I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 15th July.

It is just over a year ago that I moved a Motion, somewhat similar to this, involving the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions. This time the Motion is to absorb the Ministry of Materials into the Board of Trade, and all the Order does, by Article 2, is to dissolve the Ministry and transfer its remaining functions to the Board of Trade.

The circumstances of today are very different from those of 1951, when the Ministry was established and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) took charge of it. There was then the Korean War, the accelerated rearmament programme and the stockpiling which was put in hand. Those factors indicated at that time that there might be a shortage of raw materials for many years to come and, no doubt, that was what influenced our predecessors in setting up the Ministry.

Actually, the period of stringency was much shorter than anybody had foreseen. In fact, by the middle of last year it was possible to discuss winding up the International Materials Conference which was an essential part of this organisation. So the need for this Department has rapidly diminished, quite apart from the fact that it is our policy, as a Government, to dismantle controls and to end public trading in raw materials. The conjunction of those two factors makes this Order possible tonight.

The bulk of this public trading in raw materials will have been completed by the end of this financial year. Indeed, it is already far advanced and, if I may give one figure, it is anticipated that by the end of this financial year about £1,400,000 of terminal stocks will have been disposed of, to a sales value of about £125 million at fair market prices without any serious disturbance to trade. Great skill has been shown in timing these disposals, and as we part with this Ministry we should congratulate those who have been so efficient in this disposal work.

The staff of the Ministry has already very largely been reduced. From the maximum figure of 1,850 which it reached it was down to 800 at the beginning of this month. The result is that the work which now remains to be done, though important, does not really justify the whole apparatus of a separate Department—that is to say, the higher management, the Minister, the separate branches dealing with finances, with establishment and with central services. Therefore, if the House passes this Order that Ministry will be dissolved.

The question is to whom should the remaining functions go, the remaining functions being what still remain of State trading and its disposal, the disposal of the remaining trading stocks, the stockpile policy and general work about commodities. That being what is left to do, the answer, I am sure, is quite obvious to all hon. Members, and that is that it is quite natural for the Board of Trade to take over those remaining functions. It all fits in, and it is a very neat solution.

There will not be any immediate spectacular staff reduction, of course, but comparatively soon one can anticipate at least a 10 per cent. further reduction, about 80 being dispensed with—perhaps £45,000 or £55,000 off the expenditure— and the fact that the remaining staff will go over to the Board of Trade will not, I think, be distasteful to them, because when the Ministry was originally set up about 80 per cent, of its staff came from the Board of Trade, so they are really going back home.

The Board of Trade is a large Department, but its general work is such that it can take on this additional burden quite easily. Perhaps I might point out that the Board of Trade's staff itself has been very considerably reduced. In fact, the figure is 20 per cent. since we took office. So we have got the big reductions already in the Ministry of Materials staff, and we have the reductions in the Board of Trade's staff, though now with this change-over, the Board of Trade staff will increase very considerably. I think the whole House will probably agree that this is the tidy solution to this problem, and will accept it—at least, I hope so.

I do not think I need explain the Order, because it is common form. Article 2 is the effective one, transferring the functions to the Board of Trade, and Article 3 is the routine Article dealing with a number of subsidiary matters. I hope that the House will agree that this is a wise step to take. If it approves the Order it will mean that one more of the large number of Departments which now exist in the Administration will be brought to a triumphant conclusion.

In presenting this Order the Lord Privy Seal stated that the result of abolishing the Ministry of Materials would not lead to any spectacular reductions in staff, any more than it had led to an increase in staff, globally, when the Ministry was formed in 1951 and I was appointed Minister of Materials.

I said "no spectacular immediate reductions.".

If the right hon. Gentleman means that it may drip away, that is what we all hope for, as long as it does so very quickly. I am referring to the Government, of course. Perhaps I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman to that extent. In that case, it must be hope deferred.

When I introduced the Bill setting up the Ministry in 1951, I never for one moment suggested that it would lead to any reduction in staff. All I said was that I hoped it would not lead to any increase, and I do not think I am overstating the position when I say that we succeeded in forming a Ministry without any substantial increase in the number of civil servants employed.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that the staff is now going back to the Board of Trade. My own view, as an industrialist, is that the Board of Trade is already far too large. The whole organisation is far too complicated. I have not yet seen a Minister—I have not been appointed myself; of course, I should then recognise him—who was capable of conducting the Board of Trade. I do not think it is humanly possible. At this moment, to say, "This Ministry is no longer necessary; we will wind it up and give back the staff to the Board of Trade," is small comfort to those of us who are interested in seeing a more efficient handling of our trading conditions.

I did not detect anything which was said by the Lord Privy Seal to be a criticism of the action of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister in deciding to form the Ministry of Materials, with the possible exception that he might have criticised my appointment. The fact is that we were then faced with very acute shortages. The Board of Trade was very much overburdened, and I think it was right to change over then, so that somebody, at a time when raw materials were short, prices were high, the scarcity was likely to become more rather than less acute, and the danger of war was far more intense than it is today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—through no fault of any Government of this country, could give his mind to the vitally important matter of focusing attention upon the supply of essential raw materials, the greater proportion of which—I was going to say 90 per cent., but that may not be the right figure; it includes everything but coal and iron ore—comes from outside the country, when demands upon our industrial machine were becoming ever greater.

I agree that times have changed—thank Heaven. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) will think about it before putting his "swede" on the "downy" tonight—the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a friend of mine and will understand the implication—he will have to accept the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done a bunk, probably because he was afraid of what I was going to say, had it handed to him on a platter.

At the time when, to the disadvantage of this country, the Labour Pary lost office, in 1951, prices were high and materials scarce. One of the things that has happened is that the price of materials all over the world have dropped and supplies correspondingly have become more plentiful. That is not as a result of the wizardry with which the Chancellor is now credited. It is not the result of his great intelligence. I accept that he is a very intelligent and capable Chancellor. I accept all that, but, goodness gracious, he did not know for certain this was going to happen, any more than I did.

How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

I did not know, because I am not the Almighty. No one knew these prices would drop and that materials would become more plentiful as and when they have. All the nonsense that politicians talk—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now the Government, and I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite applaud the nonsense the Government talk. However, the Chancellor could not possibly have foreseen that prices would drop and that materials would become plentiful. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the trouble to study those minutes of evidence that are available to them behind the scenes they will find that my right hon. Friend who was President of the Board of Trade and I were practically entirely right in our anticipation of what was likely to happen.

However, leaving that aside, because there is no use boasting about this, if the Government insist on pursuing the charge of the Gadarene swine down the unstoppable slope towards a return to private enterprise everywhere, this is not the time for me to attempt to stop them. Nor do I wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Not for the reason that hon. Gentlemen think. I know that the intended sneer is that I am a great supporter of private enterprise. Well, I am, within reason. I am frank about it. I am, within reason; but I am wholeheartedly in favour of the restriction and control of private enterprise where it interferes with the welfare of the people as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Even of the right hon. Gentleman's own business."] Hon. Gentlemen can have all I have got if that should be for the general welfare. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters are prepared, as I suppose they are prepared, to career down this non-stop slippery slope, the sooner they get there the better, as far as I am concerned.

On a point of order. I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, before this debate took place, about the scope of the debate, and you informed me, very kindly, that this scope was exceedingly narrow, merely the administrative act of transfer of the remaining functions of the Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. In those circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman's speech, ranging over the whole of the economic implications of raw material supplies, is in order, will it not be in order to discuss jute and newsprint?

The answer shortly to the hon. Member is in the negative. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that materials are more plentiful nowadays than they were when the Ministry of Materials was instituted. That struck me as relevant to the Order, but further digression into wider questions of economics would be out of order on this little Order before us.

You have kindly ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that materials are more plentiful. May I say, with great respect, that that was precisely my argument to you—that newsprint and jute are more plentiful—and is it not, therefore, in order for me to speak on these matters?

That would be going far too far. The existing controls are merely transferred by this Order. This Order does not in itself affect the existence of the controls, nor does it bring in the discussion of materials which are now affected by the controls. Therefore, these two branches of the discussion are out of order. The general argument that the Ministry of Materials was properly set up at one time and is now being properly abolished is, I think, germane.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling, and I will endeavour not to stray. I said that I would endeavour. If you, Mr. Speaker, would like an assurance, I will undertake not to digress from the economic problem into the panacea of the taxation and rating of site values tonight.

One always likes to remind the House of what one said before. What I said on 27th June, 1951, when talking on this question of the formation of the Ministry of Materials, in concluding a speech on which I had better not comment, was this:

"There is no permanent cure for the Communist menace by force. There is no such way out, although we may deter it for the time being. The long-term cure is the steady improvement in the standard of living of the masses of the people everywhere. That surely means better use, better availability and better distribution of essential raw materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1411–12.]

That is the note on which I want to conclude my remarks tonight. What I want to learn from the Lord Privy Seal, if he can get permission from the House to speak again, or from some other Minister, is this: What is their intended policy with regard to the long-term problem? We know perfectly well that there is no cure for this long-term problem except by increased supply of capital goods everywhere, and we know—

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is now referring to the long-term problem and policy for raw materials. That is exactly what I am anxious to refer to. You have ruled me out of order, Mr. Speaker. Why is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that?

I should like to call attention to the fact that this Order does not really affect the long-term policy of the Government with regard to materials. It merely changes over the control of these materials from one Department to another. The Order itself mentions no change of policy, and, indeed, there is no policy in the Order at all; there is merely machinery and nothing else.

The machinery was organised in my day for the purpose of focusing attention on the essential problem of supplying raw materials for all needs the world over. I do not want to go into foreign affairs at all, but I want to know what the Lord Privy Seal intends, and who is to be responsible for seeing to it that what we regarded—and surely I am entitled to argue this when the Ministry is being dissolved—as an essential point when the Ministry was formed, namely, that not only should it look after the short and long-term needs of materials supplied to this country—taking them out of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do—but also that it should pay attention and prod, prick and poke the various Departments responsible for development in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the local office into making greater efforts to produce more. That surely is germane to this discussion. While I do not want to argue on quantities and values, I do want to know what the Lord Privy Seal is proposing shall take the place of this Ministry which, until today, was focused, but was not focused as it ought to have been, on the essential problem of ensuring that these raw materials within the Commonwealth are sufficiently supplied to enable us to meet the requirements of the backward nations.

I want specially to emphasise that in his considerations the Lord Privy Seal should leave out the humbug of finance in replying to me, as I hope he will. It does not look as if he had any intention whatever of getting on to his feet again, but I seriously ask this question. I had the matter particularly at heart when I was Minister, and it led to the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers to discuss the problem. Who is now to be responsible? Is it to be the President of the Board of Trade?

Yes.

We took it away from the President of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do. Now the Government are giving it back because the Department has too little to do. My experience of the Board of Trade is that it already does a great deal too much and my suspicion is that this essential work will go by default. I should like to hear from the Lord Privy Seal that there really is something in the mind of the Government to deal with the matter.

The second point about which I should like to hear something, if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform me, is what is to be done about the very important question of the international share-out of raw materials. It is no use thinking that because there is a plentiful supply at cheap prices at present that state of affairs will continue indefinitely. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the Paley Report. I do not suppose that he has read it, and I doubt very much whether anybody on the Government Front Bench have, either. It is a most portentious Report, and anybody interested in the supply of raw materials should give time for it. By these remarks, I do not mean to suggest that the officers in the Board of Trade have not read it.

The Paley Report states that by 1975 there will be a 15 per cent. overall shortage of the essential raw materials judged on the basis of today's progressive increase in demand. That statement has not been altered by anything which has happened since the Labour Government left office. Who is to attend to that matter? This is really important. I am not playing politics about whether the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials should do it; but at the time I had something to do with it. My tenure of office was unfortunately interrupted by my sortie to try to assuage the ambitions of Dr. Mossadeq, and that interfered with my progress at the Ministry of Materials, after which there was a General Election.

However, I conceived the main importance of my job to be the solving of the long-term problem—not merely the international materials conference problem, and so on, but the long-term problem of this comprehensive survey, introduced as a result of the initiative of President Truman which showed that there would be a 15 per cent. overall shortage in 1975. The job was to deal with that problem and to decide how that shortage was to be met. As far as I have observed, nothing whatever has been done in the Commonwealth or in the Colonies to attempt to put this right. There are enormous resources which ought to be developed which, while they could not primarily be the responsibility of the Minister of Materials—

Before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was ruled by your predecessor that questions affecting the availability of raw materials and the method of procurement did not come within the provisions of the Order. As the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech has become a dissertation on the availability of raw materials, can it possibly be in order?

If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had given me a moment I was just about to stop the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Order deals with the transfer of the Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. The reason why the control of materials was taken away from the President of the Board of Trade was not because he was incompetent. He was highly respectable, very intelligent ex-Law Officer of the Crown when I was given the job. There was nothing incompetent about him, but it was a case of overloading the camel. My right hon. Friend will forgive me for calling him that, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will understand what I mean.

What I am trying to say to the House is not that I insist that the Government should drop this Motion. No, what I am asking for is some indication to us of an assurance that provision will be made whereby these very essential requirements, which we had so much at heart when we formed the Ministry of Materials at the time when the Board of Trade was equally overloaded as it is today, will be properly and efficiently carried out. I could go off into a discussion of foreign affairs, but you would not allow me.

I think the right hon. Member could argue that one more straw would break the camel's back.

Without pursuing the exact description of my late right hon. Friend—which of course does not apply at all—with great respect to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I want to hear what Her Majesty's Government are to do about seeing that the right developments take lace, not only in the Commonwealth and Colonies, but that the share out at an international level is done on a proper basis to ensure that we do not have frightful waves and slumps which upset the whole economic structure of the world, but that some Minister of the Crown shall be definitely responsible and have his mind focused on the question so that these things can be ironed out and fair shares given to all the nations in order to overcome the Communist menace.

I am sure the right hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but he said that the only raw materials in this country are coal and iron ore. I hope he will not forget tin in Cornwall.

I must really answer that because I was brought up in Cornwall. The tin miners of Cornwall know my concern about their position. Had it been in order, I would have asked the Lord Privy Seal what on earth the Government will do to encourage the tin miners, because they have done nothing yet.

I hope that I shall have 10 per cent. of the licence which the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has taken on this Order so that I can make one or two remarks. I view this Order with some mixed feelings. I am always glad when action is taken by my right hon. Friends to reduce Government Departments and, however small the gain may be—here, it is small—to reduce the population of the Civil Service.

I did not like one phrase the Lord Privy Seal used after referring to the small reduction, that the remainder would be going home to the Board of Trade. Some of us would be happier if they were going home to industry instead. I am a little perplexed because, under the Order, the Ministry of Materials is being dissolved and the functions of the Ministry are being transferred to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Member for Ipswich spent a lot of time talking about things which, in addition, he would like transferred to the Board of Trade. I think that opposite to that view from this side of the House is the feeling that some things, such as newsprint—of which we are short and of which the Government are holding up supplies by these regulations—should be transferred and go "into the dustbin" so to speak.

I gather that I cannot continue very far in that direction. I do notice, however in the Order, in Article 3 (2) it is stated:

"Anything in process of being done by or in relation to the Minister of Materials at the time of the coming into operation of this Order…may be continued by or in relation to the Board of Trade."

I do feel, in view of that, that we are entitled to ask, as I do ask, my right hon. Friend or whoever is to reply to the debate, what precisely those functions are. Is there anything in those functions that gives any hope, for instance, that some of the restrictions on newsprint and jute can be reduced? I mention that because those are the two functions to which my right hon. Friend referred when he said that the question was to whom the remaining functions were to be passed. I do not wish to pursue that line—

This Order covers the lot, whatever they may be.

Anything in process of being done is transferred to the Board of Trade. Are we not entitled to ask what process is going on, and what is being transferred, and not have to accept the Order without the slightest knowledge of what is being transferred. That is what is honestly and legitimately concerning some of us here tonight.

I do not think we can discuss that. It is simply transferred from one Department to another.

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only want guidance.

It seems to me extraordinary that the Government can come to this House and get an affirmative Resolution, as this is, to transfer various functions, etc., from one Ministry to another, and we are not allowed to discuss, or literally to know, what these precise functions are.

On a point of order. In Article 2 of this Order the words appear:

"The Ministry of Materials is hereby dissolved and the functions of the Minister of Materials are hereby transferred to the Board of Trade."

What my hon. Friend and I are anxious to know is why it is out of order for us to argue against the transfer of those functions.

I did not say that that was out of order. In fact, I said that the argument that one more straw might break the camel's back was in order.

Am I to conclude from what you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is in order to argue against the transfer of certain specific functions?

No.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is clear on that point. I am not, because I should have thought that we could, on what you have just ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, argue that these functions should not be transferred in order to draw attention to the fact that we do not consider that those func- tions, particularly in regard to newsprint, should be carried on, that it is about time they were all scrapped. If we can have an indication tonight that it is the intention of the Government to scrap those regulations and functions so far as these forbidden subjects are concerned, I should feel very much happier than I am in supporting the Government tonight.

On a point of order. Before we go any further, do you not think it would be wise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you defined what is actually in order to discuss on this Order for the benefit of those of us who wish to contribute to the discussion?

No. I think it sufficient if I tell hon. Members when they are out of order.

We have here an Order which transfers certain functions from one Ministry to another. I submit that it is a transfer of particularly vital importance to this country. I do not wish to get out of order too soon—I know I shall do so sooner or later—but we have listened to a debate in which the importance of the technical knowledge of this country was stressed. This will entail the provision of the raw materials necessary to further the country's interests. What some of us are anxious to find out is why this Order is necessary and what advantages will be gained if it is carried. All we are told, in effect, by the Lord Privy Seal is that a few civil servants may be dismissed or found other appointments.

When this Order is put into force will the country's technical interests be safeguarded? I am not concerned about jute, newsprint, carpets, or anything else, but only with the general overall needs of the nation. I could talk in detail—I should be out of order in doing so—about things that were easily accessible to this country before, but, as the international situation develops, will become more difficult to acquire. We should be told what advantages will accrue to us if this Order is carried tonight.

I will not keep the House more than a few minutes, but I wish to make one observation and to ask two questions of my right hon. Friend. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that the Board of Trade is far too big a Department for one man to control, and it appears to me that we are adding a burden to an already over-burdened Department. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I think the Board of Trade is doing far too many jobs, and that it would be better for that Department and for industry as whole if many of its present functions were removed.

I think my right hon. Friend said that there will be a reduction in staff of about 10 per cent. as a result of this Order, and that 90 per cent. of the staff would be "going home." Afterwards, my right hon. Friend said that that, of course, did not make much difference, because 80 per cent. were originally from the Board of Trade and would be going back there. I wish to ask why the extra 10 per cent. is required in the Board of Trade to carry on fewer functions than existed before the Ministry of Materials was set up? My right hon. Friend said that there would be a reduction of only 10 per cent. and that 90 per cent. would be going back to the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Immediately."]—I thought my right hon. Friend said on a long-term basis.

indicated dissent.

Before this Order can become operative, about £125 million worth of stocks are being sold, so that the functions to be transferred to the Board of Trade may be lightened. It was said earlier that the total losses of the Department had been roughly, £55 million. It was also said earlier that when the right hon. Member for Ipswich was responsible for this Department which is now about to die, it was making considerable profits. I wish to ask, if it is in order, what were the total profits made when prices were rising and the Department was charging industry more than current prices—

Order. I do not think that that point arises. This is only a transfer. Whether there were losses or profits, they have to be transferred.

All I am asking for is information. I think it important that we should know and all I ask is that before the functions are transferred from one Department to another—

Order. I did not say that it was not important. I said that it did not arise on this Order.

In considering whether the functions shall be transferred from one Department to another, it is important to know the amount of profits and losses which have been accruing. I should have thought that we were entitled to ask for that information, but if it is out of order I shall resume my seat.

As I happen to represent one of the functions being transferred, namely, newsprint, I wish to say a word—which I hope will not be out of order—of valediction to the Ministry which is about to disappear. We have been in the hands, first, of the Ministry of Supply, then of the Board of Trade, and, for the last three or four years, of the Ministry of Materials —in fact, throughout the whole life of that Ministry.

I think it would be ungracious if someone did not say a word of thanks for the courtesy with which we have been treated over the many problems with which we have had to grapple in conjunction with the Ministry.

And the officials.

Yes.

We have had discussions with successive Ministers. There is only one with whom I cannot recall having had an official meeting, and that was the first Minister, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It was only by an unfortunate accident that we did not have the meeting. My chairman and vice-chairman and I went to the new Ministry one day. It was before the vast new building in Horseguards Avenue was fully organised. We were shown into a waiting room upstairs, where we remained for some time, and we might have remained there still if we had not got back to the methods of private enterprise to find out why we were still there and that we were lost and to make our way out. I do not blame the Minister for that happening. However, changes occurred—my hon. Friends and I must regard them as fortunate changes—which deprived us of the opportunity of a return engagement.

In the difficult problems which we have had to face we have been treated with uniform courtesy and efficiency by the successive Ministers and by the civil servants. Like the civil servants, in the words of my right hon. Friend, we are now going home to the Board of Trade, but not, we hope to spend a long time there. Although it would be out of order for me to say anything on the subject, we hope that our stay with the Board of Trade will be brief and that we shall once again soon be able to set up house for ourselves and manage our own affairs.

I beg to move,

That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, dated 13th July, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

The Scheme is made under the 1953 White Fish and Herring Industry Act, and is the second Order. The main purpose of the Act was to provide grants and loans for the rebuilding of near and middle water and inshore fleets and also to provide for the payment of subsidies for about five years to help those sections of the fishing industry in their known financial difficulties until they were able to stand on their own feet again.

The first Order expires at the end of July next year, but we are bringing in the new Scheme now so as to make certain revisions in the first Order, which was made a year ago. The first Order provided the basis for the assistance, which was a voyage insurance scheme, operating to assist fishing vessels in the near and middle waters which have unfortunate trips for one reason or another and are unable to make a sufficient return.

In addition, the first Order provided a flat rate payment of 4d. per stone for all fish landed except for the inshore vessels for which we provided 10d. per stone flat rate. The total value of the Order as it has been running and will run until the new Scheme supplants it, is about £2¼ million per annum. At the annual review of the industry which takes place in March we found that the 1953 results showed some improvement over those for 1952. The losses made in 1952 were materially reduced. If that was all that we had to consider, we might well have left the Order to run as it was for another year, but we have to take into account that in the current year there have been significant increases in costs, notably in coal and in labour costs for crews.

The fishing industry has also drawn attention to the fact that it is now using the larger mesh which has been introduced under the Overfishing Convention, which has been very successfully got going; but although we recognise that this may be a factor we feel that it is not something which we should take account of in this financial operation. So, in considering what rate of subsidy to provide, we have had regard to the total average annual provision made under the 1953 Act. This is not much more than £2 million per annum.

It is quite clear that if we are already running at about £2¼ million per annum, any increase now must necessitate a lower rate in the latter part of the period of five years provided in the 1953 Act. Despite this, we feel justified in making an increase this year to help the industry in its present difficulties.

We are much concerned to see that the industry has sufficient finance in it at the present time to enable it to make full use of the grants for rebuilding and the loans at the same time. We propose, therefore, in the Scheme that there should be a further increase of about £250,000, which will make a total for the coming 12 months of £2½ million and will then bring the total value of the subsidy up to about 14 per cent. of the value of the fish caught.

This increased amount, we propose, should be added to the voyage insurance scheme to help those vessels which are in the greatest need; they are set out in the Schedule to the Scheme. It will also be noticed that we have made some revision of the structure of the scheme to make it apply more accurately to where it is most needed. We shall continue the subsidy of 4d. per stone flat rate unchanged, as before.

I should acknowledge that the fishing industry has asked for significantly more than we are granting, but I do not feel that the House would take the view that that would be justified within the provisions of the 1953 Act. Our problem really was to justify the increase of rate at all. Furthermore, if we increase the subsidy rates too much, instead of doing what we want to do to enable the industry to keep going while it is rebuilding, we might encourage rebuilding to an uneconomic level, so that eventually the industry is unable to stand on its own feet without subsidy. The inshore fishing industry has been running satisfactorily and showing better results in 1953, and so we propose to leave that rate of subsidy of 10d. per stone unchanged.

It may interest the House to know of the rate of rebuilding. For the near and middle water fleets, up to 30th June this year 29 vessels had been approved; a further 11 are under consideration. This can be regarded as fairly satisfactory. We should like to see the figures increased, but that is a satisfactory start in what is admitted to be a difficult position. For the inshore fleet, 81 new vessels and 72 new engines have been approved. I think that that indicates that the subsidy has been doing broadly what we intended it to do in the last year.

I believe that the provisions we are making in this new Scheme will enable the industry to keep operating. Although it is not quite all they have asked for, I believe it is a fair settlement, which will enable this important part of the nation's food supply to be continued as before, and, not least important, ensure a fair living to the men engaged in this hazardous undertaking. I know how strongly my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite from the fishing ports feel on that aspect. In the bad weather we have to face one loss, or sometimes more, and I assure the House we have given this matter most earnest thought to reach what we think is a fair balance in the interests of the industry on the one hand and of the public on the other.

First, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, or commiserate with him—I do not know which—on his reprieve. Secondly, I ought to say at once that it is not our intention to divide the House against this Scheme. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has explained the Scheme and its objects so clearly that he has left little or no doubt or misunderstanding.

If the increased costs have been closely examined, and the accountants are well satisfied that there is no sort of exploitation and the subsidy was justified in 1953 it must be justified in 1954. I must say, however, that when this process began we all hoped it would be a temporary expedient, and we looked to the White Fish Authority to organise reorganisations or amalgamations and that kind of thing that would render the subsidies unnecessary. We were all disappointed, but this is hardly the moment to enter into the wider question of general fishing industry problems.

As I understand, this Scheme merely amends the 1953 Order, makes small changes in the conditions for the grants, and slightly increases the rate, subject to the new conditions. The increase, as the Parliamentary Secretary states, amounts to approximately £250,000. The Act provided for a total payment not exceeding £10 million. I gather that for the 11 months they have been £2,064,000. There is no unlimited liability. There is a maximum payment per day: there is a maximum payment per voyage, so the Treasury are limited twice in their liabilities.

We all know something of the difficulties of the near, middle water and inshore fishermen while we are anxious to enjoy the luxury of the so-called quality white fish. We have all watched with dismay the diminishing returns per voyage since the war, largely due to over-fishing in the North Sea, but we are all glad to know that the White Fish Convention is now operating. I hope that immature fish will now be allowed to develop to a reasonable size, for unless they do, it must mean difficulties on the basis of diminishing returns, and more costly and more uneconomical voyages which near and middle fishermen make. I hope that all the countries associated with this Convention will play the game and observe the rules. On that condition alone will a supply of good white fish be available to us.

Unless we cease to take from the sea more than the annual increment, results will go down and we shall be back in the doldrums of the 1930s, with diminishing returns for each voyage for both trawler owners and their fishermen, and subsidies will have to go on for ever and ever. Without a subsidy, we shall have to go without the good quality white fish. I do not suppose that anybody would relish that. To maintain the supply at a reasonable price there are only three sources of income: consumers, trawler owners and fishermen, and the Treasury. If the proposed small investment will guarantee a constant supply of good quality white fish it will be well worth while.

I cannot imagine that the Ministry have given the trawler owners all they asked for; neither can I imagine that the trawler owners have done all that the Government would like them to do. The Scheme is strictly limited for one year, but I cannot imagine how it can be discontinued in 1954. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that on a more appropriate occasion we shall have various searching questions to put on the general scheme of fishing and particularly with regard to the activities of the White Fish Board that I had the privilege of setting up a few years back. We want to know just what its activities have resulted in, and whether or not it has let us down or has served the country well. The Scheme is fairly legitimate and reasonable, and the House ought to pass it.

I welcome this Scheme most cordially. It is wanted because we are going through a period of trying to increase the number of fish in the sea. We have introduced new mesh sizes. I hope that the subsidy will give a fillip to fishermen to use a much bigger mesh, so that there will not be wholesale slaughter of immature fish for some considerable time. Thus we may rehabilitate the Dogger and other fishing grounds in the North Sea.

I would be sorry to see the subsidy higher. There is always the tendency, when money comes in in the form of a subsidy, for some people to take matters more easily and not have that final drag of the day which means taking the value of the catch up to a considerable size.

This is an extremely good Scheme and should be given a good try out. I hope that it will be welcomed by the mid-water and near-distance men, for whom help is needed at the present time. If the help is not given, we shall see force majeur in the fishing industry to break the law with regard to the size of mesh. I hope that that will be obviated.

With some diffidence, I welcome the Scheme. As we all know, when the Government we supported introduced the subsidy some years ago, it was thought that the subsidy would be only temporary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) began it over the period, when we were suffering from the grave disabilities of overfishing and when we were met with appalling costs, when there was very little rejuvenation of the fleet and when the industry itself was in a very bad way.

We know that although the Minister of Agriculture, or at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary, is responsible for this, the Scheme is really a Treasury scheme, because we know very well that the British Trawlers Federation, and those catchers who are members of that and responsible for the provision of capital in the industry, wanted a very considerable increase in the subsidy which, from their point of view, was quite reasonable to offset the appalling rise in the cost of running the industry.

Fuel costs during the last 12 months have risen, costs of labour and appurtenances have risen, as have means of carrying on this great industry, which is the fifth largest industry in the country, one in which a tremendous amount of capital is sunk, and which provides sustenance and has a high strategic value. It is extremely important from the national point of view, apart from the consumers and those who enjoy good fish, that this great industry should be kept at a maximum of efficiency. I submit this can be done only by getting fish of prime quality and variety.

Nothing did more damage to the fishing industry in reducing consumption in the period of the war, and immediately following the war, than the monotonous diet of cod, fish taken from far waters, because, as we know, the North Sea was prohibited. Fishermen and the fishing industry during those years went through a very trying time.

The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), whose knowledge of this industry is unsurpassed in this House, knows very well that this industry cannot sustain itself in the future unless we conserve the fish. It is with that object in mind that this subsidy has been made available to the industry. We do not envisage it going on for ever. It was a temporary measure to start with. How proud I am to say that my own port of Lowestoft is in the van of this rejuvenation of the fleet—I think we have at least half, if not more, of the new modern diesel engine vessels.

It is essential for the industry to survive on its merits. They are having the chance because the industry, and I say this with great regret, is becoming almost a monopoly. Already the Icelandic landings have been cut out. That cannot go on for ever because it is a phase of our economic life that cannot give us any pride or pleasure to see our old friends in Iceland cut out.

I shall get some nasty looks from my friends in the fishing world when I meet them, but we must not envisage this industry being entirely without competition. I hope that the day is coming when they will be able to raise their standard of production and standard of salesmanship. I hope that the authority, which is doing a creditable job of salesmanship, will be able to put them on the right line.

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is as much fish coming to this country from offshore Icelandic waters as came from the inshore.

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that, because it is a terrible criticism of the action of those in the industry who imposed the ban to say that the results of the conservation measures which the Icelanders are taking—measures which we ourselves have done so much to foster in our own waters—are becoming apparent. The quality taken from the waters adjacent to Iceland is better than ever before. I hope that I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point correctly. That is my point of view.

The disabilities of the industry have to be sympathetically considered by the consuming public. We are always hearing about the high price of fish. We have been hearing a great deal recently about the high price of meat. Fish is in competition with unrationed meat, with large quantities of good vegetables at this time of year, with an influx of eggs, and so on. With the increased cost of the operations of catching I submit that it is wrong to suggest that fish is extraordinarily or unduly dear. It is a hazardous occupation and the costs are enormous.

The standard of life of the fishermen has been increased—without that we shall not get the recruitment that the industry needs. Anything that the Minister does to rehabilitate the industry, to sustain, help and encourage it while not spoiling it—we do not want any industry to be spoiled or pampered—will be welcomed. I believe that this amount, although it disappoints the fishing industry itself, will do a great deal to keep the vessels sailing, to help this great industry to prosper, and to provide, as is intended, sustenance and a safeguard in time of trouble.

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has recognised the rise in costs which the industry has had to bear. I am glad, also, that the hazards and dangers through which those engaged in it have to pass have also been recognised. In following the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) I welcome the reference he has made to the amount of damage that was caused in this country to the industry by there having to be so much boxed cod landed during the war. He might also have mentioned the amount of "painted ladies" that also had to be eaten.

It is absolutely necessary to keep up the quality of the fish and there are only two points I wish to make to the Minister. The reference in page 4 of the Scheme is to vessels not exceeding 70 feet overall. Between now and the next Scheme I would like him to consider whether or not pollock should be included in the ungutted as well as the gutted section. He will no doubt already know that the cost of including that would be extremely small. If he turns to the fish landings for April, 1954, he will discover their value to be £4,124.

My other point is with regard to this question of quality and what we hope the White Fish Authority may be able to do to encourage the industry. The last thing we would really want to see is this industry running for ever on a subsidy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would take into consideration what the fishing industry paper wrote this month. I think it is a matter which he should bear fully in mind, and I would like to read just a paragraph from what it said:

"But we must add that if this junior Minister is now a fishery man he should be out and about in the future getting to know the problems of the industry and speaking at trade functions up and down the country, and generally making himself known and liked, so that the industry have the feeling that their 'champion' is a full-timer. Even junior Ministers are busy. But we would like to see this particular fellow round the markets now and again discussing the industry's troubles and aspirations."

I sincerely trust that is what we shall see the Parliamentary Secretary doing in the future.

I am sorry to interrupt the paean of praise and platitude with which this Scheme has been received. It has certain objectionable features to which I think I must draw attention. The Scheme is primarily designed to deal with the case of fishing vessels secretly elongated without notice to the Minister, for the purpose of fraudulently getting a grant. It imputes fraud and dishonesty to the owners of fishing vessels, to the fishermen and to the fishing community. Indeed, Article 10 actually deals with the penalties which may be imposed for the frauds which are contemplated by the Scheme.

So, without further explanation, the Scheme seems not only quite unnecessary, but undesirable. We have only to look at the last sentence in the Explanatory Note to see that that is so. It puts the matter very succinctly, and more clearly than I can put it:

"The conditions under which the grants may be paid remain the same as those under the previous Scheme, save for a provision that when a structural alteration is made to any vessel which increases its length grant may be paid at the rate appropriate to the original length of the vessel, unless, previous to the alteration, the appropriate Minister has otherwise agreed."

Obviously the intention of this Scheme is to deal with owners and fishermen who would fraudulently seek to elongate secretly their boats, and then get grants accordingly. No one had thought fit, not even the former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, to refer to these very objectionable features and it is my duty, in the interests of the fishing community, to draw attention to them.

This Scheme seeks to supersede or amend the Scheme of last year, which was entitled the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1953. The purpose of that scheme last year was to implement Section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industry Act, 1953. It did that well and in a workmanlike way, without imputing improper motives of fraud to either owners or fishermen.

Section 5 follows the principle of the present Tory Government, which is this: when it wants to be constructive it copies the earlier legislation of the Labour Government, but slightly alters the words, and when it wants to be destructive it reverses the process by putting in a "not" here and there, and by changing a positive into a negative, or a negative into a positive, or, as here, by wasting time and energy by putting in a preposterous provision about "without notice, lengthening the size of a registered fishing vessel in respect of which a grant is paid."

To understand the fantastic folly of what is being done it is necessary to realise that the Act out of which this Scheme flows is one of a series of Acts, some of which were passed by the Labour Government and one of which was passed by the present Government. The series was instituted and developed by earlier Governments, and it worked well in those days. I do not propose to elaborate the series—I see that you are getting restless, Mr. Speaker—and I shall deal with this Scheme.

The purpose of the Act now in question was to promote the landing of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish, and to encourage the fishermen by making grants, such as those contemplated by this Scheme, to owners and fishermen of vessels not exceeding 140 feet in length, subject to conditions set out in the scheme. A scheme was made last year, which scheme it is now sought to amend, for the payment of grants in respect of voyages made and fish landed by vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, and for grants in respect of landings of fish by inshore vessels during the period from 1st August, 1953. to 31st July, 1955.

That was all clear, open and above board, and no amendment was necessary. In my submission, no amendment is now necessary, unless it is intended to take away some of the rights of owners and fishermen, or to complicate their affairs and reduce their opportunities, or to make their lives more difficult by imputing to them, as this Scheme does, dishonesty and fraud. I invite the House to see what is the effect of this Scheme, and how unnecessary it is.

It provides all the same kinds of things as the previous scheme did—except one. It provides for vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, as did the previous scheme; it provides for inshore fishing vessels, as did the previous scheme; it provides for the period up to 31st July, 1955, as did the previous scheme; and it provides conditions and grants to promote landings, as did the previous scheme. The one difference is that to which I have referred, that where structural alteration is made to any vessel to increase its length,

"grants may be paid at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel before the alteration was carried out, unless the appropriate Minister has previously agreed in writing to pay at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel after the alteration was carried out."

That is an imputation, of dishonesty against the owner and the fisherman—an imputation of an attempt to get a grant without giving notice to the Minister that this elastic boat had been elongated.

I submit that this Scheme is worse than circumlocution; it is designed to enhance the powers of the Minister, to give trouble to the owner and the fisherman, to increase the red tape, to embarrass the fishing industry and thereby to reduce the supplies of fish. Everything remains the same except this suppositious attempt on the part of the dishonest fisherman to elongate his elastic boat. As everything remains the same except for this fantastic idea of elongating an elastic boat, the Scheme is unnecessary.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that everything is the same. Does he consider an additional grant of a quarter of a million pounds can be ignored by the fishing industry?

I will put my answer in the succinct words of the Explanatory Note, which, in its last sentence, says:

"The conditions under which the grants may be made remain the same as those under the previous Scheme…"

That is the third time that the hon. and learned Member has read that.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) spoke of monotonous diet. It would help to relieve that diet if more people were encouraged to eat shellfish. We are told that

"This Scheme, which may be cited as the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, shall apply to the United Kingdom, and shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954."

We are also told that

"'Gross proceeds' means the proceeds from the first-hand sale of all fish (including herring, salmon, migratory trout and shellfish)…"

As I understand, shellfish do not come into the subsidy. Is it too late to ask that this shall be reconsidered? Something has been said tonight about the cost of gear and the cost of the operations of fishermen. Those same costs apply to those who fish for shellfish. I do not see why they should not get a grant under the Scheme.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned the Icelandic fishing dispute. One thing to be remembered so far as inshore fishermen are concerned is that this dispute—apart from the fact that the catches have gone up in the waters around Iceland since the expansion of territorial waters—means that we must take care to produce good quality fish so that we can compete with the frozen fish sent here from Iceland. At the same time, it is unfair that our fishermen should abide by the net rules set by the Over-fishing Convention when Belgians and Frenchmen can come in to our ports having used nets which do not conform to the international Convention, and nothing be done about it. Her Majesty's Government should consult the Governments concerned to ensure that pressure is brought to bear upon the fishermen of those nations to use the proper size of mesh.

I would emphasise what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) said about the Minister. I hope that as a result of our recent debate the remarks made in the fishing Press about the Minister will be noted.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be answering questions on fisheries at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will be able to visit the fishing ports and to meet the men in the industry. It is important that the fishing industry should know that there is one Minister who will identify himself particularly with the needs of the industry.

If the hon. Member is so keen on having a Minister to show himself to all the fishermen in the fishing ports, why did he and his hon. Friend withdraw the Bill presented to the House to set up a Parliamentary Secretary who would be solely responsible for fisheries? Will he and his hon. Friends now support the Bill, which I have introduced, to establish a Parliamentary Secretary to be responsible for fisheries?

The hon. Member is now going very wide of the Scheme.

I would only say—my remarks have been to this end—that we hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will show sufficient interest in the fishing industry to make it apparent that he is doing the job that we all wish done for the fishing industry.

I cannot follow the line adopted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about boats being elongated secretly or otherwise, but I hope that the same procedure is not tried out on the fish. I am, however, worried about the way in which nets are being elongated, which is unfair to our own people.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the new Overfishing Convention. I think I can claim to have played some part in getting the Convention agreed to and in getting Belgium and Iceland to sign it. I am certain that all hon. Members would like to give it a fair trial, but we can only do that if all the countries which have signed the agreement abide by the rules.

We might as well be frank about the matter. Fishermen all over the country, and certainly those fishing from Granton and Newhaven in my constituency, are complaining about fishermen from other countries using nets in the North Sea which are not of the sizes laid down in the Convention. If our people are to use the proper nets, it is only right that other countries should follow suit.

Not only do we depend on a good supply of fish, but the livelihood of the fishing communities of all countries is bound up with the preservation of the fish life in the sea. If people over-fish, we shall ultimately reach a stage when we shall put people out of employment altogether and destroy a very valuable food supply for the rest of the world.

Let us remember that the scheme will give some assistance to the industry. I do not complain about the safeguards which have been provided. Any Government would have to provide certain safeguards if they were to pay out public money. Let us be fair and say that the scheme will provide an extra £250.000.

That is the reason for the quarrel between the owners and the Minister. The owners feel that they have not got enough out of the scheme. Indeed, in these days of rising costs they are entitled to ask for some measures to be taken to make certain that they can carry on the industry. Trawler owners have told me that if they could get their coal at the price at which many other industries are being supplied they would not want £250,000 from the Ministry. Fuel has gone up tremendously during the last 12 months, as indeed have many other items.

What the industry asks is that it be given a subsidy sufficient to allow it to carry on until it is reorganised. But I do not think the Minister should think that this is the last of the matter. Let us be frank also about the progress made under the White Fish Authority. We expected something more. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but, to give one example.

I led a deputation to the Scottish Office last December about the white fish industry which made some proposals with regard to the disposal of white fish, especially that portion that was not sold for human consumption. The Minister said to the Authority that here were the proposals of this section of the industry, and asked them to get on quickly and let him have a reply. I saw the Joint Under-Secretary in January, and he told me he had not got a reply. I am not blaming him. I only got a final reply on the 15th of this month, seven months after the matter was first raised, and I cannot absolve the White Fish Authority from blame.

If the industry is to be reorganised, we have to have greater attention from the Authority which was created to deal with these very problems—not only fish oil but fish meal, which, indeed, could play a very valuable part in bringing back prosperity to the white fish industry. When one thinks of the tremendous sums of money expended on the purchase of fish meal—in 1952 over £1,250,000—from other countries for our agricultural industry, one would have thought the Authority could have shown greater efficiency and drive in finding a solution.

We should not be misled by the figures of new boats under construction or being built. The Parliamentary Secretary thought on the whole they were fairly satisfactory. I am certain that on reflection he would like to amend that statement, because while the numbers may be better than they have been, they have to be placed against the out-of-date condition of such a large number of boats in the industry. When we measure this little progress, let us always remember the long road there is still to travel to reorganise and make the industry prosperous.

Here is an industry which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said, is the fifth largest in the country. It is an industry which makes a tremendous contribution not only in time of peace but in war-time, because it is from that industry that we draw a great deal of our naval strength. So it is essential in peace or war that this industry, and all who are in it, should have the best attention of this House, and while we may pass this Scheme which may bring a little succour to it, I hope in the not too far distant future we shall have greater proposals for reorganising the industry and putting it on its feet again without having always to induct subsidies merely to keep it alive.

It would seem strange to discuss fish and for no one to speak for Grimsby or Humber ports, as about 70 per cent. of the fish landed come to the Humber ports. As there is no one else to speak for the southern side of the river, I should like to speak for the trawler owners and men affected by this Scheme who live in my constituency. They are grateful for whatever is done to help them. The Parliamentary Secretary has been invited to go round the various ports, and I hope he will not spend all his time in the smaller ports and overlook the two that matter. At present in the white fish industry there is a great deal in Grimsby that causes people disquiet. There has been a lot of discussion in the local Press recently about the difficulties with which the industry is faced. These proposals will help in a small degree, but they will not touch some of the more basic problems that face this oldest fishing port in the country.

I extend to my hon. Friend a strong invitation, if he can possibly find time, to come up and see the industry for himself. I undertake that if he comes he will be shown all sides of the industry, and I hope he will give an undertaking that when he comes back he will do his best to see that remedies are applied to what he has learnt.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have noted the kind invitation extended to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). There is very little that I need say except to answer one or two points. It is good to feel that although this is a moderate measure, by no means giving to the industry anything like all it asked, nevertheless it has, with the single exception of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), won universal approval from the House.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), as did others, raised, naturally enough, the question of Iceland. We are all concerned, and will continue to be concerned, about the unhappy problem there. All I would say about it is that we are ready at any time to discuss conservation measures with Iceland. But we quite understand in the House that the fishing industry finds it rather difficult to agree to measures unilaterally imposed. That is the difficulty, and I am afraid it may continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked me about Pollack. We will look at the point he has put to us. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, had prepared his speech without looking at the Scheme. It would not be proper at this time of night to try to enter into a conflict with him. I merely beg the hon. and learned Member, politely but firmly, to go home tonight and, for the first time, read the Scheme, and he will find all his questions answered. If he is still left in any difficulty, particularly about the question of lengthening of vessels, I will give him precise particulars of a case which made it essential that we should introduce this new provision in the Scheme. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member, being a legal luminary and having obtained this information, will be the first to get up on the next occasion and say what splendid fellows we are on the Government Front Bench.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was, as usual, gallant and loyal to his shellfish, and raised the local problem. The trouble is that shellfish were excluded by the Act, and it is difficult for us, unless we were to alter the Act, to overcome that difficulty. But no doubt my hon. Friend will go on fighting for the shellfish, and perhaps in due course something will happen.

The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), like other hon. Members, referred to the international Convention, in the making of which we all recognise the very important part which he played abroad. The hon. Member has, therefore, every right to talk to the House upon this matter. Everything depends on how the other countries play the game. If they did not play the game, there would not be much sense in the convention; but each country is obliged to see that its nationals abide by its law, and it is up to each signatory to enforce the convention in that way. But all signatories are obliged to report to the Permanent Commission next year on the measures they have taken to enforce the convention, and it will then be open to any of us to make such representations as we want to make.

The hon. Gentleman raised a matter with me some months ago when he brought some of his trawler constituents to see me in Edinburgh. The point raised was a reasonable one. It was suggested that there was a surplus of white fish which could not be sold on the fresh market, and which had a depressing effect on the home market, and we were asked whether we could not do something about it. The White Fish Authority examined this matter at my request; so did we. After the most careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to pay the subsidy for fish which was not being used for human consumption. That is the difficulty in which we are placed, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it.

The best answer I can give is that we have taken two measures to deal with this surplus, very often of small fish. We have introduced the larger mesh provisions which will have the effect of reducing the amount of small fish caught. We have also introduced the Sea Fish Industry (Immature Fish) Order, which has the effect of increasing the minimum size of whiting to 10 inches. No whiting of less than 10 inches can now be sold. That should have an effect on the splendid men from Granton and that part of the world. I hope that these few remarks have answered the questions put.

Would my hon. Friend say, on the subject of the measures taken about the size of the mesh, whether Fishery Protection vessels have the right to inspect the mesh, and can he give publicity to that so that fishermen will know they can be prosecuted for an offence.

The Fishery Protection vessels have a function as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they can examine our own vessels and apply measures to them, and likewise other countries can take similar action against their vessels.

Last week we discussed the case of Crichel Down. Tonight I want to deal with the case of Peacehaven, an area of land on the South coast of Sussex. I believe that this case has in it all the principles which apply to the case of Crichel Down and require the justice required in that case, and possibly more so. The constituent of mine, whose land is being threatened, has not the means nor the money that Commander Marten had. She has no other assets than the one-fifteenth of an acre which the Ministry is proposing to take away from her.

The history of the case briefly is that in 1916 a large area of the South Downs was split up for building purposes, and was sold, or given away as prizes in some cases, for development. It was as a prize that my constituent got her small parcel of land. It was requisitioned during the 1914–18 war, and was not handed back in the state it was taken over. My constituent's land was not developed between the wars, although a large number of plots of lands were developed and are now built on. In 1940, the war agricultural committee requisitioned this land. Miss Walker, my constituent, did not know of this, and only found out some time later when visiting it. She thought she would get it back when the emergency was over.

Under the Act of 1947, the then Minister of Agriculture in the Socialist Government decided to take away the freehold of this land from my constituent, Miss Walker, together with that of other owners in the area. This decision was in order that this small plot should continue to be farmed and food be produced. Throughout the whole of these proceedings there has been no suggestion that food should not be produced on the land, if that can be done. The objection is that a Minister or the State should take the freehold away in order to do so.

These matters have been put to the Ministry and to Ministers over a number of years. In 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1952 at least 14 hon. Members have, at one time or another, taken the matter up with the Minister and at least two Parliamentary Questions have been asked about it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in whose constituency this case is, has been most active in pressing the Minister on it. I would quote from a letter which he sent. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, who has been ill, will soon be back again with us here. He wrote:

"I do feel very strongly indeed that the owners of these plots have been treated in a most high-handed fashion—although, admittedly, within the law "—

I will query that point later on—

"I particularly hope that in your review of this case you will bear in mind the large number of plot owners who would be affected if this compulsory purchase order is proceeded with."

This has been done to a large number of these plot-owners for whom we are speaking.

I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary on a number of occasions on behalf of my constituent. The latest letter I had from him was dated 13th July this year, in which he decided finally not to go back on the decision which was taken that my constituent must lose her freehold. This is the reason why I am raising the matter before the House tonight. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the words of the Home Secretary in the debate last week. They sum up the point which I am putting to him now. The Home Secretary said:

"Every citizen of good will sees his land go in time of emergency for Government requirements with as much good will as he can muster; but it is taken for a specific purpose, for a specific need of the State. When that purpose is exhausted, when that need is past, what is wrong, on any consideration of morality or justice, in allowing the person from whom the land was taken to have the chance of getting it back?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1296.]

That is exactly the point I wish to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary.

As I understand the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary has produced two arguments. The first is that a tribunal was held in October, 1951 under the Agriculture Act and decided that the Minister should take the land; therefore the Ministry must stand by that decision. The second argument is that under the Town and Country Planning Act the land cannot be developed, and therefore the State must take it over. On the first argument, the tribunal was a similar sort of tribunal as was remarked upon by Mr. Justice Stable recently in the case of a Mrs. Woollett. From discussions which I have had recently, I am not satisfied that the tribunal in 1951 was properly set up by the instructions of the Minister. It was at the time of the General Election and it is quite doubtful if the strictures of Mr. Justice Stable would not also apply in this case.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me tonight, or, if he cannot do that, will look carefully into the matter to see what the facts are in this case, because there is a good deal of disturbance. I would quote to the Parliamentary Secretary a very forcible leading article in the "Daily Express" last week, in which they say:

Coupled with Crichel Down, the story of Mrs. Woollett's four acres builds up to a shocking picture of official casualness towards a citizen's rights. Muddle, delay, and injustice seem to be general.

I believe that applies to the case of my constituent.

I have a growing suspicion about whether the notice was properly given. I understand Saltdean Estates Limited, one of the local estate companies down there, stated that they had the names and addresses of the owners of this land. So far as I know, the officials dealing with the matter did not take up their offer of these names and addresses. I believe that where the freehold rights have been taken away it is the duty of those doing it to take every reasonable step to see these people are notified. I believe that was not done.

Notices were placed upon the land, and I understand that under the Act notices would have to be placed on every plot. I understand the figure of 4,000 has been mentioned as the number of plots. My information is that notices were not placed on each plot. It may be that a number of these notices themselves were bad. I feel, while the case of this tribunal may be looked at again, my constituent cannot accept it without some degree of qualm.

The second argument is one of development. As I understand the Minister's letters to me and to other hon.

Members, his argument is that at the moment the land cannot be developed under the plan for this area under the Town and Country Planning Act. He did not mention in a recent letter, nor say at any time, that under the Town and Country Planning Act there could be a five-year review of these development rights. Whether or not this land could be developed in five years' time, I do not know, and I do not think even the Minister could tell. Therefore, the argument that he must acquire the freehold, because the land cannot be developed, is definitely misleading, because it may be that in five or 10 years the land could be developed.

The crux of the point is that it seems to be wholly unnecessary for the State to take the freehold of land, whether it can be developed or whether it cannot, in order to produce food. I believe that my constituent and a large number of others on these plots are willing, and have always been willing, for their land to be farmed. I know that food production should be kept to a maximum, and I am not putting forward any suggestion that there is no need for food. What I cannot understand is why our Conservative Government should say that in order to produce food the State should own the property.

I can quite well understand hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who introduced this general idea in 1947 and 1948, saying that according to their philosophy there should be nationalisation of the land. I cannot believe that that is the true Conservative line. Where do we get to if we follow that line of thought? Here is a case where my constituent's land is admittedly only one-fifteenth of an acre and the war executive agricultural committee say, "It is too small to be farmed by itself. It must be bought out and put into a bigger plot." But sooner or later someone may come and say that two acres is too small—or four, or 10 or 20 acres is too small. Where do we stop with this principle that where, in the opinion of the Ministry, the land is too small it can be bought and added to other farms? Where do we stop? I think this principle that the State can perfectly well arrange for agricultural production without acquiring the freehold of the estate must be stopped.

I wish finally to quote to the House the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) —the Minister of Agriculture, as I imagine he still is at the moment. I believe that what he said in the closing remarks of his speech last week may very well influence not only my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary but any Minister coming after him. The words used were: "…and it is our policy progressively to get rid of emergency powers which permit private interests in land to be overridden. With this freeing of the economy, and the material improvement in the food situation today, it is possible to contemplate taking action in the interests of liberty…"

I stress that—

"and free enterprise which the national economic situation would not have permitted two or three years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1187.]

That I believe to be the most important statement to be made from that Box last week. It gives me hope that in this case a large number of small plot-holders at Peacehaven will have a review of their case, and may find that at some future date it will be possible for them to have their freehold land back again.

I would ask my hon. Friend three sets of questions. If he can answer them satisfactorily—and I very much hope that he can, because they are not very difficult to answer—I shall be quite satisfied with the way the debate has gone. First, is he satisfied that the tribunal set up in October, 1951, by his Socialist predecessors was properly set up? Is he satisfied that the notices given for that tribunal to be held were properly served upon the owners of the various plots of land? If he is not satisfied, will he look carefully into it, reconsider the whole question and let me have the results of his search?

Secondly, can he give an undertaking that there will be, so to speak, a standstill order upon the processes which are now going forward for the acquiring of this land until the new Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, will have had time to consider the matter thoroughly As I understand it, as at the present moment negotiations are going on for the compulsory purchase. So far as I know they may be going on today or tomorrow. I think that it would be very sad and most unfortunate if, this week or next, action were taken which might make it difficult for the Minister to reconsider the matter in the future.

Thirdly, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary use his best endeavours to impress upon the Minister, when he is appointed, and on the officials who serve him, to accept the two points of principle which I have quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond? I believe that if those points of principle are accepted by the Ministry and by himself, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the freehold rights of this innumerable number of plot-holders will be preserved. The time has come when the conditions which prompted him and his predecessors have changed; that now we feel that the liberty of the individual is more important, and that the necessity to produce food can be met by some other method.

My constituent is willing for the land to be farmed, so long as it cannot be developed, and willing to allow what arrangements the Minister thinks necessary to do that. There is no question of the land going derelict as far as she is concerned, but she wants to preserve the right to maintain the freehold if, at some future date, it becomes possible to develop it, so that she can either build a house herself or make arrangements for someone else to do so.

I believe that I am speaking not only on behalf of my constituent but also for a large number of other people in the same position in this large area at Peace-haven. If my hon. Friend can give a satisfactory answer to this question, I am certain that he will lift a burden of anxiety from those people. He will be showing that the principles of liberty and the rights of property are still of vital importance to hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, whatever may be the views of those who sit on the other side. I believe he will go a long way, if he will give those satisfactory replies, to assuring us and the public generally that we really mean now to protect the rights of the small individual, so far as property is concerned, against those who feel it is in the national interest to nationalise the land and for the State to buy up these areas. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me a satisfactory answer, and I assure him that he has, and will have, the goodwill of all these people in that area.

I would briefly confirm the description that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has made of the circumstances of this land, that it was in fact acquired in 1916, a small area of about one-fifteenth of an acre, that it was requisitioned in World War I, and farmed by the authorities. It stood idle, derelict and undeveloped between the two wars, and was requisitioned again in World War II, farmed again by the authorities—this time by the Ministry of Agriculture, through their agents, the East Sussex War Agricultural Committee. It is still under requisition by the Ministry of Agriculture and has been farmed more recently by being let to neighbouring farmers who have got it in production. I should say that it is part of a very much larger area. A total of some 2,000 acres was under this requisition, and rather more than half of it has been, or is being, derequisitioned and returned to its previous owners.

Their remains, however, an area of about 890 acres which it is at present proposed to purchase, if possible by agreement on price, by the exercise of compulsory powers. The difficulty that my right hon. Friend had to face, and, indeed, has to be faced by anyone who is Minister of Agriculture, was to discharge his responsibility of keeping in production land which is productive at the present time and potentially productive for the future, and to find a proper balance between the necessities of full production on the one hand and private ownership on the other.

There is this point that has to be considered in this particular area, and my hon. Friend has made reference to it, and that is the bearing of the planning authorities in their intentions for this particular land.

At the present time this land is scheduled to remain as agricultural land. It is true that the county plan is susceptible to review every five years but, in determining whether or not it is likely to be amended, we can but consult the planning authorities in the neighbourhood and ask what is their intention for this area. They have informed us that they do not intend that this area shall be developed for building purposes. As is quite clear from the figures, they have allowed development on over a thousand acres of that land which was originally requisitioned, and they evidently consider that that is enough to meet the needs of the neighbourhood. Although I cannot rule out the possibility of this land being developed, I can say that on the best opinion we can get the present view is that it will not be developed.

If it were to be developed it would be developed for building purposes, and there would be no question about maintaining the requisition, or the Minister of Agriculture wishing to retain control; but when land is not going to be developed for building purposes, there is a clear duty upon the Minister of Agriculture to see that the land is capable of being kept in production.

My hon. Friend really must face the practical necessities of the position. He talks freely about the land being kept in production without an acquisition of the freehold, but, as I have said, with four large pieces of land fragmented into the ownership of hundreds of different owners—as is the case here—and the individual plots being so small, the problem of keeping the land in production in its individual pieces is overwhelmingly difficult. How is the State or any private individual to hire that land by tenancy from the individual owners, if the land is left with them? At present it is simple; the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture specifically, have requisitioning powers under Defence Regulations, so that there can be compulsory occupation. Those powers expire in a few years' time, at the most, and then there is the problem of keeping the land in production in the future. Some of this land is very good, and is commanding, as bare land, £3 an acre. We really cannot contemplate 800 acres going back into the condition in which it was between the wars. Those are considerations that my right hon. Friend and myself had to bear in mind in coming to the decision to go ahead with the purchase of the land. In the majority of cases purchase has been achieved by agreement as to price.

With regard to the point made about the tribunal, I should remind my hon. Friend that Miss Walker did not appeal to the tribunal. She decided it would not serve her interests to do so.

Miss Walker states that she has always objected to that allegation. She was inundated with a lot of forms which she did not understand, and she may have omitted to do something, or she may have done something she ought not to have done, but she has always been adamant that she did not want to lose her land.

I can only give my hon. Friend the facts. While he may perfectly well maintain the view of Miss Walker, the facts are that on 19th June, 1951, she was served with a notice that the Minister proposed to give the certificate, and that she might appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. On 11th July, 1951, she replied saying that it would be useless to appeal against the proposal to purchase her land compulsorily, and she requested that compensation should be assessed at the market value of building land. The fact is that she did not appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, the Woollett judgment has no great bearing, and possibly it has no direct bearing at all, on this case. So I can clear my hon. Friend's mind on that point at least.

With regard to the serving of the notices, it is clear that notices were served on Miss Walker, and that notice was given in the proper fashion. I assure my hon. Friend that, as far as I can make out from the records, the serving of notices in this difficult matter has been done with all the care that humanity could command. More than 800 owners have been contacted, many of them having done nothing with the land for 20 or 30 years. It has been difficult to trace them. The land was in plots which some people had acquired for nothing, or won as a prize, or gained in some other way. An enormous job has been undertaken in contacting these owners. Where they have not been contacted, notices have been posted on the land.

The third question asked by my hon. Friend was whether the new Minister of Agriculture will accept the principles laid down by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). The answer is that they certainly will. At the same time, there is the need to maintain full food production. While I am certain that the new Minister of Agriculture will wish to examine in detail this complicated and difficult case, I cannot commit him on the view he will take. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the general responsibility which the Minister of Agriculture must have. He cannot lightly say that his land can go back to the owners. Obviously, it would be practically impossible to maintain it in production, and the probability is that it would go back to the derelict condition in which it was in for more than 20 years between the wars, with potentially good land producing nothing.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that wherever there is derelict land the State must buy it?

I do not. I resent my hon. Friend's imputing that motive to me. He knows as well as I do that if land is in one ownership it is possible for that owner to equip and farm it in the proper way; but here we have land in small pieces. He knows, as well as I do, that it is not possible to negotiate 700 or 800 leases. We must look at this practically.

Surely the Ministry has a responsibility in regard to the rights of individuals to deal with their own land. This is a shocking argument. You ought to be ashamed of it.

I will conclude by asking my hon. Friend to observe the facts. When the future Minister of Agriculture is appointed he will have these facts before him—