asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether any discussions have taken place between the Dominions Office and the members of the Commission of Government in Newfoundland, now in this country, regarding the bad economic conditions in the island; and when another report on the condition of the people and the steps being taken to deal with them is to be published?

My right hon. Friend has seen the members of the Commission of Government now in this country and has discussed with them the effect on the economic position of the island of the recent set-back in the fishing industry. He will consult the Governor as to the possibilities of issuing shortly a further Command Paper containing a report on the local situation.

May we have a copy of this report before the House resumes seeing that it is six months since we had one?

I am afraid I cannot promise that, but there will be no undue delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any recent discussions have taken place or plans have been circulated to other countries, or been under consideration here, concerning a reform of the League of Nations; and, if so will he state their nature?

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will consider inviting the United States Government to join the League of Nations in seeking an advisory opinion from the Permanent Court of International Justice as to the precise legal position of Italy with regard to the Suez Canal, in view of the fact that she has violated the Pact of Paris and broken other treaties?

I am afraid that no useful purpose would be served by action in the sense proposed.

Can the noble Lord say whether this aspect of the matter has as yet been under consideration at all at Geneva?

That is a different question. I think that I am right in saying that it has not been under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries, in addition to Austria, Hungary, Albania, and Paraguay, have, so far, failed to carry out their obligations under the Covenant to apply sanctions to Italy?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on this subject on 17th December.

Is France included in this List?

No, Sir.

Ought she not to be?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that $203,075 was allocated from the British Honduras Hurricane Reconstruction Loan of 1932 for agricultural settlements; what was the reason for the grant of $100,000, afterwards increased, at the request of the Governor of British Honduras, to $200,000, to the Belize Estate and Produce Company of British Honduras; on what grounds the Governor, when recommending the doubling of the grant, maintained that it could be done without encroaching on other allocations from the Hurricane Restoration Loan; whether the company has fulfilled its obligation to repay the grant made to it, with interest, in three years; and whether the money thus refunded will now be made available for the original purposes of the loan;

(2) whether he is aware that a sum of £60,000 was allocated under the British Honduras Reconstruction Loan Ordinance of 1932, for the purposes of agricultural settlements; whether any additions have been made to this grant; how much of the original grant, and of any subsequent grant, has been used to assist the Belize Estate and Produce Company, Limited; how much has been allocated to the requirements of individual agriculturists; and whether any balance still remains for grants to small agriculturists?

With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the reply to these two questions, which is necessarily long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Has all this money, which was granted as a loan by this Government to British Honduras, been used for the purposes, for which it was allocated, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is used in a proper manner for reconstruction purposes, as suggested in the loan?

My hon. Friend will see in the very long reply that I have given all details, and perhaps, if necessary, he will put another question.

asked the Postmaster-General at what date the maximum age limit for appointment as postmen applicable in the case of able-bodied men who served during the War was fixed at 40; and whether, in view of the fact that this limitation prevents the appointment of any ex-service man who was over the age of 23 years at the end of the War, he will now consider increasing the age limit so as not to debar a large number of ex-service men from obtaining such work?

The normal maximum age limit for appointment as postman is 30, but this was extended in 1920 to 40 to meet the case of able-bodied men who served during the War. An age extension up to 45 is allowed to pensioners, both disability and long service. These extensions already make the average age of entry to the postmen's class at least as high as is desirable in the interests of efficiency, and I do not consider any further extension to be desirable.

May I rest assured that ex-service men always have preference over others in the Post Office?

Since 1920 some 30,000 ex-service men have been given appointments in the Post Office, and when there are any temporary appointments to be made ex-service men always get the preference.

Will the Government now see the great necessity for bringing in pensions for all over 40 years of age?

And raising the school-leaving age to 45?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to offer any compensation to those sharemen who have lost their employment through the action of the Admiralty in taking over steam trawlers from Hull and other ports who have not the advantage of unemployment insurance and who were not given the opportunity of serving under the Admiralty?

These trawlers were purchased from the owners as an ordinary commercial transaction, and I regret that no grounds exist on which compensation could be paid. I may add that several of the trawlers are being fitted for Admiralty service by local establishments.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider giving to the deck-hands, engineers, and sharemen who have lost their employment through the action of the Admiralty in taking over steam trawlers from Hull and other ports, the same compensation which is offered by the Board of Trade when the crew lose their employment through a Board of Trade inquiry?

I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to the previous question. As he is aware, the Admiralty have offered the opportunity of engagement to the crews of all the vessels, with the exception of the skippers and second hands.

Does not the noble Lord consider that the skippers and second hands have a legitimate grievance in this matter since they do not get unemployment insurance and do not have an opportunity of alternative employment; and will he not reconsider his decision that nothing can be done to help these men?

I think that there are really no grounds for the payment of compensation in these cases.

We have been discussing this week questions of international importance arising out of a crisis. To-day we want to raise a question which, in the opinion of many of us, is of great national importance, and which in itself may bring a great crisis if full opportunities are not grasped between now and the next few weeks, particularly, we hope, by the Government. Whatever may ultimately be the decision, we hope that the Government will take advantage of every opportunity in order to bring this matter to a peaceful end. We are adjourning to-day for Christmas. It is a season of good will and we were hoping, as members of the mining industry, that we should be able to go home with the knowledge that our demands, our rights, had been granted and that we had reached an end of the business, and that we along with the miners would-be able to enjoy Christmas in a spirit of good will and rejoicing. At the present time that is hardly the case.

Everybody will admit, I think, that for the last eight months, ever since our first claim was made, our people have used every reasonable argument that could be used. They have been constitutional, they have appealed to the public, they have argued, they have been logical, they have been reasonable, and it is fair to say that they have not exaggerated their case, but have been content to put to the Government and the country the facts of the mining situation as they exist, feeling that if those facts were brought home to the people they would be content for the country to judge as to the justice of the miners' case. I am sorry to say that up to the present time our efforts have met, if not with failure, at any rate, with such a small amount of success as almost to amount to failure.

Let me briefly review the last few years. We had a stoppage in 1926. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of that. We fought then for what we thought were our rights, and we fought tenaciously, but we were beaten. The coalowners then had an unprecedented opportunity of putting into operation every idea that they had advanced. They asked for longer hours, and they got them. 750,000 of our men were put on an 8-hour day and 250,000 on a 7½-hour day. That went on until 1931, when we all got a 7½-hour day, and we are still working half an hour longer than in 1926. Then the owners asked for lower wages, and they got that concession. Within a few weeks or months of our going back in 1926 we were down to the minimum; every single coalfield and pit in the country was down to the minimum, and we have been there ever since. It has been nine years of undiluted, soul-destroying poverty arising from low wages.

The owners said, in addition, "Give us an opportunity for putting into operation these things and we promise you prosperity within a short time." They said also, "We shall want an extra output of one cwt. per man per shift." I see coal-owners sitting opposite to me now who argued that in a relatively short time prosperity would come back to the industry and they would be able to give better wages, and possibly to come back to shorter hours. They not only got the one cwt. extra per man, but nearly five cwt. increase per man per day. They got the longer hours and low wages and five or six cwts. extra output that they asked for. They have reduced our standards of life throughout the length of the country. In other words they have had full power to exact their will, as they won, and they have done it. The net result is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

After nine years of this our people decided, in April of this year, that the time had come when an end must be put to the present state of affairs. They decided that they had endured poverty and had been at the mercy of the coalowners far too long, that the opportunities given to the coalowners had been wasted, and that the probability was that in the future more chaos than ever would exist in the industry. For nine months we have continued our agitation in every constitutional way that is open to us. We have got the public sympathy, and I think it is fair to say that we have the sympathy of a good many Members of this House. There was an unprecedented occurrence here last week, when we were discussing a Motion on the subject. On every previous occasion when the mines have been discussed the discussion has been of the fiercest controversial character. The case that has been put from this side has been violently disputed from the other side of the House. But last week there was almost unanimity in the House, and there were three coalowners who actually agreed with all that we said. In addition the public agreed with us. But I do not know where the Government stand, and I want to know to-day.

There you have the position. All we as miners have got are the promises made to us by the coalowners. We have to go home this Christmas, and that is the rejoicing that will be in our hearts at what should be a time of good will. That is the Christmas box that the Government have given to the miners of the country. The Government made a statement the other day. When I read it, it struck me that they were almost supporting the coalowners in what the coalowners had done. The Secretary for Mines shakes his head. At any rate the Government statement implied that to me. Here is one paragraph from it:

"It may be pointed out that very substantial advance has been made recently in three matters of the greatest importance to the mineworkers. These are

(a) the organisation of the selling of coal on lines acceptable to the Government, and in such a way as to improve the proceeds of the industry, with advantage to the wage position, has been promised by the end of June."

That is belated, but it is welcome. It strikes me as on a par with the conversion of the Government to the League of Nations idea. We welcome the conversion to selling agencies, but it has to be remembered that the owners have had this power since 1930. When we were a minority Government in 1930 we recognised that if anything was to be done for the industry it would have to be done on those lines, and an Act was passed which gave those powers to the coal-owners. Since 1930, however, they have consistently refused to use the powers. I think I do not exaggerate when I say that there has been a certain amount of compulsion put upon them now in order to make them use the powers. If you get unwilling participants in a scheme, as the coalowners have been from 1930 up to now, and if now, in face of their unwillingness, they have been compelled almost to adopt these powers, what hope is there of their making a success of the scheme when they have adopted it? In view of their past attitude what guarantee is there that they are going to make a success of it? It will be easy for them to sabotage it and make it a failure. I ask the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether he has any guarantee from the owners themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been conducting negotiations with them.

There is another question I ask. I understand that, even if this proposal comes into operation, it will be June or July next, June at the earliest, before it can be started. That will be the beginning of it, I assume. If that is so, can the Secretary for Mines tell us how much time is likely to elapse after that before the revenue actually begins to accrue? I take it that the coalowners are doing these things with their eyes open, that they have gone into every detail and must have some idea as to how long it will be after the agencies are set up before any revenue accrues. Suppose that the scheme is put into operation, suppose that it is a success and suppose that revenue does accrue, are the coalowners, when the extra revenue comes into the pool, going first to take out the extra profits to which they claim they are entitled?

Under existing agreements there is a ratio between wages and profits after costs of production have been taken out. We often complain of what is taken out for costs of production, but I am not arguing that point now. The ratio is 85 for wages to 15 for the owners. The owners argue in most cases—they do so in Yorkshire I know—that for months and years they have not got the amount of profits due to them. In other words they claim that they are entitled to about 1s. 8d. per ton, and they say that for months and years they have received only 9d. a ton. They claim to be entitled to another 11d. a ton, or in some cases to 9d. After the extra revenue accrues are the owners to get an extra 9d., 10d. or 11d. per ton before anything can accrue to wages? Surely, this must have been discussed. I am told by the officials of the Miners' Federation that there has been no guarantee whatever that the coalowroers will not claim their full amount before anything can accrue to wages.

Then there is the question of the deficiency. This is a technical matter, but I will explain it as simply as I can. We have an agreement in Yorkshire on the same basis as the agreement in most other coalfields. We have a standard rate in which skilled men get 7s. 6d. per day and surface men 5s. 4d. We add 32 per cent. to these rates, but if the amount in the pool after the monthly ascertainment has been taken for distribution between the owners and the miners in wages and profit is not sufficient to pay the 32 per cent. then the deficiency, whatever it is, must be made up to the 32 per cent For instance, if in the last month's ascertainment there is only sufficient money in the pool to pay the standard rate plus 16 per cent., the owners have to make up the 16 per cent. out of their profits to the 32 per cent., but that 16 per cent., or any other figure, which accrues in any month—it may be 20 per cent. or 6 per cent.—is supposed to go into a fund as a debt which is supposed to be paid back to the owners before the miners can get any increase of wages over 32 per cent. That debt sometimes reaches enormous figures. In Yorkshire that deficiency in five years reached a total of £9,000,000. It was realised that it was utterly impossible to get it back, and the owners had to wipe it out and we started over again. At the present moment we have another debt of £8,000,000, and I understand that throughout the Federation the debt at the moment under this heading is £38,000,000. If money goes into the pool through these selling agencies is there any guarantee that the owners are not going to claim this deficiency?

Why should they not?

I am asking whether it is right and just that they should claim it. I am told by the miners' officials that they have asked this question again and again and cannot get any information. In other words, there is no guarantee whatever that if extra money is going to accrue to the pool through these selling agencies the coalowners will not only claim the extra ratio of profits of 9d. or 11d. per ton, but may also claim the £8,000,000 which is owing to them in Yorkshire. I hope the Secretary for Mines will tell us something on this point. Perhaps the coalowners have told him more than they have told us. If he can make a statement this morning that they are not going to make this claim, and that the deficiency will be wiped out so that the revenue will go to help wages, we shall go home in better heart than if we are left with the scanty amount of knowledge which we have at the moment.

The Secretary for Mines has claimed to the credit of the Government that there is actual contact between representatives of the employers and the Miners' Federation. He says that this has been secured. We have been trying to meet the owners nationally, but have not succeeded. The claim that it has been done is likely to give a false impression to the public. We know the actual facts. As a matter of fact, they have met twice. On the first occasion there were two members from the Mining Association and three from the Miners' Federation, but they did not discuss the situation at all. They met again last Tuesday but did not discuss the merits of the case as a Mining Association and a Miners' Federation. National contact has not been secured to the extent of getting them to agree to discuss the situation. All that has happened is that the owners have met nationally and told the Miners' Federation that they would meet them nationally, that they must go back to the districts to discuss this question. When the Secretary for Mines claims credit for having secured national contact, it is well to bear this fact in mind. He also says that he hopes this method of discussion will be continued and

"that it will not again be necessary for the Secretary for Mines to act as intermediary between the parties."

That is a pious hope, which I do not think will be realised. I hope that contact will be continued but I hope it will be very much widened. It is just about as thin and narrow as contact can be. But the statement which has been issued by the Secretary for Mines is likely to create a wrong impression in the minds of the public who will think that contact has once again been resumed, and that they are justified in thinking that in future the negotiations are to be continued between the National Federation of Miners and the Mining Association. That is not true, and it should be corrected. Another statement which the Secretary for Mines makes is:

"An increase in wages in every district, with effect from January 1st next, has been promised."

What sort of an increase is it? How much? Surely after all these months during which this claim has been made the coalowners have studied the question and are in a position to say how much they are prepared to offer. Surely, they must know. But they refuse to say. No figure has been mentioned. It might be anything from 1d. to the 2s. I hope it is the 2s. but I have some doubt about it. It might be something less, but whatever it is they refuse to mention any figure. If contact has been secured between the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association surely it is not too much to ask what they are prepared to give. They would not tell our people. They said, "You go back to your districts, dissipate the forces you have collected, shut your eyes and open your mouths and see what God sends you." They say that if the miners will get back to their districts they will say what they are prepared to give. In my opinion it will not be a uniform amount. We are asking that there shall be a uniform increase in miners' wages throughout the length and breadth of the country. That is what our miners want. Suppose we go back to the districts and we have 2s. offered in one district and 6d. in another. I may be a little optimistic. No doubt they will keep their promise and make an offer, but would such an offer be satisfactory to our people? The poverty of our people is such that there must be a uniform advance of the greatest amount possible. Every member of the Miners' Federation without exception wants that, and we want it to be kept in mind not only that we have not secured contact in the sense which the Mines Department apparently would have people believe, but that we are not likely to get a satisfactory answer in regard to our claim for uniformity. There is another thing. The Secretary of Mines made the following statement to the Executive Committee.

"The Government is not prepared to adopt the suggestion made by the Executive of the Mineworkers Federation that a subsidy should be granted from public funds temporarily to augment wages in the mining industry, nor the alternative suggestions of a similar kind which have been made namely a direct loan from public funds or a Government guarantee for a loan from other sources."

I am told that a subsidy, as ordinarily understood has not been asked for but this statement makes it appear to the general public that such a subsidy has been asked for by the Federation. I suggest that the statement is not as clear as it ought to be and it does not quite convey the truth to the public. Assuming however that a subsidy has been asked for, since when have the Government rejected the policy of subsidies? I have heard it said by hon. Members opposite as well as on this side, that the last Government gave more subsidies than any other Government in the history of the country, and this Government is largely the same as its predecessor. They are prepared to give out money with a free hand to all sorts of industries, when the employers ask for it. Now apparently they have come to the end of the policy of subsidies. Assuming that we had asked for a subsidy is there any good reason why it should not be given in this case just as in other cases. Or is the reason for the Government's refusal to consider such a suggestion the fact that, if a subsidy had to be given in this case it would go directly in wages to the working class and not to the employers?

Subsidies have been given to the owners of beet sugar factories—sums so enormous that some of the Members on the other side are ashamed of the business and want to end it. Subsidies have been given to wheat growers to beef producers, to milk suppliers. Only a few weeks ago a subsidy of £2,000,000 was given to shipping and the shipowners have told the Government in no uncertain terms that that is only regarded as an instalment that they will not be satisfied with it but that they will want more, and the Government have indicated that another £2,000,000 is in prospect for that industry. Every time that employers have asked for subsidies their requests have been granted but when a subsidy for the miners is mentioned, we are told that it is impossible.

Then there is the question of a loan. What is wrong with that suggestion? Are the Government not prepared even to guarantee a loan for this purpose? They indicate to the public that the establishment of selling agencies is almost certain to result in extra revenue and that out of than revenue we shall get an increase in wages. In other words they say "This is a very good asset." If so, is there any more reason why the Government should not gurantee a loan on that asset, than there was in the case a the loan guaranteed to the railway companies last week? We are asking for this guarantee. The railway companies did not ask for it. The Government went out of their way to approach the railway companies and said: "Look here you fellows, if you will only start this work and provide employment we as a Government will take advantage of cheap credit and finance a loan for you." When we ask them to apply the same remedy in the case of the miners wages we are told that it cannot be done. Why this different of treatment between the railways and the mines and in particular why this difference of treatment between the employers and wage workers?

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will answer some of the questions which I have put and do his best to send us home with more comfortable feelings than those which exist in our minds and hearts at the present time. The conference decided yesterday to give notices which will expire on 27th January if a settlement has not been reached before then. That does not mean that every effort will not be expended by the Federation representatives in every direction, just as every effort has been expended by them in the last eight months, to reach a settlement. But notices have had to be given in and if there is not a settlement soon we shall be in another dispute. None of us likes disputes for the sake of disputes. I have been in a good many, as a working miner and as a miners' representative, in the last 30 years and they are very bad experiences to go through. But I put this to the Secretary for Mines. If people have been condemned to impoverished wages and rotten conditions such as our people have been condemned to for nine years, they are liable to become desperate. They begin to argue that whatever happens their situation cannot be any worse.

The miners are sick to death of the poverty which they have suffered for the last nine years. They have employed every reasonable means during the last eight months—and nobody can say anything to the contrary. Why then should hon. Members or anybody else complain if, having failed to remedy their position by reasonable constitutional means, they use the only weapon which is left to them in order to force the issue? Would they not be less than human if they did not do so? These same miners during the War were held up as examples of British courage. Do not forget that they still possess that courage and that just as they fought in France and elsewhere in the world they can fight for justice for themselves at home. You have no more reason to blame them if they fight for themselves here than you had to blame them for fighting so desperately in the last War, and the things which they will fight for in this case will be just as necessary and good and desirable as the things for which they fought in the War.

I hope that a dispute will be avoided. It is up to the Government to avoid it. Where is the Prime Minister in relation to this business? I am not belittling the efforts of the Secretary for Mines but he is not the Prime Minister, and this industry is reaching a crisis which affects 800,000 miners and their dependants or nearly 5,000,000 people. We have public opinion in our favour. We have coalowners in this House in our favour. We have a section of hon. Members opposite in our favour. Are the Government going to allow matters to drift to a crisis, a dispute and a stoppage? It is time that the Prime Minister took a hand in the business. We want to see him doing so within the next few days or even within the next few hours. We would like to hear a statement from him to-day before we leave. We have had a crisis in international affairs and the Prime Minister yesterday admitted that he had made a blunder in that case and did his best to retrieve it. Let him be careful that he does not make another blunder in this case during the next few weeks. Let him learn from the experience that has been his in the last week or two that to thousands of people this is just as intense a crisis as the crisis of last week. Let him realise that it is his bounden duty to take a, hand in this business immediately and that it is necessary for him to be just as careful that he does not make any mistake in judgment as he would be in an international crisis. Yesterday the Prime Minister said:

"I was not expecting that deeper feeling which was manifested by many of my hon. Friends and friends in many parts of the country on what I may call the ground of conscience and of honour. The moment I am confronted with that I know that something has happened that has appealed to the deepest feelings of our countrymen, that some note has been struck that brings back from them a response from the depths. I examined again all that I had done, and I felt that with that feeling, which was perfectly obvious, there could not be the support in this country behind those proposals even as terms of negotiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1935; cols. 2030–31, Vol. 307.]

I appeal to the Prime Minister, in the same spirit in which he made his statement yesterday on the international crisis, to take time by the forelock, to intervene here and now and at once in this question, and to use the utmost of his endeavours, as head of the Government of this country, with a powerful majority behind him, within the next few days to bring this dispute to a successful and an honourable conclusion

I cannot claim that this is a maiden speech, but I must confess that after four years' absence it feels like starting all over again. I do not want to trace the history of this mining dispute in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), who has just sat down, has done, but I want to deal, mainly by way of emphasis, with the point that he made regarding the last nine years. That is a point that ought to be taken into strict consideration by this House and by anyone who gives any consideration to the mining question, because I claim that if it had not been for the miners' agitation, what has taken place during the last nine years would have continued for another nine years probably, having regard to all the evidence that we can find in support of the employers' case.

We in Lancashire—and I am speaking mainly for Lancashire, while joining with my other colleagues—have tried since 1926 to get away from this terrible slough or trough of despair in which we have been suffering ever since the 1926 stoppage. We were exhorted by the employers, by the public, and, I believe, by the then Minister of Mines to try to get something in a district sense. I suggest that we in Lancashire took all the steps that could possibly be taken in 1932 to try to work away from this point. We put our case before the Joint Board, submitted to an independent chairman, who was appointed by the then Minister of Mines, Mr. Isaac Foot, and collected all the evidence that we could. There is no doubt that the case was then, as it is now, for the miners a human thing, largely ignoring the factors in the industry. But what was the reply of the owners? All the time the burden of the owners' reply in that arbitration was that it was utterly impossible for one district, like Lancashire, to get an advance in wages if all the other districts in the Federation stuck at their then level. That is why we have started this national agitation, in order to try to get away from that business of pitting one district against another. After all, we have to agree, as miners, that if one district remains on a low level, it enables the owners in that district to sell their coal at such a price that it will outsell the next district, and we all sink or swim together in this business. That is why we have this national agitation.

I do not want to go too deeply into the economics and deficiencies that have been submitted to us from time to time. The previous speaker has given us something about deficiencies and so on, but I am not going to argue, and I do not think any other miners' representative would, that the employers have been making unheard-of profits during the whole of these last nine years, taking it by and large. Many of them have suffered losses. I do not claim that they have made handsome profits, because I know of companies that have gone out of existence and have had to go bankrupt and into liquidation, but if figures, information, statistics, and so forth would feed our men, women, and children, we have had sufficient to put them in an El Dorado. The figures, statistics, and economics of the industry, as put forward by the employers are of no avail when you are talking to the housewife of the miner, and we have got, to this stage, that apparently the employers and the Government will not move at all unless the miners show their teeth.

We have asked for a uniform advance in wages, and we want it to be uniform. We do not want one district pitted against another. If we are to have one district getting, say, 3d. a day on the suggestion of the employers, and another district getting 1s. 6d., what will be the position? It will only be a very short time before those who are getting the 1s. 6d. will have to come down to the 3d. and then I suppose the 3d. too would go. We want this House and the general public to understand that we have not wavered in our demand for a uniform advance in wages applied to every mine worker, on the surface and below ground, throughout the length and breadth of the land. We want uniformity, and some people are taking it that we are asking for a uniform advance in wages of 2s. per day for every adult, to bring everybody up to the same level. Every Member who represents the miners and every owner on the other side knows perfectly well that what the Miners' Federation is asking for is not something to equalise the rates in every district.

The basic rates, about which the previous speaker was speaking, are quite different in the districts, and the 2s. per day, if it is granted, will leave districts at variance in the rates of wages that are paid. Apart from the factor of difference in output per person employed, if this 2s. per day is granted throughout the length and breadth of the industry, it will leave every district in practically the same relative position as at present. If it can be granted in one district, it ought to be granted in another, apart from the export districts, where there may be some difficulty. But let us face the difficulty. If we can get this uniform working on our side, surely it is not impossible to devise ways and means of unifying the industry or of doing something which will make the proceeds unified, so that what is granted in one district can be granted in another. If, for instance, it is granted in Yorkshire, then the miners in South Wales can be given the same amount, and the same in Durham and in Scotland.

There is one further feature regarding these differences in rates. I am not going to follow the economics of the industry too far, but one thing that has been mentioned in previous Debates is the question of the skilled workers who are employed on the colliery surface. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson) spoke last week of the different grades and rates of wages paid in Durham and the different classes of workers. I want to say to this House that there is as much skill in the colliery and above the colliery surface, among the craftsmen and skilled men, as there is in any other industry. But I cannot understand why these people, with all their skill, because they are employed in the mining industry, have to accept wages from 15s. to 25s. a week less than those paid in the building and other trades. There are men brought up in the building trade or the electrical industry, or as blacksmiths or engineers, who, by their craftsmanship and skill, get a better rate of wages than the men in the mining industry who merely because they are in the mining industry must accept 15s. or 25s. a week less. Does not that show that there is something wrong? It is a serious anomaly that we have to face, and we say to the public that we are tired of being the Cinderellas of industry. We want it to realise that this great body of men employed in the mines are rendering a useful service to the nation and that they ought to have a decent rate of remuneration.

I am sure my colleagues will agree with me when I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) for the speech he made last Wednesday week. Very few coalowners would speak in the same strain at this moment, but there are some others, and I want to quote from a speech made by a Lancashire coalowner. He was speaking to the Coal Industry Society in London and he said of the miners:

"Their wages were not comparable with those enjoyed in the sheltered trades, and all but the export trades were sheltered now. In view of the arduous nature of their work they deserved, and should get, better wages than obtained to-day. It was their duty so to organise the industry that those wages might be paid."

I would ask the Secretary for Mines, in view of expressions of that kind from employers, to take his courage in his hand and exercise a little pressure to get recalcitrant owners to fall into line. I do not want to go through the whole speech of the Secretary for Mines the other night, but I would like to draw attention to one passage in his speech He said:

"If the Mineworkers' Federation through their Delegate Conference take the drastic action of precipitating a stoppage in the coal industry, they will prejudice the possibility of bringing more money into the proceeds of the industry and also lose the opportunity of the increased wages now offered to them. In the interests of themselves as well as the interests of the whole country, I most sincerely hope that they will think long before they take any final line which would prejudice that."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th December, 1935; col. 1905, Vol. 307.]

The question I should like to ask the Minister for Mines is why all these exhortations to sweet reasonableness are addressed to the Mineworkers' Federation. Can anybody be more reasonable, as the previous speaker said, than we have been during the last two months? I submit that he should not apply these exhortations to this side, but that he should go to the employers and, with the Cabinet behind him, he should say to them, "Too long have you people messed about with this industry." And I am going to say that the result has been a success neither for them nor for other people.

The vast mass of our people are on a level of poverty that is a disgrace to this nation, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that until the two bodies meet again he should not come to this side asking for reasonableness, but should go to the other side and get the recalcitrant owners to fall into line with the people who have expressed opinions such as those of the hon. Member for North Leeds and of the other gentleman I have just quoted. Figures have been quoted in this House from time to time to show the rates of wages paid, but one thing that is not always realised is that through the application of machinery to the industry a greater number of men are being forced into the low wages class. That is a very important fact. We are getting more workers in the subsistence classes. The average wage of our men in Lancashire has come down in the last few years more than 9d. per shift as the result of this. Yet, when you get economies in this way, any gain is frittered away on the selling price. While I admit that wages higher than I am going to quote are paid, nevertheless more than 60 to 70 per cent. of men in our county receive only from 7s. to 7s. 9d. per shift. When the number of shifts they are allowed to work is reckoned up it is appalling to contemplate the standard of life to which they are condemned.

There is a case which I have quoted so many times in the country that I need no notes about it. It is stamped on my memory. It refers to a man not in the lowest-paid class. The best way of ascertaining the average earnings of the workmen is when you get a compensation case. In this case the man was killed, and I got his average earnings for three years. I wonder how many hon. Members in this House would believe that a man could work for three years at a job—he was a skilled underground worker, working four and two-thirds days per week—and that then when he was killed his widow would be unable to claim £300 as compensation. His full earnings for those three years only amounted to £282 and some odd shillings. That is not the case of a man in the lowest-paid class, but it is a sample of thousands of cases, and it shows the standard of life to which our men are condemned. In the Forest of Dean, in Scotland, Durham, Northumberland and, I believe, in South Wales, you will get cases of men paid at much lower rates than that.

It is time that hon. Members opposite realised that the miners have a good case. As the previous speaker said, we do not want a stoppage—we have bad too many—but we have made up our minds that we cannot get anything out of the industry, that we cannot get away from the bottom of this trough of despair except by drastic action and a definite threat to fight against the conditions under which our men exist at this moment. The miners' leaders all over the country are as reasonable as anybody can expect them to be, but they have come to the end of their tether. The men and women in the coalfields have been pleading with us for months to get them out of their terrible position. I ask the Minister of Mines to use all the influence he can to get the employers into a reasonable frame of mind and to concede to the miners the measure of justice for which they are asking.

I should like to open my remarks with a word of warm commendation to the Govenment for having carried through an agreement whereby the owners have undertaken to introduce into their organisation a, scheme of central selling. The best way to serve the interests of the miners is to provide the necessary revenue for the industry out of which better wages can be paid. I am not certain that hon. Members above the Gangway are quite fair when they do not point out the very strong line which has been taken by my hon. Friend the Minister with the coalowners. I have an intimate connection with and knowledge of the coalowners' organisations, and I know that my hon. Friend must indeed have had a very hard fight. At any rate, speaking from my own point of view and that of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we are proud that the Government have been able to say, "We believe in the justice of the miners' criticism of the selling side of the industry, and we are determined to force the owners to take proper action to try to get that additional revenue into the industry."

I cannot, however, disguise from myself or from the House my apprehension as to how the exporting districts will come out of the present arrangement whereby the districts have promised to offer a rise of wages as from 1st January. Whether the exporting districts will get a similar advantage to that which may be offered to the inland districts is a matter of conjecture. Those of us who know the trade intimately realise that the real problem of wages lies in the wages which are paid to the miners in the exporting districts. It seems to me that as the situation stands now there is a grave fear that in the inland trade a reasonable offer may be made to the miners, but that a less reasonable offer may be made in the districts where an increase is the most necessary. That is why I want to put in my word to the Government to urge them to insist on trying, at any rate from 1st January, to get uniformity in the offer which is made. I am not unappreciative of the difficulties of the owners in the exporting districts. They have had for a period of years a difficult and a hard time, but when they, as they do, perpetually state that district machinery is available for the discussion of wages, I would point out that when a case is presented in the districts by the miners to an independent arbitrator, the arbitrator can only formulate his decision on the facts as stated, that is to say, on the natural position of the industry as it stands at the time the application is made for an increase of wages.

There is a great weakness in that district machinery, because it is now common knowledge to the world—and I am confining myself to my district, because that is the one I know most intimately—that the selling organisation in my part of the Country has obtained unreasonable prices for coal. This has resulted in losses which a great many of us think need not have been faced. With the exception of Scotland, we have the lowest wages in the country. Our cost of production is practically equal to that of Scotland. The proportion of our export trade to our inland trade is more in Northumberland than in Scotland. We export now about 40 per cent. of our output. For the quarter ending 30th June, Northumberland made a loss of something like 5d. a ton, whereas Scotland made a profit of something like 3d.; in the quarter ending 30th September, Scotland made a profit of about 2½d. per ton and Northumberland a loss of about 2½d. It seems to me that when the miners claim that the district machinery is not satisfactory when negotiating wages, they are making a perfectly legitimate statement. That is why I am thankful that the Government have been strong in their demand that the owners should introduce a scheme of central selling. I hope that between now and 20th January the Government will take a firm line as far as the exporting districts are concerned in order that the people whom I have the honour to represent will get the same consideration as the inland districts with regard to an increase of wages.

With regard to contracts, it is difficult to insist upon the cancellation of all contracts, and I know that in certain industries there is some apprehension lest, if the price is pushed up too high, we open the road again to further competition from oil. Have the Government considered whether if there is any increase in oil consumption for fuelling purposes as a competitor against coal, they would increase the tax on oil in order to protect the mining industry? That is an important point which should be borne in mind. In relation to the deficiency question, it is common knowledge in unofficial talk that the deficiencies will never be made up out of the pool which is available for the payment of wages and profits, and that has the support of every right-thinking man and woman. I cannot see any legitimate reasons why the owners cannot behave graciously in this matter. I know my miners, and am proud of the fact that I can go into any colliery village and be known by the man-in-the-street and stopped for a chat. I do not think that the owners understand the propaganda of my hon. Friends above the Gangway among the miners when they use that very argument. It is extraordinarily ungracious of the owners not to come out with the statement definitely that deficiencies will be wiped out, and that we shall start afresh with the new period and a clean sheet. I hope the Government will take equally as firm a line with the owners over this point as they took over central selling agencies.

To sum up, I hope that between now and 20th January the Government will be extraordinarily firm on these points of uniformity in an increase of wages immediately and on the complete wiping out of the deficiencies and will to the best of their ability insist on these two points being met. It is very difficult for a Conservative Member of Parliament who believes in private enterprise and disapproves thoroughly of Socialism to find herself in the position of having to condemn a system in which she believes. It is not the fault of the system, it is the fault of the way in which the system is being operated. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] After all, there are some industries run by private enterprise in which adequate and good wages are paid, and it is only where you get, if I may say so, stubbornness and unreasonableness and not a broad enough vision that a problem of this kind arises. I know that I am speaking rather hotly, but you cannot come from my part of the world, cannot know my part of the world and know the conditions in the mining villages, without feeling very strongly. I feel that it is my duty at the present time to stand by my miners, and that I am going to do, but I do place my faith in the Government, because they have shown courage, have shown very real courage.

You will be disappointed.

I do not think so.

You will.

I rather suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) hopes that I shall be disappointed, but I can tell him that he is wrong. I very much hope that before very long we shall have from the Secretary for Mines some guarantee that the position of the exporting districts, which are the ones which need the most help, will not be overlooked.

I have a few words to say on this very important matter. With a great many things which the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has said we on this side feel ourselves in absolute agreement; but with other points of a controversial character which she raised there is not time to deal to-day. She said she was rather surprised that the owners had not come out in a generous fashion to say that will forgo their claims to the deficiencies existing in the districts. We are amazed at something more than that. We are amazed that the mineowners will not come out to tell us what they are prepared to do to meet this wage demand. The one great thing that we have against the coalowners generally is that they will never come out to tell us anything generously, or in any other fashion, until we have forced them to do so. One cannot discuss this matter without reiterating statements which have been already made and I am not going to apologise if I repeat observations which have been made by any previous speaker, but I would like to say that in my opinion the discussions in this House on the miners' case and on the position of the mining industry which have taken place during the last fortnight have been of the highest order that ever I have heard since I came to the House, and I have been here long enough to be present at every Debate prior to any of the big disputes or stoppages.

In the Debates on this occasion the speeches in support of the miners' claim have not all come from this side of the House. We are in a rather unique position. In 1921 we were condemned by the Parliament of that day, condemned by the press and condemned by the general public, and nearly every so-called moral organisation spoke out in condemnation of the miners. The same state of affairs prevailed in 1926. It was said that we had been too precipitate in rushing into a general stoppage, that we had given neither the Government nor the country any chance to consider our claim. On this occasion all those sections who were against us in 1921 and 1926 are now openly supporting us. Every organisation of any standing in this country has without any hesitation espoused the justice of the miners' claim. We have never had the press of this country propagating the miners' claim to the same extent as now; and even in this House we have up to now had more support morally than ever we had before in my time as a Member of Parliament.

As hon. Friends who have preceded me have said, even coalowners in the House have made eloquent and forceful speeches on behalf of the miners' claim, and I have been informed, unofficially, that a large number of coalowners in the country are in favour of the claim being treated nationally and uniformly. I wish the Secretary for Mines to take note of this point. It seems to me that the whole crux of the situation is in the hands of one or two, probably half-a-dozen, recalcitrant coalowners, who will not come into line with their own front. I suggest to the Minister that if that is so the time for persuasion has gone by. I want to believe that he has made a genuine endeavour to bring the two sides together for negotiating purposes and that—as far as we are able to judge—he has thrown out some useful suggestions on what might be done towards effecting a settlement. We can only assume that of him, but we want to assume the best as long as we possibly can, because before many weeks are past we may have strong condemnation for him. I suggest that he should consider whether it is not possible to use some force to bring these recalcitrant coalowners into line with the rest.

I shall probably be told by the Minister that the Government cannot do that, that these men are citizens of this country, that they are private employers, and that consequently the Government cannot put any compulsion upon them to do certain things. But it is difficult to say what a Government cannot do. I know that if, unfortunately—and I hope it does not happen—the miners should have to resort to a stoppage, then the Government will use compulsion against them. If that happened, the Government would put into operation the Emergency Powers Act as they did in 1926, and would avail themselves of all the power at their disposal to compel the miners rigorously to obey the rules and regulations conforming to the government of this country. I am a believer in constitutional government, and if the obligations which that entails are to be insisted upon in regard to one section of the community, they should be applied also to other sections. Before we arrive at the position in which we are involved in an industrial fight, it is better that force should be applied to the people who are provoking the fight than that we should wait until the fight has begun and then take action against those who, at the present time, are anxious for a settlement of the dispute.

In regard to the negotiations which are going on, it cannot be said that we have sprung the present situation upon the coalowners or upon the Government. I shall not go back as far as April, but it cannot be denied that since July the officials of the Mineworkers' Federation have been making every effort to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. The Secretary for Mines has met the negotiators from the Federation on several occasions. In the negotiations, the representatives of the coalowners represented their districts and had no power to make arrangements to come to any agreement with the officials of the Mineworkers' Federation upon a national basis. The only thing they said was that they were prepared to make advances in every district. If they were prepared to do that, surely the advances could be made nationally if the extent of the advances in each district were known, but when we met the coal-owners they assumed that they did not know what those advances would be. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that it is not impossible for the Mining Association to find out from every district what it is prepared to pay. It is possible for them to send a wire to every mining district in the country in order to find out what advances the districts are prepared to make. If the Mining Association cannot do that, they do not know their own business.

It is said that there is no revenue in the industry, and figures have been put forward to show that there is not sufficient money in it to meet the miners' demands. I think I am right in saying that every district in Scotland, England and Wales seems to have made arrangements to raise the price of coal. I will speak for what has taken place in Cumberland. There the price of coal to domestic consumers has, between October and now, been raised to the extent of 5s. per ton. I do not know whether the price has been raised to industrial consumers or what figure is now being asked per shipment. A large amount of coal is also consumed in coke and by-product plants largely by the colliery owners' selling to themselves. The owners have received the benefit of those advances during the last few weeks, and we are still negotiating in order to get benefit from the industry. We have received none of that benefit. The general public as well as the miners are entitled to consideration. Unless the miners' demands for a national advance on a uniform basis are conceded, the coalowners ought not to fleece the general public by putting up the price of coal. They should give something to the men who risk their lives to obtain the coal which they are selling.

Without going into details of the wages in the district from which I come, or into the economic and technical points concerned in the dispute, it is fair to say that since 1926, in the district which I have the honour to represent in this House and in which I am general secretary of the Miners' Federation, the reductions have been very extensive. In 1932 we suffered a uniform district reduction of 7½ per cent. in the wages of everybody employed in the coalfield, and we have not yet been able to obtain restoration of that reduction. We have taken part in three arbitration proceedings presided over by gentlemen appointed by the Ministry of Labour and we have been able to obtain slight advances, but there, again, it is a district wage. We were advanced by one arbitrator from 6s. 10d. to 7s. 1d. That is the subsistance wage paid in Cumberland to men both underground and on the surface whose standard basic rate and percentage do not bring in that amount. We have had our miners' minimum advanced by 6½d. through arbitration—through negotiation.

The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) referred to the case of the skilled mechanic on the surface. Ever since I became a miners' agent, some 30 years ago, I have been struggling to try to raise these men to the standard of their fellows in the various shops in the towns, but I have never been able to succeed. Last summer we were able to get their standard basic rate advanced, but, notwithstanding that advance, the rate is still considerably below the standard rate in the district for engineers, joiners, blacksmiths and other skilled workers. The consequence is that there is not only discontent among the colliers—the coal-getters, the men who are producing at the face—but there is discontent among these exceptionally skilled men also. They are not asking for anything exorbitant, but are only asking that they should be paid the same rate as their fellows in similar crafts employed in other shops in the locality.

I do not want, if I can possibly help it, to assume that there is going to be a stoppage. I am going to take the other view; I want to take an optimistic view; and I feel sure in my own mind that, if the coalowners, even if it had to be brought about by the application of some measure of force by the Government, would meet the miners' representatives in conference as a national body to discuss this question, a settlement could be arrived at. We are net an unreasonable set of people to deal with; we have always been prepared to negotiate fairly with our employers; and therefore I feel sure that, if they could once settle down, in a very short time a settlement, satisfactory probably to both sides, could be arrived at.

But let us look at the other side of the picture, because it is always well to look at both sides. If, unfortunately, a dispute should take place, what will be the price that will have to be paid? We cannot forget 1921; we cannot forget 1926. The Government at that time spent millions of pounds—£300,000,000 I believe—to defeat the miners' claim, which at that time would have cost somewhere about £12,000,000. It is absurd and ridiculous that, while in every other big important industry in this country there is a national contract, the only industry of vital importance in this country in which there is no national contract is the mining industry; and, when these unfortunate stoppages take place, they not only paralyse the mining industry, but every industry in this country is in a state of paralysis during the same period and for some time longer. Governments, ordinary citizens, everybody suffers because of that; but the man who is really in the front trench, the miner, suffers most of all. Therefore I want the Government to count the cost which would be entailed upon this country if a stoppage should take place. My hon. Friends have been trying to tell the Government about the national situation from some other points of view. They know it as well as I do, and it may be better. But I would put it to the Secretary for Mines that a stoppage in the mining industry, if it should take place in January, would place this country in one of the most embarrassing and difficult positions that it has been in for many years. Why should a few men who have control of this industry be allowed to dominate, not only the lives of the miners, but the lives of practically everyone in this State?

I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, namely, that with so big a case, with so big a problem, while the Secretary for Mines has undoubtedly played a man's part in exerting himself in every way that he possibly could in negotiation, it is a big enough problem for the Prime Minister, at some time during the discussions, to have come to this House and told us what the Government's intentions were. But he has simply ignored it. He has ignored the Miners' Federation Executive. I say, without any disrespect to the Secretary for Mines, that it should not have been left to him to be the only man in the Government to bear the full responsibility of dealing with such a situation. Surely the Prime Minister, even if he has no regard for the miners, even if he has no respect for them, must have some regard and respect for the general body of citizens in this country, and I submit to the House that, on the eve of a crisis of this kind, it ought to be the duty of the Prime Minister to be here to-day to let the country know what progress has been made in trying to settle this question, which eventually, if not settled, will land the country in an economic condition in which it has not been for many years. I want to add my plea to those which have been made by others that this dispute may be brought to an amicable settlement, and that we may be saved the terrible disaster of having to go into a stoppage. I beg the Secretary for Mines to use his influence in every direction he can towards that end, and to convey a message from this side of the House to the Prime Minister that we think the time has arrived when he should let us know exactly where he and the Government stand with regard to this question.

We have had once again a very useful discussion on this problem. I am glad that the Opposition have taken the opportunity afforded by the Adjournment Motion to raise it, because, after all, those hon. Members who have been speaking this morning have been voicing the troubles and difficulties of their own constituents, and that is the object of our Parliamentary system—that there should be an opportunity of putting the grievances of constituents before this House for its discussion and its consideration. I know there will be many who will lose no time, as soon as the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings to-day is available, to read, and read carefully, everything that hon. Members have said.

I must just take up one point with which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) concluded his speech, when he referred to the Prime Minister himself. I must tell the hon. Member that he must not say that the Prime Minister is ignoring the claims of the miners, or is not fully seized of the serious position in which we find ourselves to-day. He must not assume anything of the kind. He must also call to mind a reply which the Prime Minister gave not very long ago, when some reference was made to that, in which he pointed out, very properly, that nowadays there was a Department of State, over which I have the honour to preside, which was set up by the House in order to be primarily responsible, under the general responsibility of all Members of the Government, for the problems of this great industry. That is why these matters have been left in my hands for day-to-day negotiations. The Prime Minister is fully seized of everything that has occurred, and the hon. Member need have no fear of his not being aware of everything that has taken place.

It has always been the complaint of the Miners Federation that there is no one in the Cabinet to settle matters of policy, and this is a matter of deep national policy.

In all the negotiations I have made it clear that I have been speaking for the Government and the Cabinet as a whole. There I leave it, because there are other matters to be raised, but I wanted to make it quite clear to the hon. Member, at any rate, that he must not assume that the Prime Minister himself and other Members of the Government are not anxious over the situation. The position to-day, of course, is slightly different from where we left it on Wednesday night, because yesterday the Delegate Conference met and, as the press reports to-day point out, came to a certain decision.

The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) referred to something that I said the night before last when I made an appeal to that conference to think very carefully before they rejected the suggestion that there should be a thorough investigation of the position. He asked why I only make an appeal for sweet reasonableness to the Mineworkers' Federation. He is not entitled to assume that I have not made appeals in other quarters. If the hon. Member will refer to the closing part of the speech that I made on the Estimates this year, he will find that I definitely asked all concerned in the industry to try their best to watch the problem. If he looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT, I do not think it would lie in anyone's mouth to say I have not tried my very best to make—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not make it again?"]I am sparing no effort in making it again. The reason for making that particular appeal was that the Conference was to meet yesterday. I believe, from the result of it, that they must have responded to that appeal, because the decision that was taken yesterday was not for any immediate handing in of notices. It was only that they should be handed in next month, and then only if wage proposals satisfactory to the executive committee were not obtained in the meanwhile. I take it that that really was in some way a response to what I said, that there should be time for a full investigation of the offer that was made.

I want to express my profound gratitude for the statesmanlike attitude that was adopted in that regard. I assume, naturally, that the meeting which it was understood would be held at an early date will still be held. I have heard nothing to the contrary. The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that the use of the words in the statement that I made, that actual contact had been established between representatives of the employers and the Mineworkers' Federation, gave a false impression. I have no wish to give a false impression, but it is an actual statement of fact. Contact was established. I did not say there were any negotiations. I said contact had been established. Some hon. Members must know that even to get contact is not easy, but contact has been established and a further meeting was arranged. I was glad of that, and I hoped that this method of discussion would be continued and widened. That is my view on that subject, and it not a view which I have at any time concealed.

A great number of questions have been addressed to me. What is going to be done about this and about that?—questions which it is not for me to answer. I am not speaking for the coalowners. If questions are asked such as what is to happen about deficiencies and ratios, it is not to the Government that they must be addressed. The Government are not concerned to state the case for the coalowners. They must do that for themselves.

There can be no success for the Government's selling scheme improving wages unless all these things are cleared up.

I am not questioning the propriety of putting those questions. I am merely saying that I am not here to state the case on behalf of the coalowners or to reply to questions to which, in point of fact, they are the only people who can give an answer. I take it that these have been rather in the form of rhetorical questions which will be on record and to which the people most directly concerned, recognising that they are put by responsible Members of Parliament, will endeavour to provide a reply. I merely state that it is not for the Government to answer questions which should properly be addressed to the other part of the industry than that which is represented by those who put the questions. The hon. Member said the Government were almost supporters of the owners, and the other night another hon. Member said the owners had taken the Government on their side. No one has any right to say that.

Oh yes—1926.

I am not talking about 1926. I am talking about the responsibility of the present Government and of myself as the Minister who has been dealing with the subject. No one has any right to make any such statement, and I repudiate it from the Government here and now. If anyone remembers what I said daring the debate last week, I was particularly careful to make that point, and no one is entitled to assume anything of the kind. During the discussions I have been the channel of communication from one side to the other. That was my function. But as for taking sides, I hoped that I had made my position quite clear: if I did not do so before—it may have been through faulty words of mine—I say now that no one has any right to make such a statement.

I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for the kind reference that she made to myself, because, having ruled out any attempt to reply to questions which should properly be put not to me but to the owners, there are only two questions still remaining on which the Government have been challenged this morning. The first was with regard to central selling. The hon. Member who opened the debate did not, perhaps, speak of it as enthusiastically as he might have done. He did not seem to think that there was any great future for it. Let me remind him not so much that it has been a matter of Government policy—perhaps this would not appeal to him in that light—but that, in this campaign to which he referred which the miners have been carrying on during the last few weeks and months in this country, they did specifically settle on that point. In the first sheet which they issued as part of their campaign they definitely say:

"The owners … must be compelled to treat the industry as an industry, and to get a price for their coal which will enable decent wages to be paid to the miners."

In the second number they carried this specific point further, continuing to refer to the owners, by saying that

"they must adopt a national scheme of centralised selling."

Fortunately, the views of the Government and of the miners were running on parallel lines, because the Government have had this matter seriously under consideration for a long time. The hon. Gentleman who spoke second referred to what is being done in his own district and spoke of how they were pioneers of the movement. As a result of that, the Government were able to get an assurance from the owners that they would set about drawing up schemes for every district in the country. While I cannot give a reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) who asked whether I can guarantee that it is going to be a success—no one could do that—I can say that I am convinced that it is the right line along which to advance for the purpose we have in mind, and that is to improve the proceeds of the industry as a whole.

For whom?

For all parties in the industry.

Mainly for the owners.

That is what the second edition of this "Campaign Special" also pressed for, so that on that point I leave it, because the other questions which have been raised now about the deficiencies and ratios and all that are questions for exploration with the parties concerned. They are not questions to address to me, because I am not speaking on behalf of the coalowners to-day.

Have the Government no views?

The hon. Gentleman said that he objected to the phrase that we could not accept any suggestion of a subsidy for a temporary purpose, and that that was slightly incorrect. The word "subsidy", I take it, means—whatever its particular application in one case or another—some form of grant for some purpose, short or long, from public funds. My statement went on to say

"nor the alternative suggestions … namely, a direct loan from public funds or a Government guarantee …

Whatever the particular description or suggestion might have been—I am not proposing to reveal what passed in conversations—anything which authorises money from public funds is generally held to be a subsidy, and it was that with which the Government said they were not prepared to deal.

That, therefore, does not rule out a loan.

. The hon. Member for Wentworth was dealing with the first part of the statement which was made the other day and which dealt with a subsidy, and he said that it was not exactly what they had in mind. All I say to him is that, whatever people have in mind, anything which is a direct grant from public funds is ordinarily called a subsidy. I will not go into any detail of any particular proposal. The statement of the hon. Gentleman is not ruled out. I was dealing only with the subsidy point. My statement went on to say:

"a government guarantee for a loan raised from other sources."

I have nothing to add to that statement except to welcome the fact that the appeal which I made that more time should be given—for, as th ewords say,

"Full investigation of the offer made"—

has been granted. At the moment the situation is that there is to be a further meeting in the way—I should be very careful—of contact. There is to be a further meeting. I hope that, as the result of what has taken place to-day and what has been said and the expression of views of hon. Members, the interval between now and whenever that meeting may be will be used for very carefully weighing up, by all parties concerned, the great and serious issues which are involved. I said in the statement which I read out the other day that the Government are by no means disassociating themselves from all this.

Is there a definite arrangement for a meeting between the owners and the miners?

I am only quoting the statement which was made, and it has not been challenged by anyone. As a result of the communiqué on Tuesday night which I read out to the House on Wednesday it was understood that a further meeting would be held at an early date. As far as I know, there has been no alteration. If anyone knows of any, I shall be glad to hear of it, but, as far as I know, that is the case. I hope that all parties—everybody—will very seriously weigh up not only what has gone on up till now, and not only the issues arising from the Delegate Conference yesterday, but the very moderate speeches which have been made in this House to-day. As I said on Wednesday, it will be my business to keep in close touch with all these matters. I have every intention of doing so. In fact, I do not see much prospect of a holiday at all, but if it is for the public good, well, so be it.

I do hope that we may find some solution for these difficulties amicably. As the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, and as I re-echo as the last words on this problem now we are just at that season of the year when we should be all hearing about good will towards men, I hope that all parties in this dispute will weigh up their responsibilities, and will realise that here again, at the beginning of a new Parliament, with many changes in front of us, we are at the beginning of new policies with regard to this industry. Certainly new policies were outlined in the King's Speech, and I hope that it may be my good fortune to have some share in establishing them. I am sure that the success of anything we have in mind will be tremendously delayed if there should be any stoppage in this industry, or anything but a peaceful outcome of the present dispute, which up to now has been carried on with such wonderful good temper and no bitterness. I hope that as a result, what has been said in this House on two separate occasions will be frankly considered by anyone who has any share of responsibility whatever for matters of such importance as these.

I wish to raise a matter that is causing grave concern in my constituency and indignation in the county of Yorkshire and many other counties, a matter that cannot but appeal to any lover of justice in Parliament, namely, the refusal of the Bacon Development Board to grant any new licences for the establishment of factories in the country. I will deal chiefly with the position in Yorkshire, as that is the problem with which I am best acquainted, and it has the further advantage that the claims for a new factory in Yorkshire are the strongest of any of the 38 factories that were refused on 5th December. Yorkshire is the largest pig-producing county. There were on 4th June 422,000 pigs. To-day there are many more, because in the natural cycle of the pig the litters come. Next year there may be more than there are to-day or there may not. That depends upon the attitude of the Bacon Development Board.

Or pig birth control.

The hon. Member is perhaps interested in birth control.

I said "pig control".

Yorkshire farmers if they are not allowed to contract for a Yorkshire family of pigs will stop, so I am informed, at nothing, even birth control of the pig, to prevent an impossible situation. Throughout the whole of the pig scheme we in Yorkshire have been its chief support. Every Yorkshire Member of Parliament has gone to his constituents and told them that the success of the Government's agricultural policy depends upon this pig scheme and has told them: "You must support it and you must be loyal to it." They have been loyal to it. The success of the scheme is due to Yorkshire support. If Yorkshire does not support the scheme I am afraid that the scheme will be ruined next year. That is the position.

Let me give the history of the pig industry in Yorkshire. When the pig scheme began we started with a new factory. Contracts were made and each year the contracts entered into have increased till last year the number of pigs going to that factory amounted to over 100,000. When the Yorkshire farmers realised that this increase was going to be stabilised the owners of the Farmers' Co-operative Factory applied for a new branch factory to be opened. That application was made in October, 1933. There was delay in the appointment of the licensing authority, for which neither Parliament nor the Minister is responsible. We did not get any hearing of our claim until the autumn of this year, and when we got our hearing before the Board I regret to say that there was delay and procrastination in getting their decision. We were told each week that we were going to get a decision. Perhaps the reason for the delay was that this was the time when the Yorkshire farmers were being asked to contract for next year, and if it had got out that no new factory was to be set up the Yorkshire farmers would not have supported the pigs contract scheme for the next year. We could have got far more contracts than we had, but the uncertainty as to whether we were going to have a new factory stopped many farmers from contracting, and it stopped all farmers from contracting for a full complement of pigs.

When the result came out we found that even in face of these difficulties our contracts had increased from over 100,000 pigs to 156,000. On 5th December the Bacon Development Board gave their decision. They said that

"having regard to the existing and prospective consumption and the prospective sources of supply of bacon they were convinced that the production of bacon in the premises appeared to them not to be required."

They had given consideration to the consumption of bacon and the existing sources of supply. In our large area of Yorkshire we had 156,000 pigs waiting to go into the factory and we had a factory which could take only 120,000. There was a surplus of over 30,000 pigs. Could the House have a stronger claim for adequate factory accommodation for pigs than this? We had the factory site chosen, we had the unemployed provisionally ready to start work upon the new factory, we had the plans passed by the authorities, but as a result of that decision of the Development Board those unemployed are still out of work, those factory plans are useless and the farmers are in the position that they have 30,000 pigs contracted for which cannot be taken into the existing factory.

What is to happen? I understand that these 30,000 pigs are unconfirmed contracts. The Minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong in that statement. If they are, they will go back to the producers with this option; "Will you send them to factories in the Midlands which have not got sufficient contracts under the scheme, or will you keep them on the farm?" I can tell the House from my postbag already that I have sufficient answers to that question. Not one of those 30,000 pigs will go by the free will of their owners to the Midlands. Hon. Members may say that that is perhaps Yorkshire cussedness. It may be said that we Yorkshire folks are pigheaded. We will leave the Scottish people to judge of that question. I know that we are cussed, but this is not an example of Yorkshire cussedness alone. We have great economic reasons for not sending those pigs 100 miles. The first reason is that if you send a pig 100 miles there is a shrinkage, a loss of weight of two stone. When we talk about two stone in regard to pigs we do not mean the full stone that, for instance, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) weighs but 7 lbs. That is a pig stone. There is this grave shrinkage of weight.

There is also loss of quality. Under these contracts what you get for your pig depends upon the grading. A pig travels 100 miles and an "A" pig after 100 miles of travel in a mixed truck from Yorkshire to Birmingham turns into a "D" pig at the other end. There is another point. We have a Farmers' Co-operative Society in Yorkshire which is concerned with the factory. I have been over that factory countless times and I have found not only myself supervising what is going on, but I have seen the farmers themselves there seeing their own pigs being graded. The farmers who send their pigs to the Yorkshire factory have most of them put what money they have into that company. They get a dividend out of the pigs sent there. They are members of a co-operative factory. Hon. Members opposite will realise what that means. We get a bonus of 2s. 6d. per pig sent to the factory, but we do not get that bonus and we are not helping our own company if the pigs are sent to the Midlands. Those are economic reasons. Those are reasons why not one single Yorkshire pig is going to the Midlands in the coming year. There is not only the question of the pig contracts, but there are additional contracts. The Pig Marketing Scheme wants more contracts. The Pigs Marketing Board applied for more contracts, but I have letters addressed to the Pigs Marketing Board saying that it is no use trying to get any additional contracts in Yorkshire because the people there are so indignant at what has happened. That is the position.

There is one other thing that I think the House should consider. Not only did the Bacon Board refuse 38 applications, but at the same time they passed a resolution that they had determined to grant no new licences for any fresh factories for two reasons—first, in view of the fact that the discussion with regard to trade agreements prevented the Government from declaring the details of their future policy; and secondly that the producers had not contracted for a sufficient number of pigs. Surely it is wrong for a Development Board, supposed to be an impartial licensing tribunal, to make the licensing depend on the view that it might have about the Government's policy. I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture explaining what is the Government's policy with regard to the levy-subsidy, and I can find no reason for the doubts expressed by the Bacon Development Board. I hope the Minister will do what he can to remove that doubt, and that the Bacon Development Board will be asked to reconsider its attitude.

I think that I can guarantee to-day that if this licence for the Yorkshire factory is given, 60,000 to 80,000 contracts for pigs would be made in that new factory. If it is not given there will be between 60,000 and 80,000 pigs thrown on the open market, to be sold for pork or under the iniquitous scheme in which the curers are allowed to go into the open market. In either case what happens? 60,000 or 80,000 more pigs come from Denmark than would come if the Yorkshire factory licence were granted. I do not know how narrow is the margin of survival of the Pigs Marketing Scheme, but if these 60,000 or 80,000 pigs are lost to the Pigs Marketing Scheme or this country the Scheme will not survive. That is our case. That is if you like, the local point of view, but the ramifications carry far outside the area of Yorkshire.

I want the House to consider what is the licensing tribunal that has this granting or refusing of licences. We set up a Bacon Development Board consisting of four representatives of the producers, four of the curers, and three independent members. I want the House to take note of further details. Of the four representatives of the curers two are the Chairman and vice-Chairman of Messrs. Marsh and Baxter, the firm that controls 45 per cent. of the bacon-curing industry of this country. I believe that many of the factories owned by that firm have not got 15 per cent. of their requirements under the 1936 contract. They want pigs sent from the producing areas to those factories that, for some reason or other that we need not enter into, are unpopular. Is that an impartial tribunal?

I asked the Minister last Monday whether he would replace that tribunal and the vested interests upon it by a judicial tribunal that would grant these licences. The Minister took the attitude that as there were three impartial members holding the balance between four on either side it was fair, and, I quote his own words, "that is not unusual in a licensing tribunal." For nine years of my life until the beginning of this year I practised It the Bar, but in all my experience I have never found a licensing tribunal that permitted upon itself vested interests that were competing with those of the applicants. In every single branch of licensing in which members of the Bar have to appear, if there is one representative of a vested interest on the tribunal the whole decision is vitiated. That is the foundation of English law. It is implanted, I believe, in every licensing Statute that this House has hitherto passed.

I have not attended the Bacon Development Board meetings, but is this what happens? You have the tribunal, amongst them Mr. Marsh and Mr. Bodinnar and the three independents. The Yorkshire factory proposition is put forward. Mr. Marsh says to Mr. Bodinnar, "They have the pigs; we want them." The application is refused. The next business is an application for the extension of the licence of Mr. Marsh and Mr. Bodinnar for their own factories. Mr. Marsh goes down to the well of the court and makes an application for an extension of his licence on the same grounds that were refused in the case of Yorkshire, and Mr. Bodinnar says to the tribunal, "As we have refused the Yorkshire application we can grant this extension." Is that justice? Not only do we have this vested interest, but when we have been refused our licence Mr. Marsh goes to those people who have contracted to the Yorkshire factory which lost its licence, and says, "I will give you another 2s. per pig more than the Yorkshire factory is offering you." Is that honourable? Is that tolerable in this House? How can the Chairman of the Bacon Development Board, Lord Portal, tolerate the position of being Chairman of such a partial tribunal.

I protest against this attack upon a statutory body set up by this House, and not voted against by the hon. Gentleman when it was voted upon; and I think that he is over-stretching the mark to reflect on the conduct of the Board, and that he should go to the people who can answer instead of bringing this up here when no suggestion has been made to me or anybody else that this was going to be raised. I have had no notice that the hon. Member was going to make a personal attack on the honour of representatives who have been appointed on a Board set up by Statute.

On that point of order. This is a grievance I have to put before the House which affects my constituents. If the Minister for Agriculture says that he did not realise that I was going to raise this grievance let me remind him that I gave notice that I should raise this matter in consequence of a question which I addressed to him on Monday, 16th December.

The scheme is set up under a Statute passed by this House on 26th July, 1935, and I suggest that his description of the procedure is a description which, if it was made outside the House, might lay him open to very serious consequences. I say that because the hon. Member is imputing corruption to the members of this Board, and whether that is in order or not I think, before he makes any accusations of this kind, he should take the greatest pains to satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the charges which, by implication, he is bringing against members of the Board in question.

I am not quite clear as to the point of Order. As to the question of notice, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) certainly gave notice some days ago that he would raise this matter. With regard to his attack on the Board, I did not hear what the hon. Member said.

If I have said anything inaccurate I hope the Minister will correct me. I cannot withdraw a single remark. The right hon. Gentleman says that I am imputing corruption to members of the Board. I do not wish to. I say that the grievance under which my constituents are suffering is that a licensing tribunal has been set up in a manner in which such a tribunal has never been set up before. In the case of men who have vested interests it is of necessity difficult for them to divorce their judicial obligations from those which concern their own private interests. It is impossible. Suppose the Chairman of the Board, Lord Portal, were to apply for anew branch factory and found that he had to apply before a tribunal composed of his rivals in business. Would he not have a great grievance? Would he be shut out from raising the matter in the appropriate assembly, the Parliament of England? I cannot believe that this is right or tolerable. We have a strong case. For some reason, we do not know what, our case has not received proper consideration. Let me tell the House that not a single question was addressed to those who appeared for the Yorkshire farmers before the Bacon Development Board on the memorandum which they submitted, not a single statement was disputed, yet we are told that the factory is not to be put up.

I appeal to the Minister, for whom I have great admiration. I admire him for the way in which he has tried to assist this great industry, and for the way in which he is trying to see that farmers get justice by fair methods. I ask him to intervene, if he can, in our difficulty. If he cannot, because a licensing tribunal has been set up, I would ask him to consider very carefully whether a mistake has not been made, and whether it is not the case that this licensing tribunal by its very nature cannot give adequate or fair consideration to the applications before it. I ask that this licensing tribunal should be replaced by one of a more judicial nature. Why cannot these matters be considered by a county court judge in the county court? If that was done there would be no feeling of resentment, and the Yorkshire farmers would not feel that they are not getting a square deal. This is a grievance which does affect my constituents. The earliest and the most important duty of Parliament is to redress grievances. I ask that that grievance should be redressed.

a: I want to support the hon. Member for Thirk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his criticism of the Bacon Development Board. If the House had known when this Board was set up that it would pursue such a high-handed policy as it has, no member of the House would have voted for it. We complain that the Bacon Development Board is preventing the establishment of a bacon factory in Durham. We have no bacon factory in Durham at the moment. Durham is a distressed area, and it is one of the desires of the Government to try to get new industries started in the distressed areas. When the Commissioner was appointed one of his duties was to try to get new industries for these districts. Indeed, it was a boast of the Government at the last Election that they were trying to establish new factories in the distressed areas; and the Prime Minister had gone out of his way on two occasions at least to appeal to employers of labour, owing to the benefit of tariffs, to consider distressed areas and the establishment of new industries. There is a gentleman in Durham who was prepared to establish a bacon factory in Sunderland. Let me read one or two paragraphs from the circular which he has sent to all members for the North-East coast, so that the House will see what he intended to do. He says:

"I have been in communication with the Bacon Marketing Board since June, 1934, about erecting a bacon factory in Sunderland as a new industry for a distressed area, and have been waiting the appointment of the Bacon Development Board whose permission I would have to get ere I could proceed with my intention. I met the Board on November 22ac1 and am now informed that they propose to refuse the licence for the erection of the building on the grounds as per leaflet enclosed. My scheme included the creation of pig farms, for which I hold an option on land near Tow Law Durham to raise the pigs for the factory in Sunderland—

That is in my division and I shall deal with the conditions in that part of the county before I finish—

"—which in my opinion would assist the Government in establishing the bacon industry as a sound posh ion since the farming community cannot possibly provide sufficient pigs to keep the industry as an efficient body. I may say that I have a market for 2,000 sides of bacon a week and the farms and factory will be the means of finding work for 450 men who are walking the streets to-day and will, when in full working order, save the country £30,000 in dole and public relief."

But just as if we were a prosperous county the Board say to that man: "No, you shall not be allowed to start your factory and develop these farms." The leaflet mentioned by this gentleman in his letter consists really of a resolution passed by the Bacon Development Board on 5th December. In that resolution they make two staggering statements. First they give the following reason for refusing the licence.

"In view of the fact that the present discussion with regard to trade agreements prevents the Government at the moment from declaring the details of their future policy."

Thus one of the reasons given for refusing licences is that some negotiations are going on in regard to trade agreements. I hope the Minister will tell us with what countries negotiations are taking place which would affect this question. They go on to say that they will not grant any licences for fresh factories to come into operation in 1936 but that they intend at the earliest possible date after 31st March to reconsider, in the light of any announcement of policy which the Government may have made by that date—that is in regard to trade agreements—the desirability of granting licences for 1937 "in respect of applications in the following circumstances." I draw the Minister's attention to this condition which follows:

(a) "Where applicants propose to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom, especially where they are in a position to sell the bacon which they produce direct to the consumer."

The only construction that can be put upon those words is that the Board are saying to applicants "We are not going to grant you licences for any factories for 1936, but after March we shall consider granting licences to foreigners for 1937."

indicated dissent.

It is no use for the Minister to shake his head. The words are here:

"Where applicants propose to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom."

We can clear that point up in a very short time. If the hon. Member will ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Co-operative Congress, about that point, his right hon. Friend will explain it to him in a moment. There are points upon which we disagree, but let us not proceed to disagree upon a point which can be cleared up in a sentence as this one can be.

I am addressing my remarks to the Minister of Agriculture and not to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander).

Let me say in a word that this is intended to refer to cases where co-operators desire to transfer to this country factory accommodation which they at present own in foreign countries.

In my opinion it is a wrong condition for the Board to lay down that factories can be transferred from foreign countries—I do not care to whom the factories belong—while they refuse to set up factories in this country. We want as many new industries in the distressed areas as we can get. Here was a chance for a new industry which would have meant a great deal to this area. In the part of the county of Durham where it was proposed to establish the pig farms there are at present no industries at all. Last summer the Commissioner for the distressed areas in his report said:

"In February the suggestion was made to me that the establishment of new summer military training camps in the special areas would assist those areas in several ways."

The Report goes on to state:

"It was found possible to arrange for a camp for one infantry brigade, one field brigade R.A. and attached troops to be held in the vicinity of Tow Law, County Durham for a period of one month during August and September, 1935."

The report then deals with the cost. Thus the Commissioner was so impressed by the conditions in that district that he arranged to have a military camp there. On the other hand, we have the Board refusing to allow the establishment of a factory as a result of which pig farms could be developed in that same district. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree that pig farms would be more use to that district than having a military camp for a month while the Board is taking up the high-handed attitude of refusing the licence for this factory. I wish to ask the Minister whether since the recent debate, there has been indication of any hope of the Board rescinding its resolution and granting licences for 1936. If the Minister has not consulted the Board and there have been no negotiations with the Board, he must not expect to have an easy time in connection with this matter. We want new industries in the distressed areas and we object to any body set up by the Government preventing the establishment of such industries. Unless the Minister is prepared to discontinue supporting highhanded policies of this kind on the part of the Board he cannot expect us to be quiet in this House on these matters in the future.

My reason for taking part in this Debate is that in that part of England which it is my privilege to represent there is a certain feeling of dissatisfaction with the working of the Bacon Development Board at the present time. You must forgive me, Sir, if I do not bring any cut and thrust into this Debate, but the views which I am about to express are similar to those expressed by the two previous speakers. Pig producers in Rutland and South Lincolnshire have been endeavouring for some time past to erect a farmers' bacon factory to be situated in Lincolnshire. A company has already been registered with this in view. The proposed factory will be run on a semi-co-operative basis, on the same lines and under the same management in fact as the Yorkshire farmers' factory is run today. The successful working of this factory has been most ably stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton). Here the problem is one, not of a shortage of pigs, but rather of a surfeit of pigs, a problem which I have no doubt many factories in this country would willingly have to face to-day.

A factory run on these lines would have one all-important advantage: it would enjoy the confidence of the pig producers in my constituency. I say this because it is within reasonable distance of the farmers, and they themselves could see their pigs weighed and graded. They would have a factory which they could enter at any time as a right, and the loss due to shrinkage from long travelling would also be brought to the very minimum. In fact, a factory run on these lines would be a very real boon to the pig producers in my constituency, but unfortunately the proposals for such a factory have been nipped in the bud by the Bacon Development Board, and, as one may well imagine, there is a very considerable feeling of heartburning and dissatisfaction towards the action of the board.

As I see it, that confidence which is so essential, as Members of the Government are so keen on expressing on platforms throughout this country, is likely to become sadly jeopardised in the future in regard to the pig scheme. The producers, certainly in my part of the world, have no confidence in a system by which the contracts are made with the board and the producers are denied the right of choosing to what factory they should send their pigs. On this side of the House we are all only too anxious to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in any way possible in thrashing out these very difficult problems. We are also most grateful to him for the determined efforts with which he has faced up to them and tackled them in the past, but I would ask him, in conclusion, seriously to consider whether he cannot see his way to meet what he may imagine is a grievance of very real substance on the part of the pig producers, not only in my constituency, but also in all parts of England. Unless the demands for new factories run on a semi-co-operative basis and similar to the one which I have tried to outline in my speech are met, the whole scheme, to which we all look for such great things, will be very seriously jeopardised by loss of confidence in the future.

The Minister a few moments ago seemed to be rather irritated that we should be raising this subject to-day.

Not at all.

Oh, yes, you were irritated.

Ministers have no right to be irritated because subjects concerning their Department are raised, and I would not claim any such right. If I showed a certain amount of irritation, it was because of the way in which aspersions of a personal character were cast upon a body set up under a scheme which I had invited them to work.

Previous Members have spoken from the point of view of pig producers. I should like to speak for a moment or two in the interests of pig consumers, and we look to the Minister in charge of development of this character to protect not only those who are given powers under legislation, but those whose interests are affected by such legislation. In our Debate the other evening the Minister failed to answer certain specific points that were put to him on matters of moment to large combinations of people outside this House. Again this afternoon we have had instances where in three areas requests have been made for licensing powers to enable pig producers to handle their products near to the point of origin or growth. I am connected with the Co-operative movement which represents over 7,000,000 organised consumers in this country. Until the institution of the Bacon Development Board, it was not possible in this country to get bacon of standard quality, and those who were responsible for supplying the home market had to go abroad for the purpose of getting their supplies. That led to the expenditure of British capital in other countries.

Later, Parliament in its wisdom decided to assist the production of this standard quality of bacon in this country under a certain type of organisation, and I think the Minister carries a very large responsibility to see that that machinery is working fairly and equitably to all the interests concerned. Certainly, I am convinced that Parliament cannot justify, and a Minister cannot justify, using the powers of this House in conferring statutory powers on limited group interests in this country to use Parliamentary protection for their own special and vested interests and for their own profit-making interests; and if evidence of such action accumulates, Members are only discharging their duty in bringing these abuses on to the Floor of this House. We look to the Minister to protect us and not to fob us off with a general statement that Parliament has conferred such and such powers on such and such a statutory body. Powers that Parliament has conferred Parliament can, I assume, take away or modify, and we look to the Minister to be the machinery of that modification.

We have in this country an organised body of consumers who should be taken into consideration, who, when the Parliamentary position changed, desired to establish their own factories here in order to produce their own requirements, and whether it be pig producers in Yorkshire, or some concern that wishes to open in Durham or in Lincoln, or whether it be the case of organised co-operative consumers who have their own market, I think the Minister should answer this question: If any business organisation, or if any organised group of producers or consumers can get the quantity of material to justify it in a capital expenditure on opening and equipping its own factory, what right has either the Pigs Marketing Board, or the Bacon Development Board, or anybody else to prevent its operating such a factory? We should like the Minister to tell us whether he and the Government support the giving of statutory powers to a body who can not only look after their own interests but can prevent justice and equity to other interests.

I should like to tell the House that Lincolnshire is just as vitally interested in this question as Yorkshire, and perhaps more interested, for the reason that in North Lincolnshire we have the barley problem. The House will be aware that the price of barley to-day is uneconomic. Barley fit for malting will often command a good price, but the lower grade barleys unfortunately have to be sold at a price which does not allow the payment of sufficient wages to agricultural workers. I approach this problem from the point of view of the payment of adequate wages to the agricultural workers. If barley has to be sold at 19s. to 24s., how can such wages be paid? If we get encouragement from the pig industry, then I believe we shall have a solution of the problem. Where barley is grown the pig population can be increased. The Wold districts of Lincolnshire can on most soils only produce barley, and the farmers cannot turn over to wheat or other cereals. Nothing can be found to take the place of barley. If more factories were put up the pig population could be doubled or trebled.

If you consider the geographical position of Lincolnshire you will realise, that, being cut off by the Humber to the north and on the east and south by the sea and the Wash, the county has only one outlet to the west. For that reason we want factories in Lincolnshire. I should like to tell the Minister, who has done so much for agriculture, that if he can give help in this way he will add to the debt of gratitude already owing to him by agriculturists. I should like to call attention to a resolution passed by the Holland and Boston Farmers' Union. After some preliminary observations they say:

"This Committee declines to take any part in urging the producers in the area to contract with the Board for pigs which will be sent to unknown curers, whose inefficiency is largely responsible for their failure to get contracts, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee has been informed by the Secretary of the Yorkshire Farmers' Bacon Factory (1932), Ltd., that application for a licence for a proposed subsidiary factory at Mahon has been refused, and by the Secretary of the Lincolnshire Farmers' Bacon Factory, Ltd., that an application for a proposed farmers' co-operative factory in Lincolnshire has also been refused by the Bacon Development Board with the result that a considerable number of contracts made with the Yorkshire Farmers' Bacon Factory (1932), Ltd., will have to be returned or the number of pigs reduced."

We do not want the number of pigs reduced. The pig population of Lincolnshire is 218,454 and the producers in the county have shown the strongest wish to make contracts with farmers' factories. Refusal to permit them to do this by the withholding of licences will have consequences for the future of the pigs marketing scheme in this area for which the Development Board must take entire responsibility. The point I would like the Minister to consider is whether the Development Board by the use of its licensing functions is losing the confidence of the producers and of those by whom applications are made. If so, it is a very serious thing.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister also on other lines. Pig producers are getting very tired of having their grade sheets altered. After being marked by the grader they are altered when they get to the factory to show a lower grade of pig. That is due, I believe, to the long distances pigs from Lincolnshire have to travel to the factories. I have heard of pigs being sent from Lincolnshire to the borders of Scotland. That may appeal to the Minister of Agriculture for Scotland but it does not appeal to the Lincolnshire producer whose pigs decrease in weight. One man said to me, "I sent some Large Whites to the factory and two of them when they got there were marked as 'All Blacks '". That is an actual fact. Confidence in the scheme is getting less. I want confidence on the part of the pig producers in the marketing scheme to be maintained, and if we can get rid of the difficulty due to the faulty geographical situation of factories, get factories put where they are wanted in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, nearer the farming areas and nearer where the pig producers carry on business, the scheme will go ahead. I appeal to the Minister to do all that he can and to come to this House if necessary for fresh powers, because I want this scheme to be a success, for I believe it can be made a success.

I represent a constituency which, although predominantly mining in character, has a considerable farming population and has also a very big interest in the co-operative movement. In every part of my constituency, especially among the farmers and the co-operatives, and indeed throughout Scotland, there is very keen resentment about the operations of this Board. I do not think that the Minister for Agriculture is acting in the way he should act when he tries to intimidate a backbench Member. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman who represents Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) feeling very sensitive on the question of corruption, but he should not exhibit his feelings in such an awkward manner. I want the Minister of Agriculture to consider seriously the question of making alterations in the character of these boards. If we had a Pigs Marketing Board and a Development Board that represented all the interests concerned, both producers and consumers, I am quite certain that very much better results could be obtained, but it is utterly impossible to promote the general welfare of those who are interested in this industry if you have a Board which is controlled by particular interests who have not the general interests of the producers and of the consumers at heart.

We all know that there are terrible conditions existing among the mining population. We have discussed here on several occasions the position of the mining population, and it is a question that demands considerable attention. We want to make it clear that we are solidly with the miners and with whatever action they take. At the same time we have to take our stand with those who are engaged in agriculture, farmers and farm labourers alike. Hon. Members have said in connection with the miners that if the owners can get the prices for the coal the miners will be given an increase. That, of course, is the wrong attitude. The miners are expected to give their labour over the counter, but are not to be paid for it. That system is not operated in any other business. It means that they are only to be paid after every-thing else, such as way-leaves and royalties, have been paid for. The same applies to agricultural workers. You express sympathy with them and the conditions under which they live, but the marketing boards are making it impossible for farmers to get the money which will enable them if they desire—and we should see that they do desire—to make the conditions of the agricultural workers better. I want in the names, not only of the farmers and of the consumers, but of the agricultural workers, to say that we do not want mere expressions of sympathy. We have had expressions of sympathy for the miners. Sympathy and 2s. a day we will accept. Sympathy without the 2s. a day means nothing.

Sympathy for agricultural workers while the pigs boards operate as they do now means nothing. An attempt should be made to change these boards so that the farmers will have every encouragement to produce, so that money will go into the agricultural areas, so that we may get rid of the tied cottage system and the terrible poverty imposed on the agricultural workers. The Minister of Agriculture has a very big responsibility, but he can best meet it by taking up this question in real earnest and making a complete change in the character of these boards. If the boards are given such power as they have, the Government should see above anything else that the power cannot be used against any particular section of the interests involved. Evidence can be given, and it has been given here to-day, that the powers that have been granted to these boards are being used against the pig producers and the consumers. Please put an end to that and set about a remodelling of the whole scheme. I join in that demand in the hope that the Minister will learn a lesson from the last election and prepare himself for the next, because if he does not do something about these boards there will be no difficulty about the count at the next Election.

I am sure that the House has heard with interest and, indeed, with appreciation, the first intervention of the Communist party into our agricultural debates. I am sure that agricultural Members in all parts of the House will appreciate his robust demand that farmers should get more money. When I go to my constituency and say that I have the support of a member of the Praesidium of the International Communist party—

I am not a member, only a candidate

After the very favourable criticisms of the hon. Member's candidature and his success in seeking Parliamentary honours, which I have read in the Communist Press, I am sure that that candidature will shortly be translated into membership of that august body. When I come before my constituents in Kelvingrove and am able to say, "You are mistaken in believing that I come before you as a capitalist Minister desirous of getting more money for the farmers or that this claim is put forward in support of the capitalist system. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who is a candidate—a candidate mark you—for the Praesidium of the Third International, that he too reinforces that demand strongly," I shall have no difficulty in getting the whole of the very large element which was opposed to me at the last Election, in addition to my own supporters.

Will you also say that we have got to see to it that the money that goes to the farming interest is passed on to the agricultural labourers? That is the point.

I shall have no difficulty in saying that, and I shall say it with the more authority since I shall have no difficulty in showing that large sums which have been given to the agricultural interests have, in fact, been passed on to the agricultural labourers. The calculation is well known to hon. Members on all sides of the House. The payments are enforced by statutory wages boards, bodies which are scarcely known in any other industry in this country. If I can reinforce all the votes I get for myself in Kelvingrove with all the votes which would normally be cast for my opponents, then I shall have no fear about the result of the election. But I welcome the incursion of the hon. Member from another point of view, that it does show what has become an increasing feature of this House, that there is a general desire to take part in agricultural discussions, and a general desire to show interest in that subject. I am glad that hon. Members from all sides of the House and I do not say this in any attempt at cynicism—have shown themselves keenly interested in agricultural matters, because the internal development of this country is clearly becoming of more and more importance as time goes on, and it will become necessary for this House to address itself more and more to these problems. The hon. Member for West Fife, in his criticisms of the Marketing Boards, went a little beyond what I can agree to on several points, and attached an undue importance to the office of the Minister of Agriculture, and even to the personality of the Minister of Agriculture, when he suggested that I should, here and now, remodel extensively those boards. They are elected boards, elected by the producers, and were I to remodel them it is not always certain that I should get the necessary vote in favour of my remodelled boards. The producers might not have the same confidence in my skill and personality as is held by the hon. Member for West Fife. But I shall go forward boldly, helped by his criticism and inspired by his enthusiasm, to see what can be done in the matter.

The Debate has brought up several very important and novel features. The emergence of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) as a full-blooded Protectionist was also a novelty to the House, and his vehement attack upon the suggestion that co-operators should be allowed to transfer factory accommodation from Denmark to this country was unexpected to me and will be very interesting to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he reads the remarks which have been made by one of his temporary allies. In common with other agricultural Members, we hail this unexpected recruit with enthusiasm. The desire which he shows to develop the agricultural industry in this country at the price, as he knows, of the exclusion of further pigs from abroad will be welcome to every agricultural Member. Whether it will be as welcome to the mining community on the North-East Coast I do not know. He will have to justify himself there. But as far as agriculture goes the fact that the North-East Coast has come out whole-heartedly for an increased production of pigs in this country and the stoppage of foreign competition is indeed grateful to us, and I am sure, the Debate will be notable if for that feature alone.

The fundamental issue is that we were asked both by the Pigs Commission, and by many hon. and right hon. Members of this House, to see whether it was not possible to have a more rationalised development of the pig industry in this country than had taken place in other industries in the past. The Re-organisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products recommended that there should be such a planning body. It was debated at length between the two organisations concerned, the Pigs Board and the Bacon Board, and finally they passed resolutions allowing such an organisation to be set up. They did not give it an unlimited growth. They each sad that their resolution, under which it is in force, should be revocable at a poll, and therefore the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) is that if the producers lose confidence in the Development Board, they can revoke their resolution, and the Board comes to an end. It is clear that it is for the producers themselves to say whether they have or have not confidence in the Board—both their own Board and the Development Board. The question can best be left to the producers themselves.

I was under no illusion that as soon as a planning body was set up it would not lead to a great deal of discussion and debate, not least from those who had insisted that such a body should be brought into existence. From the party opposite we have had many complaints in the past against the fact that, in the development of industry, new factories were not put up in the most appropriate places, that everything was left to the uncontrolled greed of the capitalist system; that the factories plant themselves down in overcrowded areas in the best beauty spots of England wherever they can see a chance of private profit. That was inveighed against by hon. Members opposite. Now the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) says that the Minister must answer whether any organisation was justified in coming to this House for statutory powers to control a private profitable proposition, and by what right any one in this House or elsewhere could prevent organisations or individuals setting up a factory wherever and whenever they pleased.

I did not question the right of this House in that respect. I questioned the right of the House to give statutory powers to a vested interest to be a determining factor, and I said that if this House were to establish those powers it should see that equity governed the transaction.

I will leave it to the OFFICIAL REPORT to show what the hon. Member said. The question was what right has anybody to prevent anyone setting up a factory. I shall not go further than to say that the House has either to take the whole of this business over, or to set up some appropriate body to whom these great questions can be referred. This is what was done. That is what was required by the Reorganisation Commission and what was done by the House in its Resolution of 26th July, 1935. It was on 26th July that the House set up a licensing body to carry out this experiment in planned development, and to see whether it were possible to make a success of it. A great deal of the discussion which has taken place here this afternoon should and must take place before such a licensing body. Any hon. Member has a right to raise questions here affecting the interests of his constituents, but we should see that the procedure laid down by Parliament for the operating of licensing machinery has been used to the full before demands are made that the machinery should be altered, or that the decisions of the licensing body should be reviewed.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is learned in the law, but he has come into court on this occasion apparently without fully studying the documents upon which he has built his case. He says that a decision has been come to by the Bacon Development Board. I do not know where he got his information. Has he read the scheme? Has he examined the provisions of the scheme? Has he seen the very careful arrangements made in the scheme to protect the interests of persons who are in exactly the position in which his constituents find themselves?

rose—

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my argument. I have here in my hand the Development Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, where, if my hon. Friend will turn to the relevant passages, he will find, on page 11, this provision:

"Whenever the Development Board intend to refuse an application for the grant of a producer's licence, the Board shall serve upon the applicant a written notice stating:

(a) that the Development Board propose to refuse the application upon the grounds specified in the notice; and

(b) that the matter of the application will be finally determined at a meeting of the Development Board to be held at an office of the Board at such an address and at such time and on such day (not being less than twenty-one days from the day on which the notice is served) as may be specified in the notice."

If my hon. Friend looks further on, he will find that, after that notice has been served, or even after a decision has been come to—and until the notice has been served no decision can be come to—he will see it laid down on page 18 that, where any person producing or desirous of producing bacon in Great Britain is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Development Board,

"the person aggrieved may refer the matter to such single arbitrator as may be agreed upon between him and the Development Board, or, in default of agreement, nominated by the appropriate Minister."

I was drawing the attention of the House, not only to the provisional refusal of licences by the Board, but to the fact that the Bacon Development Board at the same time passed a resolution, as a matter of policy, declaring that they were not going to grant any new licences. They based that policy upon what they considered to be the Government's difficulties about trade agreements.

I must say that, when the procedure is laid down and when it is admitted that that procedure has not been followed, the Resolution passed by the Board does not bind the independent arbitrator. My hon. Friend suggests that the matter should be taken further, and that the Minister here and now in this House should say something. I am the person who, in default of agreement by the two parties, has to appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate between them. What could be worse, what could be more readily and rightly condemned by this House, than an expression of opinion by the Minister on a matter which is sub judice, and in the machinery of which he will have to take an important part?

I beg my hon. Friend to consider again the case which he has made, and which, it seems to me, he has prejudiced, in spite of the able and vigorous way in which he put it, by the exaggeration into which he has allowed himself to fall, and by the fact that he has not laid before the House the machinery which has been devised and which has been approved by the House for dealing with these very difficulties. I refer also, particularly, to his objection that the producers feel that they have not had justice because the matter has been tried before a tribunal upon which interested parties are represented. To deal with that point alone, that tribunal, if I may say so, is not the final court of appeal. It is the very body whose decisions, if the producer or any person disagrees with them, can be reviewed, and, indeed, can be overturned. As to the interests represented upon that body, it is true that, by the specific recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission, by a Resolution of this House, and by the resolutions of the two bodies of pig and bacon producers, that particular composition has been chosen, and there are on the Development Board four representatives of each class of producers. But there are three impartial persons to hold the balance. Surely no one would suggest that Lord Portal, Sir Robert Greig, and Sir Francis Boys are men who would be actuated by any bias in either one direction or the other. My hon. Friend made no reply to the very pertinent query of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who, when my hon. Friend was describing the procedure as one which, if not corrupt, at any rate savoured very much of what we in Scotland should call jiggery-pokery, asked, "What were the three independent members supposed to be doing all this time?" The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton was completely nonplussed by that interjection, and made no attempt whatever to reply to it. In the circumstances that I have retailed, it would not be proper for me to give an expression of opinion of any kind, but I say that the procedure laid down in the development scheme provides for a continuation of the discussion and the referring of it, if necessary, to an independent arbitrator, and that I think should satisfy the point as to justice which has been raised.

There is no foundation in fact for the suggestion that the Minister has brought pressure to bear upon the board?

Certainly the Minister has brought no pressure to bear upon the board. The Bacon Development Board, naturally, considers the situation in the light of the question whether there will be a sudden and large expansion in the bacon industry? The board is entitled to draw its own conclusions from the facts of the case. The Minister, of course, has not approached the board or made any suggestion that they should take that question into consideration in determining whether or not to license further factory extensions.

Hon. Members have raised other points, but I think these a re the main ones which have been brought out. I wonder if there are any more, apart from the general consideration that, naturally, every Member would like to see a factory in his own division. The hon. and gallant Member for Louth brings up the case of Lincolnshire and the Member for Rutland brings up the case for Rutland. Hon. Members in all parts of the House bring up the case of their divisions. If the House were to sit as an authority reviewing all these it would never come to an end.

The Board would come to an end.

I cannot sympathise with the individualist desire of the hon. Member for Spennymoor to sweep aside every vestige of organisation which conflicts with the interests of his own immediate constituency. He has committed himself a long way to-day—to an ultra-Protectionist policy, stopping all imports from Denmark. Now he goes further and wishes to sweep away any form of planning or rationalising or organisation. I suggest that he should stop in his reforming zeal before he has committed himself so far that it is no longer open for him to sit honestly on the benches opposite. I shall not attempt to go into the general question of licensing, because I think that would be going beyond the problems which hon. Members have put up to me. Apart from the hon. Member for Spennymoor, there has been no general desire expressed to do away forthwith with any attempt to rationalise the expansion of pig and bacon production. Parliament having set up an authority, and the industry having determined to try out the experiment, we should wait for more than three months before saying the authority should be swept away altogether or that some new system of procedure should be embarked upon. Let us try out the system of procedure that has been laid down, to the full, and then it will be time enough to go again into the matter. I do not expect, nor does anyone who desires to rationalise anything, expect an easy time in this House, and certainly not from hon. Members connected with the coal trade. We all know the bitter opposition of the coal trade, on either side, to any sort of suggestion that certain alterations should be made for the benefit of all concerned. We are trying to get away from that in the coalfields. Let us hope that we shall succeed in averting these difficulties instead of bringing them into existence, and then grappling with them, in the industry of agriculture.

I desire briefly to call attention to the Government's scrap-and-build shipping scheme, of which I regard the shipbreaking and steel industry as being an integral part. I suggest that there is insufficient consideration so far being given to the shipbreaking industry. At the moment it does not materially concern my Division, where I have a very efficient and progressive shipbreaking yard. We are at the moment happily occupied in breaking up the Cunard-White Star liner "Doric," but I wish to deal with the principle of the matter and to safeguard people in employment. My information is that there are about 27 shipbreaking yards in this country, most of which are situated in or near distressed areas. At the present time there are only about one-third of the full capacity at work in these shipbreaking yards. Before the War the British ship-breaking yards had about 80 per cent. of the world's shipbreaking business, and to-day it is not far from the figure of 20 per cent. of the world's shipbreaking business. On the subject of employment—although it is very difficult to get figures, and I should hesitate to attempt to quote figures to my very efficient hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade—as far as I can ascertain, there are about 1,000 now employed in the shipbreaking industry, and it can absorb comfortably about 3,000.

Within the last few weeks the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question in this House, stated that there were 45 ships which had come within the purview of the scrap-and-build scheme; 11, representing 38,000 tons, were being broken up in British shipyards; and 15, representing 75,000 tons, had gone abroad; and 19 were at the moment unallocated. If we work out that figure we find that of the ships already consigned to the scrap heap only one-third remained, in this country for British ship-breaking yards. I presume that the reason why licences and permits have been granted for the export of these ships to be broken up abroad is the question of price, because it is recognised that the first call on this scheme of the Government is the shipbuilder and shipowner, and he must get his price in order to be prepared to rebuild. My information again is that the difference in price is not more than about 10 per cent. If that is so, another point may be made on the question of wages and employment, because about half the cost of a ship for scrapping is represented in wages for performing the work. If we take, as an example, a ship sold in the region of £10,000, a 10 per cent. margin of that sum is £1,000, so that the wages expended on breaking up the ship would be in the region of £5,000. It is pretty obvious that the out-of-work pay for the men that might have been employed in breaking up that ship amounts to £2,500, so that the country from one source or another has to find £2,500 for men out of work, whereas 1,000 would have brought that business to this country and they would have been absorbed in industry. From the purely economic, business point of view there is no question as to what is the correct and most paying thing to do. So much for unemployment.

I should like to turn to steel, which should be an integral part of the scheme. It would be safe to say that shipbreaking yards are the graveyard of the derelict ship and also the birthplace of raw material for the steel industry. I notice that the imports of scrap into this country represent about 40,000 tons a month. That could obviously be produced in this country. We have the shipbreaking yards and we have the ships. There is here a difference, an anomaly which might easily be composed. There are four parties involved in the scrap-and-build shipping scheme—the shipowner, the ship-breaker, the steel industry and the Government. Surely, it is possible that these four interests could get round a table, compose their difficulties and devise a scheme whereby the ships that are so badly needed in our shipbreaking yards could produce the raw material, the scrap, with British labour, that the steel industry requires. Meanwhile, would it be possible until some such arrangement is arrived at, agreeable to all the parties and definitely beneficial to the country, that there should be a more rigorous consideration before the granting of licences giving permission for ships to go abroad to be broken up? Before those certificates are finally granted would it not be possible for the Board of Trade to consult the shipbreaking interests of this country and see whether the price or any other difference that might arise could be composed, and so leave the business in this country?

The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice that he desired to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and he was also good enough to indicate the points to which he particularly desired to call attention. If there were a possibility of increasing the employment in the shipbreaking yards of this country by an act which the Government could properly do, no one would be more delighted than myself. The point is, that in the scrap-and-build scheme to which the hon. Member has called attention we are concerned only in the first place with general cargo vessels. We are only dealing, as the hon. Member, who represents a seaport town, will realise, with a section of the scrapping trade. Any redundant liner tonnage, such as the "Doric" of the Cunard White Star Fleet, and any other ship of any kind besides the general cargo vessel, is outside the Government's scheme altogether, outside Government control and in the area of free competition. Any sort of licensing scheme dealing with a permit to scrap British vessels abroad, if it were to be made generally effective would have to go widely outside the existing scrap-and-build scheme. It would require legislation and would have to be thought out on a very large-scale plan. I only mention that matter so that the hon. Member will not overlook it.

I was only asking in my last question that before these permits are given for a British ship to go to the Continent or otherwise to leave this country to be broken up, that the ship-breaking industry itself should be consulted, to see whether it would be possible to avoid that. That would not involve legislation.

I have not yet reached the question with which the hon. Member concluded his speech. In the first place I wanted to make sure that the House appreciates the problem which we are discussing. In point of fact the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, has as its object the removal from the world register of as much obsolete tonnage as possible in order to provide a direct inducement to the construction of modern British vessels. The hon. Member will understand that in terms of employment the building of a ship occupies far more hands than the destruction of a derelict vessel, however skilful the particular yard in which the ship may be broken up. The hon. Member has referred to certain figures and has given his impression of the imports into this country of scrap. I would like to make the point, because this whole question of scrapping vessels abroad has attracted public attention, that Great Britain, in common with other iron and steel manufacturing countries of Western Europe, ordinarily has far more scrap than she needs for home consumption, and on balance is an exporter. There seems to be a popular idea that this country imports a great deal of scrap, but on the ordinary run of the years Great Britain is a great exporter of scrap, whereas certain other countries, particularly Italy and Japan, being steel manufacturing countries with an insufficient supply of pig-iron and scrap, are always in need of scrap, and therefore inclined to offer higher prices.

It is right that in 1934 there was an excess of imports over exports, and that for the first 11 months of this year the excess appears to have continued. But there must be some special consideration to have rendered that possible, because on broad, general lines this country is an exporter. Normally it is desired that the two vessels which are to be scrapped in order to enable the new vessel to be laid down should be scrapped in this country. If a British shipowner scraps two vessels, and they are both broken up in British yards, and he orders the new vessel to be laid down in a British yard, and orders British machinery, that is the absolute ideal. There is no wish to allow a single vessel to be broken up otherwise than in a British yard except where otherwise the refusal to give permission would have, as a consequence, the non-placing of the order for the new ship. The main consideration must be that the tonnage shall be broken up, and as a result an order for a new vessel placed. If the Government, on the advice of the appropriate advisory committee, find that it is a question between not having the operation carried out at all or permitting the vessel to be broken up outside this country, they have no hesitation in adopting the second alternative. The hon. Member has referred to the price differentiation, and has surprised me by saying that on the information before him the difference in price between that offered from outside sources and from within this country was not more than a 10 per cent. difference. That does not accord, broadly speaking, with the notion I have. It is true that recently British shipbreakers have shown a tendency to offer higher prices for scrap than they have been offering hitherto. The difference, the yawn, between prices on my calculation is far more than 10 per cent.

Let me tell the House how this price difference, in fact, operates. A reputable ship-owning line with good resources desiring to take advantage of the assistance given by the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, is offered as an inducement Government facilities at a low rate of interest. That is one inducement which a prosperous line possessing good resources is likely to obtain from coming within the scheme. That inducement is the difference between 2¾ or 3 per cent. interest and the rate at which that same company could borrow in the market. Calculations on particular proposals which are put before the appropriate committee, and in due course before the Board of Trade, show that the whole of the difference between 2¾ per cent. under this scheme and the rate of interest obtainable in the open market is off-set by the loss which will accrue if the vessel is sold to a British shipbreaker as compared with when it is sold to a foreign ship-breaker. In such circumstances as that it is impossible to withhold a licence to export that vessel for breaking up when, as a result of refusing the licence, the whole operation would fall to the ground.

May I mention one other fact? I am not at all unsympathetic to the hon. Member's speech; indeed, I am grateful for the opportunity of the matter being raised. I am anxious that the problem as a whole should be looked at. I am quite willing to keep in close communication with the hon. Member and to listen to any representations he desires to make. His actual point as to consultations cannot be met, but I can assure him that the matter is constantly kept under review, and that these facts are well known to the Government Department administering this matter. Just in the measure in which scrap commands a higher price in some countries than in our own, so does the vessel to be scrapped obtain a fictitious plus value. Many a British shipowner desiring to come within the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, and take advantage of the scheme finds it necessary, before he can place an order for the construction of new vessels, to acquire additional tonnage in order that it might be scrapped. Just because there is a higher price level ruling in some parts of the world for scrap so does the vessel which is bought from a willing seller to be scrapped acquire an additional value, and therefore means an additional cost to the shipowner at the time he buys it.

These are all factors which make it necessary to see that the main intention of the Act of 1935 is not defeated by the inability of the owner to secure a fair return for the vessels he is scrapping and is not, on the other hand, compelled to pay unduly high prices for vessels which he desires to acquire in order to implement the necessary amount of tonnage he has to scrap before he comes within the scheme. There is world competition for scrap. The fact that British ship-breakers have recently been offering prices of 30s. per ton is likely to help British ship-breakers in their task of securing tonnage. I have the prices of the principal ship-breaking yards in Scotland, on the North East Coast and in South Wales, and, of course, in that area the firm to which the hon. Member has called attention is naturally prominent.

Recognised ship-breakers have recently become associated in the Ship-breakers' Association, the members of which rent or own in all 27 of the principal yards, with a dismantling capacity of about 1,000,000 tons annually and providing employment, not as the hon. Member said for 3,000 men, but for between 4,000 and 5,000. The industry is of course exposed to competition both in the purchase of raw material and in the sale of its finished product. Of the various vessels which have been scrapped so far a very fair percentage of the tonnage has been procured by our own British yards. The question is governed by price considerations and I am afraid the suggestion which the hon. Member submitted—in broad outline that we might bear in mind the incidence of this question in relation to the Unemployment Fund—is one which cannot be taken into account. That consideration would be applicable to any industry in any part of the country and once we contemplated giving Government facilities on the basis that if we failed to do so there would be more expenditure on unemployment pay, I think we should wander very far from the paths of ordinary finance. I understand the hon. Member's point but I can give him no encouragement along those lines.

If British shipbreakers desire to attract to themselves a greater percentage of the tonnage for scrapping it must be on terms of competition with foreign countries making similar offers for similar scrapping. The hon. Member referred to pre-War practice. He would be well advised to look into that matter a little further. For many a year British shipyards have not attracted the fullest possible quantity of tonnage for scrapping, and it is a matter which merits careful consideration. In some countries ships are broken up in bond so that there is no duty paid upon them and that gives them an advantage in offering scrap prices. While the Government share the hon. Member's wish that as large a percentage as possible of shipbreaking should take place in the shipyards of this country, it would be unwise to make any sort of promise that the Government will introduce an alteration in the administration of this scheme to bring that about artificially. On the contrary, I think that would defeat rather than aid the ends which the hon. Member and the Government alike have in view.

I think it is a pity that private Members in this House do not use the opportunity presented by the Adjournment Motion to cover the whole field of policy and thus enable hon. Members on every side to raise whatever subjects may be in their minds. Nobody can complain about the subjects which have been raised to-day. They are very important. The only complaint which any hon. Member, and especially any private Member, can make is that the Labour party should have wasted so much time this morning which otherwise might have been spent in valuable discussion. We have now come to the last six minutes before the House adjourns for Christmas and I make no apology for reminding those hon. Members who are still here that on the wide field and taking the broadest view we are going home not, shall I say, depressed but, I think, all of us in a very subdued frame of mind under the shadow of a threatened coal strike under the shadow of the depressed areas and unemployment and under the shadow—let us face it—of a considerable loss of prestige by this country in world affairs. I do not think there is any useful purpose to be served by recriminations. What has been, has been. But I think it worth while, in the last five minutes of this Debate, to see if it is not possible to learn one lesson at any rate from the distressing and disturbing events of the last fortnight. If there is one lesson to be learned, it is the absolute necessity, in a turbulent, disturbed, and dangerous world, of the Government of this country, whatever political complexion it may have, being possessed of a definite theme, to a constructive policy, which it is determined, to the best of its ability, to press to the end. Under present conditions you cannot pursue what I would call a hand-to-mouth policy. You cannot live from day to day. You have to have, whether at home or abroad, objectives, and to pursue them remorselessly to the end. It is better to pursue, I think, even a bad or a wrong objective than to have no definite objective at all.

I do not think any Member of the Government or of the Cabinet was particularly to blame for the developments or the events of last week, but what has disturbed us is the apparent inability on the part of the Government to see what the ordinary man in the street saw so quickly, that between the speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary last September at Geneva and the Paris proposals there was a vast gap. What shocked the country was that apparently, as it were by accident, or inadvertently, there had been a complete and sudden change of policy, and what shocked some of us in the House was that it was not quite apparent to the Members of the Government until it was pointed out by the Press and by the public. The impression one got of the last Government and that one gets of the present Government is of a lot of well-intentioned, very intelligent, able men doing their best in their own Departments from day to day, but without enough direction, without perhaps enough control, without enough co-ordination.

The plea that I want to make is that during the Recess Ministers should direct their attention very carefully indeed to the machinery of government, which should be completely overhauled, with regard to both foreign and internal affairs, and having directed their attention to the machinery of government, I believe that, a policy of support of the League having been imposed upon them, they ought to direct their attention very carefully to the machinery of the League itself at Geneva. Machinery is very important, efficiency is important, and efficient machinery is essential to efficient government. The lesson to be learned is not that anyone has been guilty of dishonesty or ineptitude. The lesson which we ought to learn from the events of the last fortnight is not that the individual has broken down, but that undoubtedly in existing conditions the machinery of government in this country has broken down.

If I may raise what may seem to hon. Members to be a trivial point, but I do not believe it is, because it is symptomatic of the whole system, as long as we maintain a sort of traditional system of Ministerial salaries—I raised this the other night—which are utterly meaningless and inept and would not be tolerated in any competent business in this country, it is a sort of sign and symptom of the absolute lack of administrative efficiency. That is what the Government have to consider more than anything else—how to make the machinery and how to impose on that machinery a definite, direct objective and policy to be pursued without flinching to the end. Unless we do that, I can only see us muddling on at home and abroad until some disaster overtakes us. The lips of the Prime Minister yesterday were not unsealed. Some of us wish they had been, but the last point that I want to make is this: Everyone knows, it is implicit, that one of the causes of the trouble has been the lack of efficiency of the defences of this country. I would say, in view of the money spent on our defences in the last ten years, that there must be some inefficiency in administration to cause that. With the overhauling of the machinery of this country and the League must go the thorough overhauling of the defences and the administration of the defences of this country.