asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that customs duties are charged on entry into India of regimental mess plate, furniture, pictures, and band instruments, and on artificial poppies for Poppy Day celebration; and whether he will consult with the Indian Government as to the desirability of securing the immunity from customs charges of regimental and other commodities possessing mainly a sentimental value?

I have no information as to whether duty is charged on artificial poppies imported into India for Poppy Day celebration but will inquire. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of a pamphlet regarding British Indian Customs, and of Indian Army Order, No. 418, dated 10th June, 1926, which give full information as to the levy of customs duties on the remaining articles referred to.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of the Lee Commission regarding the recruitment of officers for the superior services in Burma operating in transferred fields has yet been terminated by the issue of the Secretary of State's orders regarding rules to supersede the Civil Services (Governor's Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926; and, if not, whether, in view of the admitted hardship caused to men serving in the transferred Departments, he can now give the date of the proposed issue of the Secretary of State's orders?

The Civil Services (Governor's Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926, give Provincial Governments full power to form and recruit superior services in the transferred field as recommended by the Lee Commission, and their difficulties, which arose from problems of organisation and not from any defect in the rules, have, it is hoped, been largely solved as the result of a conference held at Delhi last November. The new Classification Control and Appeal Rules which are ultimately to embody the provisions of those rules and deal with other matters besides, are still under discussion with the Government of India and it is not possible at present to give a date for their issue.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are considering the acquisition of the Port of Bedibunder, in Kathiawar; what offer has been made, if any, to the Jamsahib in this respect; and whether he will in form the House of the reasons for these negotiations?

I have no knowledge of any such proposal.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of representatives of the depressed classes in the central and provincial legislatures of India and who appoints them; and whether any grant is made by the Government of India for the specific purpose of raising the status of these classes?

The number of seats provided specially for representatives of the depressed classes in the various legislatures is: Ten in Madras, four in the Central Provinces, two each in Bombay and Bihar, and one each in Bengal and the United Provinces. The appointments to these seats are made by the Governor. In addition, the Governor-General has nominated a representative of these classes to the Legislative Assembly. No grant from the Central Government is (or could be, under the present constitution) made for the benefit of these classes, but in some provinces the local Government is endeavouring to take special steps—educational and otherwise—towards their advancement. These matters are for the most part in the charge of Ministers responsible to the provincial legislatures.

Would the Noble Lord give the House any idea how much money is spent on the education side of what are called the depressed classes?

Not without nonce; it would require careful research in the case of every single province. It is a matter really within the discretion of the local Government, or rather the Minister of the transferred Department.

Is, there any reason why the request to devote one crore of rupees to these services was recently turned down?

I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I stated the constitutional position—the position under the law—in my answer.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has been notified of the despatch by the Indian Chamber of Princes of a deputation to negotiate with the India Office regarding the future status of the Indian princes in connection with the Government of India; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

It is understood that certain ruling princes will visit England this summer unofficially in order to take counsel's opinion regarding the evidence which they desire to put before the Indian States Committee, when it returns to this country, on the matters covered by its terms of reference. Neither these nor other matters which are still sub judicio as far as the Committee is concerned, and have not yet been officially considered, will be discussed by the princes with the India Office or with His Majesty's Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the chief justice in Lahore, delivered on 18th November, 1927, in setting aside the convictions of Mian Taj Mahmud for perjury, in which the chief justice remarked that the proceedings taken by the magistrate showed that he had not heard the case with that judicial detachment which should characterise the trial of a criminal case, and that he had allowed his executive zeal to outrun his judicial discretion; whether the Government have taken any action in the matter with regard to the magistrate in question; and whether they propose to take any steps to secure that executive and magisterial duties shall not be confused in the future?

I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. I have not been informed what action was taken by the Government in regard to the magistrate but am inquiring. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer I gave on 12th March to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon).

(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is in accordance with the advice of his Department that Opposition Members of Parliament who visit India are kept under police surveillance during the period of their stay in that country, and have reports of their speeches taken down by the police?.

No. Sir.

In view of that reply, will the Noble Lord use his influence with the Government of India to get this very disgraceful practice stopped?

No, Sir, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would not feel himself entitled to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India in this matter. The Government of India are responsible for law and order within the country which they govern and, if in the exercise of their discretion they feel it necessary to take any particular action with regard to any particular person, they are entitled to do so.

May I ask if the Noble Lord, in his very many years' experience in this House, has ever found it necessary in a British Possession to interfere with a Member of Parliament belonging to any party——

That question does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of tribesmen at present detained at the Sinarango Prison Camp, Malaita, awaiting trial for the murders that occurred last October; and when it is proposed to try these prisoners?

I am informed that 191 natives were arrested, but I am not aware how many of these are detained at Sinarango. The trials were expected to open at the end of March.

Have any of these men died since their incarceration?

No, Sir; I have heard there was dysentery in the camp, and I have telegraphed for information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the censorship of newspaper telegrams from Iraq has been suggested or sanctioned by the British Government?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make a statement about the delaying of Press messages and telegrams to England from Iraq; who is responsible for it; and the reasons for it?

In my reply to the question asked on the 29th of March by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I stated that so far as I was aware there was no censorship of Press telegrams at Bagdad, and that I was in communication with the High Commissioner in regard to statements appearing in the Press as to the alleged detention of such telegrams. I have now received a Report from the High Commissioner on the subject. He informs me that under a long-standing arrangement the Bagdad Telegraph Office informs a member of his staff by telephone of the gist of any Press message for issue from Bagdad, which may appear prima facie to give an exaggerated or misleading account of any important occurrence. The object of this procedure is that the High Commissioner may be able, should he consider it advisable, to acquaint the correspondent in question with the true facts-The High Commissioner informs me that the occasion for this arises about twice a year only, and that the resultant delay in the transmission of Press messages might be one or two hours at the utmost. There is no other censorship of any kind. The High Commissioner is not informed of inward messages.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this amounts to a Government control of information sent by private Press correspondents in Mesopotamia; and does he not think that it is very objectionable indeed?

No, Sir; it only amounts to giving the Governor an opportunity of supplying true information to the correspondent, if he should desire to use it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the taxpayers want to have unbiased messages from Mesopotamia, and not Governmental dope?

Is it not precisely that form of interference which is objected to when it is used in France or any other foreign country; and is not that form of censorship the common form throughout the world whenever Governments desire to interfere with Press messages?

There is no interference; the Press correspondent still remains free to send whatever he chooses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the distillery at Basra was set up after Great Britain received the Mandate for Mesopotamia; and, if so, to whom it belongs, what it produces and to whom its products are chiefly sold?

I have no information on the subject, which does not fall within the scope of the Treaty regulating our relations with Iraq.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representation has been made to him by the Legislative Assembly of Malta to amend their Constitution in financial matters; and, if so, whether the question has yet been considered and with what result?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will make inquiry as to the threatened expulsion of British citizens from Gibraltar owing to their being involved in the coalheavers' dispute; and what action he proposes to take in the matter:

(2) if he has received reports as to the arrest of 23 men in Gibraltar in connection with the dispute affecting the coal-heavers; and what was the cause of this arrest?

I have received no information on either point, but I will make inquiry of the Governor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report as to the present situation in Gibraltar regarding the coal-heavers' dispute; whether he can give any information as to any negotiations likely to lead to a settlement; whether there are now any Moors employed to take the place of the men involved in the present dispute: and whether their numbers have increased or decreased?

I have now received a report from the Governor on the matter from which it appears that, in spite of the efforts at mediation undertaken by the Colonial Government, no settlement of the dispute has so far been reached. I understand that there are no longer any Moors employed to replace the men involved in the dispute.

Is it a fact that the report indicates that while the Moors have been displaced Spaniards have been brought in to take the place of British citizens?

No, Sir; a great part of the work has always been done by Spaniards and others outside the civil area, but I am not sure how many are employed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has ascertained the views of the Basle Mission Society on the proposal to transfer the Gold Coast properties now held by the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, to the Basle Mission Trading Company, free from all trust; and, if not, whether he is willing to do so before proceeding further with the negotiations?

As the properties in question originally belonged to the Basle Trading Company, I can only negotiate with that company. In the course of the negotiations, I have, of course, constantly borne in mind the point to which my hon. Friend attaches importance, and I have good reason to believe that when I am in a position to make a statement on the whole subject I shall be able to give assurances which will satisfy him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff will undertake any fresh obligations whatever?

I think, if my hon. Friend will read my answer, that he will be satisfied on that point.

I am afraid that I have a very acute recollection of the answer, and I am not at all satisfied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, at a special meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, allegations were made concerning the methods by which the policy of the Colonial Office on matters concerning the Trust was arrived at; and will he call for a verbatim report of the proceedings?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that during the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, attacks were made on certain Members of Parliament and allegations were made about the methods of his Department; and whether he will request the directors to forward to him a verbatim copy of the printed speeches, in order that copies may be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of the Members?

I will ask the directors if they can furnish me with any fuller report of the speeches referred to than that which has already appeared in the Press. I shall then be in a position to judge whether such report contains sufficient additional matter of importance to justify my laying it upon the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the proposal made by the Government to repay part of the capital of the Commonwealth Trust with some further compensation, he will inquire as to the expense incurred by the trust in taking the great hall at Winchester House for a meeting of 13 shareholders and the cost of putting a six-column advertisement in the "Times" to record Mr. Lionel Curtis's speech; and

(2) whether he is aware that, during the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Trust, certain shareholders moved an amendment to the official resolution of the directors urging the board of directors to co-operate with the Secretary of State and, subject to certain conditions, to give him every assistance in a friendly manner in carrying out the decision of the Cabinet, and that, apart from the personal vote of the directors themselves, the amendment was only lost by a majority of one vote of those present; and whether he will call upon the directors to submit to him a certificate showing the number of shareholders, apart from the directors, present and voting at the meeting, coupled with a statement upon the proxies received from those who were unable to be present and to avail themselves of the information disclosed at the meeting?

I do not think it necessary to make the suggested inquiries into the detailed administration of the company's affairs.

Seeing that the directors of this company are subject to the right hon. Gentleman's approval, is he not in a position of trust, so that he ought to be able to see whether the money of the trust is being wasted or not?

On major issues that is so, but I hardly think that that trust would warrant me interfering on detail points.

If any of the officers of the Commonwealth Trust lose their positions in consequence of the transfer, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to see that their interests are protected?

Most certainly.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), stated at the meeting in question that his only object was to get his money back, can the right hon. Gentleman give the necessary assurance?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in a word what the functions of the Commonwealth Trust are?

I am afraid that that word would be a very comprehensive one.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a column of the "Times" costs about £75, and that the total amount spent on this publicity was £450, if it was paid for; and is that the way the money is to be expended by a company not making profits?

I do not know whether that money was spent.

Is it not desirable that the shareholders should have an opportunity of knowing what the Colonial Office has done, and that therefore the expenditure was fully justified?

Is it not desirable that an account of what the Colonial Office has done should come from the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Colonial Office, rather than from an ex-official of the Colonial Office who does not?

I hope to give that account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many meetings have been held by the trustees of the Commonwealth Trust; and what is the total amount of money, if any, which this trust has disbursed on behalf of native welfare in West Africa?

I have no information as to the number of meetings held by the trustees of the Commonwealth Trust. No sums have been disbursed from the surplus profits of the trust on behalf of native welfare in West Africa.

Would it not have been a good thing if the £450 expended on the "Times" account could have been given to the poor natives of West Africa?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government proposes to notify the Swiss Government officially of the Cabinet decision to restore the properties of the Basle Mission Trading Company in West Africa to the original owners?

Negotiations are still proceeding in respect of the properties referred to. When they are finished, I will consider whether it is necessary to make any communication to the Swiss Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now inform the House as to what steps the Government have taken to deal with the hardships which are being suffered by many ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland, many of whom have been without salary or pension or other remuneration for upwards of two years, by the reason of the failure of the Irish Free State Government to pay them the pensions and other compensation to which the Privy Council in May last held them to be entitled under Article 10 of the Irish Treaty?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 19th ultimo. I understand that in the great majority of cases, namely, of temporary and unestablished officers, the claim to compensation is doubtful. My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the judgment established the claim of any officer to compensation. It was merely directed to the basis on which the compensation, if any, which might prove to be due to them, should be assessed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements in the question are correct? Many of these men have been waiting without income or pension for over two years, and many of them are in a serious state, and does he not think the British Government ought to do something to see that they have their rights?

In my previous answer, I gave expression to the view, which I believe to be correct, that the number of those who were actually civil servants, or were in any sense established, was very limited. There are certain others who were temporary and whose claims to pension have therefore not been established, on whatever basis compensation may be afterwards assessed?

However limited the number may be, does not the right hon. Gentleman think they ought to be paid compensation and not allowed to be without either income or pension for years?

I hope the matter will be settled as soon as possible.

Have not the British Government a moral obligation, in any case, to deal fairly and justly with these men?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of the Government with regard to these Southern Irish Loyalists is thoroughly unsatisfactory all the time?

asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of money that has been expended in compensation for stock destroyed under the foot-and-mouth disease orders for the six months ended to the last convenient date?

The amount of compensation paid in respect of stock destroyed on account of foot-and-mouth disease for the six months ended 24th March was £151,437.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know the number of cattle destroyed?

Yes, in that period 14,200 animals were destroyed.

May I ask from what fund that money is provided?

It is provided out of the Cattle pleuro-pneumonia account—but it is a very complicated financial transaction.

Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that for the great amount of money which is being spent he is getting the best possible means of protecting the herds of this country against foot-and-mouth disease; and are adequate precautions taken to prevent infection coming in from abroad?

It is impossible to get full protection, as we know from bitter experience, but two departmental committees have examined this matter, and I do not think that anybody has yet evolved any better scheme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that when this stock is condemned it is properly disposed of—is it burnt or buried or what is done with it?

How does the sum paid in compensation during the past six months compare with the sum paid in the previous six months?

I am afraid that I could not say without notice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the unsightly fire hydrant at the end of the walk on the south front of Kensington Palace immediately behind the statute of William III; and whether he will consider placing this hydrant further to the east where it would be screened by a shrubbery?

The First Commissioner is of opinion that the fire hydrant in question, which has been in its present position for about 25 years, is not so unsightly as to warrant the expense entailed by its removal.

Has my hon. and gallant Friend seen the horrible scarlet red of this hydrant against the beautiful rose brickwork of Sir Christopher Wren's building? What is the object of protecting beautiful buildings from vandalism if the Office of Works allow an eyesore of this kind to be retained in a Royal Park?

Could not the hon. and gallant Gentle man consider painting this hydrant a bright orange colour?

I am quite ready to consider the question of repainting.

Will the hon. and gallant Member consider the proposal to change the colour from red to orange?

I have already said that I would consider that.

Would it not be much less expensive to move the shrubbery in front of the hydrant?

Will the hon. and gallant Member further consider the matter in some way?

I am considering the repainting.

That is something!

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the programme for wireless beacons for the year commencing 1st April has yet been approved; whether the details can now be stated; and whether any will serve the Western Isles?

The programme of wireless beacons for the year is not yet finally settled, but I am sending the hon. Member a note showing the beacons which have been approved up to date. The position of these beacons is determined by an expert committee in the interests of shipping generally, and not with the idea of serving particular localities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade from what sources the expenses of the Irish lighthouse service are met?

The expenses of the Irish lighthouse service are defrayed out of the General Lighthouse Fund, which derives its revenue from dues levied on shipping in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898.

Does that answer mean that the Board of Trade are responsible for the working conditions of the lighthouse keepers?

The Board of Trade are merely responsible for the general financial control. Detailed administration is in the hands of the three Lighthouse Commissioners.

Is the hon. Gentleman fully satisfied that the men in the lighthouses are getting the best possible conditions?

So far as I am aware that is the case.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment the lighthouse keepers are agitating for much better conditions?

Personally, I am not receiving any communications on that subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to sanction the granting of further licences for the export of arms and ammunition to the territory of the King of the Hejaz?

No application for a licence to export arms or ammunition to this destination is at present under consideration, but should any further application be received I shall follow the usual practice of consulting the Foreign Office and the Service Departments concerned. I am not prepared to prejudge the decision that may be arrived at.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the delay by the Board of Trade in issuing the Regulations under the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Act, 1936, which would affect the sale of petrol from petrol pumps: and the cause of such delay?

There are certain more urgent matters which have had to be dealt with before the Department concerned could proceed with the revision of these Regulations. Earlier attention to this subject would only have been possible if the staff of the Department had been increased. The matters which had to take precedence related to the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, and have proved to be exceptionally difficult. However, as I informed my hon. Friend on 28th March, a provisional draft of the Regulations he refers to is in the Press, and will shortly be published.

Can my hon. Friend give any date when these Regulations will be issued, in view of the fact that we have been waiting for them for 2⅓years?

In a, few days' time we shall be in a better position to see when they can be put into operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any further statement as to the payment of the interest in arrear on the Hankow Municipal Debentures?

In a recent telegram His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow reported that there had been no further developments as regards the 1927 debenture interest. Provision will be made in the 1928 budget for this year's interest; the councillors, however, do not consider themselves justified in asking the ratepayers to vote a further provision for the 1927 interest, as funds were set aside for this purpose in last year's budget but were squandered through maladministration. The view of the councillors is that last year's interest should be made good by the Nationalist authorities and not from the revenues of the municipality, as these revenues are barely sufficient in normal times, and there will also have to be heavy expenditure on roads during the current year. My hon. Friend is, I think, aware that only a small proportion of these debentures are in British hands, most of them being held by the Chinese Post Office and a French lottery bond company.

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that some British subjects put all their savings into these bonds, and owing to this default are very hardly hit, and can he say to whom they are to look for the 1927 interest?

No, Sir, I could not. As far as interest is concerned, I have given my hon. Friend a full statement of the information in my possession. I was not aware that any British subjects had put their whole savings into these bonds, and I can only express my great regret that they did so.

Are those British subjects, who put their money into these bonds, to have nothing for it: no return whatsoever?

I have given the House the views of the councillors in the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the views of the Nationalist Government?

No, I cannot say what prospect there is of the Nationalist Government making good this payment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long the British Consulate at Nanking has been occupied by Nationalist troops; whether any protest has been made by His Majesty's Government against such occupation; and, if so, what reply has been received?

His Majesty's Consulate-General at Nanking has been intermittently occupied by Chinese troops since the outrages of the 24th of March, 1927. The matter has been made the subject of frequent representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Nanking, who has from time to time promised to take steps to secure their evacuation, but owing to the impotence of the civilian authorities in China where soldiers are concerned, any action taken in accordance with these promises has had only a transient effect.

Are the Government going to lodge any claim against the Nationalist Government for this continued occupation of the British Consulate at Nanking?

The question of what should follow on the outrages committed at Nanking is now a subject of discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Nationalist authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Nationalist troops are now in occupation of foreign premises in the ex-British concession at Chinkiang; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Houses in the British Concession at Chinkiang have been occupied by troops of the 13th and 46th armies moving towards the northern front. A protest has been lodged, but I have not yet heard whether the troops have vacated the premises.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks his position would not have been very much strengthened in his protest if we had withdrawn from Shanghai outside the International Settlement?

No, Sir, I think it would have been weakened.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has been arrived at since the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations regarding the appointment of a woman chosen from among the nationals of non-mandatory Powers to take the place of the late Mrs. Anna Wicksell on the Permanent Mandates Commission?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of young people employed in the hotel and catering trades, and the normal weekly hours worked by these young people?

; The number of juveniles in Great Britain aged 16 and 17 insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and classified as belonging to the group—hotel, boarding house, restaurant and club service—at July, 1927, was 19,450, of whom 1,160 were recorded as unemployed at 20th February, 1928. Statistics are not available regarding the normal weekly hours of all the persons in this group, but in 1925 it was found that in the non-licensed catering section the weekly hours of the majority of workers under 18 years of age were between 46 and 51.

Does the hon. Gentleman intend to make any further inquiries with a view to bringing the information relating to the hours up-to-date?

No, Sir. The Minister of Labour answered a very similar question a short time ago in which he said that no further facts had been brought to his notice to justify further inquiries.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill with the object of providing that a member of a board of guardians who deliberately neglects the,portion of his or her duties which deals specifically with the actual granting of outdoor relief shall be prohibited from seeking re-election when the period for which such person is elected expires or, alternatively, shall after a given period has expired be disqualified from continuing to serve as a guardian?

My right hon. Friend does not think that a provision of this kind which it would be difficult to work in practice would materially help towards the improved, administration which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that for the six months prior to the last few days 11 members of the Manchester City Board of Guardians deliberately absented themselves from doing this work?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hon. Members of this House who often fail to put in an appearance and that many of them only attend now and again?

I have heard of the statement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), and I hope the ratepayers will take notice of it at the next election.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that in some cases where the guardians do attend and do their duty they are disfranchised?

asked the Minister of Health what local authorities have exercised their powers under Section 10 of the Town Planning (Consolidation) Act, 1925, to recover part of the increased value of property arising from a town planning scheme?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Buxton), on 21st March.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has an official record of the results of local government elections; and, if not, whether he will consider the official tabulation and publication of such results?

I have been asked to reply. I regret that there is no such record and I fear I cannot promise to obtain information on the subject.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there are certain areas in this country where not a single Socialist candidate was successful at the election last Saturday?

asked the Prime Minister whether, if he has the opportunity next year, he will give a day to discuss the Estimates for the three Fighting Services together so that the whole of the question of Imperial Defence may be discussed before going into Committee of Supply on the details of the individual Estimates?

I cannot at this stage make any statement in regard to the business for next year.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he gave a very favourable indication, or promise, on this matter some years ago during the present Parliament, and expressed himself in sympathy with the idea; and will he bear that in mind?

I do not think it was a promise. I am still favourable to the idea, but I cannot commit myself. There are great practical difficulties in the way of doing what I should like to see done, namely, the simultaneous publication of all the Estimates and a debate thereon.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether all private schools. whether day schools or boarding schools, including nursery schools, are required to be registered by any authority and are visited by Board of Education inspectors; whether private, day, or boarding schools are required to conform to any regulations as to sanitation, provision of water supply, lighting and heating arrangements, and precautions in case of fire, or whether they are subject to inspection by any authority; and, if so, how often?

Private schools are not required to be registered under the local education authority and the Board of Education have no power to inspect such schools unless they are invited to do so. As regards sanitation, water supply, and ventilation, these schools are subject to the requirements of the general law and by-laws and the local sanitary authority have the right of inspection when it appears to them to be necessary; as regards fire precautions, my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on the 22nd March last, a copy of which he is sending him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will circulate to Members of the House a copy of the dietary scales in use at the various grades of prisons under his control, together with the tables showing the quantities of ingredients required to be used in making tea, cocoa, soup, and other articles of food?

I am sending the hon. Member copies of the ordinary dietary scales in use in convict and local prisons, with the particulars for which he asks as to ingredients, but I hope the hon. Member will not press, save on strong grounds, for its circulation, which would involve a certain expenditure.

Will the Home Secretary place a copy in the Library for our information?

Certainly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the tea and cocoa come from places within the Empire or outside the Empire?

I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short personal explanation with regard to a matter which has already been brought before the House on Thursday last, when the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) quoted a letter from the chairman of the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, in which certain insinuations were made. In the same letter, there appeared the following paragraph:

When on Thursday last this question was raised by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), I was not aware that my name was mentioned in that letter. I want to join with that which has been said both by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken and by the hon. Member for East Bristol, and to say that I have no connection whatever, either direct or indirect, with anything that is hinted at in this letter, but simply raised the question as a matter of public interest.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"in view of the great importance of the fishing industry both as a source of food supply and a valuable adjunct to the Navy and mercantile marine, this House views with concern the present condition of the deep-sea fishing fleets, which, mainly owing to the economic conditions of recent years, have not been adequately maintained by the building of new vessels to replace those which have become too old for efficient service in peace or war, and considers that all practicable means should be adopted for encouraging and enabling the industry to build new vessels and maintain them in a satisfactory state of efficiency,"

I should like to call attention to the great importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Minister!"] Hon. Members are very desirous to know where the Minister of Agriculture is. I have had a note from him regretting that owing to a very important engagement, connected with his work, he is not able to be here for the commencement of the Debate, but he will be here as soon as possible. I am satisfied that there is no discourtesy on his part. He has deputed the Secretary of State for Scotland to take notes in his absence. When I was interrupted, I was remarking upon the importance of the industry as a national asset, in peace time a source of food supply and employment to our people, and in war time an adjunct to the Navy which proved of incalculable value in the last war. It is the sixth largest industry in the country. That may be a revelation to some hon. Members, who may not regard it as of such importance as I do, seeing that I represent the largest fishing port in the world, and I am very proud of the fact that I do represent it.

Directly and indirectly, this industry finds employment for some 264,000 people, and, if you take into account their dependants, over 1,000,000 people are dependent upon the industry for a livelihood. One-fortieth of the population depend on fishing for a living. Therefore, it is indeed an important industry and one worthy of consideration by the House. The range of operations of the fishing fleet is extensive. We go as far north as Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, round the North Cape and along the Murman coast. The North Sea itself, of course, is the most prolific fishing ground of all. Then we go south into the Bay of Biscay and along the coast of Morocco, so the extent of our operations is very great indeed. As regards the war work of our men in the fishing fleet, a great Admiral said:

"The fisheries are the nursery of men inured to hardship and danger, bred to seamanlike qualities, resourceful, daring and self-reliant."

When the War broke out, 3,000 of our steam trawlers and drifters were immediately taken over by the Navy with some 52,000 of our fishermen, who are the best seamen the country has. The Commander of the Grand Fleet said, even during the war period, that it was the fishermen who saved the Navy and the Navy that saved Britain. Lord Balfour made a statement in 1916 which I think is worthy of repetition:

"In mine sweepers and armed trawlers, vast numbers of men, alone, unsupported, in circumstances of great difficulty, often of great peril, have done work of incalculable magnitude. I cannot do justice to all I feel about the work of these men. Necessarily it is little known to the public. Small crews in stormy seas, suddenly face to face with unexpected perils, they have never seemed to fail. The debt of this country to them is beyond all calculation."

Recently, the King has done a great honour to the fishermen by appointing the Prince of Wales Master of the Fishing Fleet, We of Grimsby and other fishing ports are proud of that fact. We acknowledge His Majesty's graciousness in appointing him to that office, and we are looking forward to a visit he is going to pay to our port in June next. Further, we had a reference made at a recent banquet by His Royal Highness and by the Prime Minister to the work of the fishing fleet. As one who has lived for many years among these men and mixed with them in their workaday life and in their hours of leisure, I am indeed a proud man to represent them. I regard them as the finest and bravest men in the country, absolutely the salt of the earth, and of the sea if you like.

I remember several incidents that occurred during war time that are worth repeating. In one week, the following things happened to a fine sample of the type of man on whose behalf I am speaking. His home was bombed by a Zeppelin, he himself was responsible for the sinking of a German submarine, and his own fishing vessel was sunk, and he was taken prisoner aboard a German destroyer. They threatened him with a court-martial and told him he would certainly be shot for having sunk the submarine. He did not lose his courage and the German commander, thinking to dishearten him, said: "Where is your British Fleet? We have been looking for it for a long time." This fellow, with the unconscious humour you always find among the fishermen, replied: "You ease up a bit. They are looking for you, and they will catch you." He was not afraid even under these circumstances.

I hope I have said enough to convince the House that this industry is of importance both as a food-producing industry and for finding employment and also as a valuable adjunct to the Navy in time of war. I want to call attention to certain difficulties with which it is faced with at the moment, and, to do so, I shall have to quote figures as to the trade that is being done. The quantity of wet fish landed, of British taking, in England and Wales in 1926, the latest year for which I have been able to get official figures, was 12,504,000 cwt.—8 per cent. less than in 1925—and the value was £13,202,000–10 per cent. less than in 1925. The total of all kinds of fish landed in Great Britain during that period was 19,000,000 cwts., of the value of £17,000,000.

There has been a steady decline in the building of first-class fishing vessels for some years, and I want to quote figures to prove my contention. On 31st January, 1926, altogether we had 2,626 vessels—a drop of 91 on the previous year's figures. They consisted of 1,760 steamers, 442 motor boats, and 424 sailing vessels. The main point, apart from the drop in the numbers, is the age of many of these vessels. This is rather a serious matter, particularly to the Admiralty, because they say the vessels for use as mine sweepers must be not more than 10 years old if possible. To show the condition the fishing fleets are getting into, I want to give some tables grouped up in ages of five years. Less than five years old, 52 vessels not suitable for mine sweeping purposes. Over five and under 10, 438. Over 10 and under 15 years, 376; between 15 and 20 years old, 223; 20 to 25 years, 163; and over 25 years of age, 243. I think the House will readily grasp, that unless we have additional vessels built within the next year or two, either with some assistance from the Government or by the enterprise of the industry itself, the Admiralty, if the time comes when they require the use of these vessels again as they did during the Great War, will find that suitable vessels are not available for their purpose.

During the last year or two, the industry, like many other industries in this country, has been up against very severe foreign competition. This is a matter which requires some attention on the part of this House. In 1926, the imports of foreign fish were the largest on record. The total value, including fresh, frozen and canned fish, was £11,212,000, as against £10,768,000 in 1925. Going back to the first full year before the War, 1913, the value of the imports was £4,887,000. Thus, there has been a tremendous growth in the importation of foreign fish. The value of fresh caught fish landed in 1926 amounted to £4,410,000. Forty-nine per cent, of it came direct to British ports from the fishing grounds, and the balance by cargo vessels, mostly to Billingsgate. I would ask the House to bear with me with regard to this matter for a moment or two, because I am going to quote some more figures. I am bound to do so in order to prove how severe is this foreign competition and how detrimental it is to the work of our own fishermen.

Taking the imports of the demersal fish, that is, the fish that trawlers bring in— because this directly affects the deep sea fishermen whom I represent—we find that in 1913 the landings of British-caught fish totalled 11,756,304 cwts., or 93 per cent, of the whole amount landed in this country. Foreign catches landed totalled 855,616 cwt., or 7 per cent, of the catch. In 1926—these are the latest official figres that I can get, though I have some unofficial figures for 1927 which are reliable—the total landings of British-caught fish amounted to 10,957,295 cwts., or 83½ per cent, of the total catch, the foreigner landing 2,168,596 cwts., or 16½ per cent, of the total catch. In 1927, the figures were: British takings 11,927,505 cwts., or 84½ per cent, of the total catch, and foreign 2,168,338 cwts., or 15½ per cent; When we come to the question of values, we find that the value of the British-caught fish landed in 1913 was £9,383,443, and the value of the foreign-caught fish landed was £627,061—a percentage of 93¾ per cent, of British-caught fish and 6¼ per cent, of foreign-caught fish. In 1927, the value of British-caught.fish had jumped to £13,478,795, or 81 per cent., and the foreign-caught fish amounted to £3,201,536, or 19 per cent. I want the House to notice the vast jump in the value of the catch landed by foreign fishermen in this country.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether that includes Norwegian herrings?

No, Sir; it is demersal fish only—trawler fish. It does not include either herrings or mackerel. It comprises what we call the deep-sea or wet fish. There is another matter to which I must call the attention of the House in making a comparison in regard to the landing of British-caught fish and foreign-caught fish. We must find out how the wages run in both cases, because if the foreign vessels had to meet the same amount of expenditure as our own vessels it might be said that this was a question of fair competition. We find this position. I have had the figures prepared very carefully in regard to the competition existing between British and foreign vessels landing at the same port. I want the House to understand that the system of wages on our fishing vessels is rather different from the wages system in operation in an ordinary factory. Some of the men are paid wages and poundage, while the skipper receives a share in the vessel's earnings. We have to take into account, therefore, in the case of the fishermen, wages, plus bonus, and, in the case of the skipper, his share of the vessel's profit.

Two vessels—a German and a British—were away for the same length of time. They landed the same day, and their catches realised about the same amount of money. Therefore, in general expenses, there was practically no difference at all between the vessels. It was entirely a question of the amounts paid in wages. The wages and bonus for the voyage, which occupied 21 days, amounted, in the case of the German vessel, to £181 16s., and in the case of the British vessel to £277 4s. 3d. This is a typical example of what happens in regard to wages as between the foreigner and the Britisher. I would never be a party to the slightest reduction in the British fishermen's rate of earnings. He gets paid little enough for the work he does. He earns every penny he receives, and, if there should be any talk about making any reductions in his wages, I should be the first man to say that such a thing should not happen if I could help it.

I want to ask the House to allow me to give the case of another foreign country and its vessels. It is Belgium. Here we get great competition at the Western ports. There is a great deal of competition at Milford Haven, because the Belgian vessels use Milford Haven considerably. I have had typical balance-sheets prepared for me—in the same way as those from which I have just quoted—in regard to a British vessel and a Belgian vessel landing their catches at Milford Haven. I find that the amount paid to the crew of the English vessel for the voyage was £296 19s. whereas the amount paid to the Belgian crew was £151 8s. 9d. When I quote figures such as these, I think hon. Members will realise that we are almost up against the competition of sweated labour. The fireman of the British vessel was paid £15 17s. 6d., whereas the Belgian fireman received £8 7s. 3d. in respect of the same length of time at sea and for the same amount of work. I can quote other instances, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on this matter. I want to try and make my case clear in order to show that our fishermen are up against unfair foreign competition.

Can the hon. Member tell us his remedy for this competition?

That will come later in my speech. I wish to point out another direction where the foreigner is getting an advantage over the Britisher. It is undoubtedly the case that the Governments of France, Germany, Denmark and Norway render financial assistance to their fishing industry, but in what manner it is difficult to ascertain. Possibly the Minister of Agriculture will be able to deal with this matter. I shall be very grateful for any information as to what these foreign countries are doing to assist the fishing industry as regard their own nationals. I know that in some cases loans at reasonable interest have been granted. In other cases, bonuses have been granted, and in other cases definite grants have been made. Let me give the House figures relating to the building of some of the competing countries, which will give an idea of the way in which the fishing industry has grown in those countries. In pre-War days, Denmark had 750 first-class fishing vessels registered at Danish ports. To-day, Denmark has 2,000 up-to-date first-class vessels, mostly seine net motor boats and most of them are owned by individual fishermen and not by large companies, and they have had financial assistance and encouragement from the Danish Government.

Germany surrendered all her supposed obsolete and up-to-date fishing vessels under the Peace Treaty, and she has built since 1918 some 400 new up-to-date trawlers, every one built with Government assistance, I understand. I hope the Minister will deal with that point in his reply, because it is very important. It is far more important than merely a question of food supplies and competition with our own fishermen. There is something more than that behind the building of these 400 large new trawlers by Germany, because Germany is not a fish-consuming country to the same extent as this country. Most of these boats are landing their catches in English ports and competing with our own fishermen. No one realised more than the Germans in the early part of the War the value of the trawler fleet as an auxiliary to the British Navy, in the way of mine sweeping, and the Germans determined then that if ever they had the opportunity they would encourage the building of similar vessels in their own country, so that they would be useful in time of war. My own opinion is that in carrying out that policy in the building of new trawlers the German Government have in view the building of up-to-date vessels suitable for mine sweeping as well as fishing.

What can be done by our own Government to assist the fishing industry? The Prime Minister gave a pledge at the last General Election that he would not agree to any taxation of food supplies. I honour him for that pledge and I am not going to suggest that he should put a tax on foreign fish for the benefit even of our British fishermen; but there are certain ways in which the Government can help, which would cost very little money, because they have all that they require at their disposal at the present time, and it is only a question of diverting it to the right channel. My first suggestion is the necessity for exploration. At the present time we have a research department which is doing very valuable work; but the practical fishermen cannot quite see how valuable that work is. They say that instead of carrying on merely scientific research, studying the habits of fish and the migration of fish, a vessel should be equipped for exploration purposes in uncharted seas, and that it should go out to search for new fishing grounds which can be exploited, ready made, so to speak, for the benefit of this country and its fishermen.

An exploratory vessel was sent out from the port of Fleetwood to explore certain parts of the ocean, and at the time that vessel made the voyages I took particular notice of what happened, and the report which was issued dealing with it. I will give a few details in support of my argument that it would be a very good thing if the Government would carry this exploration work further. The vessel wae called the "Florence Brierley," and the voyage was financed jointly by the Development Commission and the Fleetwood Fishing Vessel Owners' Association. The total cost of the voyage was £l,500, and the object of the voyage was to explore the regions in the neighbourhood of the hundred-fathom line from the North-West of Scotland towards the Coast of Norway, where it was believed that hake could be found, although no commercial fishing had actually taken place in that particular part of the ocean. As a result of the voyages, valuable information, both positive and negative, was gained. New grounds were discovered where hake was found, while examination of other grounds showed that it was no use going there for hake because, owing to natural conditions, it was unlikely that fish of that kind would ever be found there. In addition, valuable scientific data were obtained and a number of new soundings were furnished to the Admiralty. Although the "Florence Brierley" had not the catching of fish commercially as part of her object, she brought in £l,200 worth of fish.

The fishing industry would like more work on the same lines as those followed by the "Florence Brierley," and that is where the Admiralty can help. The Admiralty have a highly efficient surveying service, of which the general public hear very little. Probably it is not known that the Admiralty provide accurate charts of the whole world for the shipping of all nations. We of the fishing industry know something of the value of their work; we see their ships working from fishing ports, and we know that when we want a new chart of any fishing grounds and we apply to the Admiralty for one, we generally get it even though it involves a special survey being made. Therefore, we are very grateful to the Admiralty for what they do for us. Gratitude is expressed with a sense of favours to come, and we would like them to do a little more for us in the future than they have done in the past. I understand that these ships have recently been fitted with echo-sounding apparatus which enables them to take soundings while the ships are going at full speed, thereby enabling them to explore an enormous quantity of grounds in a short time and to locate new banks, if there are any, very quickly. We hope that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will work in conjunction with the Admiralty in this matter and see that we get all assistance possible.

It has always been believed by the fishermen that there is a line of banks extending in a southerly and westerly direction from the Faroe and Bill Bailey Banks, and sometime ago a bank in that direction was discovered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. We would like to ask that one of the surveying ships should run a line or lines of soundings in the direction in which the banks are believed to be, and that if she discovers any new banks their fishing capacity should then be tested at the joint expense of the Government and the fishing industry by commercial vessels working on the same lines as the "Florence Brierley." There are, no doubt, many other regions in which similar methods might be adopted for the benefit of the fishing industry, and at a comparatively small cost to the nation.

4.0 p.m.

We consider that this is a matter of very great importance to the industry. Practical fishermen are convinced that in certain parts of the ocean, as yet unexplored, there are fertile fields for the fishing industry, promising great new catches of fish that will be profitable to those who catch them, and at the same time provide food for the nation. It does not require a great deal of money to deal with the matter. Two years ago it was felt that it would be wise to explore the Greenland fishery grounds. The Norwegians had been there and had got fairly good catches. Some of our men had been there, but had not been successful in striking the right bank, and a suggestion was made that an exploration vessel might be sent out. In fact, the fishing industry offered to supply it, provided the Government would put on board an expert hydrographer and a man expert in dealing with fish and their habits. It was suggested that the cost should be divided. I am sorry we did not succeed in getting the Department to help us in the matter. They told us the usual story, that they had no money which they could use for that particular purpose, but I am hoping that it will be possible to provide a little money to deal with this great question. It would help our men very much indeed, and if the Minister would take note of it, I should be very pleased to hear from him that it is the intention of the Government seriously to consider this matter. With regard to research, no doubt there has been a great deal of valuable work in the study of the habits of food fishes, their migrations and, incidentally, the best ways of preventing over-fishing or uneconomic fishing by means of the Ministry's ordinary scientific work on which it appears that over £20,000 is spent annually, and no doubt the industry will benefit greatly from this when the researches are completed, though it will take many years before their completion. What, however, is desired by the industry is a different branch of research which will give immediate results in finding new grounds, and in giving relief to the existing grounds which are, no doubt, hardly worked, which can only be done by exploratory voyages, such as have been suggested.

There is another matter which has been suggested whereby the Government should assist the industry in the same way as it is suggested that the agricultural industry shall be dealt with, namely, by extended credits. I am in a somewhat difficult position this afternoon in speaking of this because the great trawling industry with which I am connected, or rather those who are members of the industry representing the various ports, have not yet come to a definite decision on this matter. There is no doubt that certain men in the industry think that a system of extended credits would be of great benefit to the industry. On the other hand, there are men who do not quite agree with that point of view. The position at the moment is that all the ports are carefully considering the matter, and when their reports come through and are made up into one complete report, the Members of this House who represent the trawling ports will no doubt receive that report, and possibly a conference can be arranged between the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland and those Members who represent fishing ports for the purpose of discussing this matter.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this will include the longshore fishing of Scotland which the trawling industry is destroying?

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question I really cannot answer. I am speaking on behalf of the deep-sea fishermen and the trawling industry at the moment. I believe that the Scottish herring fishermen and the inshore fishermen have made representations for a deputation to be received on the matter, and, if not, they intend to do so. The latter part of the question I prefer not to answer at any length, because, really, an answer is not required. The right hon. Gentleman says that the trawler men are destroying the others. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our trawler men keep well outside the three-mile limit. On the question of the inshore fishermen versus the deep-sea fishermen, I am sure Mr. Speaker would rule that it is hardly a fit Debate for this House, though I should be very delighted to debate the question with my right hon. Friend on any platform in Scotland or anywhere else.

I ought to point out that the question of credits would require an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, it is not open to discussion in this Debate.

There is another matter which would be of assistance to the industry. I have mentioned it before in this House. Would it not be possible for the Government to provide a retainer for the vessels which are kept up to a certain standard of efficiency, ready for the nation's service if and when required. There was some scheme of this kind in operation before the War, and, as regards the personnel of the Royal Naval Reserve, there is such a thing as a retaining fee being paid to-day. It is felt that it would be wise for the Government to pay a retainer in the case of vessels that are suitable for mine-sweeping and patrol work, provided those vessels are kept up to a certain standard as regards engine power, boiler power, and general efficiency of the vessel. They could be built to suit the Admiralty, and therefore be really an auxiliary force for the Navy, without the Navy Estimates having to be drawn upon to any large extent. I hope that something in that way will be considered by the Government in dealing with the question of assistance to the fishing industry.

A subject which is of very great importance to my constituency, the port of Grimsby, is that of the Government assisting with harbour works, not only there but round the whole coast, because as I have travelled along the coast—and I am not now speaking particularly for the deep sea fishermen—I find that also in the smaller ports there is a great lack of berth accommodation and harbour space. As the Government in times past have assisted in this matter, I think it is worth while mentioning it here again, and asking that this should be given very careful consideration. It does not matter how good your vessels are or how efficient your fishermen may be, if it so happens that they are crowded out at the time they want to land their fish, thereby missing the market, resulting in the loss of valuable food and the men are not getting what they should receive for the work they put in. In Grimsby we are "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" in a very small space in comparison with a large number of vessels that sail from that port, and the addition of many foreign vessels coming into the port is making it harder for our people to get in at all. Time and time again vessels have had to lie out in the river, instead of coming into the docks to land their catches and get them away to inland markets. There is, consequently, deterioration of fish, loss of time and aggravation all round.

In 1914, the Great Central Railway, which is now merged in the London and North Eastern Railway Company, promoted a Bill in this House to build additional fish docks in Grimsby. The House gave its consent, and a contract was made, the sum being £500,000. That would have met all the needs of the district. Then the War came, and the Government at that time said, "You must not go on with this work," quite rightly, I agree. But what happened? When the War was over, and these people were asked to go on with the work, which they were quite willing to do, they found in getting out a new contract that the price would be £1,050,000, or more than double what it would have cost in 1914. Naturally, the railway company said that they must wait until conditions were better and prices lower. At that time, schemes were being brought forward for public assistance to provide work for the unemployed, and application was made on behalf of this scheme for a grant under the circular that had been issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee that harbour works and dock works could be included. Everybody thought that we were going to get a new dock at least. The company said that if the Government would provide £200,000 they would go on with the work, taking all their labour from the local Employment Exchange. Something like 5,000 men would have been employed on that particular job, and it would have been started right away. We brought the matter before various Ministers and various Governments. I, myself, headed deputation after deputation. Unfortunately, we did not get the answer we wanted, which was "Yes, we will make the grant."

During that period a very careful inquiry was made by the Ministry of Labour to find out exactly the position of unemployment in Grimsby. Unemployment has varied during the last three or four years from 3,000 men to over 4,000 men on the register, and the amount paid out has varied from £80,000 to £100,000 a year. In 1922, a real attempt was made to get the Government to agree to this grant of £200,000. From 1922 to 1928, the average paid out from the Employment Exchange has been something like £100,000 a year. I ask the House to consider the question. With two years' expenditure we could have kept 5,000 men employed for something like six years, which would have meant a great saving of the nation's money. I am wondering when we are going to realise the position. There are other fishing ports round the coast which require harbour and dock improvement, and I wish them good luck in their endeavours to get Government assistance. If I could get it for my own constituency, I should think I had done a great service not only to that constituency, but to the country, for surely it is better to spend £200,000 in order to find five years' work for 5,000 men, than to pay several times that amount merely to make men sign at the Employment Exchange. It is sound common sense, and I cannot understand why we cannot get even my own Government to see it. It is not only this Government that has turned it down, but successive Governments, including the Labour Government. In my opinion, this is a sound scheme, but evidently, in the opinion of the Ministers of the Crown, it is not so sound, though I require a good deal of convincing.

I hope that I have been able to convince the House that the fishing industry is an industry of some importance to the country, that it is worthy of being encouraged and fostered, and that it is the duty of this or any other Government to do all that lies in their power to help this industry back to prosperity. Our men are not the men to ask for favours. They are prepared to shoulder the burden, and to try to bring the industry back to a state of prosperity, but they are faced with various difficulties, difficulties such as I have mentioned with regard to foreign competition, difficuties connected even with such a small thing as carriage, which is a matter with which, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) will deal. There is, howver, one figure on that which I should like to quote to show the difficulties we are up against. Take the question of Danish fish which comes from Esbjerg to Harwich and then by rail to Billingsgate. The carriage on that delivered at Billingsgate is 57s. l0d. per ton for prime fish and 39s. 6d. for class 2 fish. They are sending nearly all the fish as class 2, although claimed to be prime when sold in the market. Now take fish from Grimsby to London, and, of course, there is no sea passage. This is simply carriage from Grimsby to London, and there are delivery charges on top of that. Common fish, equal to class 2 fish in the other rate quoted, is 2s. 3d. per cwt., or 45s. a ton, as against 39s. 6d. for class 2 fish all the way from Esbjerg to London, and delivered at that and prime fish 70s. a ton against 57s. 10d. The handicap to the industry may not seem much per ton, but it makes a difference when you consider the vast quantity that is carried. It is a handicap to the industry.

I should like to refer to the system which prevails in this country of compelling pre-payment of carriage on fish before it is accepted for transit by passenger train. It has caused a good deal of trouble to the industry. It was done during the War, and our people agreed to it as a wartime Measure on the understanding that it would be withdrawn when the War was over. Scotsmen were too canny even to agree to this, and they do not therefore have to pre-pay the carriage. This is also a great handicap to the industry, and you have to pay for a full cwt. even if the consignment is less than that amount. All these are little matters which require attention. If we could get some assistance from the Government, it would help to bring prosperity to the industry. What we want is a fair field and no favour. If the foreigner paid the same wages as we pay; if he contributed in the shape of taxes and rates in the same way as our own people, if he received no subsidies from his own Government, but was in the same position as our own people and had to fight his own battles in the same way as our own people, we should have nothing to complain about, but this competition is distinctly unfair. We do ask the Government, not to keep out foreign caught fish but to assist the industry in other ways; and in all the circumstances we have a right to ask for this assistance.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has covered the ground so very well indeed that I feel there is very little for me to say. I should like, however, to emphasise a few of the facts he has brought before the House. In the first place, the House should thoroughly understand the very parlous state of the trawling industry in this country, and unless something is done to place it on a sound and proper basis it must gradually die. No industry can remain stationary. It must progress or go back; and anyone who looks at the trawling industry to-day and compares it with what it was before the War must admit that it has gone backward and not forward. It is absolutely essential if we are going to keep this industry up to date that we should build new vessels if we are to keep them on the fishing grounds. The older vessels are less economic to work, less able to withstand foreign competition, and become more difficult and more unseaworthy. Take the period before the War; what do we find? The number of fishing vessels to-day less than five years old is 52, that means that in five years 52 vessels have been built. In the year 1910, 122 vessels were built, and for the years 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914, 789 trawlers and drifters were built as against about 50 in the last five years. It means that the industry is going backward; that fresh capital is not coming in, and unless fresh capital comes in you cannot keep your industry alive.

Personally, I do not think that a credit scheme is going to help the industry. If the industry was a progressive one plenty of capital would be available. People with capital, if they saw that the industry was progressing and that an ordinary profit was to be made out of it, would invest their capital in it; but to-day trawling company after trawling company is finding it quite impossible to put anything to reserve; they cannot even meet current expenses. Recently, although the banks have been holding up year after year hoping for better times, it has been the case that in certain ports they have had to realise their securities, and so trawlers on which advances of from £12,000 to £14,000 were made have had to be sacrificed for from £3,000 to £5,000. Many of these boats are purchased by the foreigner. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in a question asked what was a remedy. In my opinion, the remedy is twofold. One remedy for this and similar matters is that which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Grimsby, and there is the bolder policy, to see that we should get fair play for our own people in our own markets. If we suggest a tariff on fish, immediately our political opponents say: "You are taxing the food of the people." But I would ask the House to remember that the figures which have been given to the House show that, in my own port of Milford Haven, we cannot compete with foreign trawlers because of the cost to ourselves. You may send our trawlers to sea and keep them at sea exactly as long as the foreign trawlers. They may come in at exactly the same moment, with the same amount of fish, and sell it at the same price on the same day, yet the foreigner makes a profit and our own trawlers make a loss, because the wages of the foreigner are so much less than those of our own men.

There is also the cost of food. In a foreign trawler you will see the men sitting round a dish, generally it is a fish dish, each man helping himself. Our own people see that they have the food for which they have stipulated; and quite rightly. There are proper joints of meat, and vegetables served in a proper manner, with a cook to look after them. If we are desirous that our people should be treated in this way, then it is our duty to protect them against the unfair competition of the foreigner, otherwise you are not giving them a chance of treating the men fairly and properly. It must also be remembered that every penny of profit which the foreigner makes at the dockside is taken out of the country; not a single penny is paid in taxation or anything else. If our own people make a profit they have to pay 20 per cent, in taxation. This is unfair foreign competition, and it is something, which could be put right if we had the common sense and feeling of the nation at our back; if the matter was treated without prejudice, not made a party question, and was looked upon as an industrial matter for the benefit of those engaged in the industry.

There is another point with regard to this unfair competition which affects the port of Milford Haven very much. We ask to be put on the same footing as the foreigner with regard to trawling and the limits within which we can trawl. Some years ago it was suggested that there should be an international arrangement with regard to international waters, that there should be freedom of navigation and fishery on the high seas for vessels of all nations within certain limits and with certain restrictions. Unfortunately this arrangement was not brought about, and to-day we have numerous cases of our own trawlers fishing within certain limits off the coast of Ireland, ten miles away from land, and fishing inside them, seven miles inside them, have been foreign trawlers, yet our own vessels have been seized, the gear confiscated and the men brought before the Irish Courts and fined. The foreigner goes on with his fishing, brings his catch back to Milford Haven and sells it. That is manifestly unfair and unjust, and I hope something will be done to put all trawlers on the same footing. If hon. Members opposite prefer a larger limit than three miles I do not mind, but I think we should all be put on the same footing, whether the limit is three miles or ten miles.

I hope the hon. Member is not speaking for the Government in suggesting that the limit should be three miles.

I say let us all be on the same footing. If we cannot go within three miles then other trawlers should not be allowed to go within three miles. Let us all go within three miles or all outside 10 miles. Let us have equality of treatment. Then there is the question of research grants. I suggested some years ago that a research vessel should be detailed for the Atlantic fisheries. We have had no research vessel there. There are large fishing grounds in that area, but nobody knows where they are, at least if the skipper of a trawler is fortunate enough to come across one he keeps it to himself; and small blame to him. I think a great deal more could be done in regard to this research work. I suppose it is a question of funds. The only result of the appeal I made some years ago was that last year we had a research vessel around for a few weeks. It was very nice to see the vessel but it was quite impossible for any results to accrue from a visit of such short duration. Research work must extend overyears; it must be done systematically, and in conjunction with trawl owners and skippers who have a knowledge of the fishing grounds. Research work might also be extended in the direction of the preservation of fish and the canning of fish; the preparation of fish for food in all its forms. If work was done in that direction a great deal of help would be given to the fishing industry.

I would ask all hon. Members who have the idea that the slightest duty on an article puts up the price to the consumer to remember that the price of fish at the dockside does not rule the price of fish in the market. The price to the consumer does not vary to the same degree as it does on the dockside. You may have fish brought in and sold at £2 per kit and the same fish may be selling the day after at £6 per kit, but the price to the consumer in the retail shops will be exactly the same. Research work in regard to fish preservation would help the industry very much. To sell fish at the lowest price is utterly unremunerative, but fish being such a perishable food it is impossible to do otherwise on certain occasions. I know that the sympathy of the Ministry of Agriculture is with the industry. There are no more accessible or sympathetic officials in any Government Department than those in the Department of Fisheries, but I should like to see it made bigger and more worthy of the great food producing industry with which it deals.

If we turn to the Estimates we see there something which is agreed to by all parties, namely, a vast expenditure of money on agricultural research. If we look through the Estimates a little further we find that the amount spent on fishery research is an exceedingly small sum. I do not want to quote figures, because it might be suggested that I am pitting fisheries against agriculture. I do not suggest that enough is spent on agriculture, but I do suggest that not nearly enough is spent on fishery research and fishery work by the Ministry. I dare say it is because the Ministry cannot get the money to spend, but I hope they will not be backward in asking for it, as I am certain that they will have the support of the House, for it would be money well spent and in the interests of the country. I feel that the great trawling industry must be taken in hand and must be treated seriously by the Government if it is to be kept alive. I know that it is the wish of the House that the industry should be kept alive. Therefore, I ask the Minister to go forward with a good heart and to be courageous in his demand on the Treasury for the money which would be spent in the interests of the nation in upholding the fishery industry.

We have listened to two interesting speeches by the two hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment before the House, but in both cases the hon. Members addressed themselves to what they called the trawling industry. I venture to put in a plea for the inshore fishermen, whose interests are not identical with those of the trawling industry and sometimes are antagonistic. The trawlers undoubtedly are passing through a period of great depression, but I do not think that even the Mover of the Amendment told us the whole story. I listened to him very carefully for about 40 minutes, during a most interesting description of the state of the industry and the proposals that he had to make for its recovery, but he said little or nothing about the financial complications which have done more to cripple the industry than almost anything else. The trawling companies in some districts have been over-capitalised. They went through a period of considerable prosperity, like a good many other trades, shortly after the War, and over-capitalisation has done nothing but cripple them ever since. It is one of the reasons why they are not now able to use their reserves, indeed why they have no reserves to use, for the rebuilding of their fleet. Their problems, therefore, are different from those of the inshore men. It is to a plea for the inshore men that I ask the attention of the Minister. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will lend a ready ear to the appeals from Grimsby, Milford Haven and Hull, but I hope he will remember also the hundreds of fishing villages around the coast which have not as eloquent or forcible or barefaced spokesman, but which are just as much entitled to the support and assistance of the Ministry as are the more wealthy concerns which run the big trawlers and trade all over the world.