than this. I hear constantly of cases in which insurances have had to be abandoned, of ever increasing debt and—this applies very largely to the officers of the Army— of the necessity of dispensing with the most ordinary comforts. For example, I am informed that a district officer, whose people I know, has been forced under this financial pressure to give up even

  1931
  the luxury or the comfort, or it may be called the necessity, of a punka, that is a fan, at night because he cannot afford the cost of a night punka man. In the meantime such expenses as rent have not diminished, indeed, in some cases they have increased, and one can hardly wonder that those who expected that the cuts would extend only to 31st March, 1933, are grievously disappointed.
  The apprehensions of the Services are not confined merely to the temporary pecuniary loss which has been inflicted upon them by the cuts, because what this Bill does is to ask Parliament for the second time to make legal a breach of a contract which was embodied in such a solemn Act as the Government of India Act, 1919, by which Parliament promised to secure the Services in their emoluments and all their existing and accruing rights. They feel, and I do not wonder, that their sense of security is slipping from them. In this country if the Government felt able to restore cuts there would be no party in this House which would violently resist such a policy or would be disappointed with it or hostile to it, but in India the feeling is different. A great many Indian politicians not only approve of these cuts but are delighted with them; they would double them if they could and would make them permanent if they had the power. Does not that make all the difference to the spirit and the courage with which these officials have to bear their sacrifices? They are very much disappointed at the action which is now being taken, because they were encouraged by what was said by persons in responsible positions when the last legislation was enacted. It is quite true that the Finance Member in India and the Secretary of State here left themselves a loophole to enable them to ask for an extension of that legislation if it were necessary, but the feelings of the Services now will be well understood if I read two or three extracts from the speeches made on that occasion. The Finance Member of the Government of India, speaking in the Legislative Assembly on 29th September, 1931, said:
  "It must he clearly explained that there is no intention that they should remain operative beyond 31st March, 1933. They will not be continued beyond that date without further consideration of economic conditions, and if economic conditions so re-
  1932
  quired or permitted we should reconsider them before that date."
  Elsewhere he said:
  "A cut of this nature must be regarded as a very exceptional measure, which can only be justified in very exceptional circumstances. It is nothing less than a direct variation of the conditions under which an officer enters the Government service. … The security of those conditions represents an essential attraction.… It would be fatal to the public interest if that sense of security were destroyed."
  Further, he said:
  "There are certain principles which we consider must be observed. Relief must come first in restoring the emergency cuts in pay.… I think we may predict, with as much certainty as possible for any such forecast, that these special impositions will not in any case be extended beyond March, 1933."
  The Secretary of State himself explained on the occasion when that legislation was passed that nothing short of a great national emergency, nothing short of an acute financial crisis, would justify the Bill, which was an emergency Measure to deal for a short time with the crisis, and that it was the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to safeguard in every possible way the rights and guarantees of the Services.
  People in this House may think that those assurances would soothe and allay the alarms of the Services, but one cannot go on indefinitely making assurances of that kind and then produce further Bills to continue the cuts. Each time the Government come forward with such a Measure they weaken the sense of security which the Services feel they enjoy. I have had communications from representatives in this country of the Indian Civil Services Association and the All-India European Government Servants Association. The Indian Civil Services Association are so concerned with the continuation of the cuts and the policy which it involves that they ask if it is not possible to affix a preamble to this Bill which will make it clear beyond cavil that the occasion for imposing or continuing cuts of this kind is limited to the great financial stringency created by the present economic slump. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can consider that proposal favourably, but I am sure that some such declaration, embodied even by way of preamble in the Bill, would add to the security of the Services.

  1933
  The All-India European Government Servants Association are not quite so easily placated. I think they have communicated their fears to the Secretary of State. They are not satisfied that the extension of the Act of 1931 has been entirely uninfluenced by political pressure, and are not satisfied that the financial circumstances of the country do require the sacrifice on their part. On this matter I would like to ask the Secretary of State one question: Whether it is not a fact that the Government of India, through their Finance Member or otherwise, had given the public, at all events, the impression that they intended to abolish the cuts altogether? If that be the case what is the influence which has caused the Government of India to change their mind? I would like to know whether the supposed intention— supposed as the public believed it—of not withdrawing the exemption from the surcharge on Income Tax has not been influenced by the protest made by European commerce and by Indian politicians.
  The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that there had been a very substantial improvement in the condition of Indian finances, and also that the additional expenses of the projected new constitution would add very little over and above the cost of the present constitutional machine. The House will hardly realise oven now how the British members of the Indian Services are handicapped in making protests. The salaries to which this Bill refers are only those of officers whose pay cannot be reduced without the sanction of Parliament. Among thousands of officers in the higher Services, in the provincial subordinate Services and in most of the central Services, whose pay was cut down to the limit of those receiving about 40 rupees a month—in the case of the police I think the limit was a good deal higher, about 120 rupees a month—the position of the members of the higher Services is rendered very difficult.
  If those lower-paid people have had cuts imposed on them, it is very difficult for the higher Services to protest about their own cuts. In fact, it is almost impossible for them to do so and to win any sympathy. They are in a very invidious position, although they may have very strong reasons for objecting to the cuts. It is also very dangerous to their
  1934
  security in the future, because, under the new form of government in India, as far as is projected, the provincial Governments, and indeed the central Government, will be able to make cuts in the pay of those under them, and will force upon the higher Services the necessity of submitting to the cuts merely because those poorer than themselves have had to bear them. There is great risk that the precedent given under the existing form of government will be more and more used hereafter by those who are hostile to the Services, and who deliberately desire to destroy their position and put them to discomfort and sacrifice.
  We all know that some of the Provinces are in a much worse financial plight than others. If, for example, the finances of this or that Province are apparently flourishing, can it be said that in those Provinces the finances are in such dire straits that the continuance of the cuts is really unavoidable. I have received information that all the cuts, except those with which the House is now concerned, have been restored by the Government of Madras. I do not know whether that is true. If it is, it makes the position somewhat different. There is no reason why the cuts should be restored in one Province and not in another, when the test is merely one of dire financial stress. If the Province is flourishing, as I understand is the case with Madras, which has a surplus, how can those serving under and paid by the Government of Madras be forced to submit to the cuts which financial necessity does not require? I do not for one moment question the desire of the Secretary of State for India to deal fairly with the all-India Service. I am sure that he has done all that he could to mitigate the effect of financial stringency and to maintain the position of those civil servants. What I question is his power to resist political pressure when it is brought to bear upon the Government of India and the provincial Governments.
  It is upon this, that the whole effectiveness of the safeguards such as those about which the Secretary of State told us yesterday must depend. I am afraid that even if his fortress—I am speaking of the Services as a whole—cannot be breached by direct attack, certainly it may be undermined. That is the great danger that exists with regard to the safeguards. While the Secretary of State

  1935
  may give us what assurances he can in this House, and give them honestly, he cannot prevent an uneasy feeling among the Services that they are being sacrificed to the financial necessities of the projected new Constitution. I cannot resist the feeling that those financial advisers who informed the Secretary of State that the extra cost of the new Constitution would be very small, must be numbered with some of the world's greatest optimists.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that I was speaking of the necessities of general Government expenditure and that I said nothing about the cost of the new Constitution.
  Sir R. CRADDOCK: I meant only in the Provinces, but there are expenses also in the centre. They are very heavy expenses. There is the size of the new Legislative Assembly, which I understand will be more than three times the size of the present Parliament. There is the creation of three new Governor's Provinces—one is already created—and that will be an additional expense upon the central Government. I readily accept once more the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given us that he will do all in his power to see that these cuts are not continued beyond the time mentioned in this Bill. I have no doubt that he will in his general supervision and as finances permit, endeavour to use his influence to reduce the heavy taxes, but I feel that if the safeguards for the Services prove to be elusive, there will be an end to the Services themselves and to the great work which they have done, for the maintenance of the Indian Empire.
  4.39 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, and I would not have done so but for the very gloomy speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). He has given us, although I have no doubt unintentionally, in some respects a false impression of the whole situation, and it is in the public interest that I should say a few words, especially as he has not brought out certain facts. No one in this House can sympathise more greatly with the Indian Civil Services than I do. Although I hesitate to say it, because it
  1936
  might show a lack of modesty on my part, tributes have been paid to me. At the dinner of the Indian Civil Service, for example, at which I was their guest, a tribute was paid to what I had done on their behalf, and it was stated by one of the speakers that no junior Minister had done more to help the Services than I had done. I speak therefore with no lack of sympathy, and it is because I sympathise so deeply with them that I venture to correct the misleading— perhaps the word "false" is rather unfortunate—impression which my hon. Friend has given of the situation.
  The first misleading impression which he gave was in the whole burden of his speech, which was that the cuts were being made in deference to Indian opinion and that that Indian opinion had always shown hostility to the Service. He said that it was in consequence of that hostility that the Government were acting. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that that is not a full statement of the case. He knows as well as I do that European business men in India have taken strong exception, through their representatives, to the cuts being restored in the pay of Civil servants, without very heavy reduction in taxation. Therefore, in stating the case, my hon. Friend should at least have done justice to Indians by admitting that those Indians who have, unfortunately, shown great hostility, were not alone in being hostile over this matter of the return to the Service of the pay cuts. He has not mentioned that.
  Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am afraid I have not understood the Noble Lord's point. I mentioned both those influences, and I combined them as the political influences of European commerce and of such Indians as are hostile. I was also referring to the feeling of the Services that they are liable to be sacrificed.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, if he did make it clear that it was not purely the hostility of the Indians. I understood that the whole burden of his speech was purely because of Indian hostility that this was being done. That is not so. I am not supporting the attitude of European business men for one moment, nor am I attacking it. They take up the same attitude as business men the world over in objecting to improving the posi-

  1937
  tion of their Civil Service until taxation comes down. My hon. Friend does not accept that point of view. He thinks that the interests of the Civil Service are more important than the interests of the taxpayer. That is an arguable proposition, but in stating the case it is only fair to admit that there are two sides to the question. Having said so much, let me say that in common with everyone I should like to see the whole of these cuts restored at the earliest possible moment. Everyone would like to see that. I understand that the Secretary of State for India is as anxious to restore them as is anyone else.
  Now for the next point where my hon. Friend gave a misleading impression. Anyone listening to that most gloomy speech would believe two things: first, that the Indian civil servants who are affected by this matter are worse off than they were, say, 10 years ago, and secondly, that relatively and absolutely they are actually worse off in comparison with people in a similar position in other parts of the world. I submit that neither statement is true. Unquestionably, all the Services affected by this Bill, and, of course, many other Services, were in a very serious position indeed immediately after the War. We have had constant reference to the pledge given in the Act of 1919, but no one knows better than the hon. Member, because he was in India at the time, that the pledge given in that Act was not of much financial benefit to the Services from the years 1919 to 1924.
  I do not think that it is improper, or any breach of official tradition, for me to say that when I was in India unofficially in 1922, I was authorised by those in charge to make certain personal private investigations into the position of civil servants in India. Certainly, the financial position of several of them was deplorable. That evidence, in common" with other evidence which was collected, had something to do with the formation of the Lee Commission of Inquiry into the whole matter. After that Commission had reported, its recommendations were put into operation, and I myself had the honour of piloting the Bill through this House. The assertion that I venture to make with all confidence is that, as a result of the putting into operation of the Lee Commission's Report, even allowing for those calamitous cuts which the financial
  1938
  position in India necessitated, the position of civil servants, when regard is had to the passages to which they are now entitled and to the amounts affected by this Bill, is no worse, and, indeed, is slightly better, than it was 10 years ago. Who would have gathered that from the speech of my hon. Friend?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Did not the Noble Lord say that their position was deplorable then?
  Earl WINTERTON: I say that they are better off now than they were 10 years ago. Again, who, hearing the speech of my hon. Friend, would have believed that civil servants all over the world are complaining of their difficult position? There has been a strike in France, there has been a strike in Germany, and serious unrest has been shown in many quarters in this country. The reason is a very simple one. In these days of financial difficulties in every country, and of immensely high taxation, naturally, civil servants suffer, because the general body of taxpayers say, "We cannot go on paying these enormous taxes and at the same time paying the same terms that we paid before to civil servants." If it can be shown that the position of these men has improved, surely that is something. I submit that my hon. Friend did not bring those facts out. I say all this in relation to the opinion, which I hold as strongly as he does, that the last thing we want to do, if it can possibly be avoided, is to reduce the pay of civil servants.
  I am a very independent supporter of the Government, as the House knows, but I do not think that the Secretary of State has been treated too fairly in this matter, either by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) or by others who have spoken. It has almost been suggested that he is the villain of the piece, but the experience has always been—and I base this statement, not only upon official knowledge, but upon historical knowledge —that the best friends of civil servants in India have been successive Secretaries of State. My hon. Friend, with his experience, will know that there have been occasions in the past when the Secretary of State has been in favour of doing something for civil servants which civil servants in high positions in India have

  1939
  not been prepared to do for others of their own profession. It is not fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not acted fairly, and has not supported the legitimate interests of these Services.
  Sir R. CRADDOCK: I did say that the Secretary of State had done his hest. I was only referring to the feeling among civil servants in India, which is full of grave anxiety.
  Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend made a suggestion which I do not think can be upheld, and that was that these cuts were being made largely because the Government had at the back of their mind the idea that they would have to provide for the future contingency of increased expenditure as the result of the new Constitution.
  Sir R. CRADDOCK: That is the feeling.
  Earl WINTERTON: It may be the feeling, but my hon. Friend, having regard to his great experience and knowledge, has no right to mention it without saying whether or not he agrees with it. If he does agree with it, I think he would be completely wrong. The original cuts were made for the simple reason stated by the Secretary of State, and a portion of them is, fortunately, now being restored. The situation remains to-day as it was then, that cuts of some sort have to be made in consequence of the financial position of the Government of India. To-day, however, it is possible to make some progress towards the restoration of the cuts, owing to the improved conditions in India.
  Incidentally, I should like to pay a tribute to the Government of India as being one of the few Governments in the world to-day that have managed to maintain a proper financial equilibrium. We never hear a word about that in all this gloomy talk about what is going to happen in India to-day and to-morrow— how the Government are being bamboozled, and how people who have been in India 10 years ago know very much more than anybody else. We never hear any references to the fact that the Government of India—as we are dealing here with financial matters, I think I am entitled to refer to it—have so managed
  1940
  their finances during the last year ox year and a-half in particular, which corresponds with the period of office of my right hon. Friend, that they are in as happy a position as any Government in the world. They have only been able to do that because they asked people to make sacrifices. If other Governments in some other parts of the world had done the same, they would not have been in the deplorable position in which they are to-day. I think that the message which should go out from this House—and I believe it will go out from the great majority of the House—is that they very much regret the necessity of having to continue these cuts, even in a modified form, but that they are convinced that the Civil Services in India will accept them in the same spirit as they did in the first instance, and will accept the assurance, which I am sure the House gives as a whole, that it has the utmost good will towards them.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: I cannot claim to be an expert on India, but, every time one hears India debated in this House, it is always a question of the services, of those who dominate the Indian people, and nothing is ever raised regarding the position of the ordinary citizens of India —the working people who, after all, have to pay all the taxes and all the salaries that are drawn from India. This country does not find any money so far as India is concerned; all the pay of the officers and all the taxation has to be found by the Indian people. Nevertheless, every time that we discuss India in this House, the only thing that matters is the position of the officers, their pensions, pay and so on. Surely we have a right to ask: When are the people of India going to have a voice in the Government of their own country? You have the Salt Tax, you have all kinds of taxes on the people of India; and all that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House are asking is that India shall foot the bill for pensions.
  After about 20 years of service, they come home, and they come here to represent East London constituencies or some other constituencies. They come here, not to talk about the places they represent, but about the places they have left with good pensions. There is one of them in my own district. He served for

  1941
  20 years in India, and came home with a pension of £1,000 a year. He draws his money from India out of the taxation of the people of India—people whose average income is not above £l a week; and he comes home to grumble about the reduction in his Salary. These cuts are nothing to ours in the East End of London. A 10 per cent, cut on a workman's wage in London is more than a 5 per cent, cut upon your salary in India. You get a servant for £1 a week; we cannot afford to keep a house on less than £2, and we are lucky if we can get two rooms for 10s.; and yet you come here from India, with tears in your voices, and tell us all about it. Is it not nearly time that we began to talk straight to you?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member will please talk to me.
  Mr. JONES: Yes, Sir, but I think you know something about it. Some of these people come here and talk with tears in their eyes about the terrible tribulations that they are suffering from, but I would bet that they could sign a cheque that I could not sign, with all their tribulations. They do not tell us about what happens in India. What about the poor unfortunate people who are not getting £1 a year, never mind £1 a day? You come here and tell us this story about the tribulations of the 5 per cent, cut—on what? On a wage of £1 a day. If the people of India were given the right to govern themselves, you would be put in your proper place, and you would be sent back with nothing in your knapsack.
  I believe that all parts of the Empire ought to have the right to control themselves, and, if they want to engage these right hon. Gentlemen for the purpose of fixing up their taxation, let them do so. They come here moaning and groaning about the terrible troubles they have had to face—a reduction of 6 per cent, in their money; but, surely, in this country we are going through the same financial situation as they are. The members of my own trade union in this country have had to suffer reductions of more than 5 or 10 per cent—20 per cent, in very many cases; and yet these gentlemen with good salaries and good pensions come here groaning and moaning about the position in which they are finding themselves—retired officers from the Army and
  1942
  Navy and so on. It is nearly time that they began to realise where they are. You cannot go on for ever living upon nothing except the gullibility of the people.
  So far as India is concerned, there is only one thing that we stand for. Of course, I do not pretend to know it all. I remember that there has been a number of famines in India, when officers of the Army were doing very well and the people were suffering from starvation, and we had funds in this country for the purpose of trying to give them something in the way of support. As regards the appeal which has been made to us to-day about these cuts in India, I wish to God that the cuts were so small in this country. I must ask the House to excuse me if I am not speaking very clearly. It is owing to the fact that I have lost all my teeth, and, therefore, my words may not be so distinct as they otherwise might be. In about a fortnight's time I shall be able to talk to you just as you talk to me. The hon. Member has made an appeal about the tribulations of officers in India. My tribulation is that the position of the great mass of the people of India is more important than that of all our officers. Until we give the people of India some control over their own affairs, we shall never get over this difficulty. You can draw what money you like in the way of pensions and pay, but you have to get down to the fact that the world has become a different place from what you imagined it to be when you went out to India.
  4.59 p.m.
  Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I rise, first of all, to join with those who have congratulated the Under-Secretary on his very clear statement in reference to this Bill, the first that he has introduced to the House. I am glad to add my congratulations to those which he has already received; but I feel, after what we have just heard, that I should also pause to congratulate the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) on the clearness of his enunciation, in view of the handicap from which he is suffering. He need not fear that the House has any difficulty in hearing him. Seriously I want to say what was said by several speakers some 18 months ago when a similar Bill to this one was introduced. I think almost everyone who

  1943
  spoke on that occasion stated in one form or another that he detested the Bill and the necessity for its introduction. Most of us are perfectly convinced that that detestation was equally shared on that occasion by my right hon. Friend who introduced that Bill and that our feelings are I am sure also shared by the representatives of the Government to-day. It was very definitely laid down that we agreed to that Bill for the clear and definite reason that we were faced with a national emergency and this was expressed by the Secretary of State when he said:
  "Taking central and provincial cuts together they amount to about £6,000,000 a year, a sum so great that without it it would be practically impossible to balance the Budgets.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1931; col. 411, Vol. 260.]
  After such a precise and vital statement it was practically impossible for the House to do more than express its regret at the necessity for the introduction of the Measure. But I would ask my right hon. Friend whether the argument applies to-day with the same weight and to the same extent. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) has said it is a pity that there should be a spirit of pessimism displayed when speaking of the future financial conditions in India. I agree and it is only the other day that a leading Member of the Government, the President of the Board of Education, in another place, rebuked one of his colleagues for being over-pessimistic in this matter. Is it really the case that the situation in India is as serious to-day as it was 18 months ago and that the same necessity exists to continue these cuts?
  Earl WINTERTON: Is not there rather a difference between being pessimistic and being cautious? Does not a cautious financial administrator in any country, in view of the situation, wish to save as much money as he can? That seems to me to be a different thing.
  Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I did not quarrel with my Noble Friend's objection to pessimism. I approved of it. At the same time I am not putting into his mouth any words which carry him further than those that he himself expressed. I do not suggest that the situation is financially an easy one or one that we can all be satisfied with, but the point is whether
  1944
  it is so serious as it was 18 months ago and does it justify the continuation of what is, after all, a very remarkable departure from the maintenance of the guarantees given to the Services in India which this House has hitherto always guarded very jealously? It has been said that cuts in pay have been made in this country. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench pointed out, as he was almost certain to do, the hardship which cuts in this country have entailed upon those who have suffered from them. He knows as well as I do that there is no real comparison between the situation in this country and in India. In this country there has been a very distinct fall in prices, and particularly in retail prices, in the last few years which leads me to thoughts and considerations of the results of that fall which in other circumstances I should much like to deal with. But I am only concerned now to point out that those who have suffered from cuts in this country—and I have great sympathy with them—had, to balance these cuts, a distinct fall in the cost of living, which is not the case in India, and particularly there has been no reduction in the cost of living in the case of the European Services in India. Officers of such Services suffer from the fact that their standard of life entails the consumption of articles which are in many cases subject to much heavier taxation to-day than was the case a few years ago. I dare say in this country most of us have had to do without a great deal which we were accustomed to enjoy in happier times, but conditions in India often make it impossible to do without in the same way or to the same degree. I do not carry it further than this, that there is not the same possibility of contraction of expenditure in the family budget in India as is possible in this country to meet an emergency.
  Only the Secretary of State is in a position to say whether or not the continuation of these cuts is justified. If he feels that it is justified, I am certain that the members of the Services in India will accept this slightly reduced cut—for it is only very slightly reduced—as they accepted the original one 18 months ago. I think they will feel that, if we are still in a state of emergency and a contribution is required from them, they will meet the demand as they did before.

  1945
  But the circumstances which made me feel entirely justified in voting for the previous Bill do not seem to be quite so much in evidence to-day. I did not quite follow the Under-Secretary on the actual figures. I understood that the amount in question, as I have already quoted, was £6,000,000 for the total cuts. If that is cut to a half that would be, of course, £3,000,000, and I understand there will be an additional saving of £500,000 caused by the removal of the Income Tax concession, which seems a large figure. On the basis of £6,000,000, as I understand it, the position to-day would be that the Government of India are going to save by the proposed cuts throughout India plus the Income Tax change a sum of £3,500,000, of which this Bill deals only with a sum of £100,000 or £200,000. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £4,500,000, so it may be that the original estimate was not found to be the exact figure. But, whatever the figure may be, it should be made clear that we are just as reluctant to pass this Bill as we were to pass that of 18 months ago. It is almost impossible for any private Member to say whether a continuation of this cut is absolutely necessary, but, if the Secretary of State says that the position is still one of emergency, that it is essential that this revenue should be got in this way and that members of the Civil Service in India should make their contribution, I do not think we can do more than express our very deep regret that for a further period of a year a definite contract made between the State and some of its servants should have to be broken and that Parliament should be asked, by passing this Bill, to continue the breaking of that contract.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I was one of a small group who, when the earlier Bill was introduced, divided against it, and I think it is well that we should make our position clear. I am sure the Secretary of State must welcome the Debate if for no other reason than to have heard his praises sung by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Noble Lord has appeared in many roles, but mostly as a critic. I never before heard him excel himself in exalting the virtues of others as he has done to-day. So far as the last Debate is concerned,
  1946
  it was obvious that the Secretary of State needed someone to defend him, and I must congratulate him on having made a good choice in his defender and the Noble Lord on having performed his job extremely well. When the Bill was before the House last, we were told that the amount in question was £3,000,000 and that the savings effected were to be 10 per cent, of £3,000,000. There was some slight confusion about it, and I asked if it was the case that savings amounting to £3,000,000 would be effected by the Bill. The Under-Secretary said:
  "I must have misunderstood the hon. Member's question. I thought he was asking for the proportion. The sum of £3,000,000 is not the savings to be made under this particular Bill, but it is an estimate of the pay received by the people who come under the Bill. The savings under this Bill will be limited to a 10 per cent, reduction." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1931; col. 440, Vol. 260.]
  Therefore, if £3,000,000 is the amount of the incomes paid to these people, the savings under the original Bill must be 10 per cent, of £3,000,000. They will now be less, seeing that the Government have made a proportionate reduction. I agree with a good deal that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that many poor people here have suffered even worse reductions. I did not quite follow the Noble Lord when he said the position in 1919 was deplorable. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said there had been really no decrease in the cost of living since then, so that, if the position was then deplorable, it must be even more deplorable now—either that or the two hon. Members must be at variance.
  Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member did not listen to what I said. I said things were bad in some places and the improvement had only been slight. I also said that their position had been improved by provision being made for free passages. There has been a change.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: A lot of men have had to accept a 10 per cent, reduction. Allowing for the small concessions, a further tremendous concession is required to make up for the reduction.
  Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not want the hon. Member to misquote me. What I intended to convey, and what, I think, I did convey, was that in the last

  1947
  few years against a possible fall of revenue in other directions Europeans sojourning in India suffered increased taxation on many things.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot defend a reduction in regard to these persons. The real defence was made when the Bill was introduced on the previous occasion, and that was the defence made to-day, that certain other classes had received reductions, and it would not be fair or equitable to single out these people as not receiving reductions. I cannot quite follow that argument. I never could see the sense of a person who, himself having been reduced, desired another person to be reduced also. Take the Government themselves. They have not quite done it at home. For instance, the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), with his knowledge of men in the Army, knows that the men who formerly received a shilling a day now only receive ninepence. That is a 25 per cent, reduction—double that imposed upon other sections of the community. One does not hear of these men wishing to reduce everyone by 25 per cent. They rightly say, "We want back our 25 per cent. but we do not object to others who may get back their percentage." I should like the Secretary of State for India to tell me the amount of the Budget deficit in India, because it has something to do with the matter. On the last occasion he spoke the Budget deficit was round about £14,000,000, but since then I understand from various speakers that the position has improved considerably in India although India is not yet in an absolutely solvent position. What is the real contribution which these cuts in wages make to the Budget position? What is the actual saving? I cannot for the life of me see that the actual saving at the very maximum can be more than £300,000.
  We are not going to divide the House on this occasion, because, having regard to the convenience of the House, it would be sheer impertinence for three or four hon. Members to divide the House on a matter on which we have already taken a vote. We were defeated on the last occasion, when we totalled, including tellers, only four or five. Since then one hon. Member has left us and joined the Labour party and is bound by the rules
  1948
  and discipline of that party and will not be allowed to support us in the Lobby, and consequently our numbers are fewer. We do not intend to inconvenience anybody needlessly on a matter of this kind, but we have recorded our protest. Some of these persons in India are not wealthy and do not keep servants, and some are comparatively poor people. We are glad that the Secretary of State has, to some extent, eased the position of some of those not so well off, but we think that cuts in wages are the wrong way of tackling the problem. We have consistently put the alternative position. It may be argued that some of the servants could afford the cut. I have no doubt that they could. It must not be forgotten that we opposed the cuts in the school teachers' salaries, and there is no doubt that some of them could afford those cuts. We say that cuts are bad and that it is the wrong way of facing up to the problem. It is bad policy to cut down the purchasing power of the people. We do not think that the best means of trying to improve the position is to provide schemes of work. We cannot agree with the idea of chasing round looking for schemes of work. The wise and reasonable way to provide people with employment, either at home or abroad, is to increase the purchasing power of the mass of the people and so allow them to buy goods and help to keep up the production of goods. Consequently, taking that view, we are opposed to this Measure.
  It was said by those who spoke for the Labour party on the last occasion that their only reason for not opposing the Measure was that they left India with the right of self-government and that, therefore, the Indian Government being in favour of the Measure, they did not intend to divide against it. I could have seen the reason of that argument if the House were not asked to consider the Measure. Once the House has been given the right to consider the Measure, it is for the House to give a considered verdict upon the subject before it. In my view it is difficult for the Labour party to vote against this Measure for other reasons. When this Government came into office only one section of the community remained free from attack. The unemployed were attacked. Everybody from the head of the country—Members of Parliament, the Cabinet—were cut by the Government, but one section did

  1949
  not receive cuts. They were the civil servants. The reason was that before the National Government came into office the Labour Government had cut them down to such an extent that the National Government could not cut them down any more. Therefore, they were left alone. When they had cut down civil servants at home they could not very well vote against a Bill which cut the salaries of civil servants abroad. Although I do not suppose that one in a thousand has the slightest political sympathy with us, we say that the cutting down of the emoluments of these servants is wrong. If people are receiving incomes which are considered to be too high let us cut down those incomes individually. The Bill cuts down the salaries of a class who have little to spare. While, as I have said, we do not intend to divide against the Bill, our opposition remains as strong as ever.
  5.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: If anything could make me accept these cuts to-day, it would be the eloquent speech of the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced the Bill, but the question the House has to consider is, Will these cuts ultimately be for the good of India? In my opinion, it will discourage some of the best people in the universities at present from taking service out there. The junior Member for the English Universities (Sir It. Craddock), with his natural modesty, has not painted a vivid enough picture of the responsibilities of the district officer in India. I am personally reluctant to do so, because after hearing the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) one feels that in a very short time one is out-of-date in anything to do with Indian affairs. In fact, a man may board the P. and O. steamer at Bombay on Saturday at 12 of the clock and be out-of-date before it reaches Marseilles in 13 days' time.
  Earl WINTERTON: Why not fly?
  Sir W. SMILES: Perhaps Mrs. Mollison might be out-of-date too before she arrived. But anyone who ha-s seen the day-to-day responsibility of those members of the Civil Service—they receive about five times as many letters as Members of Parliament receive even when matters like the Beer Duty or Sunday Entertainments are being discussed—and realises the penalties
  1950
  suffered by civil servants for any slip on the part of subordinates, must feel very great sympathy with them and that they are hardly getting fair treatment or fair play for the responsibilities which they have to undertake. My authority is Sir Evan Cotton, who sent to me several figures showing that it was a case of an "Irishman's rise," and that, whereas some of those servants were cut by 6 per cent, last year, this year the cut had increased to 7 per cent. However, the spokesman of the Government has given us an assurance upon those points-We have seen in the papers the resolutions passed by the Chambers of Commerce of Bombay and Calcutta, and naturally, being an old non-official myself, I am, first of all, inclined to agree with those two bodies. But in this particular instance I disagree with them, because I do not think that if these cuts are continued it will make for the ultimate good of India. Income tax, in my opinion, should be paid by everybody whether he is a Government servant or a planter, or a business man in Calcutta. Just as every one of Napoleon's soldiers carried a, field-marshal's baton in his knapsack, so in the same way should every British subject carry a demand for Income Tax in his pocket. It should be almost as great an honour to pay Income Tax as to wear the Ring's uniform.
  I would ask the Secretary of State this question: Is he satisfied that the personnel of the new recruits for the Services is as good as it was 25 or 30 years ago? In those days there was no doubt that the Indian Civil Service secured the cream of the public schools and the universities. I have known of the case of a man who passed into the Home Civil Service and was so disappointed with the work he received that he turned round and passed another examination and went into the Indian Civil Service. In those days the people who came out at the top always chose the Indian Civil Service. I do not believe that it is the case to-day. I believe that they are having difficulty in getting the best men. As proof of that statement, let us look where present Indian civil servants, ex-governors, and so on, send their sons. We have an instance on the Front Bench opposite, where one of the most distinguished governors of the Indian Provinces took very good care that his son did not follow in his foot-

  1951
  steps. I can quote other cases. The Commissioner of Delhi has one son who is a financial expert and writes leaders in the financial newspapers. He knows something about financial affairs and he took good care that his son was not sent into the Indian Civil Service. In another case one distinguished Indian civil servant has made one of his two sons a barrister, and the other a solicitor, so that one son can help the other in his business. In the case of the Governor of Assam, he has made one son a gunner and the other a doctor. I suppose that those sons help each other in their business. All these men are taking very good care not to send their sons into the Indian Civil Service.
  . BUTLERThe hon. Member is wrong.
  Sir W. SMILES: I shall be very glad to be proved wrong. It would give a great deal more confidence. The Secretary of State needs the very best people he can get for the services in India, but the pick of the young men are going to the big commercial firms such as the Imperial Chemical Industries and the British American Tobacco Company. The son of the present Foreign Secretary is in India, but not in the Indian Government Service. He is in one of the big commercial houses. I could cite many other instances to prove the point that I have made. We want the very best men that the universities can give us, particularly Oxford and Cambridge. We know about the resolution which was passed at Oxford a week or two ago, but I do not think any of us pay much attention to it. I understand that there are some 27 ex-presidents of the Oxford Union in this House. [An HON. MEMBEER: "No!"] Well, there seems to be that number. I am sure that they would say that things are not the same to-day as they were in their days at Oxford. I agree, in principle, that cuts are necessary at times, but I should like to ask whether the cuts are necessary now. I agree with the "Times" that the Secretary of State has shown very great courage in his administration of India, and I hope that he will show even more courage this time next year and that we shall see these cuts completely wiped out, and that not even the 5 per cent, will remain.
  5.33 p.m.
  Captain FULLER: We are certainly at sixes and sevens in regard to this Bill. With the possible exception of some remarks by the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) I find myself in agreement with most of the speakers. There are one or two questions I should like to ask in connection with the Bill. I am not hostile to the Secretary of State, although I am in the unfortunate position that often when I speak I speak against the Government. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will not attribute any hostile attitude to me. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised a question as to the amount of money involved in this Bill. It is within my recollection that when we debated this Bill last year it only affected a very small sum, £300,000. What we failed to realise then, although we may realise it now, is that this Bill only refers to a very minute number of servants in India, whose position is guaranteed by the Government of India Act, 1919. It does not refer to the great bulk of the servants, whose pay has been cut by order of the Government of India.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that the civil servants of India and the other servants were better off to-day than they were 10 years ago. I do not agree with him. I do not know whether I am entitled to call myself antiquated in regard to Indian affairs. It is only two years since I left India, but if the House thinks that I am antiquated, I have no objection. It is true to say that the servants in India are worse off to-day, but I do not think that was the case three or four years ago. They undoubtedly received great benefit from the finding of the Lee Commission, but during the last 18 months there has been a considerable increase in Income Tax and Customs Duties, on the top of the 10 per cent, cut in pay. It is not true to say that the cost of living has gone down. With regard to the cost of living, I should like to say, as the hon. Member of Silvertown seemed to be under a misapprehension, that the cost of living which has gone down in this country does affect certain officers who have retired from the Indian Service. I speak with certain feeling, because I happen to be a victim. I cannot speak for the Indian civil servant, but I know that an officer of the

  1953
  Indian Army on pension is subject to a cost of living cut up to 20 per cent, of his pension. The Secretary of State, in the generosity of his heart, has decided to stabilise it recently at 11 per cent., so that the fall in the cost of living in England does not benefit the pensioner from the Indian Army.
  Coming directly to the Bill of last year, the Secretary of State when he introduced it sought to justify it on quite different grounds from those mentioned to-day. He said:
  "If it is admitted that there have to be cuts in the salaries of the various Indian servants, it will further be admitted that, in the interests of justice, the cuts must be over all the services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1931; col. 410, Vol. 260.]
  That does not seem to be a principle with which I can agree. It suggests that because one class of servant has been unfortunate enough to sustain a cut through the action of the Government of India, all the other servants should be so cut. In this matter two blacks do not make one white. If we extend that argument further we must consider those servants who are now going into the Services in India on a lower scale of salary, and we should be perfectly justified, if we extended the principle of the right lion. Gentleman's argument, in saying that because they were going in at lower salaries there is no reason why the other servants should not be scaled down to that lower scale.
  In another connection I think this Bill is rather serious, although my apprehensions may be groundless. It seems to me that the method which is being used is a direct attack on a safeguard. Yesterday there was a great deal of talk about safeguards. The very civil servants whose salaries are affected by this Bill have their position safeguarded under the Government of India Act, 1919. There is a Statutory provision that their pay, pension and prospects are safeguarded, and yet the Secretary of State comes to the House and says that it is unfair that one type of servants should be penalised and not another, and he brings forward this Bill in order to brush aside that safeguard which Parliament, in its wisdom, approved, in order to inflict a cut on these particular servants. In the Debate last year the right hon. Gentleman said:
  1954
  "It is important to note that this is not a Bill repealing any Section in the Government of India Act, which would be a most dangerous procedure for us to adopt, because of the guarantees contained in the Government of India Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1931; col. 411, Vol. 260.]
  That may be so, but the fact is that this Bill is practically a repeal of the safeguard in that Act in regard to the salaries of these servants. If the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House with a Bill of this nature to set aside a provision of the Government of India Act, it seems to me that we have every justification for apprehension when safeguards for the future Constitution of India are being deal with.
  Last year the Secretary of State mentioned the question of hardship and said he was prepared to consider cases of hardship. I should like to know if any cases have been brought to his notice and if so, how they were dealt with. I would ask also how it comes about that the cuts in pay are again necessary this year in view of the most ruthless economy schemes which the Government of India have been pursuing in the last 12 months. I speak from experience. I found that there was no more ruthless government in the world in regard to economy than the Government of India when they got busy. They were always living under a cloud of financial stringency and they have done their work very thoroughly during the last 12 months." Over 7,000 civil servants have been discharged from the Services, because of economy schemes, and a number of Indian regiments and military units have been disbanded—-all in the name of economy. I hope that I am wrong in asking whether the Government of India are endeavouring to obtain financial solvency for the new reforms that are to be introduced into this House, at the expense of their public servants.
  Under the economies, which have been so drastic, they must have saved a good deal of money. Has the money been swallowed up in the civil disturbance movement or in the Meerut trial, the expenses of which, curiously enough, approximate to the savings which this Bill intends to effect? We had the rebellion in Burma and there have been considerable remissions of land taxes and revenue. There have been additional military undertakings in the nature of new

  1955
  military colleges, as part of the Indianisation scheme. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these things have in any way offset the sums which have been saved as a result of the drastic economies which have been put into effect? I am very suspicious of these cuts. The Government of India, with all due respect to them, remind me of a hydra-headed sort of institution. They use one head when it suits their purpose and choose their own wave length. When economy has to be made we find quite a different tune being played from that which is played when there has to be a pronouncement on the financial situation of the country. In September of last year, for instance, the Viceroy, in addressing the Legislature, used these words, after commenting favourably on the improved condition of India:
  "Since April we have floated three loans, one in sterling and two in rupees, of the total amount of 58 crores. The last of these, as you are aware, was over-subscribed in about four hours, though it gives a return of only 5¼ per cent, as compared with the 6½ per cent, for the loan issued about this time last year. We have also been able to reduce our floating debt in the form of Treasury Bills from 84½ crores at the end of August, 1931, to 24 crores at the end of this August, and to reduce the price we pay for accommodation from about 7½ per cent. to 3½ per cent."
  That, of course, is a satisfactory condition, but I should not like to believe that it is being aided by a reduction in the salaries of the servants of the State. Last year when this Bill was before the House the Finance Member of the Government indulged in a similar statement. He said:
  "If we look round the world in the present times of difficulty there is no country in the world whose intrinsic financial position is sounder, or whose ultimate prospect of economic advance in the future is more bright."
  There is one other small matter to which I want to refer. There is a deep feeling in the Service in India with regard to the treatment they are receiving and the treatment which the Government are giving to political detenus in the prisons. After some 15 years service I was able to earn the modest salary of some eight or nine hundred rupees a month, but the treatment which is being meted out to certain political detenus is so generous—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a subject which can be debated on this Bill.
  Captain FULLER: All I meant to say, I admit I was doing it imperfectly, was this. Is there going to be any cut in the amount which is being paid to these people? Are they sharing in the same drastic schemes of economy which the Government of India is imposing on its servants?
  5.48 p.m.
  Wing-Commander JAMES: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for intervening in this Debate, and I promise him that my remarks will be very short. I am glad of this opportunity because those of us who supported the Government in their Indian policy last night can be critical this afternoon without being suspected of being critical on anything but relatively minor details. I will not emphasise the bitter disappointment which these cuts cause, a disappointment which, I know, the Secretary of State shares. Let me emphasise the point that in order to make any proposed reforms workable in India the best type of British entrant into the service is quite as essential now, and in the future, as it was in the past. The question is: will they come forward in the present financial position of the service? I hope they will. But I must put the point to the Secretary of State, that the Government must balance the efficiency of the service against the economies. Mere economy is no good if efficiency is lost thereby.
  The Under-Secretary of State gave us some rather reassuring figures as to the net result of the remissions by cuts balanced against the Income Tax remission, which has been withdrawn. I am afraid that that did not disclose the whole of the picture. The service has been subjected not to one but to three cuts. They have had a cut in their pay, and they have had the indirect cut by the increase in Income Tax, which was condemned last year by hon. Members so far apart as the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). Can the Secretary of State give us any idea as to the ratio of Income Tax receipts from salaries and from trade? The sum of half-a-million has been mentioned as receipts from Income Tax. How

  1957
  does that compare with receipts from Indian traders? The third cut is imposed by the duties on imports essential to European consumption which have prevented Europeans living in India adjusting their scale of living as they would like to be able to do. They keep up the cost to Europeans more than they do to the natives.
  There are three points I desire to put to the Secretary of State. First, how do the proposed net rates of pay compare with those recommended by the Lee Commission, subsequently implemented by the Government? This Commission went out in 1924 and made recommendations which were carried out. How does the present all-in financial position of the Service compare with the conditions which existed after the Lee recommendations had been implemented? Secondly, what power has the Secretary of State to safeguard the net remuneration of the Service? Thirdly, will the Secretary of State, under the proposed reforms, retain adequate powers to safeguard the financial interests of the Service? I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that I have put these points forward solely with a desire to help and to make the reforms workable.
  5.53 p.m.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am much obliged to hon. Members on all sides of the House for giving so much attention to this Bill, and for approaching a difficult question with caution and a deep sense of responsibility. A year ago when I introduced the previous Bill I hoped that I should never have to repeat the experience. I genuinely believed, 12 months ago, that a second Bill of this kind would not be necessary. A year ago the Measure was necessitated by the unprecedented financial emergency, and I hoped that the state of Indian finances would be such as to make it possible to restore the cuts altogether. My hopes continued for quite a period, but, unfortunately, through no fault on the part of the Government of India, chiefly as a result in the fall in commodity prices during the latter half of last year, my hopes have been disappointed. The revenue, although I believe it will be proved in due course to balance the Indian Budget, will not, I fear, prove sufficient to enable either the Central Government or the Provincial Governments to rid themselves of
  1958
  these cuts altogether. I am extremely sorry that this is the case; and I take this opportunity of repeating what I said last year, namely, that these cuts are solely and only necessitated by the extreme urgency of the financial position. I regard their restoration in full as a first charge on the Indian Budget when the time comes—I hope it will come soon— to remit the cuts altogether. Pledges have been made in India and in this country that we regard these charges as a first charge upon the Indian Budget, and, when there is a chance of making some restoration we shall take the first opportunity which is afforded us to make that restoration.
  Let me remove from the mind of any hon. Member the impression that political pressure, either of Indians or Europeans, has had anything whatever to do with the introduction of this Bill. Let me also remove from the mind of any hon. Member any doubt he may have as to the future of Indian federal finance having had anything to do with the action which we are asking the House to take to-day. We have considered this question upon its merits, in view of the present financial situation both in the centre and in the provinces, and we have not been influenced in any way by pressure from any politician, Indian or European, nor have we been influenced in our decision by the European business community. We have faced the position as it is, and I tell the House, with full responsibility, that it is essential that the 5 per cent, cuts should remain in existence for a further period. Let me add that I hope this will be the last time the Bill will have to be introduced into this House. I cannot give a pledge because many of the factors are out of my control. There is the factor of world prices, which has an effect upon Indian revenue, but I say that if I am still in my office next year I sincerely hope that I shall not have to introduce again a Bill of this nature.
  Several well-deserved tributes have been paid to various Indian Services this afternoon. I have paid my tribute so often in the past that hon. Members will not expect me to repeat it this afternoon. Let me only say this, that during the last 12 months they have had as difficult a time as any servants have ever had in the history of India, and the fact that in

  1959
  many respects the condition of India is better now than it was a year ago is mainly due to their splendid and disinterested service. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) made some observations about the future into which it would not be in order for me to go it the moment. May I answer him in a sentence. It appears to me that the hon. Member is a whole-hearted believer in the caste system. Once in the Civil Service it must be assumed that every succeeding generation must necessarily go to the Civil Service. I wonder how far in his own family he fulfils the conditions which he seems to impose upon the Service in India. So far as my own family is concerned, I suppose I ought not to have come into the House of Commons, and ought to have remained a banker.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Each family has one prodigal.
  Sir S. HOARE: It is quite outside the realities of the present state of affairs to suggest that families that for many generations have been connected with the Indian Civil Service are no longer sending their sons into that Service. It is very significant that the sons of perhaps three of the most distinguished Indian civilians at the present moment, Sir Harry Haig, Sir Charles Innes, who has just completed a very distinguished career as Governor of Burma, and Sir Herbert Emerson, the newly-appointed Governor of the Punjab, have all sent their sons into the Indian Civil Service. As my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) reminds me, Lord Cromer's son is also a member of the Indian Civil Service. That is sufficient answer, I hope, to the doubts that were expressed by my hon. Friend.
  I come now to some of the specific questions that have been asked in the Debate. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) at the end of a very helpful speech asked me questions to which I had better give an answer. He asked, first, whether the remission of the cut is going to take place in all the Provinces. My answer is, yes, that it is. Secondly, he put some wider points to me, and if I followed them it would lead me into a discussion far outside the rules of Order to-day. He tried to draw me into a comparison between the state of affairs here
  1960
  and in India. Each Government has to work out its own salvation. So far as India is concerned, the conditions in many respects appear to me to be very different from the conditions in this country. Anyhow, I am glad to think that we have been able to make this remission of the cuts in India, but I once again say that there is not necessarily any analogy between the financial position in India and the economic condition of the Services in India, and the financial position and economic conditions of the Service in this country.
  Next the hon. Member asked me a question, to which I am afraid I cannot give an answer to-day, about the general position of the Indian Budget. The Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council will be introducing his Budget in the course of the next few days, and, like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must reply in the phrase that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement. But I can say to-day that the statement that the Finance Member will make will in every respect justify the action that I am asking the House to take upon this Bill.
  A series of points was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). He and I do not always agree on constitutional questions, but I should be the last person in the world to suggest that he is not well entitled to speak for the Services from his very long and distinguished career in the Indian Civil Service, and I am sure every Member of this House will pay the greatest attention to anything that he says upon a subject that he understands so well. But I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he took, perhaps, rather too pessimistic a view of the position. I agree that it is most regrettable that we should have a Bill of this kind, but the fact that such a Bill is necessary is not an example of the futility of Parliamentary safeguards, and is rather an example of their reality. It does mean that a Secretary of State for India, when any of the conditions for which we have Imperial obligations are to be altered, has to come to Parliament and to ask Parliament to alter those conditions, and I would have thought that that fact does show the reality of Parliamentary safeguards. So far from it proving futility it shows that in the case of the officials for whom there are

  1961
  Parliamentary guarantees, Parliament retains in its hands full powers to deal with those conditions.
  Next, I suggest to him that even though the remissions in this Bill may not go as far as many of us would desire, the fact that we are making a change shows that we do not regard them as permanent. It would have been a very serious thing for the service if year after year these cuts had remained as they were last year, when the Bill was introduced. The fact that we are making a change this year shows that they are not permanent and that Parliament is watching very closely the position of the Services, and is eagerly awaiting the moment when the cuts can be restored altogether.
  There were certain other questions of a more detailed description which have been raised. The hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones), whom I regret to see no longer in his place, made a very typical and very diverting speech. I would only say of it that I hope the members of the various Services in India will not take it too seriously. After all they do not know the hon. Member as well as we know him, and they must not think for a moment that any Member of this House, including the hon. Member for Silvertown himself in his more serious moments, really believes that a man, be he rich or poor, who has earned his pension by years of public service, is not entitled to that pension. I am afraid that if I did not make that observation on the hon. Member's speech some of my friends in the Service in India who do not know him may be inclined to take his speech seriously, and may fail to observe that he disclosed to the House the fact that he spoke under considerable physical disabilities, and hoped that in four months' time he would have a new set of teeth.
  There were other questions asked by the representative of the not very numerous party belong the Gangway. I offer them a word of condolence on the loss of 25 per cent, of their number in recent times.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Not 25, but 20 per cent.
  Sir S. HOARE: I accept the correction in the spirit in which it is given. The hon. Member asked me whether there
  1962
  was to be a Budget deficit. He must await the statement in the Budget. I hope there will not be a deficit; I feel sure there will not be. None the less it is necessary to have these cuts. The hon. Member was right when he said that the cuts in this Bill do not amount to a very large sum. They are cuts over the whole field of the Services, and this Bill is an essential part in the cuts generally, which amount to a sum, even with the remission of 5 per cent., of £3,000,000. That is a very considerable sum in the Indian Budget, which is very much less than the huge figures with which we deal in our Budget.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Indian Government in their wisdom and their knowledge of events do not agree to restore the incomes of these people to their former amount, am I to take it that the British Government is to be bound by that decision in future? Is the Secretary of State, apart from what the Indian Government may do, to reserve to himself power not to impose this cut in future?
  Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, both the Secretary of State and Parliament always reserve complete freedom of action in dealing with public servants who are recruited out of Parliamentary guarantees. In this case upon the merits we reserve complete freedom for the future. We do think that in the present instance the cuts must stand or fall together. That in no way restricts our freedom of action either as Ministers or Members in any step that we may decide to take in future. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) put a series of detailed questions, and I am not sure whether they are susceptible of any detailed answer. I suggest that it is really not relevant to the Debate to make such a detailed comparison as he wished between the state of civil servants now and nine or 10 years ago. He and I would agree that whatever the position of the Indian civil servant may have been in 1924 or 1921, he is by no means overpaid to-day, and that the sooner we can restore the cuts the better it will be for everybody concerned and the better pleased will be this House.
  Wing-Commander JAMES: The point was that the Lee Commission laid down definitely a certain scale of standard; of living remuneration. Is it the policy of

  1963
  the Government to endeavour to adhere to the recommendations laid down by the Lee Commission and adopted by the Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: The policy of the Government, in a single sentence, is to restore the cuts as soon as ever it can. I think I have now answered the greater part of the questions which were put to me. If I have forgotten any, perhaps hon. Members will remind me.
  Mr. KIRKPATRICK: The re-imposition of Income Tax has been referred to by several Members as taking away the benefits of the 6 per cent, remission. Will that apply to those services which are not referred to in the Bill—that is, the services which come under the orders of the Government of India? Will the re-imposition of Income Tax inflict any greater injury on them than on the services which we are now considering?
  Sir S. HOARE: The imposition of the normal Income Tax will be general but as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, nobody is going to be worse off under the proposals which we are making to the House to-day and the very great majority of officials and serving soldiers in the Army and Air Force will be substantially better off.
  Mr. KIRKPATRICK: And that applies to all the services in India?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes. I hope I have now said enough to ensure the passage of this Bill through its Second Beading stage and I hope that it will be the last Second Beading of the kind for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or I will be responsible in this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Butler.]

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [20TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolutions reported,

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.

      CLASS III.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to His Majesty,
      1964
      to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, for the Salaries and Expenses of Arbitrators, etc., under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and for a Graint-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Law Society."

      CLASS 1.
      2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £660, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
      CLASS III.
      3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."
      CLASS I.
      4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,950, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."

      CLASS II.
      5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      First and Second Resolutions agreed to.
      Third Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      6.20 p.m.
      Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think that the House is entitled to some explanation of this Vote. I find that the sum involved is nearly one-quarter of the total expenditure on law charges in Scotland. The original Estimate of £25,000 has been increased to £38,500. As there is no opposition, apparently, to the Vote I do not wish to take up Government time, but I think that some explanation is called for. We are told that this is an additional sum required in respect of fees for Crown counsel. Without being

      1965
      invidious I may mention that three out of these five Supplementary Estimates are concerned with legal expenses and this Vote is the heaviest of them. We are here to save the taxpayers' money and this Government has a special duty in that way to the electors. I therefore wish to know the reason for this enormous increase in the sum demanded for this Department in Scotland.
      6.22 p.m.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): The necessity for this additional sum arises out of the criminal prosecution of certain persons who were connected with a company called Amalgamated Silks Company, Limited. It was a case of commercial fraud involving a large sum and necessitating the investigation of the affairs of no fewer than nine different companies. In that investigation three firms of chartered accountants were engaged for a year. When the case came to trial it lasted 33 days. There was an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal which occupied 10 days and the number of documents which had to be examined extended to something like 50,000. It was therefore not unnatural that enormous cost was incurred in carrying on the prosecution. I would like to add a word of explanation. Of the total amount on this Vote only, I think, some £1,600 was payable to counsel and law agents. I should also add that the Lord Advocate himself received no part of that sum. All his work was done as part of the work for which he is paid by his official salary.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL (EXCESS), 1931.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £97 1s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Privy Council Office for the year ended 31st day of March, 1932:

    Amount to be Voted.

    Class I.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Vote 5. Privy Council Office

    …

    97

    1

    5"

    6.25 p.m.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): The Committee would probably like a short explanation of this Excess Vote. It is entirely due to the falling off of receipts from judicial fees which we discussed on Monday evening in a different connection, during the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates. Bad trade seems to make for less litigation. Whether that is good or bad it is not for me to say, but the actual position is that the deficiency on the Appropriations-in-Aid under this bead is £312 17s. 11d. Savings have been affected, however, amounting to £215 16s. 6d., leaving the sum of £97 1s. 5d. covered by this Vote. An Excess Vote is necessary when the excess does not become apparent until it is too late for a Supplementary Estimate. In this case the receipts, up to December, 1931, were actually £100 higher, and the Department therefore cannot be blamed for having to bring in this Excess Vote. The House has laid down certain procedure in regard to excesses. First, the matter has to be brought before the Public Accounts Committee and that Committee makes a special report to Parliament. The report dealing with this case is now in the Vote Office. We then move the Vote in supply and the sum is included in the Consolidated Fund Bill in March.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Resolution reported:
  "That, in respect of each year in the second fixed grant period—

  (a) the amounts to be included in the General Exchequer Contribution for England, under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-six of the Local Government Act, 1929, and in the General Exchequer Contribution for Scotland under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section fifty-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall be respectively the sum of five million three hundred and fifty thousand pounds and the sum of eight hundred and fifty thosuand pounds; and

  (b) the amounts to be paid under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec-

  1967
  tion eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1929, and under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section fifty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, respectively, out of the Road Fund towards the contributions aforesaid shall be the same as were payable in respect of each year in the first fixed grant period."

  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Hilton Young, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Hore-Belisba, Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Skelton.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL,
  "to determine in respect of the years in the second fixed grant period such of the amounts to be included in the General Exchequer Contribution for England and the General Exchequer Contribution for Scotland, and in the payments to be made out of the Road Fund towards the said contributions, respectively, as require to be determined periodically by Parliament," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: On Wednesday of last week a Motion on the Fishing Industry which stood on the Paper in my name, was called when the hands of the clock were almost on the stroke of eleven. Consequently I had only 45 seconds in which to jerk out three hasty sentences. That reduced time, and that exiguous effort were due to the peculiar taste of so many hon. Members who preceded me that evening in preferring dogs to fish. They were also owing to the fact that by the caprice and mischance of the ballot, a Debate on the rival claims of bookmakers and mechanised betting obtained precedence over a discussion on the urgent needs of an industry on which hundreds of thousands of our workers depend directly and indirectly. I may be permitted to remind the House of the terms of the Resolution which I had pro-
  1968
  posed to move on that occasion, as it forms the subject of the discussion which I am inaugurating this evening. They were:
  "That this House views with grave concern the deplorable condition of the fishing industry and urges the Government to render speedy assistance to this important and essential industry."
  It will be noticed that that Motion called attention to the deplorable and grave condition of the fishing industry of this country, and I should add of Scotland as well—all round the coast. That deplorable condition is not of comparatively recent origin. Unfortunately, it has existed for some time—far longer than the several Governments, including the present Government until they have proved the contrary, should have allowed it to remain. Those Governments seem to have been supinely indifferent to the interests of the industry on which we rely both in war and peace. Shortly, the harsh reality is that it is threatened with ruin, if not with extinction. The trawling part of it, at any rate, is as much under the wheels and under the pressure of those juggernauts, the bigger banks, as is agriculture itself. The herring industry is very much weighed down, and trawling fishing is almost fatally injured from the catcher to the frier. I have been assured by trawler owners whom I have met that at the present downward rate in less than five years most of the trawlers will have foundered in bankruptcy, and already many of them are on the financial rocks. Many trawlers are owned by companies with other and more profitable lines. If they were all owned by the skippers and crews, as most of the drifters are, the plight of those trawlers would be still more obvious and conspicuous.
  It is a significant fact that before the war 150 new trawlers used to be built annually at a cost of £16,000 each. Now for nearly two years there has not been a single order. I should like the House to mark that as one symptom of the depression. Scores and scores of qualified skippers are actually competing with unskilled labour for casual jobs on the dock-sides and elsewhere. The in-shore fishermen, those men who fish from cobbles and small motor boats and by whom, incidentally, the lifeboats are mostly manned, average scarcely £1 a week because of the wretchedness of the

  1969
  prices which can be obtained, and one scarcely knows how they can exist. When I was recently in my constituency I found that the in-shore men had refused to go out because they said that the prices were so low and so bad that they would not compensate them for the cost of their bait and for their expenses. I take it that a serious aspect nationally of this depression is that it is stopping new blood flowing into the industry and preventing recruits filling up the depleted ranks of this vital calling. If time permits, I will refer later to that larger view which we should take of the whole question.
  It is almost unnecessary to mention to the Members of this well-informed House the economic and financial importance of the fishing industry, but still I would remind them that we have some 1,700 trawlers round the coast, in normal times each doing an average of 45 to 50 voyages a year, and in them is involved a capital of no less than £15,000,000, while more than £1,250,000 a year is expended on their upkeep. They consume 3,500,000 tons of British coal annually, whereby 12,500 miners are kept in regular employment. British railways are assisted with freight to the tune of some £3,000,000 a year. Shipyards and engineering works benefit from building and repairing, let alone certain heavy industries the products of which are necessarily basic to building, ice-making, refrigerating equipment, boxes, packing cases, chains, ropes, nets, tackle, in fact all the articles stocked by a ship chandler; and let it be marked well that all this money is spent in this country. I have already remarked that hundreds of thousands of our workers are dependent on this industry. Surely the evil of unemployment is great enough already without cur blindly allowing it to go on in an industry where there are palpable means of relieving it. The Prime Minister, in his speech last Thursday, invited suggestions of a practical nature for diminishing this misfortune. Here is a practical suggestion, which could be put into operation, metaphorically, by a stroke of the pen.
  What are the main causes of this disastrous condition of affairs? The answer, I submit, is as brief as it is exact—unfair foreign competition and dumping. With wages, working costs, and taxation all much lower, the foreign
  1970
  fisherman has more than a 20 per cent. start of our own. Also in several instances it is well known that his Government subsidises him. For example, the Danes aided their nationals by advancing 90 per cent, of the cost of their boats, and they furnished Esbjerg with ice factories, warehouses, and all necessary plant and accessories. It is a fact, astonishing perhaps, that it actually costs less to send fish from that port in Denmark to London than it does from Hull. The Norwegian Government, again, have voted 4,000,000 kronens for the erection of refrigerating stations and for building ships with refrigerated equipment. The French, Belgian, and Spanish authorities also have helped their fishermen by improving their trawlers to such an extent that in many cases, if not in most cases, they can now catch better than our own British trawlers. And even the efforts of Portugal are not to be despised.
  With regard to dumping, the imports of foreign-caught fish have increased fourfold since 1913; and £3,000,000 worth of white, or demersal, fish, as it is called, are sold here annually, the volume constantly increasing. Our chief rivals are the Scandinavian nations and Holland. Lately they have diverted their activities more and more to our markets, since the decreased consumption in Latin countries of salted fish. But other fish is coming from new sources. In addition to those I have mentioned, Russian-caught fish is coming in now, and I am informed that 10 days ago frozen halibut even from Japan was being sold in Aberdeen. The fact is, of course, that our people are consistently undercut. Thus, if Grimsby, or Hull, or Hartlepool quote 3s. 6d. a stone, the foreign fisherman is instructed to offer at 6d. less.
  Most of the foreign fish goes to Billingsgate, where it is sold on commission. However low the price, the Billingsgate merchants get their commission, and so it can be seen that it pays them much better to handle foreign caught fish than English-caught fish, and we can also understand, therefore, why the Billingsgate merchants are opposed to Protection in any form whatsoever. So long as they can get their profits and commissions, they care little or nothing for the misfortunes of British fishermen.

  1971
  For them to say that the British fisher man cannot supply the weight or the grade is sheer nonsense, because, given the opportunity, the British fisherman could supply both the size and the quality that are required.
  Owing to the influx of foreign-caught fish into our markets, prices are too low to allow of our men making an adequate living. There has been a fall since 1929 of 28.5 per cent, in the price. The average quayside price of fresh-caught fish is 1.94d. For the industry to survive, it is absolutely necessary that our men should have an assured market and a reasonable price. The average price which they suggest is 2½d. a lb., and surely that is a moderate demand. That, of course, is the average, from the worst fish to the best, but supposing we multiplied it by three, would not our wives be very pleased to buy a lb. of fish at 7½d. in the retail shops? They would save still more on housekeeping money!
  What remedies do we propose? We propose an increased tariff and a quota. As far as the 10 per cent, tariff is concerned, it has been ridiculously ineffective. The foreigner has treated such a trumpery duty with the contempt which it deserves, and the fact remains that he has actually sold more and more of his fish here ever since that duty was put on. It would seem as if that tariff, instead of being an obstacle and a retarding factor, has acted as an incentive and a stimulus to our rivals. I maintain that 20 per cent, ought to have been the datum line. A duty of 33⅓ per cent, would have been a still better figure with which to start, look what 33⅓ has done for the motor trade! And some people go so far as to say that a prohibitive tariff could safely be imposed. It is indeed an indisputable fact that our fisherman can supply as much as this nation requires and more. This fact cannot be over emphasised nor stressed too much, and in itself it provides a full and complete answer to the cry that the consumer will pay more. Moreover prices have often been dear before and without a tariff, since they depend on various factors outside and beyond such influences, factors also which must be recurrent, such as bad weather, poor catches and so forth. I characterise that cry as so much Free Trade spent ammunition. A quota could also be
  1972
  instituted on the principle of regulating the imports of foreign meat, vegetables and fruit, and falling into line with the Abnormal Importations Act.
  It has taken the Import Duty Advisory Committee more than six months to consider an urgent request to raise the 10 per cent. duty. In spite of repeated protests the committee is apparently contemplating a further indefinite delay. If the labour of that mountain is still further protracted, the mouse will be grey headed. The reply it has given meanwhile to the British Trawlers' Federation is that the depression is due to the decrease in purchasing power. That is a fatuous rebutter, to which the surrebutter is that the 1932 consumption of fish has only once been exceeded, although the retail prices were hardly lowered at all. Seemingly, it has not occurred to that committee that what has produced and intensified the depression in this industry is the dumping and our handicapped competition. Another objection which I have heard raised by those who refuse to consider any such remedies as we propose is that the North Sea is being overfished and is getting seriously depleted. There is nothing novel in that alarmist rumour. It has recurred from time to time, and so long ago as 1880 a commission sat to investigate a rumour of that kind. They found that there was no evidence to support it. I venture to say that if a similar commission were appointed now, they would return the same verdict, for the simple reason that as much fish was landed in 1931 as ever before.
  Let me advert for a moment to the trade negotiations with the Scandinavian nations. Those negotiations, I understand, have been resumed. Those who are of the same opinion as myself contend that this fisheries question should be made a salient and material item in those negotiations. It is rumoured that one of the chief concerns of our delegates at the Conference is coal. I suppose the negotiations will run something on these lines—that if the Scandinavian countries will take more of our coal, we shall be prepared to lower the tariff on this or that commodity which they propose to send to this country. One might remind them that the consumption already of British trawlers, amounting to 3,500,000 tons of British coal, represents 80 per cent, of the export of coal to the

  1973
  Scandinavian countries. Is it worth while sacrificing a huge industry such as that which we are discussing to-night for that extra 20 per cent.? If the fishing industry is put on its legs, they will soon consume that 20 per cent, themselves. That attitude of the Board of Trade to our fisheries is to me mysterious and incomprehensible. It commiserates and hesitates. It expresses sympathy, and hangs back. There have been interviews, but nothing very definite is gained from the Pooh-Bahs and mandarins in that Department. Their attitude might be summed up in that well-known couplet from. Pope:
  "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
  And without sneering teach the rest to sneer."
  If they wish to procure credence in their professions they should translate a lukewarm sympathy into warm and helpful action.
  I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture on the Front bench, and I trust that the attitude that he and his Department will take will be more friendly and helpful. I noticed this evening that some right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen indulged in family history and biography. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will accede to our appeal for the major reasons which I have ventured to bring forth. A minor reason, which I should not have mentioned had I not heard those biographical reminiscences, is that he would not be enjoying the office he fills with such competency had not a forbear of mine some two or three generations ago devoted practically the whole of his Parliamentary career to getting a Minister of Agriculture instituted. I must apologise for trespassing so long on the time of hon. Members, but my excuses are two. Firstly, I but very rarely inflict myself on the patience of the House. Secondly, I feel this subject deeply—very deeply—connected as I have been for some 24 years with the good fishermen of the north-east coast. There are other hon. Members who are going to speak after me who are more qualified in point of knowledge and experience than I am, and are more able to charm the ear of the House, so I must not, in the words of Pindar, "sow with the whole sack."
  I said earlier in my remarks that I would refer to the larger aspect of this
  1974
  question. The plight of the fishing industry is not merely a matter of trade and employment. It is a matter of national importance as well. It is so because of the Naval Reserves and of certain essentials of prevention and defence in time of war. It is so because of the food supply both in war and peace. And it is so because of the manning of the lifeboats. As everyone will remember when War broke out, the flower of our fishing fleet flocked to man the auxiliary ships of the Navy. The trawlers acted as patrols and engaged in that terribly hazardous enterprise of mine sweeping. In this connection it is significant that Germany, recognising the valuable services which our trawlers rendered to the Navy and Mercantile Marine during the War, has increased her trawlers to a number far beyond the requirements of her fish consumption.
  We also remember the splendid work done by the force of drifters under the command of Admiral Mark Ker, when that force was assigned the duty of watching the nets which were thrown across the mouth of the lower Adriatic, in order to prevent the submarines emerging into the Mediterranean to sink our transports and merchant ships. When the Austrian Fleet swept down the Adriatic to attack the barrage, those gallant little drifters did not shrink from opening fire on the enemy cruisers. They fought on till their upper works were blown away by shell fire, they fought on until in many instances they sank, thus upholding our great sea tradition of never hesitating to engage a superior force, however great it may be. Just as they displayed heroism in the War so our fishermen display heroism in peace. Theirs is a hazardous calling. There is incessant danger both to life and limb. And apart from the perils incident to the pursuance of their calling, whenever a cry of distress comes across the waters, without any regard for their own safety, or for risk to their lives they go to the help of fellow seamen, whatever their nationality. These men, our men, are now sending an appeal to this House —a cry of distress; and I urge the Government with, all the earnestness at my command to listen to that appeal, to come to their rescue, and to come quickly.
  6.68 p.m.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I must disown any claim to rival in knowledge or eloquence the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Gritten), but I consider it a privilege to speak in this House on behalf of an industry such as the fishing industry. I have many reasons for desiring to do so. Not only do I represent one of the most important ports of the north-east coast, which is used by fishermen and is also an important bunkering port, but I represent a large mining constituency which supplies a big proportion of the coal which has been referred to in the previous speech. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools and other hon. Members who will subsequently speak are able to deal more effectively than I can with the economic depression into which this key industry is plunged, the fall in the number of men employed, the fall in the gross takings, and in the average price per pound, which in the last 11 years represents £3,500,000 in takings. I should like, however, to quote a case that was brought to me only the other day. A fish, merchant in Hull wrote to me and said that it so distressed him to see thousands of tons of fish being sold to rot as guano, that he was prepared to send carriage paid into my constituency any amount of fish for the use of unemployed miners, and he hoped that he would just cover expenses or, at any rate, not make a very great loss. That is evidence not only of the vast amount of wastage that is going on in this industry, but of the very small degree of protection that would be required to set it on its legs again.
  We are not only to-night discussing the fate of a key industry—a historical key industry. There is something more than that. This industry, and the mining industry, are the only two primary producing industries in this country, if we except farming. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to save the primary industries, and to raise primary prices in terms of sterling. I cannot but think that the Government are fully aware not only of the strong feeling in this House, but in the country, as to the essential importance of saving primary industries in this country from destruction. I do not believe it is the case that it will cost the consumer more. The very small rise in prices will hardly be passed
  1976
  to the consumer at all. Even if it were the case that the rise would be passed on, I maintain that no class in this country can profit by the extinction of a primary producing industry in this country or on our shores. If the Government mean to put into actual practice their determination to raise the prices of primary produce, here is a first-class case with which to start.
  I am sorry to speak with such heat, but I have come across such tragic accounts and personal examples of distress in the fishing industry that I hope I may be forgiven. We have heard a lot of statistics, and we shall hear more to-night, as to the size of the fishing industry. It is certainly a small industry, employing only 60,000 men. I am not going to harrow the House with attempting to show the distress there is in the industry, and in the ancillary industries which give employment to 200,000 men and women behind the line; nor with the fact that there is only one trawler, I believe, building in British shipyards to-day—that contributes to the depression in the iron and steel industry—nor am I going to stress the fact that hundreds of thousands of miners are out of employment, and are progressively becoming more numerous, owing to the fall in the sale of coal for bunkering British trawlers.
  I am not going to stress the matter of the numbers of men unemployed, because there are deeper reasons behind this attempt to move the Government to take some action. They are not just ordinary men who are unemployed. I bracket fishermen and miners together as the finest type of men in this country. Above all workers in this country, they are face to face with nature in her grimmest and starkest moods. I defy anybody to produce finer characters, or finer types of men. There was a time when it was upon the fishermen of this country that we depended for our greatness. Without going back to the Middle Ages, I ask the House to remember what this industry has contributed to the country. They found practically all the men, and many of the officers, who fought and won the Napoleonic Wars. We have heard what they did in the last War.
  It would be a most serious moral loss to this country if we allowed this industry to go bankrupt. It is impos-

  1977
  sible to reckon the loss in pounds, shillings and pence. I ask the Government to consider what would be the loss in the moral sense to this country if we betrayed these men. I shall not attempt to delay the House by dealing with the sources of competition, but I would remind the House of the kind of consideration the workers of this country get from France, Germany, Spain, and other countries, when it comes to importations of coal. I do not believe we should hesitate in protecting a British industry because of fears of reprisals— we ought to have got beyond that long ago. I beseech the Government, much more on the moral grounds, however, not to destroy a great historical industry. The Minister of Agriculture has given constant proof to the House, and the country at large, of a determination to proceed on new lines to protect industries under his care. We look to him to save not only the pig and milk industries, but the corn growers of this country. We look to him to do miracles. He seems to be paying attention to the loaves, and I beg him not to forget the fishes.
  7.5 p.m.
  Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I am afraid that those representing what are called fishing constituencies, most of whom are brought into constant touch with the desperate conditions prevailing to-day in the fishing industry, must feel very grateful to my hon. Friend for having put down his Motion, and also for the opportunity which has been afforded to us, somewhat unexpectedly, to Debate this important matter. We must also welcome this as being, I believe, the first occasion we have had of putting the case of the fishing industry before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and hearing a statement from him on that branch of activities connected with his Department. The needs of agriculture are so pressing and so widespread to-day, that I often think there is the gravest fear that the no less urgent needs of the fishing industry may be overlooked.
  Like agriculture, the fishing industry is not really a single industry, in the true sense of the word. It is a group of industries and, unfortunately, within that group there are sections whose interests are diametrically opposed, or they have persuaded themselves that they are. That
  1978
  constitutes one of the difficulties of the situation from a political point of view. I think it is probable that the position of each section of the fishing industry will have to be considered on its merits, and may require, in some respects, separate and individual treatment. There is, I feel, no need to emphasise in this House the importance of the fishing industry. It has been done before, and it will doubtless be done again. We have already had reference this evening to the fishing industry having been the basis of our sea power in the past; to its being the great recruiting ground for the Royal Navy, and an inexhaustible source of healthful food supplies. I disagree, in passing, with my hon. Friend who has just spoken when he describes the fishing industry as a small industry. It is not a small industry. If you review the fishing industry as a whole, and bear in mind that there are probably something like 1,500,000 people in this country directly depending upon that industry, it would be doing it some injustice to describe it as a small industry.
  It not only affects the 60,000 fishermen, but the coal miners, railwaymen, net makers, and innumerable subsidiary industries. Even in these days of depression, I believe it is a fact that the fishing industry consumes annually 3,500,000 tons of British coal, and that it provides an annual revenue for the railways of over £3,000,000. We cannot, from every point of view, allow an industry of that kind to go under, and that is really the danger which exists to-day. I quite agree that you cannot, unfortunately, by Act of Parliament make any industry prosperous. Nevertheless, political action may be of considerable importance, and it certainly is of vital importance to-day so far as the fishing industry is concerned. It affects the position of both sections of the industry. Actually the trawlers, who catch the white fish, have to look probably 80 per cent, or more to the home market for the disposal of their catch. Then there are the drifters, who go after the herrings, and who are equally obliged to look 75 or 80 per cent, to foreign countries for their market.
  In a nutshell, by bearing in mind these two facts you have really one of the great difficulties of dealing with this matter from the political standpoint. You have adequately to protect the home market and, at the same time, not run the risk

  1979
  of doing any danger to the foreign market upon which one section of the industry is so dependent. That is the case for these two great sections of the industry. In what position do they find themselves? First, with regard to the trawlers, I venture to make this claim— I know it is disputed, and it may be disputed in the course of this discussion —that British fishermen are able to supply all the fish that this country can consume, and more besides. We, as a country, are entirely self-supporting, and that is a factor which must be constantly borne in mind, because there are very few industries in this country for which that can be said to be the case. Yet, although we are self-supporting, we allow millions of pounds' worth of foreign caught fish to be landed in our ports every year, with the result that you have created an over-supply, and fish is being sold now literally below cost of production. The average price of fish during 1932 was, I believe, 12½ per cent, above the average price in 1913, and yet, with the exercise of the utmost economy, the running costs of the fishing fleet to-day are certainly 60 per cent, higher than they were in 1913. It is quite obvious that, where the economic conditions are such as I have described, unless something is done, and done immediately, the industry cannot hope to prosper or survive. In these circumstances I think it may be well worth while to quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech he made on 12th December. He said:
  "Tariffs must not be treated as a patent medicine capable of curing every industrial ill. There were diseases for which tariffs were no remedy, but when there was a surplus of production, and only one market in which to sell it, those tariffs could keep the surplus out.… In the case of certain commodities some adaptation of production to the capacity of the market to receive it, becomes a necessity in these days."
  That is exactly the position of the trawling section of the fishing industry to-day. There is a surplus of production. There is only one market in which they can dispose of their produce and it is in these circumstances, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that tariffs can be of vital assistance. I feel that it is unnecessary to labour that point, for the reason that the principle of Protection has already been conceded by the imposition of a 10 per cent. duty.
  1980
  Even though that duty has not been in force for very long, we have had enough experience to show that it is insufficient for its purpose, and that a substantial increase is necessary. It has not succeeded in keeping out foreign fish; on the contrary, there has been a tendency towards an increase in the supplies of foreign fish. Surely if the principle of Protection is admitted common sense demands that the Protection granted should be reasonably adequate for its purpose. Probably every Free Trader would admit that if we are to try the experiment of Protection we should try it in a reasonable way, and not tinker with it, in order that we may know whether it will fulfil its object or not. There has been no increase in price to the producers, though an increase in price to them is essential. It is suggested that if there were an increase of ½d. per lb. it would make all the difference between a declining fishing industry and a prosperous one.
  Objections are raised. We are told that the trawling industry itself is to a large extent responsible for the position in which it is. We are told that it is inefficient. I hope that if any hon. Members make that accusation in the course of this discussion they will produce some evidence in support of it, and tell us definitely and specifically in what respects it is inefficient. That is, broadly speaking, the case as I see it for the trawling side of the industry. They have already made application for a substantial increase of duty. That application has been postponed by the Imports Advisory Committee, with a promise that further consideration will be given to it shortly. There is a widespread fear in the trawling industry that the reason their application has been held over is not unconnected with the negotiations which we understand are at present going on with foreign countries. In other words, the fishing industry, which stands in an almost unique position in being entirely self-supporting, in to be made in some ways a pawn in the negotiations. I feel that we have a right to ask the Minister to give us some assurance that the interests of the fishing industry will not be made merely a bargaining counter in those negotiations. If that were to be so, it would mean that when the Advisory Committee come to consider the case further their hands will

  1981
  be tied, and they will not really be able to decide it upon its merits. I venture to stress that point because it is one which the trawling industry feel to be of vital importance, it is causing very great anxiety at the present time, and there is no matter in regard to which some assurance from the Minister would be more welcome.
  With regard to the herring industry the situation is in many respects quite different. The herring industry is also passing through its time of difficulty. It suffers to-day by reason of the loss of notable pre-War markets, of increased competition by foreign countries of a kind which did not exist in bygone years, and the high tariffs which have been put on by foreign countries. Of these tariffs we can make no complaint. Those countries take the steps which they think best to protect their own people. All we ask is that our own country should do the same thing. Further, we know that many of the foreign fishing fleets are in one way or another subsidised by their own Governments. Finally, there are definite signs of a decline in the home consumption of herrings. This section of the industry are, I know, opposed to the increased duties. Why is that? Simply because of their fear that there may be retaliation on the part of some of the other countries on their products. It is very difficult to see any evidence or signs of that happening.
  Personally, I do not believe that the fear is justified in any way. Other countries, as I say, impose these duties where they think it is desirable to protect their own people. They impose them where they are able to obtain the goods for themselves. Nobody takes our herrings or any of our commodities, I assume, out of philanthropy, but because they want them, and I believe the fear of retaliation is simply a bogey which some of those connected with the herring industry have created, and it would be disastrous if a fear of that kind, which is without substance, were to be used in order to defeat the legitimate and urgent claims of the other great section of the industry. We ought not to be deterred from taking any steps which seem to us desirable in our own interests.
  There are many other points upon which I could touch, but I am anxious not to trespass longer on the time of the
  1982
  House, because I know there are many other hon. Members who have valuable contributions to make to this discussion. Therefore, I will conclude by stressing what I feel to be the most urgent matter at the present time, which is that we should have some assurance from the Minister that the interests of the fishing industry will not be prejudiced or overlooked in the negotiations which are proceeding at the present time, and that the hands of the Advisory Committee will not be in any way tied when they come to deal further with the matter. We cannot allow a vital industry like this to be destroyed. Whilst I agree that the Government cannot easily create markets abroad, they can take steps to secure that the one market to which our men have a paramount right, namely, the market at home, should be reserved for them as far as possible; and in that way they can give vital assistance to a class of men who, as has been already stated, are among the most deserving and courageous of our race.
  7.24 p.m.
  Major LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House for very long this evening, but I have to put one or two points to the Minister regarding this important trade, which vitally affects a large number of people in my constituency. I do not think there is any disagreement in the House over the condition of the fishing industry, and as to the need for preserving it, not only because it is a vital industry in itself but because of the important part it plays in national defence. But while there may be no disagreement as to its condition, I am afraid that so far as I am concerned there may be a good deal of disagreement as to the causes and as to the remedies suggested by some of my hon. Friends. Still, I do not propose this evening to enter into any long arguments about that, though I admit the temptation exists. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) make a remark that some people in the fishing industry were very much afraid that the industry might be used as a sort of pawn in the negotiations going on between us and Scandinavia. That is a new definition of a tariff as a bargaining counter. I thought it was an accepted thing, even among hon. and right hon. Members on the

  1983
  benches opposite, that the real object of a tariff is to reduce tariffs throughout the world.
  It has been admitted by leaders of the party opposite, and some of them have gone so far as to say that the only hope for the world lies in the success of the Economic Conference in lowering tariff barriers. But when it comes to dealing with one particular industry, what every one of us feared is happening. Everybody wants to use tariffs for bargaining purposes, but adds, "For goodness sake don't use the particular industry in which I am interested." The result of that would be that we should get no lowering of tariff barriers at all. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this would be a good opportunity to start bargaining and using what tariffs we have —not on the fishing industry, but on other industries—to get better terms for our fish exports in other countries. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) laughs. If that is not so, what on earth is the object of having tariffs for bargaining purposes?
  Sir BASIL PETO: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I laughed. He seems interested in the fishing industry, and therefore he is willing to sacrifice any other industry in which he is not interested if he can get a little benefit in a bargain over the one for which he is speaking.
  Major LLOYD GEORGE: If I had my way there would be no "other interests" to be sacrificed by tariffs. If I had my way there would be no tariffs to bargain with at all. I am not sure that it would not be a better way. I am interested in the fishing industry, and am anxious to see that everything that can be done for it is done, but I do not see how the Government, having taken up the attitude they have on tariffs, are going to reinforce their case at the World Economic Conference by starting now on higher tariffs. Would it not be possible at this juncture, as negotiations are going on, to get better terms for the fish exports of this country by giving a quid pro quo to other countries?
  I would like to mention one or two things which vitally affect the fishing industry in my part of the country. Take the quota system in vogue on the
  1984
  Continent at the present time. It acts very hardly indeed against fish exports from this country, not only because it diminishes our exports but—which is a much more serious thing—because it happens that suddenly and without warning it is announced that a country's quota has expired. Fish from my own constituency has been in transit between this country and a foreign country when the message has come from the latter that the quota had expired, with the result that the whole of that consignment has become worthless. It does not pay to bring it back, because if it were brought back it would be quite useless. Would it not be possible to get that system relaxed in return for something which we could give them from this country? The same consideration applies to Western European ports which at one time used to be very important markets for fish from my particular corner of Britain. Could we not offer something in return for better treatment for our fish export trade?
  The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion stated that it was possible to send fish from a foreign port to London at a cheaper rate than you could send fish from our own ports to London. I have no reason to doubt that statement. Surely the Government can do something about that. I believe that the same thing applies to agricultural products; the situation seems to me to offer a very favourable field not only for investigation but for action by the Government, in seeing that foreign goods do not get better treatment than British goods on British railways. There is another point with regard to freights. I am informed that before the War it was the habit at the fishing ports of this country that freights were post-paid. During the War, the railway companies came to the fishing ports and said that, if they would agree to pre-pay freights, the railway companies would be able to release a large number of people for the Forces. Very patriotically that was agreed to, so far as England and Wales were concerned. Perhaps the House will not be surprised to hear that the suggestion did not succeed in Scotland. Scotland to-day gets that advantage against us poor people in the South. We agreed, but on the understanding that the system would be retored to the pre-

  1985
  war practice as soon as hostilities ceased. The practice to-day is still that of prepaying, and I am informed by those who are engaged in the industry that it is of vital importance to them. I believe that the Government could do something in that matter. It is not a little matter, but one which has a very big effect on the fishing trade.
  If fish is sent to-day by express, other than by parcel post, you must pay at the rate that you would pay for a cwt. of fish, even if the weight does not come up to that amount. I suggest to the Minister that that is another fruitful field for investigation, in order to ensure that our people get a fair deal. I do not want to discuss the tariff question, although I could give replies to some arguments that have been used by hon. Gentlemen. I do not wish to do so. I simply want to put one or two questions which I think ought to be dealt with. I trust that the Minister will be able to help us, because all are agreed that the fishing industry is a vital one, and it is going through a very serious time. The industry is entitled to serious consideration, and I shall be very much obliged if the Minister will look into the matters that I have raised.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. HARBORD: I rise to address this House, not as a new Member, but as an old Member who has seldom spoken or intervened in the Debates. My reason for doing so on this occasion is to obtain the support of my fellow Members and to ask the Government to assist those who are engaged in the great fishing industry of the United Kingdom. For a long time past they have been suffering most severely, and they are in a terrible plight owing to the loss of foreign markets for their products. Those engaged in the industry feel that the next few months will decide whether our herring fleet is to go out of existence or not. They are convinced that the remedy lies entirely in the hands of the Government. The figures of the loss of markets experienced by those who in past years have exported British cured herrings to foreign countries will enable the House to see how great that loss has been.
  I would like to give that information. In the case of Finland, 31,232 barrels of cured herrings were imported from Great Britain in 1930. In 1931, 2,671 barrels
  1986
  were imported. Last year there were none. Estonia, in 1930, imported 21,355 barrels of cured herrings from Great Britain. In 1931, that country imported 8,872, and none last year. Latvia, in 1930, imported 193,157 barrels of cured herrings from Great Britain. In 1931 the import was 109,255 barrels and in 1932 it was 33,686, all but a sixth of those imported in 1930. For Poland the figures last year were roughly one-third of what they were in the previous year, and in the case of Germany they were about one-half. In the case of Soviet Russia, there were conditions which made for some difference in the supply. I have mentioned enough to show the need for something to be done by the Government to help this great industry in its hour of need.
  Tremendous alarm is felt by all who are interested in the present condition of the herring industry, because of the failure of foreign countries, and particularly Russia, to secure from this country the supplies which they usually obtained, and upon which the success of the industry entirely depend. The deplorable condition of the trade can be appreciated from the fact that the value of the whole autumn catch from Great Yarmouth and the sister town of Lowestoft, on the 7th of November, 1931, was £788,000 short of that of the year before, notwithstanding that fact that the 1930 autumn season was only one of moderate dimensions. Since then, things have gone from bad to worse. The depression is not due to the lack of herrings, but to the entire collapse of the foreign markets and the shrinkage of all others. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that at least 90 per cent, of the herrings landed in the two sister ports of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are normally shipped abroad.
  This emphasises the difference between white fishing and herring fishing. One is for home consumption, less a little which is exported to foreign countries, while in the case of the British caught herring, 90 per cent of the product goes abroad. The British Trawlers' Federation have bad assistance from the Government. I represent the premier herring port of the United Kingdom. The Federation acquiesced in the demand put up for protection in the time of dire necessity. I want to emphasise that, and

  1987
  also this very important fact, that that protection has been given at the expense of those engaged in the herring fishing industry. When I supported this Government I did it with the full knowledge of all that that meant. I believed in a change of policy. I did not come back to this House except by open profession of my change in point of view. I announced myself as one in favour of Tariffs, and I certainly did it with the clear belief that I was helping my country to restore the adverse balance of trade and that it would make for more employment at home.
  In that respect I make no apology, nor am I ashamed of having done it, because I think that the results have fully justified the course that I had the courage to adopt. The places where I formerly received most support I left under no false impression of my change of view, but we have had no consideration from the Government, so far as is evident at the moment. I have had the belief, up to now, that the Government were going to endeavour, by means of the powers that were so freely extended to them by this House, of barter, bargaining, reciprocal arrangements or discriminatory tariffs, to effect a change which would be more favourable to those engaged in the great fishing industry. We have had the evidence of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), whom I am glad to have heard, as to the effect on the people engaged in the great trawling industry. I must put in an equally strong plea for those engaged in the herring industry.
  I am proud of the fact that so many vessels left Yarmouth during the Autumn season. The boats carry seven men a-piece. They have had disastrous results. I should think that 90 per cent, of them have not paid their way. They are mostly heavily in debt. The boats are. mortgaged up to the very limit and the men cannot get any further help or assistance. I have talked over the matter with the men, and I have lived all my life among them. A braver and more courageous race, suffering as they are from long-continued adverse conditions, could not possibly be. I feel that tonight I must not go back to my constituency without some assurance from the Government that they fully appreciate the sad lot of those engaged in the fish-
  1988
  ing business, and can give us some message of hope and encouragement to take back to those owners and those brave fishermen who, as has been said in the House this evening, placed their country under such a deep obligation to them for their splendid services in so many seas and so many fields helping their country in its hour of need. They swept the seas, they manned the food ships that supplied our country in its great necessity, and they were a wonderful source of recruits for the Navy. Living, as I do, in a fishing town, I knew what they suffeffred and what loss of life they incurred in their hazardous calling of mine-sweeping and mine-laying. I hope I shall be able to take to my constituèncy from the House to-night a message of encouragement.
  When the Government were arguing in favour of the introduction of tariffs, we were told that there were many countries that had never thought of our entering their markets, but now, with the introduction of tariffs, they were seeking a chance of doing good business with us. We were told that the Government had a bargaining power such as they never had before. Take the great country of Soviet Russia, with which none of us, I think, has any serious quarrel. Their Government is their own concern, as our Government is ours. I have no quarrel with the Russians, but I can quite understand that, apart from the question of trade, they dislike us. They were with us early in the War, but there is no doubt that our support of the White Armies, which simply meant setting up one tyranny against another, was a mistaken policy, and cost us much in life and treasure. I hope, however, that in any future debt settlement the one will be set off against the other, and that the result will be a better understanding between these two great countries which will pave the way for a better trade relationship.
  Russia is a market which we simply must secure if the trade is not to perish for want of markets, and there should be great opportunities for trade there. The task of the Government in that respect should not be very hard, because the balance of trade is so favourable to Russia. We pay them four times as much as they pay to us, which, surely, leaves something with which to bargain for a better market for the products of our fishing industry. I urge the Government

  1989
  most seriously to give us this message, for which there is such keen anxiety among all those who represent the fishing ports of the United Kingdom. The matter is indeed a serious one. Men go about concerned, unhappy, miserable, for they have come to the end of their resources, and, unless the Government immediately and speedily come to their rescue, the trade is doomed.
  7.50 p.m.
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I am glad that at last we have an opportunity of a Debate on the fishing industry, though I am afraid that, now that we have it, we shall be inclined to think that the subject is much too vast to be dealt with adequately in the half-evening at our disposal. However, we must do the best that we can. I am not going to say very much about the plight of the fishing industry, because I am sure everyone here will admit that that industry is in a very parlous condition indeed. Not only the trawling section, but every section of the industry, is in the same difficult and depressed condition. It is my view, of course, that that depressed condition is simply the depressed condition of the country and the world generally, and that it can only be put right by steps which will restore the economic condition of this country and of the world. Therefore, if I do not dwell upon the difficulties of the different sections of the industry, I hope it will be understood that that is not because I do not fully realise them. Probably I realise them more than anyone, because I have lived in closer contact with one section of the industry than most Members who have taken part in this Debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord) said that he represented the premier herring port in this country, and that is quite true, but he omitted to mention that the herrings which are caught at Yarmouth in such large numbers are caught very largely by my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent divisions in the North of Scotland. Something like four-fifths of the boats that fish at Yarmouth are Scottish herring boats, which come down there and make my hon. Friend's constituency such an important place.
  Mr. HARBORD: I entirely agree with that statement. We welcome them; they are always welcome among us.
  Sir M. WOOD: I quite understand. I was not imagining that my hon. Friend and I were in conflict, but was just recalling the fact that that is the position. I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said, but not with all of it. He took credit to himself for advocating tariffs at the last election, and seemed to think that they had been a great success; but the harrowing tale that he told us about his constituency did not seem entirely to square with what he said in that regard. However, I pass from that point. I should have liked to deal with a good many points that have been referred to by previous speakers, but it would take me too long to do so, and so I must pass them by, with this warning, that everything that they said is not admitted.
  I was very much interested, however, by the appeal made by one or two hon. Members to the Minister to do something in the way of getting higher tariffs. I have always understood that it was one of the good points of the new fiscal policy that the duty of fixing these tariffs had been put into the hands of an impartial committee living away in some far-off Olympus, detached from all the influences that affect those of us who have to fight in the political arena. If that be so, there does not seem to me to be much object in 'appealing to the Minister to exercise his influence in favour of higher tariffs, because the two policies seem to be in conflict. I was interested, however, to hear these appeals to the Minister to step in and interfere—for that is what it comes to—with the free discretion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in determining whether there should be higher duties or not.
  To some of my hon. Friends opposite the question is a very simple one. They would say: The fishing industry is de pressed; put on tariffs, artificially increase your prices, and there you have it. One hon. Member said that what we require is an increase in the prices of primary commodities, including fish. That is quite true; that is what is wanted; but an artificial increase in the prices of primary commodities merely in one country by means of tariffs will do no good. What is required is an increase in world primary prices, and that is a different thing altogether. I make bold to say that in this industry, 'and many more, we shall never have real prosperity until we get an increase of that kind, but

  1991
  it must be an increase in world prices. One or two points were made about the price of fish, but no one seemed to think it was worth while to mention that the retail price of fish to-day is more than double what it was at the beginning of the War. Consumers to-day are paying more than double what they paid for their fish at the beginning of the War, and yet the white fishing industry is not prosperous. I am inclined to think that there must be something wrong with the white fishing industry—
  Mr. SLATER: The white fishing industry only got 12 per cent, more last year.
  Sir M. WOOD: I am speaking about retail prices; I agree that there has not been such a large increase in the wholesale prices on the quay, but I am right in saying that the retail price of fish to-day is more than double what it was at the beginning of the War. The unfortunate thing about this question is that there is, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), something of a conflict between different sections of the industry, and it is necessary in this regard that the Government, or anyone who is going to deal fairly with the question, should take a large and national view. It would be of no use to the country to help one section of the industry by means which would go the length of killing or ruining another section.
  It must be remembered that there is great diversity of opinion as to the advisability of the particular remedy which has been put forward to-night— the only remedy so far, as I have been able to gather, that is put forward, or, at any rate, the only one that has yet been put forward—namely, an increase of tariffs. The industry is certainly not unanimous in regard to that remedy. Not only is the herring fishing section of the industry against it, but a very influential section of the white fishing industry is also against it, and that the retailers and consumers are against it probably goes without saying. We have been told that something like £3,000,000 worth of white fish is imported into this country every year, and that is quite true, but it must be remembered also that there are very large exports of white fish.
  1992
  The exports of white fish from this country amount to about two-thirds of the imports, and one must not think of the one without at the same time remembering the other. In the case of herrings, the exports of cured herrings three years ago used to be about £5,000,000 in a year, and I think that, before the War, that, or more, was about the normal quantity. That, therefore, must be taken into account in considering the question of exports and imports. An important section of the white fishing industry is against these tariffs, because the whole industry is based upon getting fish, largely from foreign trawlers, working them up, and sending them abroad, and this industry is based chiefly on Aberdeen. Over half the white fish imported into this country is landed at Aberdeen and something like three-fourths of it is exported. Those engaged in the industry in Aberdeen have done all that they could to get home vessels to go there and fish, but they have failed, and a year or two ago we had the remarkable spectacle of a deputation going from Aberdeen to Germany to ask the Germans to come in increasing numbers to Aberdeen with this fish which some hon. Members want to keep out of the country. The fish that these Aberdeen curers deal with is of a special kind. It is salt fish which mostly comes from Iceland. If you are going to put on any sort of duty with the object of excluding foreign fish, you will kill that very valuable industry.
  Mr. McKIE: I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of his rather ambiguous speech, if he is advocating the cause of the fishermen or of the wholesalers in Aberdeen.
  Sir M. WOOD: I am trying to point out that this proposal will be good neither for the one nor for the other, and it will be better for the Government, or anyone else who is interested, not to give it any encouragement. This fish that is cured at Aberdeen is sent very largely to North Africa and the Mediterranean, and there is a large and expanding market for it. If we were to keep out this fish that the Germans land at Aberdeen and elsewhere from Iceland, is it to be thought for a moment that the Germans, Norsemen and so on will stop fishing. Of course they will not. They have been used to doing nothing

  1993
  else, and they will go on fishing. The result will be that, instead of the fish coming to this country to be cured and made presentable by British labour and then sent abroad, it will be sent straight from these other countries, and we shall lose the trade altogether. [Interruption.] They can be cured anywhere. They are cured at Hamburg and in Holland more than they were before. There will be no difficulty about that.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Why should the hon. Gentleman assume that our people are incapable of catching these fish?
  Sir M. WOOD: I am saying that our people have failed to do it, and the Aberdeen Fish Trade Association have sent out a memorandum to say that in their opinion an increase in this duty would be disastrous to the fishing industry. The plight of the white fishing industry is not nearly so bad as the plight of the herring fishermen. If you want to estimate how bad things are, it is not sufficient to take this year or last year; it is desirable to take the last of five years, and then you will find that the state of matters is very different indeed. A table was presented to the committee on the fishing industry that reported last year showing the earnings of the men engaged in the trawling industry and it is very instructive indeed. A trawl skipper's weekly average earnings in 1929 varied from £32 in Hull to £7 in Aberdeen, and the deck hand's wages varied from £4 17s. 10d. in the Grimsby vessels to £3 0s. 1d. at Lowestoft. I take only these two types because they are representative. But I have later figures than that. The Unemployment Insurance Commission which reported the other day says in paragraph 382:
  "Having carefully considered all the evidence on this subject before us, we find as facts that practically all the share-fishermen in the trawling section of the fishing industry receive a remuneration of more than £250 per annum."
  An industry about which that can be said is in a very good way compared with others. It would be most alarming if any action taken by the Government or by the Imports Advisory Committee were to throw the weight of supporting the white fishing section on the herring fishing section, which is in a very much worse plight.
  1994
  Turning to the herring industry, it is obvious that, when you begin bargaining in this way or go in for a war of retaliation, the industry presents a most admirable target, because something like three-fourths of all the herrings caught off these islands are exported, whereas with regard to the white fishing it is more or less the opposite way. The hon. Member for Lowestoft said there was no question of retaliation. It was rather remarkable to hear him say that, because immediately after we adopted this duty of 10 per cent. Germany said they were going to have a fishing industry of their own so as to make them independent of us, and they trebled the duty on cured herrings and announced that they were going to set aside a large sum to build a fishing fleet for themselves. That was one of the earliest results of this new fiscal policy, and it hit the herring fishing industry very hard indeed, Germany is now practically the only substantial market left for the herring industry. Russia, which used to be one of the great markets before the War, has largely gone. It is true that in the last year or two things have looked better, and the industry was making steady progress by means of direct negotiation. At the beginning of last year Russia placed a large contract with the herring fishing industry for £100,000, and there was hope that there would be another contract of the same kind at the end of the year, but, when the Ottawa Agreements came, the negotiations were entirely suspended.
  I understand that the Government are conducting negotiations with the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Poland with a view to getting a better market for herrings, and I hope they will be able to achieve something. We hear a great deal about bargaining. The trouble, of course, is that everyone wants to get, but not to give. The white fishing industry does not mind if by means of this bargaining there is retaliation on the herring industry. Poland was a very important market for herring fishing until quite recently. We have a most-favourednation clause which prevents Poland from giving special terms to other countries, but they enacted some sort of regulation by which they reduced the duty on herrings of a certain size. That acted by way of preference to Norway, because Norwegian herrings are large and

  1995
  coarse. In my view, that is getting behind the provisions of the treaty, and I hope the Government will take the matter up very seriously indeed and see whether they cannot do something. [Interruption.] I am very glad to think the right hon. Gentleman still believes he will be able to do it. [Interruption.] It is impossible for me to enter into that question; it is not the question we are discussing to-day. I should be prepared to deal with it in the proper place. I am speaking specially for the herring industry at the present time, and I point out that in the last three years the exports of herrings have gone down by half. That is the result of a policy which, for whatever other industries it may be good, is undoubtedly bad for the herring fishing industry, and is fast knocking it out of existence altogether.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): Surely, the hon. and gallant Member was complaining that Poland had inserted, under a modern Free Trade system, the most-favourednation clause and that I should do something about it. What does he want me to do about it?
  Sir M. WOOD: I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to represent to Poland that this is a breach of the Treaty which Poland entered into with this country. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not need me me to tell him what he ought to do to a country which breaks a Treaty.
  Major ELLIOT: Suppose they say that it is not a breach of the Treaty.
  Sir M. WOOD: I say that it is a breach of the Treaty. It may not be a nominal breach, but it is a breach in actual practice. That is the case which has been put by the herring fishing industry, and they have pressed it upon the Government for a long time. It is not a question which has existed for the last month or two, but one which has been in existence a year or two, and nothing has been done. I believe that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with the weight of the British Government behind him, can get something done along these lines if he will really set his mind to it.
  There is the question of Finland. There is a somewhat similar situation
  1996
  there. We had a big trade with Finland a year or two ago and now it has entirely gone. Last year there were no exports from this country to Finland at all, because Finland, like so many other countries, said that they were going to have their own fishing industry and were not going to have our herrings. They got together a fleet which they sent to Iceland to catch herrings for their own use. They are entitled to do that sort of thing, but there is good reason to believe that all the herrings which they take to Finland are not caught by themselves but are really bought perhaps from Iceland. If that is so, they are not entitled under the existing Clause to import that fish into Finland without a duty. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will also keep that question in view and see what can be done to remedy it, if it is possible to find a remedy.
  I should like to say a word or two about the question of reorganisation. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, in the letter which they sent to the trawler owners a month or two ago, suggested that there might be an improvement in the existing organisation and methods of distribution of the industry. I do not want to develop this, because it is, perhaps, a delicate question, but I suggest that the whole of the financial organisation of the trawler industry requires looking into to say the least of it. It will be found that the trawler owner who complains at the present, time that things are very bad is not merely a trawler owner, but is a coal merchant supplying his own trawlers with coal at a price which he fixes as a rule. When the trawlers come ashore the fish is sold by fish salesmen who are the trawler owners themselves. To say the least of it this is a most unfortunate system. The Committee on the Fishing Industry which reported last year recommended that there should be legislation. They say that
  "The sale by auction of trawled"—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that we cannot go into the question of legislation on the Adjournment.
  Sir M. WOOD: I do not know that it is necessary to have legislation—I do not want to go beyond the limits allowed in this Debate—but it may be possible to do it in another way. In any case, I

  1997
  think that I am probably right in pointing out that this committee said that:
  "The sale by auction of trawled fish which affects the settling sheets between owners, shippers and crews should only be conducted by salesmen independent of the owners of the fishing vessels."
  I think that that is a very fair proposal to make, and the mere fact that the committee which inquired very carefully into the industry thought it necessary to make the recommendation shows that the financial organisation of the industry requires looking into. There is another aspect of organisation which does not apply so much to trawlers as to inshore fishermen. Inshore fishing in the North of Scotland has gone down very seriously in the last few years, and in many small places, where a short time ago it was a very lively industry, it is now no longer in evidence. That is largely due to the bad organisation for the sale of the fish. The big trawler organisations are strong enough to market their own fish, but the position among the small boats in the North of Scotland is very different. These boats have been accustomed to sell their fish on the quay to small fish curers who have sent the fish to the large fish markets of the country—Billingsgate and other places. The fish curer has simply consigned the fish to those markets for sale at the best price the fish would fetch. What has happened? Time after time those fish curers have found, when they have sent their fish, that they have received a price which is derisory, with the result that they have had to send money afterwards to pay for the carriage. The fish curers who send up fish like that are in the present circumstances at the mercy of the fish salesmen, because in a great number of cases these fish salesmen are not merely fish salesmen but also buyers.
  It is obviously a most improper arrangement that one man should be a seller and a buyer at the same time. His duties in the two cases are bound to come into conflict with one another. On this matter also the committee gave a recommendation which could be carried out without legislation, and if the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries would bring his influence to bear in the proper quarter something might be done. A few years ago a similar position existed in Paris and a regulation was made making it possible to prohibit any salesman from
  1998
  selling and buying at the same time. The recommendation of the committee is that the same method that was adopted in Paris should be adopted here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to get that done. If he could do so it would make a great difference to the fish curers who send consignments to Billingsgate and other markets.
  A few words about a question which affects me very seriously. I have on many occasions dealt with the special case of the Moray Firth and I am not going to repeat it, because the right hon. Gentleman knows the case well and hon. Members also know it. It seems to me absolutely preposterous that foreign trawlers can come and fish with impunity in the Moray Firth, whereas if home trawlers attempt to do so the skipper or the man in charge is immediately fined or put into prison. I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he can tell us what the Government propose to do about it. The fishermen —[HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] I have more fishing constituents than probably any other Member of this House, and I am entitled to put their case. I have not taken nearly the amount of time that I might have taken if I had been determined to put the whole case as I should have liked it to have been put. This question of the Moray Firth is an important one and Government after Government have refused to pay proper attention to the subject. I am always told that it is a difficult subject. I know that it is a difficult subject. If the Government say that they have considered it and can do nothing we shall know where we are. I am not satisfied that the Government can do nothing. A short time ago we had a definite invitation sent by the Netherlands Government to this country to a convention which would consider the whole question of the North Sea fisheries, but we have neither accepted nor declined that invitation. If we are ever going to get a question like the Moray Firth settled on satisfactory lines, or indeed the whole question of the fisheries in the North Sea, it must be by international agreement. I hope that we shall have a statement by the Minister of Agriculture to-night that we are going to accept that invitation and that we shall make a real attempt by international agreement to deal with the undoubted difficulties of the Moray Firth and fishing in the North Sea generally.

  1999
  I apologise to the House for taking such a long time, but I think I can claim that at no point have I been irrelevant. One half of my constituents are depending upon the success of the fishing industry. Their interests are, unfortunately, to some extent in conflict with the interests of the trawling and white fish section. That section is very powerful and it is necessary that we who represent the herring fishing industry should take what opportunities come our way to put the case for the herring fishermen before the Government and the powers that be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will always remember that this question is much more important, relatively, to Scotland than to England. Fishing is more important to Scotland than to England. Keeping that in view, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the interests of Scotland are not forgotten, in trying to conciliate the trawlers.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. LAW: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) has left the House, because I should like to make a few remarks on his speech. He said that he was very much tempted to criticise some of the speakers who had preceded him, but that he was not going to succumb to the temptation. I wish he had succumbed, because I have not yet heard, in spite of the speech to which we have just listened, any really serious and valid criticism of the case which has been put forward to-night. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke seemed to show that he was labouring under certain misapprehensions as to the position of a great many Members of the House in regard to one matter. He seemed to think that because of the Debate to-night there was evidence that the hon. Members who have spoken have rejected the idea of tariffs for bargaining purposes. I am sure that if that was his idea it was an incorrect one. Speaking for myself, I am in favour of tariffs for use as a bargaining weapon, and I think they can be used in that way successfully. I would go further and say that if the bargain was a good one for the people of this country I would be prepared to sacrifice the immediate interests of my constituents for the benefit of the industry and the country as a whole.
  2000
  The point which we have been trying to make to-night is simply this, that on the evidence which is available to the House the bargain would not be a good one and that at the best you would be transferring unemployment from one trade to another, and that no real benefit could come from such a bargain. If that is our view of the case, we are entitled to say we are right. If our view is wrong, we must trust to the Minister to correct it, but whether it is right or wrong I think we are entitled to put it forward. Apart from that the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke did not succumb to the temptation offered him by the Debate, but the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) did; and I confess that after listening to his speech I felt that it was rather unworthy of him to succumb to the temptation. He has not convinced the House, I feel sure, in spite of all the wealth of his argument, that the remedies which have been advanced during the course of the Debate are not the only possible remedies. Let me examine some of the arguments he has put forward. In the first place, he said that bad as is the condition of the herring fishery it is a world condition, not a national condition, and from that he went on to argue that because it is a world condition it is no good doing anything about it.
  Sir M. WOOD indicated dissent.
  Mr. LAW: I apologise if I have misunderstood the hon. Member. At the same time, he did not seem to have any constructive proposals to offer in order to improve the condition of the industry. He went on to explain the condition of the fishing industry in Scotland and in particular in Aberdeen, and pointed out how much worse it would be if there was any increase in duties, because the fish merchants of Aberdeen had to import cheap fish for re-export.
  Sir M. WOOD: It is not a question of cheap fish. It is a question of getting this special fish for a particular purpose.
  Mr. LAW: The hon. Member says that the people of Aberdeen cannot catch this fish and have to buy it. The only argument he advanced in favour of this contention was that some years ago they tried to do so but found it impossible, and they had to go without the fish. If that is the case, if it is impossible for the

  2001
  people in Aberdeen to catch this fish, I cannot understand one circumstance which came to my notice in my own constituency. Several Aberdeen ships went out from a port in my own constituency and brought in this fish. If they can do that at Hull, I cannot see why they cannot go out and bring in this fish at Aberdeen.
  Sir M. WOOD: If the hon. Member will read the Memorandum he will see that they say that these proposals would be disastrous.
  Mr. LAW: I have had a number of representations from the persons to whom the hon. Member refers, and from a great many other quarters; and that brings me to another point. This question of a restriction on fish is very important to producers, and also important in another way to middlemen of all kinds. I do not wish to imply that the middleman, the merchant, does not occupy an important place in the organisation of industry, but it is important that this House, when it receives communications from these people, should not consider that they are the only people to whose views attention should be paid. As I say, I have had a great many of these communications, and in some of them the objections raised, the antagonism shown, to the trawling industry have not been weighty and in many cases have been absolutely futile. I had one letter from a fishmongers' association saying that the trawling industry had no right to any sort of help because trawlers, which went hundreds of miles out to sea, did not pay rates and taxes. I did not answer that letter, but if I had I should have said that fishmongers' shops do not happen to be situate in the Arctic Sea. The hon. Member for Banff went on to discuss the herring industry and to explain why we should not help the trawling industry because the herring industry was in a worse position. That is most extraordinary logic—
  Sir M. WOOD: The hon. Member must not attribute to me the saying that the Government must not help the trawling industry. I never said anything of the kind. I should be delighted that the trawling industry should be helped in any feasible way, but I suggested that it is no good helping it at the expense of another section of the industry. That is a different thing altogether.
  Mr. LAW: I accept the hon. Member's correction, and I am sorry if I misrepresented him. I did not mean to do so. He says that the Government must not help the trawling industry at the expense of the herring industry. I think we should be sure, first of all, in our own minds that that would be the case. I do not think it would, and the only point the hon. Member adduced to prove his contention that already the trawling industry is hindering the herring industry is the fact that, some time after the tariff was put on white fish in this country, the German tariff was increased three times. That may be so, but there is no reason to suppose that it was the result of the tariff put on here. Does he suppose that there was no tariff on British fish before a duty was put on in this country?
  Sir M. WOOD: It is a remarkable coincidence that immediately we put on a tariff this particular tariff should be trebled.
  Mr. LAW: I will give my hon. Friend another remarkable coincidence. Some years ago the Government of this country were trying to arrange a tariff truce, and at the moment they were attempting to do so the French Government increased their tariff on fish from this country to an almost equal extent. It was certainly doubled. It is just as reasonable to attribute this to the tariff truce as it is to attribute the increase in the German tariff against herrings to the Import Duties Act. If hon. Members will consider what has been happening in Germany since the War they will agree that there is extremely little foundation for the suggestion that the tariff was increased as the result of our imposition of a tariff. Ever since the War Germany has been doing all she can to advance the interests and encourage and develop her fishing industry. It has been done deliberately, and largely because Germany under the Treaty of Versailles is restricted in naval development. Very wisely she recognises the immense naval value of a fishing fleet, and for that reason Germany has made every effort since the War to develop her fishing fleet. The Germans determined to make themselves self-supporting so far as fishing is concerned. I have no doubt that they will go on with that policy. Whether or not we increase our tariffs or reduce

  2003
  our tariffs or abolish them, I have no doubt that the Germans will go on making it more difficult for us to send fish into their country.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff will not think that I have been criticising him unfairly or too vigorously. It certainly was not my intention to do so. At the end of his speech he said that there was a necessity for the reorganisation of the fishing industry. I am not sure that I agree with every example that he gave of the necessity, but I feel fairly sure that the fishing industry, like the agricultural industry, is susceptible of reorganisation and that a certain amount of reorganisation would be very beneficial to it. It has been said that the Import Duties Advisory Committee recommended the industry to set its own house in order, and in particular the distributing side of it. That recommendation of the Advisory Committee is not really as sensible as it sounds. The distributors are the chief opponents of restriction of imports. The industry has not any sort of control of its own market, and until it has some control I think it will be impossible for the industry to reorganise itself.One of the kinds of reorganisation that will have to be undertaken is the reorganisation of supplies of fish, once the supplies of foreign fish are restricted. Let me give one small instance of the kind of thing I mean. In my own constituency last year there was a known supply of a certain kind of fish, and as a result the trawler owners agreed unanimously to stop fishing on the ground and to send their fleet somewhere else. The price of that fish went up. As soon as that happened telegrams were sent to Germany and other countries and from those countries wireless messages were sent to the foreign trawlers at sea, and forthwith they proceeded to the fishing ground. I know that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture are aware of the grave situation in the industry, and I would like to add my plea that they will lose no time in improving it.
  8.49 p.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: For 15 years in this House I have heard Members from different fishing constituencies make passionate, eloquent and long-winded pleas
  2004
  to different Governments on the subject of the fishing industry, but up to now I have never seen a Government that has done anything about it. This seems a hopeful moment, from the point of view of all of us who are interested in the industry. We have come into the House as a new party in a National Government which has the largest majority that the country has ever seen, and, what is far more to the point, we have a young, ardent and keen Minister of Agriculture. The best thing about the Minister is that he really enjoys his job. From what I have seen of many politicians, if they do not enjoy their job they had better get out of it and leave it to others. The present Minister of Agriculture has a scientific brain and has begun to reorganise everything. Now he has the chance of his lifetime to reorganise the fishing industry. I shall not go into the question of tariffs. I agree with parts of nearly every speech that has been made. I have sat and listened and have seen nearly every point that I wished to raise disappear. That is a common experience, and it means that one has to bore a weary House. As to the tariff the Government were bound to take the advice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. But I want them to take the whole of it. We know that the British Trawlers' Federation pleaded for the raising of the tariff on fish, and the Committee stated:
  "They fully recognise the national necessity that the British fishing industry should be maintained on as large a scale and at as high a level of efficiency as possible."
  They said further that the industry was at present suffering from severe depression which appeared to be due not so much to the volume of fish imported from foreign trawlers or imported as cargo, as to the general decline of purchasing power and the recent heavy fall in the price of other foodstuffs, and the consequent fall in the demand for fish. I do not think that simply imposing a higher tariff on imported fish is going to effect the cure that we want. The Committee also said:
  "They are of opinion that the industry might with advantage give renewed consideration to the question of the improvement of the existing organisation and methods of distribution."
  That is where the Minister of Agriculture comes in. We all know that he is already reorganising the pig and milk industries. The Government have given a subsidy to

  2005
  wheat and have continued the subsidy for sugar-beet. Now let them reorganise the fishing industry. Many of us are prepared to see the subsidy taken from sugar-beet and given to the fishing industry. Something has been said what Germany has done. What did Belgium do after the War? She had no fishing industry then, but partly by subsidy and partly by voluntary organisation, with the aid of an ex-naval officer, the Belgian Government got the fishing industry going, and the Belgians are outdoing us now. Why should not our Government take the same course? Let them take the subsidy from beet sugar and give it to the fishing industry.
  The fishermen in time of war suffered heavily even compared with the miners. During the War the miners had a comparatively good time, but the fishermen have never had a rich time. They have always had a difficult time. Now that the farmers have got their wheat quota and their beet sugar subsidy let us turn our attention to the fishermen. I believe that something could be done for them without imposing greater tariffs. I think that the Lord President of the Council was right in saying that if the Ottawa Agreements did not bring down the tariffs of the world, they would be a failure. I think we all realise that, and I am not in favour of blindly imposing tariffs. A tariff ought to be scientifically applied, and, if we want the fishing industry to improve, the matter must be gone into scientifically and from a national point of view and with the knowledge in our minds that we cannot afford to let our fishermen disappear.
  They are not organised politically or industrially. They do not complain. They have not representatives in this House; they do not belong to trade unions and that appears to be their only crime. As regards Governments giving any attention to them, if they had a great trade union, something would have been done for them long ago. Knowing the way in which trade unions act in these days, I hope to heaven they will never be forced into a trade union. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give his mind to this problem and get to work upon it. I do not wish to go against expert opinion on this matter. I think that the Government are right if they have an Advisory Committee in taking into account its recommendations and I know
  2006
  that we must not look at this matter solely from the point of view of our own particular constituencies. I represent a fishing constituency and I have had to meet the fishermen themselves and deal with these matters but I can claim that I have pleaded with successive Governments to do something for them. This is the first time that one can make such an appeal with any real hope and I would ask the Minister particularly to look into the question of what the Belgians have done in regard to their fishing industry. They are beating us in the West Country in this respect and it is very difficult to compete against them.
  The fishermen in the West Country suffered a good deal during the War and now when they go out to the fishing ground, they find their nets damaged and they cannot get any compensation. We all know about the five-mile limit and we know too, how foreign fishing boats come right in, almost up to our doors, so to speak. I suggested to the Admiralty that it would be a good thing if the Navy did a little of their exercises in the protection of our fishermen from foreign fishing vessels but that did not seem to be regarded as a practical suggestion. I hope, however, that the Government will consider it and will consider the case generally of this unorganised and unrepresented body of men. They are people of few words; they are the kind of people whom the Lord President of the Council admires; they do not talk much hut they go about their work quietly and they are of the very best stuff of which Englishmen are made. I hope that we shall have a real answer on this question from our new ardent and scientific Minister of Agriculture. Great things are expected from him. I am sure he will not disappoint us.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I agree with every word of the admirable speech of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be ready to assure her that whatever else she may be afraid of she need never be afraid of being a bore. I wish I could say that I agreed as whole-heartedly with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who represents the next constituency to mine. The hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law) expressed the hope that his criticism of the speech of the hon. Mem-

  2007
  ber for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) had not been too vigorous. I can hardly hope that my criticism of that speech will be vigorous enough. One of the remarks of the hon. Member for Banffshire to which I took the greatest exception was when be said—having addressed the House for over half an hour—that unfortunately he had not time to present the whole of the case for the fishermen whom he represented. If the case which he made is the case of the fishermen, whom both he and I represent, then God help the fishermen. I think the hon. Member would have done better to have said that he had not time to present the whole of his own case.
  For my part, I, as representing the same sort of fishermen, would never for one moment admit that the hon. Member was presenting their case at all. In so far as his remarks applied to the white fishing industry they were equally inexplicable to me. He accepted what was, I agree, put forward in the memorandum by the fish trade of Aberdeen, that it was impossible for our people to catch the particular kind of fish which are found off the Icelandic coasts and are required by the curers in Aberdeen for curing and re-export. I do not believe in that theory, but the hon. Member accepted it. He said, in effect, that we had tried it two years ago and that we had failed, and his conclusion was that we should let it go and hold on to these foreign fish. His argument amounted to this—that the foreigner only could supply us with these fish. If his speech meant anything it meant that, but I do not admit that such a view is correct. As a matter of fact, I have reason to believe that the firm which does a great deal of this curing for re-export to the Continent, actually owns trawlers, but it is found more lucrative to supply ports further south, particularly Hull and Grimsby, with these fish, rather than Aberdeen. I do not admit that our own fishermen and our own trawlers cannot catch all the fish that we require though I am far from advocating the complete exclusion or prohibition of foreign white fish from this country.
  The hon. Member for Banffshire, however, made me angry when he came to deal with herring fishing and asked the Minister what he was going to do to deal with the Polish situation. I agree that it is iniquitous that a preference should
  2008
  be given by the Poles to Norwegian herring over British, but when the Minister asked the hon. Member "what am I to do about it," all the hon. Member could reply was, "I say it is a breach of the treaty." Is the Minister, then, to make representations to the effect that the hon. Member for Banffshire says that this is a breach of the Anglo-Polish Treaty and therefore it must be stopped immediately? Is it suggested that such representations would have a decisive effect on the Polish Government? There is only one method of dealing with the Polish Government in this matter and that is by saying to them: "We must either have a reciprocal trading agreement under which you will give us what we require in regard to certain articles which we send to you—herring being one of the principal of these—or, if you do not give us a fair trading arrangement, if you continue to put unfair preferential duties against our herrings and in favour of Norway, we shall take retaliatory action in respect of goods which you wish to send to us." There is no other way of dealing with the situation, and it is exactly the same in the case of Finland. The hon. Member for Banffshire said: "Can we not do something about Finland? They have stopped taking our herrings. They have actually had the audacity to build a herring fleet of their own. They are catching their own herrings. Stop it. Go and tell them not to do so." But how are you going to do it except by negotiating a trade agreement?
  Sir M. WOOD: Will the hon. Member allow me—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) has already addressed the House at some length, and there are many hon. Members who wish to speak yet. We can get on better without interruptions.
  Sir M. WOOD: On a point of Order. I rose to correct a statement made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who gave way. Am I not right and within the Rules of the House in taking advantage of his allowing me to rise and interrupt him?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banffshire rather invited the hon. Member to give way, and he is not

  2009
  strictly entitled to address the House, having already made one speech. Mr. Boothby.
  Sir M. WOOD: The hon. Member has quite misrepresented me.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member for Banffshire. I would only say that I, for my part, can see no way of bringing any possible pressure upon Finland to abstain from the policy of economic nationalism, which is not confined to Finland, but which is the practice of every country in Europe, or to persuade them to purchase our herrings, unless we can bring economic pressure to bear on them. We are absolutely powerless to sell our herrings in Europe or to deal with these foreign countries unless we ourselves possess a weapon, and it is no good pleading with the Minister of Agriculture to make representations to European Powers to take down their tariffs merely for love of us. We have made such representations, at Geneva and elsewhere, for the past 15 years, and they have not had any effect at all, and none of these representations will have any effect unless it is backed by power on our part to take similar action against the goods of foreign countries coming into this country.
  There is a superficial difference, at first sight, between the interests of the white fishing and those of the herring fishing, but I do not believe there is a fundamental difference, and I think the interests of the fishing industry ought to be considered as a whole. I think they very largely can be met by the Government of the day if they work in with each other. I sympathise whole-heartedly with the protest of the trawling section of the industry against the indiscriminate foreign dumping of white fish in our ports, and I think they ought to be protected against it. At the same time, I ask, from those who represent the trawling section of the industry, for sympathy for the herring fishermen who are unable to-day to find markets for their catches in Europe, and I make a plea that the two sections of the industry should sink their differences and agree to work together with the Government, in order to get a greater degree of prosperity for both, which I believe can be done. The case of the herring fishermen is really harder than the case of the white fishermen, because the former have known no prosperity ever
  2010
  since the War, none whatsoever. They have been up against it to an even greater extent, whereas two or three years ago the white fishing industry did get a certain measure of prosperity.
  I submit that there is no good dragging the tariff argument into this discussion. I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth on that question. Tariffs are an accepted fact in the modern world, and import controls as well. They are accepted instruments of national economic policy on the part of every nation, and you are not going to get rid of them for a very long period to come. We must accept them as a fait accompli and as an instrument of national economic policy which is being and will be used by every nation. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh that we tried out his policy for 10 or 12 years after the War, that we trailed off to Geneva and tried to get reductions of tariffs, and failed.
  Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Does my hon. Friend mean me?
  Mr. BOOTHBY: No. I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I meant the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason). Tariffs can be varied and modified, but in an era of glut such as we are now living in it is inconceivable, to me at least, that they should disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff never mentioned one aspect of this tariff question which does affect the herring fishing industry. What about the Norwegian herrings that are dumped into this country at a very critical time every year, and which for the last three years have broken the market for our own people? When they are considering duties on foreign white fish, I think the Government ought to give due consideration to the question of putting a duty upon Norwegian herrings which come in here at a very critical period.
  Sir M. WOOD: There is a duty.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Then the Government should consider increasing the duty. I would just say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am certain that the first essential, both in the white fishing and in ' the herring fishing, is to obtain control of production. I believe that that is essential, not only in the fishing industry,

  2011
  but in other industries as well, or in other kinds of industry; and in this respect I think we, in the herring fishing industry, can take a good deal of pride in having done that in the teeth of considerable opposition during the last two or three years. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff that the herring fishing industry is not as well organised or rationalised at the present time as it might be, but in one respect it has done well, and that is that there is a definite control of production in the herring fishing industry to-day, and that, in my submission, ought to be extended to the white fishing industry as well.
  Unless and until you get control of production, there can be no hope at the present time, in my opinion, of any primary producer making a profit, because the market prices are bound to fall below the cost of production. Ultimately in the case of white fishing, and probably in the case of the herring fishing as well, and in respect of many other primary products, including agriculture, the control may have to become international, until the glut period has passed. You must take control over your production of primary commodities, otherwise I do not see how the primary producer is ever going to get a price that will cover his costs of production. Having done that—and the Government ought to do everything possible to encourage the fishing industry to enforce that control and to make it complete— the next thing is to expand your markets as fast as you can. It will be easy enough to expand your production in order to meet the requirements of your gradually expanding markets. I dealt with that point earlier in my speech.
  Undoubtedly, so far as the herring fishing is concerned, in which I am most interested, the best and the quickest way of increasing your market for herrings is by reciprocal trading agreements, and above all by trading agreements with Germany, Russia, and Poland; and it is to that policy that I would beg the Government to direct their most earnest and immediate attention in the weeks that lie ahead. I do not see why we should not come to trading agreements, using the weapon which at last we have got in the tariff, which will benefit both this country and the countries to which I have referred, and which will benefit the people
  2012
  who produce the goods in both countries, whether primary or secondary goods, by raising the world price, if you put it in that way, of those particular products. That is the essence of a satisfactory reciprocal trading agreement, that both countries should benefit by it and that both countries should do everything in their power to raise the wholesale price of the particular commodities which they wish to export to each other.
  I would again emphasise the importance of the fishing industry in this connection, and beg the Government, in negotiating these trade agreements with European countries, never to allow the interests of both sections of the fishing industry, the white fishing on the one hand and the herring fishing on the other, to go out of mind altogether. I am sure that hon. Members representing the trawling section of the industry would not maintain that at the present time, and under present conditions, we ought to exclude completely all white fish from coming into our home ports, any more than, I submit, all European countries ought to exclude altogether the importation of Norwegian herrings. But I think the interests of both sections of the industry can be balanced in these trade agreements, and I ask the Government, in negotiating them, to keep those interests constantly in mind.
  With regard to the home market, I never believe that the herring is sufficiently appreciated in this country. It is the best, the cheapest, the most nutritious and most delicious article of food anybody could possibly eat, and we know nothing about it. I had to come down in an aeroplane at Hanover and spend the day walking about the streets, and I never saw in my life so many herrings of so many sorts and kinds in the shops in the course of one single day. They were all Scotch and mostly produced by Fraserburgh and Peterhead. I wish this country would have the sense of the citizens of Hanover. Here we have an immense unemployed population, many of them living nearly on the subsistence level. They ought to eat the cheapest, the best, and the most nutritious article of food which is caught in thousands at their very doors by their own people. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might bring some of these facts to the notice of the Empire Marketing Board. It is the sort of thing which that

  2013
  body exists to propagand. If any hon. Gentlemen doubt the value of what I say, I would only urge them to start eating herrings and to eat them split. They will be a revelation to any hon. Member.
  Mr. McGOVERN: And the brewing industry would do well off that.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: If it stimulated the consumption of beer, I would not object to it at all, and the English would be brought it on the deal. I have heard rumours that a scheme is being considered for putting some of the younger unemployed into training camps during the summer. I hope that something of that kind may happen. If it does, I urge the Government to feed them on herrings. A course of herrings for the younger unemployed this summer would raise the population of this country from C.3 to A.1 in six weeks.
  There is another matter which I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to bring to the notice of his friends in the military department. Why should not the Fleet, the Air Force and the Army have one herring day a week and have herrings put on the official rations? It would do them a lot of good. It does us all good to live on fish one day in the week, whatever our religion may be, and the Government should really consider putting fish on to the permanent rations of the Army, at any rate for one day of the week. For nine years in my constituency I have watched these men facing adversity and the most fearful privations. They have no proper insurance scheme, and I do not know how they live. I have watched them facing their conditions with the most dauntless courage. I have been continuously amazed year after year at their heroism; for them the tide has never turned, and the depression has never lifted for a moment. We depended upon these men for our existence during the War, and we cannot let them go out of existence.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. BURNETT: I have listened with some sympathy to the remarks which fell from the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), as I sat watching all the points which I was anxious to make in connection with the fishing industry taken by hon. Members one
  2014
  after the other. As I heard my own constituency described and then redescribed, and finally when I heard the fish ration for the Army, Navy and Air Force mentioned, I felt that all hope was gone. Possibly, however, there are one or two things left for me to say. I should like to endorse all that has been said as to the deplorable and grave condition in which the fishing industry stands. Aberdeen is the third largest fishing port in the United Kingdom for white fishing, and in Scotland we supply something like three-quarters of the British caught white fish which is trawled. We have other sections of the trade—the supplying, the marketing and the distribution— and all these sections are equally convinced of the importance of doing what we can for the improvement of the industry and for the welfare of the fishermen who are engaged in it.
  We have different interests in Aberdeen, but I do not think that it is the case, as has been suggested, that those interests are unreconcilable. They can be reconciled. We have fish from the North Sea—haddock, cod, whiting and plaice—in good quality. We also have fish of coarser quality which comes from Iceland and which is landed principally by German trawlers; that is in the main cod. This fish is sold on the quays of Aberdeen by fish salesmen, and the North Sea fish is for the most part sent down to various centres in the south such as Grimsby, Hull, Billingsgate and Glasgow where it is sold in competition with the Danish boxed fish which is doing so much to depress prices in the fishing industry. There is a strong case for action in this direction on the line suggested by the trawler owners. This Danish fish brings no labour into the country. It is boxed in Denmark, packed in ice there, and consigned to this country, and there is no labour in unloading the ships. It is glutting the market and prices are coming down in consequence. I do not think that anyone can take reasonable objection to a tariff being placed on this fish.
  I know that it is said on behalf of the fish trade that our men are not supplying exactly the fish they want, that there is an increase in the extra small haddocks, whereas the large haddocks are diminishing. In that case, the remedy lies entirely in our own hands. We can make the mesh of the net larger,

  2015
  and I think that regulations ought to be introduced to that effect so that there will not be the same proportions of small fish. In that way, we would prevent any fear of a depletion of the fishings in future. With regard to the Danish fish, the opinion is fairly unanimous in Aberdeen that an increased tariff should be placed upon it. The fish which we have from Iceland, which is largely cod, is for the export trade. Three-quarters of this fish is sold to the fish curers for export. All this export trade was formerly in the hands of Norway and was sent to South America and the Latin Republics there, and they had complete command of the market. Through improved processes of drying, suited to the climatic conditions we have managed to capture these markets and now we have Brazil, the Argentine, Chile and Peru, and in Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
  This fish-curing industry gives employment to something like 5,000 men in Aberdeen and something like £400,000 is paid in wages in a year. We have to consider this from the point of view of employment. There are large buildings there and subsidiary industries are carried on such as fish-meal and box-making, and others. I do not think these two things are irreconcilable. If an increased tariff is put on foreign fish we can have a drawback on the export fish which is to go to South America and elsewhere. This drawback has been applied for, and is still under consideration. There is no reason to stop the question of a tariff on Danish fish on that account. With regard to German trawlers which are coming in, we would naturally prefer British trawlers. Some mention has been made of Hull, and it was said that one of our prominent export fish-curers owned trawlers which were working from Hull. I understand that is the case. The trawlers were built in Aberdeen and are now worked from Hull. We would naturally be anxious that these trawlers should come to Aberdeen, but the objection is made on the part of the skippers that the crews belong to Hull and it would not pay them to come to Aberdeen when there are curing works in Hull.
  Then there is the question whether in Aberdeen we could manage to float a company sufficient to undertake the Iceland waters. That would be the most
  2016
  satisfactory thing, and I hope in time it may be done. In the past that has been tried. This is a very bad time in the present depression. Capital is short and both fish-curers and trawler-owners are in debt to the banks, and the question of getting capital is certainly a difficult problem. It must be remembered that it costs something like £15,000 to build a trawler which could fish the Iceland waters. There was a scheme to build 50 such trawlers at £15,000 each. The question is one which is bound to come up before long. There are other questions which concern the fishing industry which, I think, we ought to take into consideration. The question of reorganising marketing has been mentioned in the report of the Fisheries Committee. The question also of rebuilding our trawlers is bound to be raised in time. There is no doubt that, as far as the trawlers in Aberdeen are concerned, 50 per cent, of them are obsolete. A great many date from before the War. It is impossible to expect us to be able to compete with the trawlers which are being built abroad unless we can manage to build at home. At present there are no trawlers being built.
  We know that foreign Governments are building new motor trawlers with Diesel engines, of 300 tons, very fast and economical to work and with brine-freezing apparatus. Brine freezing will be a very important thing in future. It is being studied in Aberdeen and is practised elsewhere, particularly abroad, but it is a costly thing to put into a ship. It means that fish can be preserved for something like three months and remain quite fresh. I have tasted fish which has been kept three months in this way, and I should never have known that it was not freshly caught. Brine-freezing would be a matter of very great importance in connection with Iceland fisheries. It would mean that fish caught within the first five days could be kept fresh. As things stand at present that fish is useless for anything except fish manure, and it is sold for about £1 a ton, whereas if it were kept fresh it might be sold at £20 a ton. The installation of brine-freezing might revolutionise the catching of fish. There is no doubt that foreign trawlers are being installed with it now, and what we want is some help in the matter, when capital is so difficult to get. The Government has been guaranteeing loans for Austria and giving, through the banks,

  2017
  credit to farmers, and I hope that consideration will be given to the question of credits to fishermen.
  We want to do what we can for the primary industries, particularly for fishing, where it is not only a question of the food but of the defence of the country. It is a difficult time just now when many people who were eating fish before are not doing so now. We want to increase the demand. Through the unemployed a certain amount can be done, and that has been suggested already. I hope we can do something on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), something through the Army, Navy and Air Force, by including either fried fish or herrings, or whatever it may be, in their rations. That is a matter which should be considered. Then the public authorities, too, might be encouraged in hospitals and elsewhere to supply more fish than they do. Home-killed meat is dear, but home fish is not, and an increase in the demand in that direction might do a great deal to help our fisheries. I think I have dealt with my main points which have not been touched upon by other speakers and I do hope that something will be done by the Government for the improvement of fisheries—something along the lines recommended by the committee which recently reported. I feel that with an industry such as this, on which so many men are dependent, we ought to do what we can to insure a livelihood for the fishermen on our coasts.
  9.33 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am sure that the Minister will have an opportunity at the end of the Debate of reviewing the speeches from hon. Members all over the country and out of each will be able to take something which he can apply for the benefit of the fishing industry. We have heard from Scotland, and I think the House might be interested to know something about the situation at Grimsby at present. Grimsby is suffering in common with other fishing ports. Hon. Members may be surprised as to why I am speaking of Grimsby. I represent two of the wards at Grimsby and many of those engaged in the fishing industry live in suburbs which are in my constituency. I have had an opportunity of consulting the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and others en-
  2018
  gaged in the industry regarding the present situation. This subject, too, is linked up with agriculture and in dealing with it I feel I am in tune with that aspect of the situation. There has been a most important report made on Grimsby from an entirely impartial source, the Grimsby Unemployment Committee, set up under the Labour Exchange auspices. Let me read an extract from it which puts the case quite clearly:
  "Members of the Committee will be familiar with the arguments for and against an increased tariff on foreign imported fish. Whilst we are not directly concerned with that aspect of the case we are certainly seriously perturbed by the increased unemployment among fishermen, dockworkers and workers in all ancillary trades due to the laying up of fishing vessels. If, as has been authoritatively reported, the sales of a greater quantity of fish last year have realised £329,000 less, it is not surprising that owners are finding it difficult to run their vessels, and we can only hope that there will be a solution satisfactory to all concerned, so that the industry may regain a measure of prosperity and have a further incentive to progress at an early date. The figure of £329,000 represents a reduced earning capacity of approximately £600 per vessel per annum to Grimsby-owned fishing vessels."
  It goes on to say:
  "I am confident that if this desirable object can be achieved 50 per cent, of the workpeople now unemployed in this area will very quickly be reabsorbed in industry."
  That is an opinion, well informed, from an impartial source. The problem is that the costs of production are higher than the price realised at the ports—not the price obtained from the consumers but the price obtained at the ports, which is what concerns the trawler owners and the fishermen. In that respect there is an extraordinarily close similarity between fishing and agriculture. When the cost of production is not higher than the price which can be obtained at market, the industry goes ahead, improvements are introduced and new and up to date vessels are built; but except for one or two years since the War those engaged in the fishing industry have never been assured of such a continuity of prosperity as would justify them in planning ahead on a large scale and building the most up-to-date trawlers.
  This blight of the cost of production being higher than the market price has been caused by the import of fish from abroad. I do not think the point has been sufficiently emphasised that the

  2019
  owners of the fish which comes into this country from abroad are in exactly the same case as our own fishermen. Their fish does not pay for the cost of its production, but they must get rid of it somewhere and they send it into our markets —there is the same blight on the agricultural industry—and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to address himself to this problem. Many suggestions have been made for dealing with the problem of the fishing industry. It has been suggested that the tariff on fish should be raised. I do not think we are justified in discussing on the Motion for the Adjournment proposals which need legislation, but we can take note of what other countries have done. Other countries prevent fish from abroad coming into their ports, and therefore all this fish is thrown on to our market, and it is not fair to our fishermen who have given their lives to providing us with food, and gave their lives during the War to protect us, that they should be compelled to suffer under the conditions which have been envisaged. Denmark provides State assistance for its fishing, and Germany has built trawlers. Fish from Denmark and Norway is coming here and affecting our market; but it has not been sufficiently emphasised that Norway and Denmark are not the only countries concerned. Spain is trying to compete with us in this respect.
  I wish the hon. Member who spoke about using tariffs for bargaining with other countries were here at the moment. In the fishing industry we have not the weapons to use for bargaining purposes. The Government may perhaps have bargaining powers in connection with other industries which they can use, but I should like to hear from the Minister how we can engage in bargaining with the present weapons we have in the fishing industry—I mean, of course, what measures we can take which do not need legislation. I hope the Minister will tell us what method he proposes for dealing with this problem. Finally, may I say that I am sure this Debate will focus attention in the country on the fishing industry. The Government will be expected to carry out certain measures. I hope, further, that the public will turn to the use of fish for food. That is one of the new lines of hope for the fishing industry. Representing as I do a part of
  2020
  Grimsby I can say that we have the greatest faith that the Government will do something during their tenure of office. We are not despondent, but we want just that encouragement which will enable us to go ahead and build up a completely new industry.
  9.41 p.m.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Many hon. Members have made eloquent and earnest speeches which have clearly shown to the House how insecure and, indeed, dangerous they regard the position of the fishing industry. Its position is almost desperate. In the small fishing villages up and down the coast and in the big fishing ports the fishermen are not only having a very bad time, but in many cases, were it not for the public assistance committees, they would be almost destitute. Many points have already been raised to-night which I should have liked to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I do not want to go over them again. If the Minister had been in his place I should have liked to discuss the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood), because in his very long address he did not make one single constructive contribution, one really sound suggestion as to what the Government should do. It was all negation, all going back to the old Free Trade story which we have heard so many times, and I think it is time that he and some of his colleagues remembered that unilateral Free Trade is as dead as the Bethnal Green dead letter. It is no good going back to the past, we must look to the future. A far better line was taken by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord). He courageously declared that he had changed his views, and I ask other hon. Members whether it is not also time that they began to realise that they are living in 1933 and not 1883.
  Many points have been brought up which are of great interest to the fishing industry. The fact that conditions in the industry have been fully debated in this House will be an encouragement to the industry, because they will realise that their case has not been lost sight of at a time when agriculture and other industries have been carefully surveyed, and in many cases dealt with, by the Government. The industry also provides a livelihood for a large number of men in

  2021
  the ports and villages on the coasts of the United Kingdom, and it is extremely important from the naval point of view. The fact has often been mentioned that the best elements among our naval ratings come from the fishing ports of the United Kingdom. That is undoubtedly true. If we let the fishing ports languish and allow the men to leave and get other jobs, whence are we to draw the personnel for our fleet? That is a point of very great importance, which, when the case of the fishing industry is being considered, ought never to be lost sight of. In the three years since 1929, the drop in wholesale prices has been catastrophic to the fishermen. Since 1929, those prices have dropped by something like 29 per cent. If we look in the shops at the retail prices, we shall find that those prices have dropped very little, and in many cases not at all. There appears to be a gap which is worth inquiring into between the price obtained by the fishermen and the prices at which the fish is sold in the shops.
  I should like to join my views to those of the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) in the plea he made to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in regard to the negotiations which are being conducted with foreign countries, including Russia. In the case of Russia, it is obvious that we have to possess ourselves in patience. Procrastination appears to be the chief industry of Russia at the present time. Although we have been very anxious to know what is going on, we have not yet been vouchsafed a reply by the Government. I sincerely hope that the claims of the herring fishers will not be lost sight of, in the negotiations which are now taking place with Russia. As one hon. Member remarked in the course of this Debate, Russia has a very favourable trade balance, and she could very well take many more herrings from this country and from Scotland, and pay for them in cash. The fishing industry is very concerned with the negotiations which are being conducted with other foreign countries, including the Scandinavian countries. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft put the case too strongly. The fishing industry has an uncomfortable suspicion that the Government, in their very proper anxiety to bring the negotiations with Denmark, Sweden and
  2022
  Norway to a successful conclusion, may offer too much, and may, in bargaining with those countries, sacrifice part of the security of the fishing industry. We should particularly like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of the industry will be most carefully considered, and that neither he nor his colleagues will give away one jot or tittle in the negotiations. It is not of the slightest use to make favourable bargains with Scandinavian countries for them to take our coal, if, by putting a coal miner into work, we put a fisherman out. That would be absolutely useless. I urge the Minister to consider that point very carefully, and to do his utmost to allay the very natural qualms of the fishing industry in that respect.
  This is not the place for me to discuss the question of an increased duty. We know that the fishing industry has made out its case before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. If it were decided to put on a duty, even as high as 30 per cent., in view of the terrific price-gap since 1929, I think that there would be no reason why retail prices of fish should go up to any degree. One or two small points have not been touched upon by hon. Members to-night. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the question of marking imported fish. We debated in this House for some hours the other day the Imported Foodstuffs (Marking) Bill. It is a matter for regret to many Members that the Bill was talked out on Second Reading, because we should have liked an opportunity of expressing our opinions. This is not the moment to discuss that Bill, but it is perhaps worth considering whether it is advisable—I think it is possible and advisable—to mark foreign fish. That does not mean that you are to go round with a label to stick on every sprat that comes in. When fish is exposed for sale, there could be a slab for British fish and a slab for foreign fish. That is worth consideration.
  I should like to ask the Minister if he could use his influence with his colleagues to arrange that British fish is put upon the dietary of the armed Forces who are at present in this country. I know that many hon. Members from Scotland were brought up almost entirely on fish and oatmeal. The Minister himself was so brought up. I have not noticed that their vitality in political life, or in

  2023
  military life, has been notably impaired. I urge the Minister very seriously to consider that point, and to see if he can do something about it. There is the question of the subsidies which foreign countries give to their fishing industry. Those countries with which we have mostfavoured-nation treaties are certainly not breaking the letter, but they are certainly breaking the spirit of those treaties. It is an act against our fishermen in the same way that if they had put a tariff against our goods it would be an act against our manufacturers. That subject offers a very wide field for examination. It has extremely wide ramifications, and the whole question of subsidies given by foreign nations to their mercantile marine ought to be gone into.
  I feel that this Debate has been of very great interest and of very considerable importance. I sincerely trust that the Minister, in the speech that I hope he will make at the conclusion of it, will give us some hope. Many of us have endeavoured to indicate in a constructive way the method by which we consider that the fishing industry can be helped. It is absolutely essential that that very important industry—important not only because of the employment it gives but also from the actual strategic point of view—must not be allowed to languish, and certainly should on no account be allowed to disappear entirely.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: We on this side of the House are very glad that the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Gritten) has raised this matter to-night, and that there has been such universal interest in and such a good Debate on this great subject, which is of vital importance to the nation. The hon. Member gave details of the industry, to which I shall not refer except to say that, while he gave us the number of trawlers, the number of voyages made by the average trawler in the course of a year, and a good many other details indispensable to a thorough understanding of the industry, he omitted entirely to describe the condition of the boats, and that omission was not rectified until the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), who referred very pertinently to the fact that a great many of these vessels are in a very bad sea-
  2024
  going condition, and only in recent years have improvements in the way of motor engines and equipment been introduced. We must refer to that point, because this industry has to put itself into a condition to make use of the help which it certainly deserves on other grounds.
  The industry is a peculiar one. It is an industry exploiting raw material. It differs from its great sister food-producing industry of agriculture in that no cultivation is done in the fishing industry. The field is there, the harvest is there, and the industry is one simply of collecting the harvest which Nature provides. I do not think that that is a wrong description of the industry. The industry gives employment to a large number of men in what is at all times a strenuous and dangerous occupation. The personnel of the industry are hardy and brave. They go down to the sea in all seasons, and they fully deserve a generous reward for the time that they spend on board their boats.
  The hon. Member for the Hartlepools complained of foreign competition, but we do not think that that complaint is fully justified. I have figures here, and other Members have quoted figures. This industry, so far from being an importing industry whose products are inadequate in quantity for home consumption, provides a surplus every year. It is an exporting industry, and, while there is certainly foreign competition, the balance is still on the other side, and we regard it as an industry which requires a foreign market for its full maintenance. The hon. Member referred to competition from the Scandinavian countries, as though those countries had no right to fish in the North Sea. Those countries, however, are naturally fishing countries. Their population is derived from the same stock as the majority of our own people. They are a sea-loving people, they are brave seamen, and they have as much right to fish in the North Sea as we have to fish in the Atlantic. Competition with them should be fair competition, and, from all that I know, it is conducted on fair lines.
  Then the hon. Member succumbed to the temptation to bring Russia into the matter, and I understood him to say that Russian fish are being sold in this country, to his consternation and that of some of those who think with him. He

  2025
  even mentioned fish that had travelled from far Japan to Aberdeen. We do not know whether they swam part of the way, or whether they were carried all the way; and he mentioned that a Japanese halibut had been sold in Aberdeen. I think that that must be the latest Aberdeen joke. The hon. Member wants protection against Russian and Japanese imports into this country, and his sole prescription for the ills of the fishing industry is higher tariffs and quota restrictions.
  He said that a charge had been made against the industry of inefficient exploitation—a charge of over-fishing. We all know that that charge is frequently brought forward, and not without foundation. There is a good deal of justification for the statement that there is reckless fishing, both by inshore fishermen and by deep-sea trawlers. The hon. Member referred to a Commission which, 50 years ago, examined this question and gave a certificate, apparently for all time, to the effect that there was no overfishing then. He would probably say that to-day there are more fish in the sea than have been caught, but this report was published so long ago that the methods and practice since then have entirely changed, and it is well known that there is a grave danger, with present trawling methods and the extension of the fishing period, of damage to small fish and of loss to the output of this country. With regard to the conservation of the fishing industry, I consider that that is very desirable, and I agree with those who say that there is room for improvement in this respect.
  The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) who represents a mining Division in which there are a few fishermen, to whom he paid a high compliment in return for the compliment they paid him in electing him to this House, says that he wants Protection, and, strangely enough, in view of the experience of 18 months of Protection, he believes that Protection can be applied without raising the price of fish to the retail consumers. We should like to put this question to the test, because we believe that there is something else to be said in regard to it. If it be true that you can impose, as the hon. Member suggested, a higher tariff than the present duty of 10 per cent., if fish can carry an additional duty of 25 or 30 per cent, without adding to
  2026
  the retail price, will the hon. Member explain to us what is wrong with the present marketing methods? We suspect that there are very great defects in the present marketing methods. Will those who believe that it is possible to impose a higher rate of duty without adding to the retail price please tell us at the next opportunity how it can be done, and how marketing methods can be improved so as to allow this economy to be achieved?
  The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) is an expert on Protection. I had great pleasure in meeting him outside this House on one occasion, and it was a very close thing, but I think I had a small majority when a vote was taken. I am not challenging him to-night, and I am sure I should not get a majority if I did, but he, apparently, wants some kind of scientific tariff. I am afraid I failed to understand him exactly, but he said—and this is true of all industries—that there are sections within this industry which believe themselves to be diametrically opposed in their interests to other sections of the industry. That is true. In this industry, as in other industries, we have come up against this dilemma, with one section of the industry on one horn and the other section on the other horn. The hon. and learned Member admitted that our deep-sea fishermen are compelled to look abroad for a market for 50 per cent, of their product, and he said it would not be very easy to put on higher tariffs without prejudicing the opportunity of selling a large percentage of our deep-sea catch in other countries. That dilemma must remain with hon. Members opposite; it is not ours. We have no problem, because we do not agree with these artificial methods of improving an industry. We believe that this industry can be made prosperous, suffering as it is, admittedly, like all other industries, from the fall in world prices and from loss of purchasing power. You cannot go on selling as many fish when wages are reduced and purchasing power in this and other countries is reduced. Some of our best markets have been lost because of the extreme poverty existing in countries which were previously our best customers. Tariffs are not the remedy. They have failed already. One interesting feature of this Debate is that tariffs have been taken out of the party arena. Critics of tariffs

  2027
  are found in all parts of the House. No one believes in tariffs as a final remedy, even for the condition of the fishing industry.
  Figures have been given to show that the average price paid to those who deliver the fish on our coasts is 1.94d. per lb., and it has been said that, if that price were raised to 2½d., all would be well again with the fishing industry. Higher prices are no remedy. The purchasing power of the bulk of the British people is limited, and there is no sign that any addition is to be brought to it. The Government are prescribing economy and cutting down purchasing power. It is no use increasing the market price of fish if no more purchasing power becomes available and, the higher the price, the smaller the number to be sold. You do not help an industry by raising prices in that industry alone unless there is an accompanying rise in the wages of the people who are to buy the fish.
  I said I would give some figures to show the imports and exports of deep sea fish in the last three years. In 1930 we imported 1,494,707 cwt. of fresh or frozen fish; in 1931 the quantity was 1,349,726 cwts., and in 1932 it went down to 951,916 cwts. The export in the same period fell from 1,430,000 cwts. in 1930 to 1,223,610 cwts. in 1931 and remained at 1,330,910 cwts. for 1932. There has been no loss in the export of fresh and frozen deep sea fish. There has been a loss in the value of herrings exported. They went down from 5,117,359 cwts. in 1930 to 3,671,042 cwts. in 1931, and there was a further fall to 3,577,625 cwts. in 1932. But the explanation is simple. The herrings in the main went to Continental countries—Russia and Poland. It can easily be shown that this loss of markets, which has meant such a large loss to the earnings of the fishing industry, can be accounted for by the refusal of the Government to give reasonable credits to Russia for the purchase of herrings caught around our shores. No tariffs can help to swell the market for exported herrings. The tendency is all in the other direction. The more restrictions you put upon the importation of goods manufactured in Continental countries, the less you provide an opportunity for the sale of your commodities to those countries in return. With these figures before us we can make a very strong case against the Govern-
  2028
  ment, and we can show that this falling away in the export of fish, both fresh, which is a very small quantity, and of herrings, cured and salted, is due to the conduct of the Government in regard to fiscal matters and in regard to trade with other countries.
  There is a feature of this question which I hope will not be out of order, because I believe it plays a very important part. I am not an expert in this matter. The only fishing in my division is shell fishing —cockles and mussels—and they very considerately wait to be caught. We do no fishing, and we do not tell fishing stories. I want to refer to a great loss to fishing which is passing almost unnoticed. Not a single speaker has referred to the absence of fish over very large areas owing to oil pollution. The destruction of fish can be proved. I have gone into this matter lately, and there are people whom I know who have paid very special attention to it. The offices of the Department of Fisheries are pursuing it very closely, with the most astounding results. They show that, where oil has been discharged and the surface of the sea is coated with a film of oil, great damage is done to fishing. Fish constantly travel from one place to another, and it has been proved that they have very great reluctance to come to areas where oil has been discharged. Inshore fishing has suffered very much from the absence of fish in areas which were formerly good fishing ground, and where there was an abundance of fish of all kinds. I have seen experiments carried out by a professor at Swansea University who is observing this question and has provided conditions where fish live in clean, natural water from the deep sea and others live in tanks where various degrees of pollution obtain. It can be shown in every case where there is pollution by oil, according to the degree of pollution, that the fish become unhealthy. There is outward evidence of ill-health—scabby, unhealthy looking skins. They lose weight, become ill, and die according to the degree of pollution.
  There is another danger much more serious, I believe, and it comes from the discharge of heavy oils on to the surface of the water. These oils become derelict and heavier than water and sink to the bottom of the sea and there form a layer of carbonaceous matter. The matter sticks to the bottom and does not pass

  2029
  away, and destroys all small marine life. This sort of thing is going on apace all along the shores of these islands, and not only does it destroy fish, and keep away fish from visiting familiar haunts, but it destroys the food upon which fish live. Fish, it is said, live on smaller fish, and small fish live on marine organisms, which reminds me of the old saying:
  "Little fish eat smaller fish
  They do not need to bite them,
  Then larger fish eat those same fish
  'Tis said they learn to like 'em,
  Thus fish eat fish and still more fish
  And so ad infinitum"
  The foundation of the food of all fish is a substance called plankton. Where there is no plankton there is no small fish, and where there is no small fish there is no food for large fish. If you destroy the food of the small fish you destroy small fish, and therefore destroy the chances of producing larger fish. If the Government want to help the fishing industry, let them attend to the basic food of the fish. This small organism is the basis of the food of the fish kingdom, and one of the most important things connected with the fishing industry. We are very fortunate to-night to have heard those who know the industry deal with the conditions of the industry. We hope that the experience of to-night will not tend to drive us to induce people to rely upon the outward theory of tariffs and Protection. They have failed us already. They will fail us more and more as we rely upon them. Let us look with bolder imagination and in a scientific manner upon the fishing industry as upon other industries, ad in due course we shall solve our difficulties.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. ALLAN REID: I hesitate to intervene between the Minister and the House, but I want to bring to the notice of the House something which has not been mentioned during the Debate, and which appears to be highly significant and to throw a great deal of illumination upon the economic aspect and parlous condition of the industry. It relates to a letter which I have received from a fish merchant at Hull. Apparently it was sent to me—I do not propose to read it all— to induce my assistance on his behalf in getting into touch with the unemployment organisation in my constituency. I believe he has circularised in all
  2030
  probability most of the Members of this House. He says in his letter:
  "Instead of thousands of tons of good fish going to the fish meal works this year, I am certain that the whole of this could he distributed throughout the country if each Member of Parliament will place my offer before his local committee who have the welfare of the unemployed in hand. I will pack, rail and pay the charges to any station on cod, haddocks, whiting, rock salmon, dabs, herrings, bream, etc., at 2d. per lb., the same as in 1926, all fish of the best quality."
  In the heading to the letter this person describes himself as an importer of Norwegian herrings, halibut, etc. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) to what he described as the conflict between two branches of the industry. Certainly there has been a conflict. There has been a very strong conflict between the producers of fish and those who merchant it, and one can well understand why the imposition of any reasonable tariff such as would again put the industry on its legs was so strenuously opposed by the fish merchants because, as is indicated by the letter which I have read, here is a fish merchant who, for no other reason than the abnormal quantity of foreign fish which is allowed to be landed in this country, is able to box, despatch and pay the rail charges on that fish to any part of the country at 2d. per lb. We have heard it said tonight that if the producer could get 2½d. per lb. it would be enough. It would be enough to keep the industry alive, but not very much more. In joining my voice with the voices of others who have spoken so eloquently on behalf of the industry, I would say to the Minister that we know perfectly well that this matter is now in the hands of the Tariff Commissioners. No Member of Parliament is allowed to approach them in any way, but perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries might represent to the Tariff Commissioners that they should make some pronouncement, no matter what it might be, so that at long last—there has been a memorial before the Commissioners for eight or nine months—the fishing industry might know where it stands.
  10.23 p.m.
  Major ELLIOT: I am sure that all of us are grateful to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Gritten) for seizing this opportunity of bringing a matter in which he is so deeply interested

  2031
  before the House again. I am also sure that many such opportunities might present themselves, and that those who say that it is impossible to get subjects of vital interest raised in Parliament are often to blame in not seizing opportunities of raising those questions. It might easily have been that the House would have risen to-night at 6 or 7 o'clock and we should have gone home and have left this tremendously important subject un-ventilated, had it not been for the acumen of those hon. Members who are interested in the fishing industry, and the co-operation which the Chief Whip and others were able to extend to them.
  The Debate has followed two main channels. There is the channel familiar to all of us in fishing Debates in which points of great interest to the constituencies of hon. Members are raised. We have had the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord) and the hon. And gallant Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood) contending between themselves as to which is the premier fishing port and which is the more important area from the point of view of the fishing industry. Then we have had the perennial subject of the Moray Firth. We never have a Debate on the fishing industry without that subject being raised. The hon. Member for Banffshire should inquire from. the late Secretary of State for Scotland, a Member of his own party, who remained inactive on the subject of the Moray Firth during the time he was in office; and left the Government, with the hon. Member as well—
  Sir M. WOOD: It is not a case that he did nothing.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: What did he do?
  Major ELLIOTT: At any rate, the question was not solved by him, and the hon. Member knows that it has been put before successive Governments for many years. The hon. Member also raised the general question of the condition of the fishing industry, a question of wide and general interest. I pay my tribute to him for doing so, but, like the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) I am not going to apologise to him for not being mealy-mouthed in dealing with him. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen lashed him with whips; If I had an opportunity I would
  2032
  chastise him with scorpions. At this moment we are in a crisis of the fishing industry, not merely because of the economic disaster which overhangs the industry, but because of the negotiations which are proceeding and upon which the hon. Member has commented. For the fishing industry at this moment to come before the House of Commons and speak with a divided voice is a matter which cannot be too deeply regretted. If the trawling industry fails, then the drifter industry will not be far behind. The drifter industry has already helped itself by scooping up a little of the profit from other branches of the industry.
  Let not the hon. Member for Banffshire deceive himself by thinking that if there is nothing going on in Great Britain foreign countries will leave aside the possibility of developing their own fishing industry; or that they will not put up duties on our exports. He will delude himself again if he thinks that Germany will think it unnecessary to fish in the North Sea, because we do nothing; or that the development of the German fishing fleet will not proceed. That development has been going on steadily since the War. An increase in their tariffs has taken place since the War up to the present, and the only thing we read in this morning's paper— I commend it to the attention of the hon. Member—is that the German Government have decided to exempt salted herrings from a considerable increase in the duty, so that that danger of a serious blow to our trade is averted. He also referred to the question of Poland, and claimed that even the weapons of Free Trade were blunted and useless in our hands. Not so. We have brought up the question of the alteration in the terms of the treaty, in spirit if not in letter, which was involved in the alteration of the regulations made by the Government of Poland. Does he think that we speak with less authority because we have power in our hands to carry out retaliatory measures? We have tried, done our utmost, under Free Trade, and is it of no use that we are able to bring in other arms to reinforce our case.
  The third argument he used was the least well chosen of the lot. He chose Finland. He said that no export of herrings recently had gone to Finland at all. Does he not remember the Debates in this House when the tariff was

  2033
  put on? Does he not remember that newsprint, one of the main exports from Finland, was exempted from duty—and now he tells us that the recompense for this is that Finland has made no purchases whatever of one of our staple products. His defeatism, his statement that nothing could be done until the whole world had been raised to such a level of prosperity that, willy-nilly, the fishing industry would float into prosperity—those were the arguments that he used. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is blamed for having mentioned 10 years for his programme, my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire might well take 110 years. We must address ourselves to the present situation and not repeat outworn shibboleths, as my hon. Friend did, in his contention that until we succeed in bringing the whole world into a state of abounding prosperity there is no chance for any revival, in any industry, in any area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), in a very powerful and interesting speech, was forced by the necessities of his arguments at the end, in a simple aside, to tear up all his own policies and fling them away. He said, in effect: "Have done with this system of quotas." Would he do that with coal? Would he do away with the trade union system and the protection of organised labour? My right hon. and hon. Friends opposite, when they bring forward very powerful arguments for reconsideration of the state of trade and industry, should not find themselves shackled and roped to run behind the rattletrap dogcart of Free Trade.
  As to the particular arguments which he brought forward, I do not wish to go into them at great length, although they were all in themselves of great importance. They were arguments in regard to the discharge of heavy oils, the influence of over-fishing in the North Sea and the reconditioning of trawling vessels. All of these are undoubtedly subjects of great importance which in other times might properly have engaged the attention of the House for a whole evening. There were the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Banffshire about minor reforms which he wished considered, and they are certainly important too. There were the arguments brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member
  2034
  for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) about transit charges, about a smaller minimum parcel for dispatch and about the post-payment of freights instead of prepayment. They are all points of importance to which I shall certainly give attention, and I shall hope perhaps to write him about them at a later date, but I am sure that he will not expect me to go into them now.
  The main questions before us are these: Is the industry in a state in which it can rightly come before this House and say, "Our great industry requires the immediate attention, and, if possible, the remedial attention, of the House of Commons." The first question is: Is the industry in a grave state? I do not think it can be denied that the industry is in a grave state. I do not think that it would be any service to this House or to the industry to deny that fact. We are well placed for considering it to-night, because we have the report of the chartered accountants who were put on by the Fisheries Department to go through accounts representing 687 vessels, these including vessels of many of the best-managed and most successful companies. That report shows that in the year 1931, 524 vessels out of the 687 were working at a loss; 92 were just holding their own, and 71 were making profits representing a return of over 5 per cent, on capital. But in 1931 the average price of white fish landed in this country was 20s. per cwt. This year it is 18s. per cwt. If, at the price of 20s. per cwt., you had 524 vessels working at a loss— an ascertained loss, brought out by the auditors' examination of the accounts— out of 687 vessels, then what becomes of the argument brought forward by the hon. Member for Banffshire when he talked of deck hands getting £4 a week and other great wages of one kind or another that were being received. If the vessel is working at a loss all these wages are being paid out of capital and will not continue.
  Sir M. WOOD: Before you can tell whether a vessel is working at a loss or not, you must consider the company which owns the vessel and consider whether that company is also dealing in coal and whether it is selling the fish and making a profit on it.
  Major ELLIOT: I am most interested and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing those remarkable facts to the notice of myself, of the Fisheries Department, and of the auditors and accountants. I am certain they are facts which would never have occurred to the auditors. Now that those facts have been brought to their notice by my hon. Friend in the House of Commons perhaps it may be necessary for the auditors to reconsider their whole verdict upon the soundness or otherwise of the industry. Now as to reasons and remedies. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth brought forward a somewhat interesting point which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Banffshire, in drawing attention to the necessity of seeking oversea markets. That point was also brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen. It is true that for one great branch of this industry the necessity of foreign markets is very great. I was a little at a loss, however, to discover what more the hon. Member suggested we should do in the case of Russia.
  The hon. Member for Banffshire and the hon. Member for Gower brought forward the case of Russia, but the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth was, at least, more of a realist in that matter. He said that not merely did we not need to give further credits to Russia but that we were already buying from Russia four and five times as much as she is buying from us. There is a margin for a very much larger trade to be done between Russia and this country than is being done now. Would the hon. Member for Gower or the hon. Member for Banffshire say that four times is not enough and that we ought to buy six times or seven times as much from Russia as she buys from us? At what point are they willing to draw the line? Surely five times is a reasonable proportion; four times is fairly good and I should say that even 50 per cent, might be regarded as a reasonable proportion, available as a surplus, for an increase in the herring purchases by Russia from this country. Yet the hon. Member for Gower suggested that credits should be extended to Russia for that purpose.
  Mr. ENTWISTLE: Why not give it to the unemployed?
  Major ELLIOT: Surely a credit for goods such as herring is quite a different sort of credit from those previously considered, which were credits for machine tools and other articles which were subsequently, in use, going to yield a. return from which the money might be paid. Surely that is one thing, but credits for food, which is here to-day and gone tomorrow, are surely unnecessary.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: The whole of the money, the whole of the credits, put aside for this purpose would be spent in paying wages to the trawlermen and the fishermen in this country, and nothing would be lost. An hon. Member behind me said, "Why not give it to the unemployed?" Well, you would be doing that in this case, with the hope of being repaid by Russia in the end.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The hon. Member has forgotten the after effects of the streptococci in the Russian herrings.
  Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to enter into a discussion of credits with the hon. Member for Gower. I only say that the balance of trade argument is, in my view, countered to a considerable extent by the extremely favourable balance of trade, from the Russian point of view, which already exists, and there is a margin there from which we could reasonably expect that a greater trade in our staple products might be made by that country, to which already we are extending such great resources. Furthermore, this difficulty of the fishing industry is not to be dealt with in connection with the herring industry alone. There is the trawling industry, and quite apart from the question of areas where fish may or may not be found, quite apart from the important but, relatively speaking, minor problems which have been brought before the House to-night, there is the great problem raised by speaker after speaker, Is the industry in a state of acute distress? Can we remedy that state of acute distress? Is there any danger of remedies that might possibly be applied being filched from the trawling industry by being bartered away for other trade agreements?
  The figures show, I think, that the industry is in a state of grave distress, and if we examine the figures we shall find something which at any rate gives us a

  2037
  line as to how that state of grave distress has been brought about. In the year 1929 there were 12,300,000 cwts. of fish caught and landed by British vessels, and they got for that £15,200,000. In the year 1932 they landed 13,940,000 cwts., but they only received for that £12,750,000. Although a much larger quantity of fish was landed, a much smaller amount of money was received for it. These landings, which were great, were reinforced by great landings which were made by foreign vessels as well. It is true that these landings have been at a higher point than they are to-day, but they are still at 'a very high point. The foreign landings before the War, amounting to 1,000,000 cwt., were very largely, that is, to the extent of two-thirds, for the purpose of re-export as salt fish. Therefore, you had retained landings of something like 300,000 or 400,000 cwts., but of the present landings of foreign fish, which were 1,800,000 cwts in 1932, not more than 500,000 cwts. were cured for export, so that that comparison is not between 1,000,000 cwts. and 1,800,000 cwts, but between 300,000 cwts. and 1,300,000 cwts. The proof of that can best be seen in examining the Billingsgate market returns, where before the War foreign-caught fish scarcely appeared, and where to-day over a fourth of the fish is of foreign catching. Over 1,000,000 cwts. of fish of foreign catching are found in Billingsgate, which is 25 per cent, or more of the total supply landed there.
  The situation has greatly changed since before the War. The industry, as I say, is in great distress. That distress seems to me to be in part due to the same factor that has hit so many other markets, the factor of a glut of supplies. I do not think that it is possible to get away from that conclusion in any dispassionate examination of the figures. The hon. Member for Gower said that if it is true that a rise in the price of fish would make such a great difference to the producer, why cannot it be extracted from the process of marketing? This, he said, is a wasteful process and ought to be cheapened and brought down. What is the main item in that process of marketing? It is the wages paid to the people who carry through the various processes, and in order to bring down that cost you have to bring down the wages of the men in the intermediate trades. These things can be brought
  2038
  down to the level that existed before the War; that would cheapen the distribution of fish, but is that the solution which the hon. Member honestly recommends? I am sure that he does not.
  Therefore, we have to see whether there is undue profiteering, whether there is some other sponge out of which the few drops—for they are only a few drops—which are necessary to make the difference between a solvent and an insolvent industry can be squeezed. I can only say that this has been repeatedly examined by many important committees. It was thoroughly examined by the Food Council in 1927 and in the same year it was discussed at great length in the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee. They had no radical alterations to suggest. The Food Council could not find that any persons employed in the various stages of the processes of distribution made undue profits. The difficulties in the fish business arise from the fact that you are dealing with fluctuations of supply which give violent fluctuations of wholesale prices. They arise from perishability, which involves distribution under rush conditions. You have to discharge from the fishing vessels in the early morning, and the men's work is over by breakfast time, but you have to pay them a full day's pay. There is the packing, which has to be done in the early part of the day, and the men have to be paid a day's wage for a short day's job. Then there is the unloading of the fish, and the men have to be paid highly for short periods of work at unusual hours.
  It is true that you might deal with the point by making the fish less perishable, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) said. You can carry out an extensive freezing process and freeze the fish at sea forthwith. He raised the prospect of our getting no fresh fish, but only fish that has been frozen for four or five months, and said that you could not really tell the difference. I tremble for the hon. Member's palate. If hon. Members from Aberdeen can without observing any difference feed on fish which has been frozen for four or five months, there is no wonder that they conquer the less hardy races of the South. The transforming of the fisheries by abolishing the perishability of fish would

  2039
  undoubtedly eliminate many of the difficulties, but it would not eliminate them in time to save the industry. This report of the Fishing Industry Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, it is quite true, recommended that a general marketing inquiry should be held but they were unable to point to any possible steps which should be taken here and now. So the industry has been inquired into by three committees—the Food Council, the Imperial Economic Committee and the Economic Advisory Council—and each of them has found itself unable to bring forward reforms which would make here and now a difference sufficient to restore the industry to a state of solvency and remove it from the difficult circumstances in which it finds itself.
  The point on which the House feels most keenly is the question whether anything irrevocable is being done at this moment, and whether commercial transactions prejudicial to the interests of the fishing industry are being carried through by those who ought to be its natural guardians. Let me say, in the first place, that the Minister, who is perhaps most keenly concerned in all these transactions, the Secretary for Mines, is the son of a fisherman who was for 40 years coxswain of the lifeboat, and I do not think it could be held that he is likely to be entirely careless of the interests of the fishing community of this country. Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord De La Warr, is not merely greatly interested in this matter, but of all the Members of the Upper House, and, indeed, of both Houses, he has spent the longest time at sea under the most unpleasant conditions. A man who has spent from February, 1917, to February, 1918, not merely fishing in the North Sea but fishing for mines is the sort of man who feels not merely the interests but -the sorrows of the fishing population.
  When hon. Members inquire whether we are considering the interests of the fishing population, let us recollect that by a fortunate combination of circumstances we have men in the Government who, themselves, either through their families or in themselves, have shared in an unusual degree the perils of the deep. I can assure hon. Members that I have the personal authority of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Secretary
  2040
  for Overseas Trade to say that at every stage of these negotiations they are keeping the interests of the fishing industry closely and continuously in mind and, further, in no negotiation in which fish enter as a factor is the discussion carried out without representatives of the Department which has to watch over the fishing industry being actually present at the discussion, and sharing in every line of the transaction. If we were inclined to falter in our duties, remember also there is in the Whips' room—for which reason he remains silent—the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) who has followed all these discussions with a restraint which I had scarcely expected to see manifested in his frail form, ready at any moment to leap in and take part in the discussion, and only restrained by the iron discipline which the Whips' room exerts on all those who enter its doors. If we failed in our duty, I can assure hon. Members we should not much longer enjoy the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, and silent as he may be in the open forum here, he is uncommonly vocal when he gets into the Council Chamber.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when a decision will be come to? It is of vital importance to the industry to know.
  Major ELLIOT: There are two points on which decisions have to be come to. There is the decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and there are the decisions to be come to in the trade negotiations. Obviously it is impossible for me to' give a date for these decisions, because the Import Duties Advisory Committee has already announced that it is holding its hand on an announcement, even, as regards the question of the drawback on salted fish during the discussions which are now taking place. The Import Duties Advisory Committee obviously has to take into account the negotiations on trade which are being carried out by the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department on behalf not of the Board of Trade but of the Government as a whole. When these negotiations will be completed, I cannot say, but I am sure that it is better that a decision should be deferred rather than that a wrong decision should be hastily reached. I should prefer that to an announcement of some

  2041
  binding conclusion having been come to prejudicing the industry, it might be for three or five years, which might have far reaching repercussions. The difficulties before the fishing industry are too great for us to take hasty action upon them. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who does not belong to any of these occupations, and who sits for an urban and industrial constituency, finds that remark extremely funny.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I was laughing at something else.
  Major ELLIOT: It seems to be a coincidence that when the undesirability of arriving at hasty conclusions is mentioned the hon. and learned Gentleman bursts into a torrent of laughter. If he himself had devoted more attention to some of the decisions which he took a year or two ago he might not be sitting where he is now. The difficulties before the fishing industry are not such as are capable of a hasty solution. It is true that as the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said, though these difficulties had been under discussion for many years, the time is actually upon us when decisions will be come to which will bind us for years to come and will possibly make for either the success or the failure of this great industry. In such circumstances I can only give the House the positive assurance, in the first place, that no decisions have yet been come to which will prejudice the fishing industry, and that no decisions will be come to unless the representatives of fisheries in the Government —the Minister, the Under Ministers, the
  2042
  Scottish Department, the permanent officials—have been fully consulted and the matter has been weighed up, taking it as a whole, and not using the fishing industry as a pawn in any game.
  Secondly, on the wide general question I would say that it is only by a rise in wholesale prices, we believe, that any salvation can be brought to this industry, and we have been and are examining the position of the fishing industry with the desire to see a higher level of prices brought about, not merely for the benefit of the people who fish from our own shores, but even for the benefit of those who are fishing from other shores. We do not believe that the present level of prices is remunerative to anyone who serves our fish markets. We believe that a level of prices so low that it is below the replacement value of the plant and the gear which are being used in securing the fish is a level of prices which in the long run will not bring advantage to the consumers themselves.
  That is as far as I can go to-night. When there is anything to report to the House hon. Members may rest assured that I will do my best to give them timely warning of it. In the meantime I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool for having raised the discussion, and the other hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate, for the very helpful way in which they have conducted it and the numerous fruitful suggestions which they have brought forward.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Eleven o'Cloek.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  HERRINGS (IMPORT DUTIES, GERMANY AND FINLAND).
  HERRINGS (IMPORT DUTIES, GERMANY AND FINLAND).
  OATMEAL (IMPORT, NORTHERN IRELAND).
  OATMEAL (IMPORT, NORTHERN IRELAND).
  GAUMONT-BRITISH PICTURE CORPORATION.
  GAUMONT-BRITISH PICTURE CORPORATION.
  WHITE STAR LINERS (SALE TO JAPAN).
  WHITE STAR LINERS (SALE TO JAPAN).
  KENYA (INCOME TAX).
  KENYA (INCOME TAX).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LANCASHIEE.
  LANCASHIEE.
  DARWEN.
  DARWEN.
  COTTON INDUSTRY (AGREEMENTS)
  COTTON INDUSTRY (AGREEMENTS)
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATIONS.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATIONS.
  TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
  TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
  KING'S PROCTOR.
  KING'S PROCTOR.
BRITISH ARMY.
  SCOTTISH COMMAND (COLONEL WATKINS).
  SCOTTISH COMMAND (COLONEL WATKINS).
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  TECHNICAL APPOINTMENTS.
  TECHNICAL APPOINTMENTS.
  WESTMINSTER CRYPT (PAINTINGS).
  WESTMINSTER CRYPT (PAINTINGS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (HARCOURT ROOM).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (HARCOURT ROOM).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (REGULATIONS).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (REGULATIONS).
  GREEN PARK (DRINKING FOUNTAIN).
  GREEN PARK (DRINKING FOUNTAIN).
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSION INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSION INSURANCE.
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS, MERIONETH,
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS, MERIONETH,
  HOUSING (LOANS).
  HOUSING (LOANS).
  CHURCH TRAINING COLLEGES.
  CHURCH TRAINING COLLEGES.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  MADAME VLORA.
  MADAME VLORA.
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (HOUSEMASTERS)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (HOUSEMASTERS)
  HOPS (ACREAGE).
  HOPS (ACREAGE).
  BEER (IMPORT).
  BEER (IMPORT).
  HUNGARY (ITALIAN AEROPLANES).
  HUNGARY (ITALIAN AEROPLANES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CANTERBURY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and sent to the Commons.

RHONDDA PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (WROTHAM URBAN DISTRICT ORDER)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in my name on the Paper, that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to Wrotham urban district be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Wrotham, and laid before this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF CROYDON ORDER)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move a similar Motion with regard to this Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Croydon, and laid before this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WALTHAMSTOW ORDER)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Walthamstow, and laid before this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT ORDER)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Tottenham, and laid before this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF LEYTON ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that
836
Act to the Borough of Leyton, and laid before this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ROAD TRAFFIC (SPEEDOMETER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Darcy (de Knayth) be discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and that the Lord Northington (L. Henley) be added to the Committee in his place.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (EDMONTON URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban district of Edmonton
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (HAYES AND HARLINGTON URBAN DISTRICT ORDER)
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban district of Edmonton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl can tell us what business will be taken on Tuesday of next week?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the business for Tuesday will be the Report stage of the Public Works Facilities Scheme (Torquay Corporation) Confirmation Bill and the Second Reading of the Austrian Loan Guarantee Bill. The Bishop of Winchester also has a Motion down, which you would have seen on the Paper, calling attention to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I understand that it is the intention of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to move a Motion at the beginning of business on Tuesday giving precedence to the Bishop of Winchester's Motion. As regards any fur-
838
ther business during the week, as your Lordships know, the Second Reading of the London Passenger Transport Bill is going to be taken. I remember that Lord Hailsham two days ago was not quite certain whether that debate would take two days or one, but we have now found that so many of your Lordships wish to speak that it is proposed to adjourn the debate on Wednesday and continue it on Thursday. There is in addition, on Thursday, Lord Danesfort's Motion for the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, and the Report of Amendments to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, but the adjourned debate on the London Passenger Transport Bill will he continued and taken as the first. Order on Thursday
House adjourned at twenty minutes past four o'clock