I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after "used," to insert:

"by way of trade or business."

The principle of this Amendment was agreed to in the Committee upstairs, and all that was necessary was to find a form of words which would give sanction to the principle contained therein. That has been done now by the words which appear on the Order Paper.

We are much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. This Amendment meets our original object, and all we need do now is to thank him for introducing it.

I also wish to thank the Government for agreeing to this Amendment. There is just one point I should like to add. When speaking upstairs I raised the question not only of pleasure craft, which are now dealt with, but that of experimental tests. I trust that His Majesty's Government consider that the words they have proposed cover such tests, and I hope they will give an assurance on that point.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This House has reason to congratulate itself on the way that both sides have co-operated to send this Bill speedily on its way. The Bill is a short one and contains financial provisions which should be of direct benefit both to the inshore fishing and to the herring sections of the fishing industry but it also contains important provisions dealing with over fishing and it was right that these conditions should be examined in the Committee upstairs. Some hon. Members expressed concern lest under this Clause dealing with fishing the Government would impose one-sided restrictions on our own fishing industry which did not apply to the fishermen of other countries fishing in the North Sea. I want to say quite categorically and to assure the House that that is not our intention. We certainly desire to see adequate measures taken in all countries concerned, for unless satisfactory measures are brought into force we and all those other countries concerned will suffer in two particular ways, first, because we shall get less of the good quality fish from the North Sea; and, secondly, because catching fish would become much less of an economic proposition.

The passage of this Bill will give us the opportunity to redouble our effort to secure international agreement, and to put into force the various measures which each country has put forward for a solution of the over fishing problems. The Bill is at once a mark of our determination to play our part and a symbol of our faith in the ability of the nations concerned to co-operate in solving a problem which threatens the well being of all.

Of the Clauses which deal with the inshore fishing industry, Clause 3 by providing additional sums for grants and loans for boats and gear will enable us to continue making grants and loans to fishermen who are anxious to obtain new boats and equipment. Here I may say that the provision made in the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, for grants has almost run out, while the provision for loans is already exhausted, and but for this Bill the scheme of assistance would have had to be brought to an end.

Clause 4 provides for loans for fishermen's co-operative societies. I hope that societies which have already been formed will take advantage of this provision. It will encourage the fishermen at ports where there is no co-operative society to recognise the advantages to be derived from co-operative action in such matters as purchase of equipment and stores and marketing their catch, and to follow the example of their colleagues at ports where co-operative societies are already flourishing concerns. I think, for example, of an experiment which was carried out during the last two years in the little port of Eyemouth in my own constituency, which has been completely successful and has brought great benefits to the fishermen concerned.

The provisions of the Bill which concern the herring industry deal with finance and procedure. On the financial side increased grants are provided for the Herring Industry Board to assist them in various schemes but very largely to cover the cost of new factories for converting herring to oil and other products. This is important because it will help us to augment our oil supplies from our home resources. Herring oil can be used in such things as margarine or for industrial purposes and I should like to assure hon. Members that this scheme will not divert herring from the more usual forms for human consumption.

Nor does it mean that the Herring Industry Board or the Government do not favour quick freezing of herring. We are in favour of the maximum extension of quick freezing and the Board are among the pioneers in this development. Fortunately, there are enough herring in the sea to provide more than is required for the supply for quick freezing, kippering, the fresh herring market and all the other forms in which herring are marketed and consumed. Hon. Members familiar with the industry know that the fishing is so unpredictable that there are frequent gluts. The oil and meal factories will provide an outlet able very largely to handle the recurring surpluses.

The provisions laying down procedure will provide a quicker and therefore more flexible means of conferring powers on the Herring Industry Board so that the Board may meet any problem which arises. The Board have wide powers at present but in several respects they have been found too limiting. The new procedure provides all concerned with an opportunity of scrutinising schemes giving powers to the Board—and of making their views known. In addition I can say that the Departments concerned will help by sending copies of draft schemes to the associations representing the interests concerned. This House will have the final say in any scheme because no scheme will become effective unless it is approved by affirmative Resolution.

Speaking as one who had early experience as a fisherman, I am certain that this Bill will be welcomed by the industry and that it will be of real assistance to a fine body of men who have served the nation so valiantly in two world wars. For all these reasons I commend this Bill to the House.

It is a pleasure which does not very often come to me in these days to be able to commend to the House a Bill which has been introduced and carried through by the present Government. This is such an occasion today. I was very glad to hear the line which the Parliamentary Secretary took in moving the Third Reading. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I must say that not only do we welcome the improvements made by the Bill, but we agree that, thought it may be a small Bill, it certainly deals with a very large and important industry.

It is an industry in which I took a great interest at one time when I vas associated with the London and North-Eastern Railway, but since this House deprived me of that association I have not had as much nor as up-to-date information on the subject as I used to have. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) told us that the pre-war level of landings of fish have almost been completely restored, and an industry of that size must be of importance and of great concern to this House. I do not know whether everyone appreciates the fact that before the war the amount of fish landed in these islands was twice the weight of Argentine meat imported, which gives some measure of the size of the industry.

The hon. Gentleman has told us about the merits of this Bill, that it regulates the size of the mesh of nets and, therefore, limits the size of fish to be caught, and that it gives power to control fishing by the licensing of boats in the North Sea. I was very glad to hear what he had to say with regard to the other countries, though I was a little sorry that we did not hear from him any details as to the most recent attitude of some of the countries which are concerned in this matter. If it were possible either for him or for another hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench to tell us any more about that at a later stage in the Debate I should be very glad to know. We welcome the provisions for increased grants for inshore fishing men, and, although the landings in Scotland are a greater proportion than they are in England, nonetheless even in England they are a substantial portion of the fish which are landed in this country.

As far as the herring industry is concerned, we welcome the provisions, but we are not quite sure that they go far enough, and on that I daresay we shall hear further from other hon. Members. The provision of further funds and powers to the Herring Board will certainly assist in maintaining the market and obviating gluts. In view of the world shortage of fats, I have no doubt that every assistance ought to be given to the oil reduction activities of the Board, and that possibly these powers ought to be extended. I do not know whether it is true, but I understand that there is no immediate likelihood of the danger of over-fishing herring and, therefore, I suppose we should concentrate on increasing the market for fresh and cured herrings and also for expanding the oil reduction capacity.

I dare say that this Bill will do a great deal of what is wanted, but if need be, I hope the Government will not hesitate to introduce further legislation. Quite clearly, we want to maintain as large a supply of fish as we can, and to do that the control of over-fishing is essential. Then we want to maintain steady employment and prosperity and security for this industry. We want to provide more food for the people, and we want to expand our export trade of processed herring if we can, and I doubt not it is important to maintain as much research as possible to help in these matters.

In the early part of the Book of Genesis mankind was told to have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and it is not always that a Parliamentary Bill carries out Divine intention, but on this occasion it appears to me that it does. Unfortunately, after that instruction had been given, the Tower of Babel was built, and that has added to our difficulties considerably. Until the time comes when we are able to persuade all the countries concerned to co-operate in these objects, the full advantages of this Bill obviously cannot be attained. Therefore, in commending this Bill to the House from the point of view of the Opposition, I express the hope the Government will pursue that part of the matter as speedily and keenly as they possibly can, and that they will try to ensure that other countries implement the important arrangements proposed at the time of the international discussions.

In welcoming this Bill I shall be brief because a great deal of the ground has been covered on the Second Reading and in the Committee stage. Although I welcome the Bill, I have grave doubts as to its complete effectiveness. Although it goes a certain distance, we shall be deluding ourselves if we think that by it we shall make effective progress in controlling the overfishing of immature fish, which is the crux of the matter. One has only to visit any of the fishing ports on the East Coast to see the high percentage of immature fish that we are taking out of the North Sea. Unfortunately an increasing percentage of fish which have not reached spawning age and of which figures were given on the Second Reading are being taken.

I suggest that a great deal more must be done in the way of controlling the landings of these small fish. When the Minister makes an order to promulgate the recommendations in Clause 1 I hope he will take measures to see that there is a restrict on, indeed a complete ban, on the landings of small fish both from British and foreign ships. We have only to refer to the International Conference in 1946 and the Convention that followed it, to find how strongly the landing of small fish was deprecated there.

I have a great deal of doubt, too, as to whether the concessions we are making, which are considerable, will be balanced by the concessions from foreign countries. As I understand it, there is no likelihood of many of the foreign countries limiting the size of their fleets. We are committed to limit our fleet to 85 per cent. of its pre-war tonnage, and it has not been made clear, either from the opening statement of the Minister or during the Committee stage, how far foreign countries will march with us. We understand that they will make different concessions, that they will take different steps, but it would be interesting to know what steps they will take to balance the restrictions which we shall impose on our own fleets.

With regard to the herring industry, with which we in East Anglia are concerned no less than our Scottish friends, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, fortunately there is no danger at present of over-fishing. Indeed, we want to take every step possible to go in for all-out fishing of the herring, and we have to examine what inducements we can give to our fishermen in order that they shall take herring to the maximum capacity. I feel that the differential scales laid down by the Herring Board for their different catches act detrimentally to the desire we all have that the fishermen shall catch as many herring as they can. When it is remembered that the first price is nearly 90s. and that it descends gradually to 30s. a cran, with the added cost of fuel, the wear and tear on nets, the high labour costs, it is no great inducement to these men to catch herring. I suggest that the Herring Board seriously consider whether one overall price would not, in the end, give better results. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) knows the experiments which have been made in the Orkneys, and if that system could be extended further, it would result in increased catches of herring.

On one or two occasions when we have been debating the herring industry I have rather cut across my Scottish friends because I have criticised the attitude of the Scots in regard to certain aspects of the Scottish elements in the trade. I want to urge that the herring industry must try to get a greater degree of co-operation between those two vital elements. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) took me to task severely on the Second Reading, but he must remember that when the English fleet went north in May they had a very frosty reception indeed. There was no necessity for it, there were plenty of herring there, but because they did not conform to the rigid restrictions laid down by the Scots, they had a disappointing reception. I think the Herring Board could quite readily accommodate the differences between these two vital elements in order to have smoother running of the industry there.

On the Second Reading I expressed my hope that the President of the Board of Trade would be one of the sponsors of the Bill. My reason for doing so has now become more evident, for he announced not long ago in the House that he was hoping to conclude with the Soviet Union an extension of our trade agreements. The House will remember that before the first World War there was a considerable trade with Russia in certain types of herring. The re-opening of the Russian market would do a great deal to stimulate the trade and provide an extended market for our industry.

I want to add a word of warning on the urgency of the question of over-fishing. I was talking recently to a person high up in the fishing industry. He made the disappointing prognostication that our commercial fishing this year from the North Sea would not exceed the tonnage of 1938. That year was almost the nadir of the long run of descending catches after the first World War. If we are already back to that position it is vitally necessary to pursue every possible means to prevent the catching of immature fish.

We shall watch the operation of the Bill with, I am afraid, considerable anxiety. I hope, as does the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) that the Government will not hesitate to bring in further measures if the results of the Bill prove to be as disappointing, as I am sorry to say I am afraid they will be.

The passage of the Bill through this House is now drawing to a close. During the past year the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) and I have been engaged on several occasions in the House with the question of over-fishing. I share with him a great deal of anxiety regarding the implementation of the intentions of the Bill. During the Committee stage I was worried about how the fishery officers would carry out the intention of Clause 2. I was concerned over the inspection of ships and respects for the rights of masters. I did not know whether the difficulties had been fully recognised. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the courteous letter I have received from the Parliamentary Secretary, which has given me great comfort. He used these words:

"To my knowledge there has never been a single complaint on this point, the fishery officers in courtesy, as a matter of practice, first seeking the master and notifying him before boarding his vessel."

His letter settles that issue.

I would again draw the Minister's attention to the need for getting other countries to carry out the intentions contained in the Bill. This matter dates back to June, 1947, when I first raised the question of Spain with the Foreign Secretary. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refer once again to it and say that the Minister will press the Foreign Secretary on this question. Regarding the refining of oil, we suggested during the Committee stage an enlargement to include other fish by the insertion of such a word as "pelagic." The Secretary of State for Scotland then said:

"We accept the suggestion, however, that we should look into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 2nd June, 1948, c. 34.]

When the Minister opened the Third Reading Debate he made no mention of this. No doubt he has left the question to the Parliamentary Secretary. The Bill is considerably improved by the few Amendments of the Opposition which the Government have accepted, but it might have been improved still further if they had seen fit to accept more of our Amendments.

The House will agree that in any Bill which concerns the fishing industry we must be mindful of exactly what we are setting out to do. We are not only providing extra food which is necessary, or maintaining the fishing fleets and the men who sail in the vessels; we are doing something of enormous importance in maintaining, strengthening and giving every form of help to our fishing industry. We are maintaining our small boat builders and the ports and harbours which are necessary for our security. We are helping to build up in this country—a seafaring nation—the great spirit of seamanship which, if ever the country is in danger, will always come to our rescue. I give the Bill my support.

An hon. Member has whispered to me to strike a discordant note in order to make a change in the chorus of praise. I have no intention of doing so because I think the Bill deserves all the commendation it is getting. The broad way in which it has been presented to the House is striking. It is worth noting the large and diverse number of Ministers who support it. It has been presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, no doubt representing Scottish interests; it is supported by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, no doubt representing English interests, and by the Minister of Food, whose duty it is to feed the public, to look after the distribution of food, to arrange the level of prices, to see that there are fair shares for all and that everybody is well and decently fed. Moreover, it is supported by the two Parliamentary Secretaries, and I would like to say a word of commendation of the speech we have just heard from the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland. This is a formidable array and indicates the breadth, depth, strength and realism of the views behind the Bill.

Another striking feature was the very useful and informative exposition to which we were treated by the Secretary of State for Scotland during the Second Reading. His speech on that occasion was interesting as a narrative, scientific in analysis and persuasive as an argument commending the Bill. I should like to refer particularly to his statement that this country is limited in its power to use its land but is practically unlimited as regards the advantages to be derived from the sea. Up to the present they have not been sufficiently organised.

The efforts of this Government since they came to power stand in bold contrast to efforts of former Governments. This Bill is a big step forward, although I agree that it does not go quite far enough. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) may look back at the manner in which fishing problems have been dealt with in the past. Opportunities have been missed and the interests of fishermen and consumers have been given second place. That is wrong, because we are blessed in these islands by having teeming sources of food at our very doors, easy of access and badly needed by the population. But adequate efforts have not been made in the past to see that those sources were made available.

Government after Government have investigated and made reports and then pigeon holed the reports. The 1929 Labour Government tackled the problem and set up the Economic Advisory Fisheries Council (Fisheries Committee) which reported on the serious conditions in the industry, but that Government fell before it could implement the findings of that Report. The Ramsay Macdonald Government did nothing about it until 1933, when the Sea-Fishing Industry Act was passed, but that carried the matter very little further. In 1934 there was the Herring Fishery Board and in 1938 the Herring Board Report, which even yet has never been adequately implemented. Little real progress was made until 1945, when the present Government introduced the Inshore Fisheries Act, 1946, a small Act designed to give financial assistance to fishermen by way of grants up to £500,000 and loans up to £800,000. That was a step in the right direction but it was disproportionate to the needs of the industry.

The present Bill takes a bigger and better step forward by extending the provisions of the Inshore Fisheries Act and the financial advantages available under that Measure. The aggregate sum which may be made available for grants is doubled, from £500,000 to £1 million and the aggregate sums for loans is more than doubled from £800,000 to £1,800,000. These are more generous benefits than have ever been offered to the fishing community, but the facts show they are not enough. The Secretary of State admitted this on Second Reading when he said:

"It was intended that this provision should cover the five-year period from December, 1945, to December, 1950. But, it is likely that it will be exhausted in the autumn of this year."

This is not as it should be. There should be sufficient finance available to meet all the needs of the industry. The Secretary of State went on:

"A great deal of advantage has been taken of the assistance available, and up to 1st April the total commitments made for England and Wales and Scotland amounted to 400,000 by way of grant, and 693,000 by way of loan. Applications are still flowing in, and the Fisheries Department have on their books a considerable number of applications from fishermen desiring to acquire ex-naval motor fishing vessels as they are released from time to time by the Admiralty.

Available sums have run out quicker than was anticipated because the fishermen have elected to build a higher proportion of the larger boats."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 632.]

This shows that the scheme adumbrated in that earlier Bill was on the right lines, that it filled a need and was popular with the fishermen, and should be extended. The present Bill is an attempt to extend some of those benefits, but even this Bill, good as it is, does not go far enough.

Fishermen are a great race of men, fine, hardy communities dotted round our coasts who have assisted this country in time of peace and time of war, as has often been said, but cannot be said too often. It is right that their great industry should be assisted by every means and that ample finance should be placed at their disposal for ships and gear. Their fishing grounds should be conserved and they should be protected from over-fishing and poaching. All this the Bill seeks to do, and for those reasons I give my wholehearted support to this splendid Measure.

As others have indicated, this is a good Bill, but there is such a thing as absolute goodness and relative goodness. This is a relatively good Bill because it takes a necessary and distinct step in the right direction. I hope that in some measure it partakes of absolute goodness because I hope it is part of a real endeavour to establish the fishing industry in our home waters on a sure and solid, yet at the same time adventurous basis—the life of the fisherman is one of great adventure. Sometimes it is said that young people will not go in for fishing, but in my experience that is untrue. Given the right conditions, they wish to fish and it is very important for the character and safety of our country that they should be encouraged.

They are to have further facilities for having boats. I hope that will be combined with education in the use of boats and gear. I also hope there will be education for the girls in the cooking of fish and for men as well, because it is a good thing in these days that men should know how to cook fish. I wish to impress on the Government that the facilities for procuring boats by way of grant or loan should be made wider than in the past. We may be quite wrong in Cornwall and England, but we have felt that Scotland has had a larger chance in this matter.

It is right that this country should set an example to the world in seeing that immature fish are not caught. At the same time, it would be most unfair to the fishermen if we were to force them to use nets on limited scales such as do not apply to others, and if they were forbidden to catch fish which others were catching. There are two points which must be made clear. First, fishermen should not be forced to use a new type of mesh until they are financially in a position to buy them, and the nets are available; secondly, if the fishermen are compelled to use a new type of net they must have compensation in respect of the loss which they will incur.

We have heard a great deal during the passage of this Bill about what other countries are doing and what they are not doing. I and others have raised the question of Spain. We have had a little encouragement from the Government in regard to our hopes that other countries may came in, but it will greatly assist in the working of this Measure if the fishermen, the country generally, and this House can be informed from time to time—and I hope the time will be very soon—that other countries have, in fact, come in. There is one country in particular which I should like to see come in—my right hon. Friend did refer to the Tower of Babel—and that, once again, is Scotland. In this Bill great emphasis is laid on the herring. We all have a great regard for the herring.

Hear, hear.

Especially the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). But, after all that has been said it really is sad to find that under this Bill experiments in the production of oil are to be confined to the herring. To my mind that is quite ridiculous. A splendid suggestion was made by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that the word "seafish" should be substituted for the word "herring"; and the more scholarly word "pelagic" has been suggested. Certainly, the Bill as it now stands unduly restricts most valuable experiments that could be made, not only in the production of oil, but in the use of pilchards and other fish in many other ways. Having said all that, I wish to give this Bill a favourable wind.

The ground has been covered so thoroughly in the debating of this Bill that there is little now that I can say. However, the Bill does contain some provisions which I should like to underline. My first point was mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), that in the interests of our fishermen it is absolutely vital for any regulations applied to British fishing vessels to apply as strictly to foreign vessels fishing side by side with our vessels round our own coasts.

There is a weakness in this Bill in that the powers of the Herring Board have not been sufficiently defined. It is true that in Clause 5 a certain range of activities of the Herring Board is set out; but I think it would have been better, and would have made for more cohesion, had the Herring Board been given a more definite standing. As is well known, in the herring industry there are all kinds of wrangling; there never has been unanimity between curers, kipperers, fishermen and fish salesmen; they have always been at each others' throats, and more or less inimical to each other. A strong Herring Board with strong powers could have removed all those causes of disquiet, and the wrangling, and made for the betterment of the industry.

In my view it is absolutely vital, in the interests of the herring industry, that as quickly as possible schemes similar to the Lerwick scheme shall be introduced at all the herring ports. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) touched upon that most glaring and unfair anomaly whereby two vessels may arrive and land catches on the same day, one a few hours after the other, but whereas the first may receive something like 90s. per cran the second will receive only 35s. per cran. That disparity in price has been the primary cause, if not the sole cause, of all the difficulties and disquiets in the herring industry since the end of the war. The Lerwick scheme, which has been such an undoubted success, is to my mind the primary salvation of the herring industry, because under it no matter how many crans are landed on a given day, or even in a given period in a given season, they are disposed of by the Herring Board to the kipperers, the curers, the klondikers, freshers and so on; a flat rate is paid for the herring during the season, but a balance sheet is struck at the end of the season, and whatever profit has been made over and above the flat rate paid for the herring goes to the fishermen on a cran basis as a bonus. No fisherman will quarrel with that. If we can have that scheme at our East Englian ports and at the big Scottish herring ports an almost Utopian age will be born for the herring industry.

With regard to over-fishing, I must reiterate what I have said on previous occasions, that we must not place too much faith in the regulations of any size of mesh preventing over-fishing. With a net under strain the mesh varies in size. This Bill lays down powers to conduct all kinds of research, and we must have research into what is happening to the plankton. Something has gone wrong with the feeding of herring on the Aberdeenshire fishing ground this summer. What has happened? Is it something to do with the Gulf Stream? Has a layer of cold water come between the warmer water at the top and the water below? Is that preventing the plankton from rising? We should like to know. In direct ratio to the success that we have in answering those questions the herring industry will be made all the surer.

We must also have research into methods of fishing. Are the trawling methods, the seine net methods, too destructive of the food at the bottom of the sea? Again, we do not know. It must be borne in mind that where line fishing is carried out there is no danger of over-fishing. A fleet of lines may be anything up to six miles long, with hooks, at perhaps yard intervals; if the fishermen are after big fish they have a big hook; if they are after haddock, they have a haddock hook. So long as the hook is selected, and so long as line fishing is employed, there cannot possibly be over-fishing, and immature fish cannot possibly be caught. There is also the question of vermin in the sea which do much more destruction than anything else. For instance, dogfish do much more destruction to a fishing bed than the trawlers of other countries with sea boards on the North Sea fishing intensively for months.

I have one other point, which I hope is not out of Order. We welcome this increase in the grants and loans to fishermen, but the Government, or the Department responsible for working this Bill, must ensure that the prices of gear and vessels are kept within bounds, otherwise we are asking fishermen to invest their all in something which may prove to be a millstone round their necks. I welcome this Bill very much; I do not think it is the last word we shall hear in the development of our white fish and herring industry, but it is a step in the right direction, and as such I welcome it most heartily.

; We welcome this Bill most heartily. It is another stage in the good progress which this Government have made since the end of the war in dealing with the fishing industry. We are not satisfied. We never shall be satisfied. A fisherman is never satisfied. But we hope that this Bill is going to help the industry over the next few years and bring about better order than we had in the years gone by.

What are we after in relation to the herring industry when we introduce this Bill? We are attempting to get stability. We should like to be certain that when the boats go out, they can go straight to a certain place and know that they will get their catch; then come back to harbour and get a certain definite price and know there will be no wastage or deterioration of the fish, but that it will automatically go through improved channels to the housewife in the kitchen, or to the factory where it can be processed in so many different ways. That stability obviously must start with the shoals, by knowing precisely where the herring are in the sea. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the unpredictability of this industry. We can never know that the fish will be there. In fact, this huge industry is on exactly the same basis as the little boy who goes fishing in a pond and hopes that there will be a catch today. He may fish for days and not get anything.

In these modern and scientific days we ought to have made some progress by research, to which I am glad the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) made reference, to give some more definite assurance that when the boats go out they will be able to go straight to their quarry. In the Second Reading Debate I called attention to the successful experiments which the Norwegians had made in which, by the use of a scientific echo sounding apparatus, their boats went straight to the shoals. In 11 hours, in one night, which is actually less than 11 hours fishing, they caught a thousand cran. Our prize winning drifter from East Anglia, after slogging away for 11 hours, had only 253 cran, and it was the champion boat. It seems to me that the Norwegians are on a good wicket. It is quite possible that they are using apparatus produced in this country.

I hope that, under the increasing powers given to the Herring Industry Board by this Bill, every effort will be made to see, if this is not a solution to the problem of stability, that at least we can take in some more scientists, use more of the money at the disposal of the Board and look in every direction to get that stability which, after it is obtained for the fisherman, will extend to the manufacturer, the housewife and everybody concerned.

We are giving greater powers to the Herring Industry Board to rule the industry, and in so ruling, perhaps sometimes in a sharp way, it may at times tread on peoples' corns. There are certain little traditions still kept up in the industry, such as the coloured kipper. About a year ago I went round the kippering shed and was shown a new method they had of taking the bone out and then kippering the fish. In order to help to produce a nice-looking kipper for the housewife they steamed it in beetroot juice. They were dyeing the kipper. A month or so ago the Minister of Agriculture assured us that it is illegal in the Isle of Man to dye a kipper. The kipper must get its proper colour from being properly cured. Kipperers in the industry would be only too keen if that regulation from the Isle of Man were introduced here. I hope we shall follow the Isle of Man in that respect.

I hope that notice was taken of the protest in the Second Reading Debate about English influence in the herring industry and that more regard will be taken of Englishmen who go fishing from Berwick down to Yarmouth and Lowestoft. I hope that there will not be the grumbling, as in years gone by, or that every time there is trouble the Englishmen have to come on bended knee to the Scotsmen.

I have received a letter complaining about the price of coal in East Anglia, which is a long way from the coalfields. Now that we have a nationalised coal industry we may get somewhere near uniform rates for bunkering for our fishing fleet, just as we have general railway rates throughout the country. This morning I have been informed that the prices for bunkers at Yarmouth are from 73s. 6d. to 80s. per ton. The man who wrote to me also bunkers at North Shields, where the price is from 50s. 6d. to 56s. per ton. His letter continues:

"Some of our trawlers bunker 140 tons each fishing trip, so, allowing for bunkering this quantity at the cheapest Yarmouth price, it means an expense of £122 10s. per trip more than a vessel bunkering the same quantity at the dearest bunker price at Shields"

With their increased powers, and bearing in mind the great recognition being paid to other parts of the industry, the Board should look into this matter and see that fishing from Yarmouth is not made dearer because we are so much further away from the coalfields than North Shields.

If we are to obtain stability, and if modern scientific methods are to assure a constant supply of herring, especially during the definite seasons, we should rebuild that trade with the Continent of Europe which brought so much wealth and distinction to my own constituency in the years before 1914. That does depend on something definite coming out of the Russian agreement. We have heard that the President of the Board of Trade is to reopen his discussions with the Russians. He will go with the best wishes and hopes of the herring industry. We hope that there will be a supply of our cured herring going to the Russians under a new agreement, and that they are already getting practice in the Board of Trade for those bouts they will have to have with the Russians in order to get those agreements. We wish them well in their efforts.

I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron - Leader Kinghorn) in getting away with his bunkering. I thought he was rather near the mark at one moment, but I am glad that he made it. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not here to hear the striking tribute paid to him by the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) who referred to his fortitude, depth, courage, powers of analysis, persuasive powers, and scientific attainments. I have always had a great respect for the Secretary of. State for Scotland, but I think he missed something in not hearing all those things said about him. If he really combines all these qualities, we certainly have an exceptional Secretary of State. I do not think that he missed quite so much by not hearing the spirited but highly inaccurate résumé of the history of the fishing industry over the last 30 years which the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen gave; but I hope that the Under-Secretary will advise him to read that portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Member relating to his personal characteristics, which can only give him pleasure.

So far as the herring industry is concerned, my hon. Friends on this side of the House and myself have every reason to feel very pleased today. The Bill gives effect to proposals which as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, we submitted to the Minister of Food over a year ago. Broadly, the recommendations and suggestions we made upon that occasion have been accepted in this Bill which, as I said on Second Reading, I regard as something in the nature of a coping stone to all the legislation that we have passed affecting the fishing industry since the 1914–18 war. Perhaps the most valuable thing about the Bill is the doing away with multiple control, that joint control exercised by the Department of Fisheries in Edinburgh, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food, and the Herring Board, sometimes working at cross-purposes.

It now concentrates wide powers of direction, especially in so far as the making of schemes is concerned, in the Herring Industry Board. They are very wide powers, and I think it is right that they should be. Equally, I think it is right not to introduce any over-all compulsory powers over the fishermen, because you cannot make any fisherman do what he does not want to do. You must persuade him that it is a good thing for him, the country, and the industry to do something; and then he will do it better than anybody else. Therefore, I do not quite agree with the hon. Member who has suggested that powers of compulsion should have been taken, over individuals working in the industry. It is better to do what must be done in that field by securing their co-operation. The Board will have to feel its way, in a rather unexplored field, in the light of experience.

If this Bill is to be the success that we should all like it to be, three things are absolutely essential. I am speaking only in regard to the herring industry. I agree with everything that has been said about international co-operation in the white fish industry. The first essential is effective co-operation between the Board and every section of the industry, particularly the fishermen. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) who was supported by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans). I do not believe that we shall ever get the herring fishermen to fish flat out, which is what they ought to do, because we cannot overfish herring, until we get a very great extension of what has been described as the Lerwick scheme.

Until we give them an average price for all the herring they can catch, which will assure them of a good remuneration with enough to cover the costs of production, which are very high and likely to increase, and which will really make it worth their while to go out and catch to capacity whenever the herring are on the ground, without any restrictions on nets or on fishing, I do not think that we shall succeed. I believe that that is the ultimate goal. I hope that the time is not very far distant when the Board, under this Bill, will have brought in a number of schemes which will give to the fishermen an average and remunerative price, so that they will not be able to say any longer, "Why should we go and fish for herring to be turned into oil at 30s, a cran? It is not worth our while if you lower the price to that level." Hitherto they have had a great argument on their side. The average price is the answer. Hon. Members who know anything about the industry are in complete agreement on this point; and I know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with it.

The second essential is the active support of the Herring Board by the Board of Trade. It is really very important that the Board of Trade should give all the authority and weight of His Majesty's Government to the Herring Board in its efforts to expand our foreign markets. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth said with truth that it would be a tremendous thing for this industry if we could reopen the Russian market, which has been effectively closed to us since 1924. Negotiations are beginning for a new trade agreement with Russia. It is not only a case of the Russian market. There are many countries behind the so-called iron curtain with whom I think, and believe, and hope that we shall have to negotiate direct trade agreements, and which are in themselves great markets for cured herrings. Poland is one, Roumania is another, and Hungary is a third. All the additional land in Eastern Germany which Poland has now acquired is another. It was the great traditional Baltic market for herring. All could be expanded; and they can only be expanded by direct negotiations with those countries through the Board of Trade. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has this in mind; but it is absolutely essential if this Bill is to be a success.

I would add this other point, which is that there is a great market for cured herrings in the Mediterranean as well. I may mention, in parenthesis, that the Greeks have not been taking the herring recently which they used to take, and which they ought to take now. Some were sent there the other day. There were the usual difficulties over import licences, and it was only after great efforts that we got them released to cold store. If that had not been done they would have been completely ruined in three or four weeks. Here is another field for very active work on the part of the Board of Trade.

My final point is that already raised by the hon. Member for Banff. The future of this industry depends upon science more than any other single factor, as applied first to the movement of the shoals, to the position of herrings in the North Sea—why they come; why they go; and why sometimes they are there and cannot be caught because they are at the wrong depth. That is one aspect of immense importance. The other aspect, which is of immense potential importance, is the whole processing side; above all the process of quick freezing, which, if it is really carried to a commercial point, can revolutionise the whole industry. The possibilities ahead are immense. This Bill gives the Board the chance, if it is backed up by the industry and the Government, of putting the great herring fishing industry, in which I am deeply interested, upon a new basis altogether.

A remarkable degree of co-operation and unanimity has been shown in our consideration of this Bill. I attribute that largely to the fact that the lawyers have not taken a morbid interest in the Bill, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs. The passage of the Bill has been made easy because Members of the Opposition have forgotten their ideological differences. We have heard the word "co-operation" mentioned more often in this Debate than I have ever before heard it mentioned in this House. The number of times that the word has been mentioned enthusiastically by the Opposition, almost makes me think that Lord Beaver-brook, when he reads the report of this Debate, may want to ask Lord Woolton for his money back from the fund.

Clause 4 deals with the financial assistance to fishermen and gives power to make loans to fishermen's co-operative societies. I do not think that the Clause goes far enough. The generosity of the sum mentioned is more apparent than real. We are told that £100,000 is to be given to the herring industry to help fishermen to co-operate in buying boats and gear. How far does that get us? Last January I spent a week with the fishing fleet on the West coast in a new boat. This new boat, in which there was a crew of eight, had been bought for £5,000 complete with engine. The total grant, if it is desired to provide boats on a co-operative basis, is £100,000. That would provide only 20 boats for the whole of the fishing industry. There is a limitation in the Clause that one co-operative society of fishermen can receive only a maximum of £1,000. That rules out altogether the purchase of boats. With the present high price of fishermen's gear and tackle, it is difficult to see how a great deal of success can result from these grants unless they are put on a much more generous basis.

I do not agree with those hon. Members who have suggested that Scotland, in some way or another, is being put in a privileged position so far as the herring industry is concerned. It certainly is not true of the West coast of Scotland, where we need far more financial assistance to encourage the herring fishermen to come to the harbours and land their fish. There is no sign of super-generosity to Scotland in the way its harbours have been treated, especially those on the West coast, when we know that so many harbours are finding very great difficulty in getting dredgers. When we see very large sums being expended in other parts of the country and the world, we do not think there is very much reason for the assertion that Scotland has been treated super-generously in encouragement for the herring industry. When I read, for example, as I read this week, that £25 million has been sunk in a base at Singapore during the last 20 years or so, and when we think of what is needed to encourage the fishermen on the West coast of Scotland, I can only marvel that we have been so short-sighted as to spend money in all parts of the world instead of investing it in our own home industry.

This week, Sir John Boyd Orr called attention to the fact that we are going to be faced with a great world food shortage during the next decade or so, and this Bill will be judged against that background. It certainly does a great deal to foster research and to help the organisation of marketing, both at home and abroad, but I hope that the Under-Secretary for Scotland will convey to the Herring Board the necessity not only of organising production, but of co-operating with the Food Ministry in organising new methods of marketing. I have seen fish landed at the port of Ayr being brought down to Billingsgate in London when there was an absolute scarcity in the West of Scotland and in the industrial area from which the fishermen come.

I should like to make a suggestion which perhaps the Under-Secretary will pass on, and it is that something on the same lines as the activities of the Milk Marketing Board might be done by the Herring Board, to organise the distribution of herring to the schools. The farmers know that the milk distribution scheme has been very successful in helping to give them a stable market for milk, and it might be a good idea if a similar scheme for herring were extended to the schools so that the children could receive from the fish the nourishing fat which is now absent owing to the shortage of meat. I welcome this Bill, which I hope will be followed by a bigger Bill, and I urge the Secretary of State to impress upon the Treasury, if he has any influence with the Treasury, the need to make these grants to the herring industry as generous as possible in order to assist a vital food-producing industry of this country.

Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome this Bill, and the only fault I have to find with it is that it does not go far enough. The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) made a party speech attributing neglect to successive Governments of the past in failing to bring in legislation on the lines of this Bill. As an old member of this trade, I should like to tell the House that one of the greatest obstacles to legislation in past years has been the failure to get the trade itself to agree. Many attempts were made over a long period of years to get this fishing industry to talk with one voice, or something like one voice. I am very sorry to say that that result was not achieved, and that that was the main obstacle to the introduction of legislation to prevent over-fishing.

There was the historic case, many years ago, when Hull and Grimsby trawler-owners, after long negotiations, got as far as the House of Lords, when one of the parties—I think it was the Grimsby delegation—"ratted" at that point. They were trying even then, to stop over-fishing and the marketing of immature fish, but, in the period from the commencement of the negotiations until the deputation reached the House of Lords, the ingenuity of man had found a means of marketing these immature fish, and, because they were saleable, the industry took the short-term view of taking this easy money and allowed the destruction of the North Sea fisheries to go on until they got into the dreadful state in which they are today. I am told that very few North Sea trawlers are operating at a profit today.

One of the most vital matters in connection with this Bill is the preservation of the North Sea. Trawling is a comparatively recent creation, but the seas have been there for many centuries. It is good to realise that, when Britain was fighting for its existence in the war, the Government of that day, representing all he parties in this House, were able to plan and prepare for the Convention of 1946, and this Bill, of course, is the means if putting our own house in order. It outs Britain's agreement into a legal form, and I understand that we have taken the lead in this matter and that no other nation which was a party to the Convention has so far brought forward any legislation at all.

I feel that our fishermen have shown great forbearance in accepting the mesh restrictions. I think they gladly accept the licensing restrictions, and I agree with previous speakers who have said that what is right for our fishermen must be right for all. I think I know the problems which the Government will have to face in dealing with foreign nations. I met many foreign nationals during the years in which I was in the industry, and I found them very decent human beings as a whole. I think they are likely to raise these points. One is the shortage of food in their own countries, involving the question why they should restrict their fishing in those circumstances; and the second is the cupidity of the fishermen themselves, who, like the Grimsby men I have referred to, may take the short-term view of cashing in today instead of preserving this vital heritage for the future. These are problems that will have to be faced, and I hope the Government will take this industry into their confidence and tell them what is happening.

We have sent Parliamentary delegations abroad before, and, probably, if a delegation of this kind could be sent, it would help the work of the Government in bringing about agreement with other nations, because time is not on our side. The history of fishing restrictions throughout the world shows that they were passed too late and only when economic disaster made them inevitable, and I hope that that will not come to pass with this Bill. We have lost two years already, and if we lose another two years, we might have more than half our North Sea trawlers tied up. I remember the years in the late twenties and early thirties, when a large number of North Sea trawlers was tied up and rusting, derelict at the ports of Grimsby, Aberdeen and at other places, as well as at Continental ports like Bremerhaven, Ymuiden, and Wesermunde. The North Sea is common to us all, and I hope that some agreement may be made with other countries so as to help the Government's actions in trying to safeguard this common heritage.

I feel very doubtful about the restricted areas scheduled under this Bill, and the way in which the boundaries have been limited, because the problem which exists inside these areas also exists over the border—in the seas off Iceland, Bear Island and the White Sea, in which large fleets of British and Icelandic trawlers are operating day and night and over-fishing. That situation should be tackled. I believe that enlightened trawler owners with large capital investments in craft and shore plants are bound to see the ruin that lies ahead, and their resistance, if any, would be speedily overcome. I believe the Government will have a much easier passage in that regard than they will in the North Sea negotiations which they are carrying out with all the other nations.

Before I pass to the herring side of this Bill, may I be permitted to refer to an unfortunate mistake which occurred in the HANSARD Report of the Second Reading Debate? It records an intervention by me while the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) was speaking. I had made proposals in my speech for improving this industry, and he very naturally asked why I had not done these things in the years when I was employed in the industry. I gave an explanation, and I am quoted as having said, "I am still its managing director." I did not use those words. When I discovered the error on the morning following the Debate, I wrote to the Editor of HANSARD so that the correction could be made in the bound volume which is the permanent record of Debates. I feel obliged to refer to the matter now, because an old and esteemed colleague of mine is the managing director of the company to which I was referring, and it is desirable that the correction should obtain the same publicity as the error.

Opinions have been expressed that there is an abundant supply of herring in the seas. I have some doubts on that score. I have not enough knowledge to dogmatise on it, but I remember very well the days when there was no herring trawling in the seas at all, and I cannot recall that there were the ever-recurring famines which we seem to have run into in more recent years since trawling has been resorted to. The traditional method of catching herring is by drift net when the fish are on or close to the surface of the sea. I have a very strong conviction that when they are on the bottom carrying out nature's function of reproduction and spawning they should not be taken by the trawlers. Last week-end the newspapers carried reports of the losses which the great Fraserburgh and Peter-head fishing fleets are now sustaining; that is the greatest of all the Scottish fishing grounds. The "Fish Trades Gazette" last week also carried a similar story.

All the measures which this Bill envisages will be frustrated if the shortage of herring persists. The situation has not become so serious as it has in the case of white fish, but I do urge the Government to set up an inquiry now. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) in regard to plankton, is, I am sure, very desirable, but it is even more desirable that trawling for herring by steam trawlers should be prohibited. It is most significant that these Fraserburgh and Peterhead herring men are now going through a bad time. The trawling that is done by the Aberdeen, Hull and Grimsby trawler owners takes place in grounds just off Buchan Ness—grounds in which I imagine the Fraser-burgh and Peterhead herrings normally spawn. I urge the Minister to give that matter his attention.

If, by any chance, the inquiry cannot produce conclusive evidence, I hope the Minister will act on suspicion because the trawler owner can well afford to eliminate from his repertory of fishing operations that little bit which concerns the trawling of herring. It is only a seasonal matter for him, and a very short seasonal one at that. When I heard the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) speaking a few moments ago, I recalled the days when we had no shortages at all in the Clyde and Loch Fyne. But since the Fleetwood trawlers started to trawl on the bottom and found where the herrings spawned, somewhere between the Isle of Man, the North Irish coast and the South of Scotland, we ran into these periodic shortages.

The other point I wish to make concerns this question of oil conversion. I referred to it at some length in my Second Reading speech, and I do not intend to cover the ground again, even if I were permitted to do so, but I have very considerable doubts about the advisability of turning this magnificent human food—and I regard herring as one of the finest of all human foods—into oil on a large scale. By all means let us carry out the Lerwick experiment, but let us soft pedal it as far as oil is concerned, because it seems to me to be wholly wrong that in a small island like ours, with a dense population, we should take this fine food which nature makes ready for use, and crush it for margarine.

Let us look at the financial side. The refiners pay 8s. 6d. a cran. The controlled price of herrings is 88s. 8d. a cran. The refiners pay one-tenth of the controlled price. That seems an impossible situation. The Government realise that it is an impossible situation, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer find another £1 at the expense of the taxpayer to give to the fishermen, to bring the 8s. 6d. up to about 30s. to sweeten the fishermen, because they would never accept 8s. 6d. It is unfair not only to the fishermen but to the taxpayers, and I think it is unfair most of all to the people of this country who should have the herring in their natural form as human food.

It cannot be beyond the wit and ingenuity of man in this little country of ours, with 46 million people, to market every herring that is landed. I do not say that we should market it every day at times of intense glut. We cannot expect the housewives of Great Britain suddenly to change their habits just because there happens to be a huge catch at Fraserburgh or Peterhead or Lerwick or Yarmouth or anywhere else, but in failing to take care of such a surplus and preserve it we are at fault. Australia and New Zealand have done it for ages; so has Argentina. They freeze their surpluses. They have no home market capable of taking surpluses of bacon, lard, meat or butter. They freeze and store and export to us and others. Yet here we are timidly fumbling along with a toy plant at Lerwick capable of dealing with a few hundred tons a year instead of doing it in a majestic fashion as I described in my Second Reading speech.

I do not wish to cover that ground again, but I feel strongly that in Great Britain we have a surplus of herring from time to time in the months between May and November, while between November and May we have practically no herrings at all. What usually happens, of course, is that we allow the herring to remain in the sea and tie up the boats. In bygone days we were able to sell them to Russia and the other Baltic countries. I hope those days will come back, but I have no more than a faint hope. Those countries are behind the iron curtain, and are not acting in a way which inspires anyone in this country or in this House with confidence. Let us hope there will be a change of front in those countries, but we shall be deluding ourselves, the people we represent and the fishing industry, if we say that there is likely to be a market there, as there was in bygone days, to take our surplus.

I urge the Government to encourage the Herring Board in the praiseworthy efforts which they are making to freeze herrings. I hope, too, that private enterprise will take a hand, create the necessary freezing facilities and also pay fishermen the day-to-day price. If that is done, I think we shall get the herring we require, and I am certain that we shall give satisfaction to the fishermen.

In view of the suspicious glances which were cast in my direction, I must inform the House that I was not the Member who tried to incite the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) to commit a public disorder. I do not want to give away the Member who did so, but it is notorious that an Irishman always likes a fight.

In this Bill we are trying, in a timid way, to approach this question of the fishing industry. It has been said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) that there should be a strong Herring Board, and I agree; but that means the power of direction and control. It is peculiar that Members on the other side are always against control, but when it comes to particular industries, and they are faced with the fact that controls are essential, they are most earnestly in support of them.

Clause 4 deals with co-operation, but sufficient is not being done, and sufficient money is not being provided to encourage the development of co-operation. Co-operation is a very essential feature in the development of this industry. Clause 5 deals with markets. The key to the whole question of the fishing industry is marketing and prices. I remember, in the years between the wars, that we had the most despairing appeals from Buckie, Aberdeen and Peterhead. During that period the fishing industry practically went out of existence in the Forth, particularly in the area of my own constituency. Buckie, Peterhead and Aberdeen were sending despairing appeals to Members of this House inviting them to come and discuss with them the terrible plight of the fishing industry.

I remember during the war, when I used to spend a week or so in the Summer at Tarbert, where the finest herring come from, that night after night, huge motor lorries would come rolling in about midnight, and when the herring came in the morning they were loaded on to the lorries and sent over the mountains to Glasgow or Manchester, and one could not buy a herring in Tarbert. That is what I call the essence of chaos. At one period there are no markets, and at another period one cannot buy the fish. Today that situation is continuing up and down—in some cases it is not possible to get rid of the fish and in other cases people cannot get fish at all. In my own home area it is sometimes very difficult to get fish.

This is a big problem. The problem which has to be tackled by the Herring Board is markets and prices, so that we can end this jump in prices at one time and prices down to zero at another time. We must regularise as far as possible prices and markets. That means co-operation, not only in the sense of the fishermen co-operating, but co-operation between the fishermen, the markets and the community. There has to be the whole process of co-operation. Then there has to be international agreement, which will help to provide a wider market. Much has been said about that today.

I say that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) made a very bad point when he introduced the subject of the Tower of Babel. He will find if he reads the story again that people there were co-operating, understanding one another and striving to get from the depths to the heights, when the ruling class stepped in, confused their tongues, and set them against one another in order that they should not get from the depths to the heights. Today, we have the same process going on. A confusion of tongues is being created between the people of this country and the people of Eastern Europe. Who is responsible for it? Not the friends of the fishermen, but the enemies of the fishermen. Let us have an end to that. This Bill is a small stone,—not a big stone, not a keystone—in the structure which will eventually be built up towards a better way of things, and, in so far as it does that, we give it a welcome. I believe that it can help the fishing industry if there is co-ordination and real financial help.

I agree with something which was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I know of his interest in the West Coast, and he struck a very sympathetic note in my own heart when he referred to the difficulty of buying herring locally when they were being landed in the West Coast ports and carried away to the big markets of Scotland and England. I hope, with him, that the Herring Board, with the new powers given by the Bill, will put their minds to solving this question of local distribution round about the herring fishing ports of the West Coast, and all the fishing ports of Scotland. I have said many a time in this House that it is scandalous that within 10 miles of the spot where the fish are landed—within 500 yards in Oban—one cannot buy them. They are streaming away by lorry loads and train loads to the markets of the South. Speaking for the West Coast fishermen, I have never found them to be very silent when anything is wrong. As I have not heard one chirp from them about this Bill, I presume that their non-vocality means their agreement to it.

There are one or two points with regard to the Herring Industry Board to which I would like to refer very quickly. I am sure that the increased powers to be granted to the Board are very much welcomed by the fishing industry all over Scotland. As a member of the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel, I was on a tour a month or two ago in the Orkneys and Shetlands, and I had the valuable opportunity of visiting the Lerwick processing factory. I think that it should be suggested to the Board that something of that sort might be installed on the West Coast.

An hon. Member said that from November to May there is no herring fishing on the East Coast, but on the West Coast herring fishing goes on for most of the year. It is completely different in that respect from that of the East Coast fishing. There are times in the Summer when glut occurs, and I feel that there might be some processing of the oil, or, even better, a quick-freezing process. If we could have in the West Coast ports, plants for quick-freezing when glut occurs the Herring Board would be doing even more to help the industry in the West Islands than they have been able to do so far. I give full credit for what has been done in Stornoway. The Herring Board have not only paid attention to herring fishing there from the technical point of view of fishing, but also from the point of view of the harbour. I would welcome something of that sort further South.

Finally, I wish to draw attention again to the question of research and the finding of some means of developing the marketing of the herring on the West Coast, at times when big catches come in. That is the time when herring will not stand travelling very far. They could be sold in the neighbouring areas, but, as they cannot be distributed in those areas, they go bad on the way to the markets of the South. I welcome this Bill, but perhaps the Herring Industry Board in continuing to give attention to the North and East Coast could also give some more attention to West Coast problems.

This is the latest of a series of constructive efforts for bettering the organisation of the fishing industry. These constructive efforts have been going on for at least 15 years in this House. The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) was quite wrong in suggesting that this is a new idea. When I came to the House 15 years ago, one of the first opportunities offered to me—and I was very proud to take it—was to move a Motion calling attention to the position of the fishing industry. While I do not claim any particular merits for what happened afterwards, it is a fact that following that Debate a whole series of measures were taken in this House by general agreement. Those who were here at that time will remember that we had one committee of inquiry after another, and that the White Fish Commission and the Herring Fishing Board were set up.

All this was going on before the war started, and if war had not broken out I am convinced that we should have seen great developments in the industry in the course of the next year or two. At that time negotiations had reached an advanced stage in regard to measures against over-fishing, improvement of boats, provision of gear and processing. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) and others I was urging precisely the same method of processing as is being suggested today 10 or 15 years ago.

I am very pleased that we have started this process again, and I am very glad that the Government have introduced this Measure, but let us recognise that this is not the action of one set of people, but that many hands have taken a part in the work, and that many hands also will be required to continue the work in the future. Looking back on the pre-war discussions we had on the fishing industry and comparing the actions of Government Departments at that time and now, I think I detect a subtle difference in approach as compared with those days. Before the war we almost felt the presence of the fisherman when we were discussing this industry. We were so very much concerned with the man, his family, his home and his surroundings, and all our Debates centred on the romantic figure whose presence it seemed was with us in the House.

Nowadays, I think, there has been a change. We seem to have got away from the man, his home and family, and instead I detect a hectoring note: we are inclined now to lecture the fishermen and order him about. I know that progress has to be made in organisation, and I agree with the main provisions of this Bill, but I ask the House and the nation never to forget that this great industry is based on a community of exceedingly individualistic men and women, and that unless these men, their wives, bairns and homes are constantly in our minds, we shall fail in all our efforts. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and others speak in this House with great eloquence for large fishing communities, which are, of course, exceedingly important, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself speak not for these great organised bodies but for the small communities. In my constituency there are four little fishing communities with no more than a few hundred fishermen in each, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives speaks on behalf of even smaller communities.

Unless our efforts are directed towards looking after these small communities of fishermen, nothing will be worth while. This is not just a matter of fishing, organisation and planning, but is a matter which concerns the people and involves the character of the country. The hundreds of little fishing hamlets scattered around our coast are the very essence of the life and character of the British nation, and it is these small communities which are apt to be neglected. The hon. Member for Streatham speaks with great knowledge and sense about the depredations of trawlers, but why is it that these smaller fishing communities today are so often in trouble? It is because the great organisations in the industry have come in with their trawlers and swept up the fish from these local waters, which has not done anyone any good. They have cleaned these waters out, and these small communities have nowhere to fish locally but have to go far away from their villages, and everyone is in trouble.

Unless the Government take into account, more than they have done up to the present, the individuals in this great industry, their homes, families and social surroundings, and these small isolated communities which have bred and will continue to breed great men for our country, we shall fail in our efforts. I well remember going up to Ross-shire before the war and visiting a tiny clachan. I called upon a fisherwoman there who for the time being was gathering in the hay. She told me that her son was on the "Discovery" at the South Pole, but that he was having some trouble with his legs which had been frozen. She told me he was coming back and that her second son was going out to take his place. That is typical of these tiny villages, and it is an example of the immense contribution these people have made to the British race and name throughout the world. I am standing here as a representative of these small communities and demanding justice for them.

After listening to the very clear statement which was made on behalf of the Government and to the variety of speeches which have come from both sides of the House, I am wondering what part I have to play in this Debate. I say that because I come from an area known as the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. An island generally has a prosperous fishing industry, and I want to know what part we are to play under this Measure. I know it is said that Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill shall extend to Northern Ireland and the provisions of Section 15 (3) and (4) of the Herring Industry Act, 1935, shall also apply. We have a very prosperous fishing industry, and I do not know whether any Member has tasted an Ardglass herring. Our fishing industry feeds part of the North-East Coast. We ship our fish across over night from the Larne side of Ireland, and we re-ship part of the fish from the North of Scotland.

I want to know how we are to protect our industry if the size of the mesh of the net is changed? Eire has a fishing industry, too, but the Bill does not apply to that country. Have we made no agreement with Eire that she should conform to the conditions laid down under this Bill? We have to live by the waters surrounding Ireland, and the position will be difficult for Northern Ireland fishermen if they have to change the size of their nets and Eire fishermen continue to fish with whatever size net is best suited to their requirements.

What financial aid shall we get under this Bill for the Lough Neagh fishermen? A large fishing industry is operated in Lough Neagh, and I want to know whether the provisions of the Bill will apply to the fishermen there? I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to remember that we have in the City of Belfast one of the finest net making industries anywhere. If there is to be reorganisation I hope recommendations will come from this House that Belfast shall have an equal opportunity, with others, of providing the more up to date nets which are required for fishermen throughout the British Isles. When this Bill becomes law I hope it will fulfil all expectations.

I am glad that the voice of Northern Ireland has been heard in this Debate, and I hope that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) will get a satisfactory answer to the points he has raised. Far be it from me to strike a discordant note in a Debate which can most aptly be described as a chorus of harmonious blacksmiths; nevertheless, I am sure the Minister will not take it amiss if I offer a little mild criticism. I do so in no unfriendly spirit because, like everyone who has spoken, I am entirely in favour of this Bill. But, like one or two other hon. Members and, I have no doubt, the Minister as well, I think the Bill does not go far enough. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) did not think the Bill was wholly effective. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) found the Bill in some respects only a relatively good Bill, so that it is obvious that it leaves things to be desired.

I believe that the most important part of this Measure is that which seeks to solve, or go some way towards solving, the problem of over-fishing. I will say no more on this subject of what has been said many times, other than this: that mankind in his folly has succeeded in destroying many interesting and valuable kinds of animals and birds, but he has never yet succeeded in utterly destroying a fishery. Something has always stepped in to save him from the consequences of his own folly. For instance, economics. When fishing becomes unprofitable fishermen cease to go to sea, or may be a war breaks out and the over-fished grounds get a rest. Whether it is economics or war, what really comes to our assistance is the vis medicatrix naturae—the wonderful healing power of nature which, given a chance, will restore a heavily over-fished area to normal conditions.

It is of the utmost importance that as soon as possible we should get a complete answer to the question of over-fishing in the North Sea. I say so for this reason: although, so far as I know, there is as yet no over-fishing in distant waters, it is a fact that the danger signal has appeared. It was mentioned in the Second Reading Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson), who drew attention to a very significant point. Records show that the average weight of cod landed has been steadily decreasing. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not a bad thing in the early stages of the exploitation of a new fishing ground, because in these conditions there tends to be an altogether undue proportion of heavy, old fish. When new fishing grounds are opened up the proportion of such fish is gradually reduced in numbers, but a little beyond that over-fishing appears.

This means that within a measurable time we shall be faced with the problem of over-fishing in distant waters. If that day comes the Government of the United Kingdom will be greatly fortified if, in dealing with the other nations concerned, they are in a position to cite the case of the North Sea as a successful example of how a fishing ground can be controlled in such a way as to yield from year to year the maximum quantity of human food that it is capable of producing.

More than one hon. Member has pointed out that in the Debates on this Bill so far we have not had very much information about the agreements entered into under the North Sea convention. I am still not quite certain what the position is, and perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies. I understand that so far as this Bill is concerned what we are doing is to apply the agreed mesh regulation in our own territorial waters, and that outside these waters the signatories of the Convention have already reached agreement on the size of mesh to be used. There is this to be said—we are not going to solve the problem in the North Sea by regulating the size of mesh. Though it is a useful contribution it does not provide the entire answer. Clause 2 licenses vessels with the object of controlling the total tonnage to be used in the North Sea, which is a more fundamental approach to the problem. That Clause gives a certain amount of apprehension to the fishing industry.

I do not think that any proper agreement was reached about this. What it amounted to was that the various nations attending the Standing Advisory Committee of the Over-Fishing Conference have agreed to differ. I do not call that a very satisfactory form of agreement, even though they put forward proposals of their own which show that they are moving in the same direction. The fact is that practically every signatory Power holds a different view, and, apparently His Majesty's Government hope that by setting a good example to other nations that they will be induced to follow suit. They are giving a considerable hostage to fortune if they do anything until they are very certain that other nations will follow their example. It is going to be extremely difficult, considering the wide variety of opinions of other nations, for the United Kingdom to be certain that they are really observing the particular undertakings into which they enter. It would be disastrous to our fishing industry and to our fish supply if at the end of the day we prove to be the only nation which has effectively honoured its obligation.

I hope very much, as does everybody connected with the industry, that the Government's good faith will be justified by the result and I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind—and I have studied this over-fishing problem for a number of years—that the suggestion put forward by His Majesty's Government for limiting the total tonnage with a view to limiting the amount of fishing carried on in the North Sea is the proper solution. We should continue to press for an agreement along those lines even if, at the present time, we have not succeeded in getting one. The Government should continue to use their powers to get an agreement on the lines put forward.

I would go further than that and suggest that they might use a certain amount of pressure as well. We are in a position to do it. We have done it before and we can do it again. We used pressure to get an agreement in regard to the size of mesh used in the North Sea and to diminish the amount of trawling by foreign trawlers in waters around our coasts which we thought in the interests of our own people ought not to be trawled. The Government should not forget that in the United Kingdom there is a market which is of tremendous importance to the other nations who fish in the North Sea. We should use not merely persuasion but something a little more than that.

I turn to the other part of the Bill. Reference has been made to the amount of herring available in the North Sea. I mentioned on the Second Reading that before the 1914–18 war we used to get between 400,000 and 500,000 tons of herring annually out of the North Sea and that at the present moment, we are barely getting half of that amount. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham that we should get the herring as widely consumed as possible in this country. Our motto about this ought to be, "Eat what we can and can what we can't," using the word "can" in the widest possible sense to include every form of processing herring with a view to preservation. The fact remains that having used all we can by eating them, by curing them, by kippering them, by marinating them, and by freezing them, there are more herring in the sea than we can make use of. Therefore, I still disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham who protests against herring being used for providing fish meal and oil. I commend the use of herring for these purposes, because both of these things are very badly needed in this country and are not likely to be available in sufficient quantities for a long time to come.

With regard to the question of oil, I am sorry that the Government could not see their way to substitute the word "pelagic" for herring. I made this suggestion on the Committee stage. The Herring Board ought to have the opportunity of processing not only the herring but any of its cousins, like mackerel. The Minister himself made a strong appeal when he was tackled about one point for flexibility in the Bill. The substitution of the word "pelagic" for "herring" would give that flexibility which the Board ought to have. It may not be its intention to deal with mackerel or pilchards at the present time, but, nevertheless, it would be a good thing if the Board had the power to do it if they so desired.

Another point in this connection which I desire to stress is that interesting experiments are going on at the present time, conducted at the instance of the Herring Industry Board, in which by chemical means the protein of the herring is being broken down and reconstituted to something closely resembling egg albumen. Such experiments are of great interest to the industry and to the country from the point of view of food supplies. Various references have been made to the experiment conducted by the Herring Board at Lerwick.

I prefer to call it the Shetland experiment, because Lerwick is not the only place in Shetland where herring fishing is carried on. That ancient fishing ground is coming into its own once again. It is now the third year since the Board started the experiment there. The Shetland men showed a great deal of faith at the outset when they decided to collaborate with the Board, and their faith has been fully justified by the results. The success of the Board's experiments in the Shetland have fully justified the case which has been put forward in this Bill for giving the Herring Board greater power than it had before. The Shetland experiment has been very successful and has impressed fishermen in other parts of the country. Everyone realises that given wider powers and the reasonable collaboration of the fishermen, the Herring Industry Board can solve a number of problems which in the past have proved very intractable indeed.

In conclusion, I desire to rebut the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) and his animadversions on previous Governments. He made a purely party speech and tried to get away with the suggestion that the Labour Party was wholly responsible for the various improvements which have taken place in the fishing industry. After I had listened to him I wondered if he had ever read the Elliot Report or even heard of it. Had he read it he would have realised the tremendous contribution which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has made to the solution of the problems of the herring fishing industry, starting with the work of the valuable committee of which he was chairman. I do not think it is unfair to claim that he laid the foundations of a statutory edifice of which this Bill may be justly regarded as the coping stone, and every credit should be given to him for his work in the past and also to that of the party to which I have the honour to belong. The fishing industry has not been an easy one to help because of the independent outlook of the men in it. Nevertheless, I think a better spirit is abroad now as a whole and that everybody in the industry is realising more and more that they must work together.

I welcome this Bill very much. I want to re-echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in what he said about the Board of Trade and the Herring Industry. He spoke words of great wisdom which I hope will bear fruit. I also hope that the weaknesses on the international side will continue to receive the Government's attention and that at the end of the day the United Kingdom will succeed in getting all the signatories to the North Sea Convention to act on the same lines in order to solve this problem of over-fishing in the North Sea once and for all.

As we part with this Bill for the last time in this House it is nice to have the chance of tidying up a few of the ends in a Debate which all through has been so friendly, good-humoured and constructive. Many hon. Members began by saying that they welcomed the Bill, ended by saying that they welcomed the Bill, and found time in the middle to say that it does not go far enough. As a very junior Member of this House I learned that was a pretty safe utterance to make on any Bill, and that at some stage or other it ought to be said as a matter of form. That is about what it amounts to.

The Bill in fact deals with two rather important things. It sets out first to protect the fishing grounds, the source of much of this Kingdom's greatness and of much of the food of our people at the moment. That is, after all, a great thing. There was some question whether we go far enough, and I was sadly disappointed that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Sir B. Neven-Spence) did not go a little further. At one stage I understood him to say that the Government should use their persuasion with other Governments and, having used that, should use a little more. I had visions of the Shetland Artillery being brought up to back up what we should use on the other Governments, and I was sorry he stopped when he did.

The Bill goes a long way to protect the source of our fish and bring assistance to valuable sections of our fishing industry. In that respect it is an important Bill, as, indeed, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said it was. He asked me to say a word about the position with regard to the Convention and the Standing Advisory Committee, a matter about which the last speaker confessed himself not altogether clear. The position is that we have two separate things. First the Over-fishing Convention, with which we are dealing in Clause 1. That Convention has been ratified by Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden and ourselves. Of the other States which have not yet ratified there have been unofficial intimations to us in several cases that instruments of ratification are being prepared now and will be formally deposited in a short time. It is due more to the legislative processes of those countries than anything else, so that considerable progress has been made in ratifying that Convention.

So far as the final Report of the Standing Advisory Committee is concerned, about which the last speaker said that the Governments concerned had agreed to differ, that is not quite right. What they have done is to agree to take different measures, each different measure being agreed by all to be roughly the equivalent of the different measures of the other countries.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. He said that so many countries were ratifying; did they ratify a clause which corresponds to our Clause r, the larger mesh Clause?

Yes. I said this when I was dealing with the ratification of the Over-fishing Convention, that is the larger Mesh Convention. I have left that now to go on to the Report of the Standing Advisory Committee which deals with rather different things. As we could not get agreement on one thing we got agreement on a series of things which roughly amounted to the same, having regard to our different circumstances. The final Report of that Standing Advisory Committee, which is the Report under which our licensing provisions will come, has been accepted by Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, France and ourselves. There are six other countries left to accept.

I would say, however, that although that is quite encouraging, the position is if anything rather better than that because some of those countries have very little interest, if any, in North Sea fishing and have indicated that they will accept anything which was generally acceptable to those really concerned. So there are at least three of those countries whose acceptance will not be much more than formal when the others have accepted, and there are, therefore, only two or three countries left to accept formally in that regard. I hope that makes the position clear to the right hon. Gentleman.

Several things have been said about whether the Bill really will affect the position of immature fish. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans), the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) have made the point that the size of the mesh may have little effect, and that there are other things that one ought to do. During the last week I have had the opportunity of visiting certain of the East Coast fishing ports referred to by the hon. Member for Streatham and of looking at the fish landed in the market early in the morning—for me, very early in the morning. I was greatly alarmed at the size of the fish held in the containers. It was quite a shock to me. I was interested to discover that everybody with whom I talked—fishermen, merchants, trawler owners—confessed to the same sense of alarm. There is quite a genuine feeling about this. I can say that the orders which we would propose to make with regard to the size of the mesh and the landing of immature fish are in the course of preparation, and that we hope to present these orders to this House shortly, when I think the hon. Members who have raised this point will find that it has been well taken care of and will be met at that time.

The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked about pelagic fish, and I will deal with this now because it was raised by other hon. Members, including the real author of the term, the last speaker. The point I can make briefly is this: it seemed to us that to include in this Bill powers for the Herring Board to make grants in respect of something with which they have no power to deal in other Acts, would be inappropriate. The Amendments fall to be made elsewhere, and to put them into this Bill would be out of place. I would like to say, however, that the Government are anxious that the supplies of pilchards and similar fish shall be fully taken up. We hope that the extension of the processing factories we have in the part of the country in which the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) is interested, will help in that regard, but if there are additional surpluses that can go for oil, steps will be taken by the Government to see that they are made use of in that way.

The hon. Member for Banff referred to the Lerwick or Shetland scheme. We are anxious that that scheme, which has proved so valuable, both as regards processing, the average price and so on, should be extended to other ports. One of the main reasons for the extension of the powers of the Herring Industry Board is to give them the opportunity of extending that valuable scheme to other ports, and we hope that that will be done. The second part of the scheme pre-supposes a measure of agreement amongst the parties concerned. It must be borne in mind that it cannot be imposed by us.

The hon. Member for Banff raised the question of research and the fact that herrings were not now feeding in the grounds on which Scottish fishermen fish for them. I have had a short talk with my colleague on the Front Bench and I understand that we now have a vessel in those waters which is making investigations into these problems. I have been given an indication of the kind of things being discovered, and the hon. Member will be glad to know that researches are being made into the very point he raised. We are hoping to get some very useful information.

I think that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has some obvious misconceptions about Clauses 3 and 4 and the loans to fishermen's co-operative societies. It would be unfortunate if the impression were to prevail that we are contemplating the very limited measure of assistance which he has in mind for the building of boats for inshore fishermen. The hon. Member has confused the purposes of Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 4, in fact, gives us an opportunitity to make loans as a gesture of encouragement to fishermen's co-operative societies. The idea is to have a limited amount of money to help them meet the initial cost of setting themselves up as societies. The question of building boats for inshore fishermen falls to be dealt with not under Clause 4, but under Clause 3, where power is taken to extend the money available to £1,500,000. Therefore, most of the points made by the hon. Member do not arise.

The hon. Member for Streatham was worried about what other countries will do. He said that none of the other countries would ratify the agreement or have introduced legislation to do so. This is a question of using as much persuasion as we can. Already the Agreement has been ratified by a number of countries. We have an obligation to move and, on the question of the size of mesh of the net, it is in our interests to make a move. Arrangements are made for countries who have ratified to report to the Standing Advisory Committee the steps they are taking so that we shall know how far other people are moving in this respect; we shall be able to help push them along if necessary.

The hon. Member for Streatham referred also to the effect of trawling on the stock of herring. I am by no means competent to enter into such an argument but am advised there is no scientific evidence that trawling has the effect he suggested upon the stock of herring in the sea. I gather that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland thought the same when he referred to the doubling of the stock in the sea, despite the fishing which has taken place.

I do not wish the Parliamentary Secretary to misunderstand me. What I said was that at present we are taking out of the North Sea less than half the quantity of herring we took before 1914.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I am told, in fact, that trawling is carried out on certain fishing grounds where spawning does not take place. Our scientific advisers, therefore, take the view that it does not have a harmful effect. This matter is kept well under review but if later advice is different we must take some further action.

As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, the same point has been raised before. I hope that the researches being carried out in the Forth may give an answer to this problem as it affects all parts of the coast.

That is one of the matters to which our vessel, to which I have referred, will direct its attention. If I may say so, I thought the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was to be regretted. It seemed that at that stage of our discussion we were importing a good deal of suspicion which was not justified. When he referred to the ignoring of small fishing communities he was talking without much attention to the Bill. I should have thought that the whole effect of Clauses 3 and 4 will be that the small fishing communities are not ignored, for we shall give assistance specifically to these smaller communities. I remember resisting an Amendment during the Committee stage on the very ground that I thought it would be unfair to these smaller fishing communities if we were to extend this particular form of assistance to somebody else. I must emphasise our hope and expectation that, by the assistance we hope to extend under Clauses 3 and 4, we shall give a valuable and real measure of assistance to the smaller communities.

The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Beattie) wanted to involve me in a quarrel which I always like to avoid, since my ancestors came from Cork. He wanted to know why certain sections of the Bill were not extended to Northern Ireland. The answer is that Northern Ireland has its own Parliament and its own schemes covering these particular points. Those parts of the Bill, therefore, should not and could not appropriately apply to Northern Ireland. The Herring Industry Act and those parts of the present Measure amending it do, in fact, apply to Northern Ireland, as do the licensing provisions to fishing which is done in the North Sea. Eire, like other countries, was a party to the Convention and other discussions and will no doubt be ratifying in due course. They will be watched, helped and encouraged, if necessary, in the same way as other countries, but not more or less so. I think I have dealt with the various points raised during our discussion today.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to one point which I consider is of great importance? I refer to the necessity of co-operation between the Board of Trade and the Herring Board. If the hon. Gentleman will say that he will bring this question to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade I shall be grateful, because it is a vital matter.

The present is a singularly opportune time to obtain ratification in view of the trade talks now taking place with Eire.

We shall lose no opportunity of encouraging Eire and other countries to ratify. Ratification is now taking place and there is no reason to assume that any of the parties will hold out. I will see that this matter is brought to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade.

The Bill, by extending a measure of protection to the valuable fishing grounds, and by extending a valuable measure of assistance to the important sections of our fishing fleet, will be an important contribution to the future of this great industry and of these great men. I have the greatest pleasure in commending to the House its Third Reading in the knowledge that it will receive general approbation on all sides.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time."

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to issue to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, for the purpose of local loans, advances not exceeding £500 million in cash and to make commitments, that is, promises together with advances, of a sum not exceeding £680 million. The reason for the Bill is that, as at 4th June, rather more than £140 million had been advanced, of which £110 million had been advanced for housing. The outstanding commitments at that date were about £180 million and, under the power conferred by the present Act, the overall balance left is something like £80 million. Of course we could wait until the Autumn before promoting another Bill, but it occurred to us that there would be a risk in doing that and that it would be much better to come to the House for powers to make the advances mentioned in the present Bill.

It is of course difficult, as the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) knows, to estimate how long the present sums will last. It was difficult in the old days when he occupied the position I now hold. It is very difficult now when nearly all loans have to be made through the Local Loans Fund and, after six years of war, local authorities are spending a good deal of money, particularly in the erection of houses. It is difficult to give any real estimate as to how long the amount set forth in the Bill will last, but it is our expectation that it will certainly last until late in 1949 and, we hope, until early, in 1950.

When this Bill becomes an Act, it will entirely supersede the powers which were granted under the previous Measure. When the present Act was passed, I told the House that the commitments then outstanding were in the region of £225 million. That £225 million, or a very large proportion of it, has had to come out of the present Act. Today we have the unused balance of approximately £80 million, and if that is added to the outstanding promises of a further £180 million, we get an approximate total of £260 million, the major portion of which will have to come out of this Measure. When the matter is looked at with that in mind, it will be realised that the sums we ask for are reasonable and proper in the circumstances. It is essential that local authorities should have these facilities for development and reconstruction. We should run no risk of being in a situation where we have not the powers even to commit the Board to make an advance. I commend the Bill to the House.

I have little comment to make on this Bill. One notices it is a much slighter document than the Public Works Loans Bill to which one is accustomed and does not have the schedule or appendix which usually discloses a large number of somewhat unsatisfactory loans made in years past which have come home to roost. I have no doubt we shall have a revival of that appendix when we have the next full Bill.

I was not quite sure how much of the £500 million is likely to be applicable to housing. The right hon. Gentleman gave an indication in regard to a past figure, but did not indicate how much of the £500 million would be applied to housing. It would be convenient if we could be told what that figure will be, and also how much is likely to be devoted to education, school buildings and so on. I do not know if it is convenient for those figures to be given now, but, if not, perhaps they could be made available to the House on some future occasion.

I wish to know how this new plan by which the local authorities concentrate all their borrowing through the Treasury is working. There was a good deal said on both sides when the new plan was introduced and it was thought by many that the more general control of the capital market which the Government have undertaken made it desirable that that practice should be followed. I would like to know whether local authorities are satisfied with the new system or whether there have been complaints or difficulties arising from it.

I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, at what rate of interest the money is now being lent to local authorities. I have an idea what it is, but I should like it confirmed officially by the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us that the £500 million is likely to last, or he hoped it would last, until about the end of next year. I do not know what the general capital position is going to be over that period, nor do I know how much capital it will be possible to find. It is all very much tied up with the question of savings. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the savings will be adequate to provide this finance, because if savings are not forthcoming to meet it the situation is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of controlling inflationary influences.

This is not the time to talk at length of the importance and difficulties of the formation of capital, but it is a matter about which I have felt very concerned of late. Not only have we on this side of the House criticised proposals in the current Finance Bill in regard to the Special Contribution which we thought would have a serious effect on savings and on the formation of capital, although they are restricted at present to a small class of saver, but anxiety has been generally expressed on the subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes full account of that and will represent to the Chancellor that that anxiety is felt. It is very clear to me that the next few years will see a great scarcity of capital. That is a feature which will become more obvious as time goes on.

In the past capital has largely been formed from the savings of the wealthier members of the community who had a surplus income out of which they could save. Now, owing to the very high level of taxation of the wealthier members of the community, the margin available for saving is very much reduced, and leaves the saving to be done by a very large number of much smaller income holders. That will have a serious effect upon the future financing of our business. However, we are here concerned with the Public Works Loans Bill, and all I want to know is that the right hon. Gentleman feels satisfied himself that the savings which will be available to the Treasury during the period ahead of us will be sufficient to meet the capital commitments which this Bill envisages.

As the Financial Secretary has pointed out, this Bill provides that a prescribed amount of money may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purposes of local loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. On another occasion, and in another connection, I have drawn attention to the fact that the body called the National Debt Commissioners has now been reduced really to the position of being a mere puppet of the Treasury. The Public Works Loans Board, like the National Debt Commissioners, is a body composed of very distinguished people. It has, indeed, a most imposing set up, but in my contention the Public Works Loans Board also is now operating merely as a puppet of the Treasury. It is unfortunate that the Public Works Loans Board has not a wider degree of discretion in the conduct of their business.

My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) inquired of the Financial Secretary whether local authorities generally were satisfied with the new arrangements. My experience indicates that at any rate some of them are not satisfied. I feel that in order to illustrate my contention I should tell the House certain facts with regard to a particular local authority. It will not be necessary for me to go into any great detail; I have already drawn the attention of the Financial Secretary to the facts, of which he is well seized, and if I say anything which in his view is inaccurate I ask him immediately to interrupt me.

A local authority negotiated a loan of £90,000 with the Public Works Loans Board; it was a long-term loan, for the purpose of housing, to run for 60 years; the rate at which it was negotiated was 2½ per cent., and it was arranged that the advance should be made on 2nd January of this year. That advance would have been made on 2nd January of this year, at 2½ per cent., but for an unfortunate mistake for which the Public Works Loans Board was solely responsible. I think the Financial Secretary will be the first to admit that no blame whatsoever lay with the council or its officers. What happened was that, through a mistake on the part of the Public Works Loans Board, an essential document which had to be sealed by the council was omitted from the papers which were sent, and owing to the delay which ensued the advance was not made, as expected, on 2nd January. That perhaps would not have been a matter of any great seriousness but for one event: on 2nd January a Treasury Minute raised the rate of interest on local loans from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. from 3rd January onwards. This local authority will now be required to pay 3 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent., which, taken over the 60 years of the loan, will amount to an increased charge of something over £20,000 for the service of the loan.

The House will appreciate that this is a very grave and serious matter, which raises an important question of principle. Naturally the local authority at once took up the question with the Public Works Loans Board, but the Board said: "We can do nothing. We are entirely bound by the Treasury minute. We are not permitted any discretion whatsoever to make any relaxation, even in the hardest possible case." The local authority then went to the Treasury, and received an entirely uncompromising reply. I then took the matter up with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, from whom I received all sympathy, but he decided that he was unable to intervene. I then took the matter up with the Financial Secretary, who merely confirmed the attitude which the Treasury had stated to the local authority. The position is, therefore, that through a mistake for which the Public Works Loans Board was exclusively responsible, and for which no blame whatsoever lay upon the council or its officers, a local authority will over the next 60 years lose £20,000.

That is a very hard case, and perhaps on some other occasion I may be permitted to deal with it in greater detail. The reason I am raising it now is to call attention to the very unfortunate and inflexible situation in which the Public Works Loans Board finds itself. It is not permitted by the Treasury any discretion to deal with cases of this kind, and it seems to me positively humiliating to that Board, with its very distinguished membership, that it should be allowed no latitude at all. If a commercial institution had been involved and had decided to raise its rates for loans as from a certain date, and if through the fault of that commercial body a loan which had been negotiated at a certain rate was not completed by that time they would not seek to charge the increased rate of interest; if the matter had been negotiated at 2½ per cent. it would have been completed at 2½ per cent., even if meanwhile the lenders had decided to raise the rate on their loans in general. It is positively humiliating to the Public Works Loans Board to be put into the position that, when it has committed a fault and so gravely prejudiced the position of one of its borrowers it is not permitted by the Treasury to make the obvious and reasonable arrangement of permitting the loan to go through at the rate of interest at which it was negotiated.

I think that this needs looking into. If the rate of interest on local loans is to be changed by Treasury action, by making a Treasury Minute at 24 hours' notice, then that should apply only to loans negotiated thereafter. But when loans have been negotiated at a certain rate those negotiations should go through, and be completed at that rate. The position of the Public Works Loans Board should be looked into. It seems to me to be a very unhealthy position to have a body which looks very distinguished and very important and has great responsibility, but without either power or authority, standing between the Treasury and the local authority. If we are to have such a board, let it have not only responsibility, but also the appropriate amount of power and authority. I make no complaint that the Treasury should decide that the rate of interest on local loans should be raised. That is a proper matter for the Treasury to decide. But surely, in the administration of the matter, in the precise application of the rules, some discretion should be allowed to the Public Works Loans Board. Either we should have a board with some authority or else it would be far better to have no board at all.

This is a moment of great triumph for His Majesty's Government. Some very short time ago a prominent leader and a former Member of the Government told the world and the House of Commons that pounds, shillings and pence were meaningless symbols. That proposition has apparently converted supporters of the Government as they think this Debate unessential enough for them to leave their Benches entirely empty. There is not a single unofficial supporter of the Government on any of the Benches and that I think is deplorable. From another point of view it may be a matter for congratulation, because apparently supporters of the Government, converted by the former Lord Privy Seal, think that £500 million represents only meaningless symbols.

I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) in criticising the Public Works Loans Board. I suggest that there are important public considerations involved. Do we really require this sum of money to be borrowed in this way? Are there not within this country ample resources from which local authorities can obtain the necessary finance whereby they may conduct their enterprises? They did so in the past. They paid the market rate for money required, and when that market rate seemed high it often discouraged extravagant local enterprise. This proposal to make available this large sum of money, in these days when inflation is still with us, may well encourage spending where otherwise local authorities would not be so tempted. The great savings institutions have not been called upon to anything like the extent they could have been called upon to meet the needs of local authorities. There are those millions of which we hear a great deal and which are available through the banking institutions of this country. There are millions available through the building societies. These would seem to be sources more appropriate to draw upon, at the appropriate rate, than to draw upon public funds to this extent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield made reference to the fact that this money would be used mostly for housing and other large scale developments. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is interested in housing, and in saving. Many millions invested in housing at the moment could be released if the Government would address their minds to a plan offered to to them frequently from this side of the House. There are many tens of thousands of occupants of local authority houses who would willingly purchase their houses, if they were allowed to do so, and thus free the local authority and place them in funds for rebuilding and the extension of their housing programme. The Government are placing at the disposal of local authorities an apparent blank cheque, which is an encouragement for them to enter into transactions from which at some time in the carrying of them out, they will suffer hardship. That is doing something to the local authorities which, in the long run, is not to their advantage. I do not believe in having only one bank, and I do not think that local authorities are wise to place all their responsibilities in the hands of one bank. The competitive system has its advantages. If local authorities, as in days gone by, can decide (a) whether they borrow or not; (b) whether they borrow at a particular price or not, and (c) from whom they borrow, their position would be stronger and more independent than under this arrangement.

Much has been said about the invasion by the State of the rights of local authorities. In my opinion this is a fresh invasion by the State of those rights. It is giving a greater and more monopolistic control of their financial destiny than in days gone by. I am opposed in principle to the extension of State finance. The capital can be raised in other ways at an economic price, which in itself is a considerable safeguard. It can also be raised to a not inconsiderable extent by the realisation of assets formerly spent on housing, by enabling many thousands of persons to become the purchasers of their houses and thereby relieving the local authority of much heavy capital expenditure. This is a policy of financial extravagance. It is a policy of offering seductive temptation to local authorities who should be encouraged, not to purchase easy money, but to follow a policy of thrifty, prudent and careful housekeeping.

I should like to answer briefly the main questions put from the other side of the House. I was asked by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) how much of the £500 million contemplated in this Bill will be needed for housing. It is impossible for me to give a completely accurate figure but, if the past year is any guide, about three-quarters of it will go in that direction. Housing by local authorities is undoubtedly the largest element in the expenditure covered by loans which are now being raised through the Board. The right hon. Member asked how the plan to concentrate local authorities'—

Would the Financial Secretary refer to education?

It will depend on the local authority concerned and the materials and manpower situation during the coming year. I am sorry, but I think it would be unwise of me to venture to name a figure to the House. I did make inquiries under the Gallery whilst the right hon. Gentleman was speaking and I am informed that the Treasury could not now give a hard and fast estimate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how the plans to concentrate local authority borrowing through the Commissioners were progressing. The House will remember that the Act of 1945 only lasts for five years and that we will have to review the position in 1950, or before. I think that I can say that, on the whole, the procedure has worked very well. At this juncture, it is obviously wise and proper to concentrate the main borrowing by local authorities through the Commissioners. It prevents local authority competing against local authority in the outside market.

Why should they not?

It enables the Treasury and the Board to advise local authorities, where such advice is necessary. Generally, it makes for tidiness rather than raggedness.

I was asked if I would give the current rates of interest for the purpose of record in HANSARD. As from 3rd January last, the rates are: up to five years, 2 per cent; five years to 15 years, 2½ per cent.; above 15 years, 3 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said that savings by individuals were important at present, and that they were doubly important if local authorities were borrowing large sums, which undoubtedly they are. In spite of the hard things which some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, I am sure that they realise that savings are important and that they should do everything to encourage thrift among the people.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) trotted out what is becoming his usual gambit, namely, that every board is a mere puppet of the Treasury. A little while ago the National Debt Commissioners apparently did nothing of their own volition. They simply did what the Treasury ordered them to, do. This afternoon he would have us believe that the Public Works Loans Commissioners are in the same position. Nothing is further from the truth. There are 12 Commissioners who are appointed for five years. They are unpaid. They do a great job of work out of a sense of duty to the State.

I assure hon. Members that they are the sole judges of the securities offered for advances. The majority of them come from banking and financial circles in the City—the last place where they would simply say, "Yes," like a rubber stamp to everything they were asked to do by the Treasury. Recently, and very properly, the policy has been expanded to include on the Board representatives of local authorities. That is a policy which is good in itself. If representatives of local authorities are placed on the Board, that is additional evidence that the Board is an independent body. These people would not agree to be there to act as figure heads for some nefarious purpose which the Treasury had in mind.

The individual case to which the hon. Baronet referred was one in which both the Ministry of Health and the Treasury had much sympathy with the local authority; but it is obvious that if a date for a change in the rates of interest is laid down, then that date must apply. In this instance, the application to the Board was made on 9th December, and it was not until towards Christmas that the arrangements began to come to a head. It was unfortunate that Christmas intervened and that a form which should have been sent to the local authority was not enclosed with a letter. Because of that, the actual advance was not made until after 2nd January, whereas, if it had been made before that date, the rate of interest would have been different. These borderline cases are most difficult but, although they command much sympathy, it is absolutely essential that, if rules are made and rates are laid down to come into force on a given date, they should be put into effect. It is difficult to extend a different rate to one authority and not to extend it to others. The hon. Baronet is one of those who has been most consistent in this House in saying that 2½ per cent. was far too low a rate and that we should raise it to 3 per cent. Now that that is done, he seems to find a grievance.

As the loan was arranged to be completed on 2nd January and negotiated at ½ per cent., and as it was entirely the fault of the Board that it was not so completed, surely this is more than a borderline case? This is a case where the transaction ought to have been carried through as contemplated.

It is not quite as simple as that. On a Bill of this character I do not want to waste too much time on a case of domestic interest to the hon. Gentleman and to the Board. The date, 2nd January, was not suggested by the local authority but by the Board as a reasonable date upon which the loan might be made. I am not a member of the Board. It may well be that the Board had in mind that it would assist the authority by giving the advance on a date when the change would not have taken place. In the upshot, owing to the Christmas holidays, shortage of staff, illness and other human factors, which unfortunately enter into these things, the advance was not made and agreed until after the new rate had come into force. Under the rules and regulations, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one does not negotiate at a given rate in the sense that one does with a commercial firm. The rate, on the basis of which negotiations take place, is that which will happen to be in force on the date when the advance is made. Unfortunately, in this case, the rate on that date was 3 per cent.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will make the position clear. It was rather suggested by the hon. Baronet that the Commissioners, had they been allowed to exercise their own discretion, would have agreed to go on with this loan at 2½ per cent. As businessmen conducting business in an honourable way, that is what they thought was the right thing to do, but they were prevented by the Treasury, through some technicality, from doing what they, as businessmen, would have liked to do. It is obvious that for local authorities in the future this matter will occur again. If a negotiation takes place between a local authority and the Board for a loan on the basis of a certain rate of interest, and the negotiations are completed but the formalities are not, I should have thought that the rate of interest which was under discussion when the negotiations were completed, was the rate which ought to have effect, whether it be higher or lower. There may be a case where it would be to the advantage of the Treasury. It seems to me, and to some other hon. Members, rather objectionable that this kind of thing should happen because some form has not been completed or some seal has not been put upon a document.

I do not know whether this would or would not occur with a commercial firm. We must take the situation as it is. When a local authority applies, normally it goes first to the Ministry of Health and later it goes to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. As a general rule, these negotiations occupy many weeks and, sometimes, many months. That is inevitable in the circumstances.

There must be a certain amount of inquiry into why the money is wanted, whether the amount is right and proper, how long the advance, when made, is to be for, and so on. Inevitably, it takes some time and, if the suggestion now made and the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman were accepted, it might well be that an advance might be negotiated today at 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent., but that the actual advance would not be made for a year or 18 months, and that, in the meantime, the rate might have gone down considerably. If so, the local authorities would feel very aggrieved. Therefore, as I think very properly, we have to relate the rate at which the advance is made to the actual date upon which it is made, and that, unfortunately, was the case here. On other occasions, it has gone the other way, and the local authority has gained because there has been some delay and the rate has changed shortly before the advance was made. That is the difficulty with all these borderline cases, and I admit it. I sympathise with this local authority, but there it is.

Was the Treasury or the Public Works Loans Board responsible? That question, of course, I cannot enter into at all. We have the Loans Board there, and it takes its decisions, and I, acting for the Treasury and speaking on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must take responsibility for what happened, and I do. I am very sorry indeed that it happened as it did and that this local authority has had to pay, and will have to pay, more interest than it would otherwise have done if the papers had gone through earlier. I think that that answers most of the points made, and, with those observations, I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House the purpose of this Amendment received from another place?

The object of the Amendment is to insert the list of bodies who may be appointed auditors of the accounts of the societies affected by this Bill. We dealt with this matter in Committee upstairs and, at that time, it was felt that it would be unwise to insert an Amendment of this sort. We have had another look at it, and now insert a list of those bodies competent to act in this way, with certain provisos which protect the societies concerned if they have auditors of their own who may not be qualified in the sense that these qualifications are necessary. We have also made a third proviso which gives to the Treasury a certain elasticity during the period of transition.

Once the period of transition is over, there will be a restriction to the members of these particular bodies? Is that the case?

Yes. Quite obviously, as time goes on, and the various institutes and societies are able to provide sufficient qualified men to cover the whole field, I imagine that these appointments will be made almost exclusively from them, although it does not necessarily follow that it will come soon. There is a certain amount of elasticity given to the Treasury to use common sense to prevent unfairness to the society concerned.

I believe this Amendment arises from a point which has worried some hon. Members on this side of the House as to whether there should be some check on the Minister when he decides to take over the charitable trusts from the Charity Commissioners. I understand that this Amendment deals with that difficulty, and that, in fact, there will have to be an order which will come before this House to enable discussion to take place, if necessary. If that is the correct understanding, we on this side of the House are satisfied.

That is so.

I thought that when the Bill left us we had clearly differentiated between the responsibilities of the two authorities concerned. Apparently, on consideration, that has not been found to be the case, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain upon which of the two authorities it is clear that responsibility rests. Is it to be where the child resides or where he is at school?

This Amendment has been proposed in order to meet the point that was raised, about which there was some difficulty and, it was felt, some ambiguity. It is primarily intended that it should be where the child resides, but in order to cover the cases of, for instance, canal boat children and others who are moving about, this alteration has been made, and it is then the local education authority in the area where the child is going to school where the responsibility rests. In normal circumstances, it will be where the child resides, because he is going to school in the area where he resides. Where the child is moving about from place to place, however, the responsibility rests on the authority in the area where the child goes to school.

The question of emigration has recently been the subject of various Questions in the House and, indeed, a very interesting Debate in another place took place quite recently. I raise the matter now because there are certain very important factors which, to my mind, require immediate consideration. It can be argued, and is argued, that every able-bodied man and woman who leaves our shores at the present time weakens the manpower resources of the country and affects the production drive. If the Government subscribe to that view, then I suggest it is the duty of the Government to prevent emigration, but they do not prohibit emigration, and rightly so, in my view. At the same time, we seem to have no clearly defined policy, no lead, and no advice is given or is available from official Government sources to would-be emigrants. Emigration must always be a long-term policy, and, however, expeditiously it is dealt with, it must be many years before what I would consider an adequate number of people from this country can be decently and properly settled and housed in our Dominions and Colonies, with prospects of a settled future.

Secondly, to my mind, there need be no fear that our short-term production drive would be at all embarrassed by a bold and courageous policy of emigration. The total number of people who emigrated last year was over 100,000. That is not an inconsiderable number. I believe that births last year were something like 800,000 in the United Kingdom and so, even with a quite large flow of emigrants, we have many more mouths to feed in this country than before. I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to decide whether this country can carry a population which is estimated to be 48 million to 50 million. Probably, if a census were taken today, the United Kingdom would show a population of something like 50 million. It is interesting to remember that at the time of our greatest prosperity our population was about 30 million. The large increase is, of course, due to the lower death rate and to our better health services.

If it is agreed that it would be unwise and perhaps unsafe to carry a population of 50 million, then I suggest that now is the time for this matter to be most seriously considered, however unpopular the idea may be of a considerable number of our people being advised to leave these shores. I think that planning should commence now and not later on when we shall have our troubles with American aid finishing and overseas markets hardening against us, as they are bound to do in a few years' time. That is the time when we do not want an excess of population which may result in unemployment with all its consequent misery. It would be too late then, I suggest, to the Government, to initiate any ambitious scheme of emigration.

I take the view that the emigration of our people to the Dominions is no loss. I would say that it is rather the reverse. It is a sensible and logical step to redistribute the British people in order to ease the strain in these over-populated and now very vulnerable islands and to strengthen the younger countries, where resources in food and raw materials are great, but where they cannot be developed adequately because of the shortage of population. I believe that this is a subject which requires very close consultation with the Dominions, but I see no sign of the interest of His Majesty's Government in it; in fact I had the greatest difficulty in finding out what has been done in the last two years by the Government in this matter.

It is true that large numbers of emigrants have left this country, and I am aware that they have been assisted to a certain extent, but there has been no general direction. People have gone by boat, overland and by air, and they have been stranded in all sorts of places, and when eventually they have arrived at their destinations the conditions have not been satisfactory. Why they have gone is sometimes difficult to understand. Their decision has probably been made on hearsay, or through seeing the pretty pictures in the Dominion offices in this country, because the Dominions have been competing against each other for the manpower of this country. It is very romantic but not very practicable or very sensible.

I turn to the defence aspect of emigration. I remember the time, as many hon. Members must do, when Great Britain was rightly regarded as a fortress, untouchable because of her sea power, but now we know that the air has entirely altered the situation. Survival in the future depends on the strength of our ties with the Dominions and Colonies and with America, and the extent to which we can be supported from and by the air. In the past, a Continental army was regarded as essential to our national safety, but the last war showed us that now we must rely upon ourselves and upon the Dominions and Colonies, and we can only do this if our air communications are sound.

Moreover, during the last war we learned that concentration was weakness and we had to disperse our factories. Some went to Canada. If that was right—and of course it was right—then, surely, it would be the right policy now to disperse. The question of emigration has been raised several times in this House. On 22nd April, the Under-Secretary of State said that the real difficulty in emigration was that of shipping, and as late as 3rd June, the Secretary of State said that the Minister of Transport was doing everything in his power to find ships, but there was a shortage of shipping. Of course there is a shortage of shipping, but I fail to see why we should use ships for emigration. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look upon this from the point of view of moving these people by air. It is by air that we want our emigrants to proceed for many reasons. One is that it is very much quicker, both the Canadians and Australians are finding this.

The Canadians have a scheme already in which they propose, in American Canadian built aircraft, to take our British emigrants to Canada. The Australians are doing the same, and are making inquiries of Australian and Dutch companies to move our British emigrants by air to Australia. There is another point. Irrespective of the time factor, there is the defence value. Air power must rest on its ground bases, and it is vital to the Empire to establish air bases right along these routes to the Dominions. One day they may very well become our lifeline. If we use these air routes sufficiently then we shall have ground bases, with maintenance facilities, and they will become a permanent way, as it were, just as the railway must have a permanent way, right through to South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is a very important factor. It took us many years to establish our air bases during the war in which to bring aircraft and reinforcements to this country and other parts of the Empire and we are in great danger of losing the use of these bases.

I hope to see, as has already been started by the Canadians, a stream of aircraft taking emigrants through Iceland and Newfoundland to Canada, a journey within 24 hours. I cannot see why the Tudor aircraft, which this country has bought and which are now lying idle, cannot be used for that purpose. They are excellent aircraft for not too long distances, and they could be used for that purpose instead of remaining grounded, unused and a loss, while we are using Canadian and American aircraft. It would be very sensible if His Majesty's Government considered that point.

The question of air transport is fundamental to this problem of emigration. Those of us who believe it is wise to emigrate, say, up to 10 per cent. of our population, which means over four million people, want to see it controlled and directed by the Government. We do not want to see the severance of family ties, which is quite unnecessary provided we develop air transport for this purpose. There must be the closest ties between those who emigrate and those who remain. That is the only way in which emigration can be regarded as a satisfactory solution of the redistribution of our population. With the increase in speed of our aircraft, particularly with the increase in speed which will take place during the next few years, there is no need for any emigrant to be further in time from this country than it now takes a person in Scotland to reach Southern England.

I wish now to put forward a few suggestions on how this redistribution of population might take place. I believe it could best take place on the basis of the construction of new towns in the Dominions. Why not have new towns constructed with the same names as towns in this country? Why cannot it be arranged between the Governments of Great Britain and the Dominions for the siting of such new towns in collaboration with the municipal authorities of the home town. Let me give an example in the case of my own constituency of Derby. I suggest, if this scheme is thought worth while, that a new town with the name of Derby should be created in Canada to which those who live in Derbyshire and who wish to emigrate could apply for settlement. The emigration authorities could then organise the movement and select people in accordance with the requirements of the new town. The emigrants could be flown from Derbyshire airfields to the new town of Derby in Canada.

Selection of emigrants is certainly a matter of great importance. At present it is the young who are leaving this country, and they comprise the most valuable of our age groups. That is why it must be agreed with the Dominions for representative families of all age groups to be accepted. These families must be provided with pensions, benefits and other privileges they have earned as workers in this country. There is no reason at all why these benefits should not be continued. In addition, if such a scheme were adopted, I suggest that any business concern in Derbyshire, such as a factory or retail shop, should have an opportunity of a free grant of land in the new town so that local industry could be pursued in both countries. In this way, there would be a two-way traffic between the two towns, which would foster and increase trade. This is merely an idea but it may be worthy of consideration.

There are various other aspects. For instance, shipbuilding towns in this country would obviously need to site their counterparts on the seaboard of Canada or Australia, and people coming from towns in the South of England would be better in milder climates in the Dominions. It is obviously a sine qua non that the Dominions and Colonies should freely give their advice and assistance. Of course, there would be many difficulties, but in my view we are going to have difficulties in any case in a few years time in this country. At present there is a keen desire on the part of Australia and Canada to receive large numbers of immigrants from this country, and there are now half a million British people waiting to leave this country. That being the case, it seems to me that this is a matter for the Government to accept as being of immediate concern. If it is agreed that the redistribution on a voluntary basis of a certain number of our people is wise, then I suggest that the Government should immediately consider calling a conference with Dominion Governments.

I am sure the House is very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) for having given us the chance to debate this most important subject of the redistribution of the British population throughout the Commonwealth. I was a little concerned at the close of his speech, and on one or two occasions during his speech, when he referred to the possibility of the Government directing people to go to particular places. I hope that the Government will do nothing of the kind. The Lord Privy Seal, in a recent statement on this subject, said categorically that he relied on the voluntary movement of the individuals.

I was, of course, referring to general directions, and was not suggesting for one moment that the Government should direct people against their will. It is after people have decided to go that the Government should come in and direct how they should go and so on.

I think there is not as much difference between us as I first thought, but there is still a small difference, because I want people to be able to go to the part of the world they have chosen for themselves. This Government have a great part to play in conjunction with the Dominions to see that the individual has the fullest facts at his disposal. We and the other members of the Commonwealth, in this matter and in other matters should really get together and discuss and conclude a proper Commonwealth plan. If the British race is to be distributed throughout the British Commonwealth as is best for the Commonwealth as a whole, then it is right that a general plan should be agreed between all the self-governing nations of the Commonwealth. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us something about the discussions which have taken place on this important matter, and what the Government hope to achieve.

Now I come to the general question, and I hope the House will forgive me if my remarks are somewhat sketchy as, like other Members, I did not expect to have time today to address the House at any length. I believe there are strong political, strategic and economic arguments for encouraging emigration from this country to other countries of the Commonwealth, including not only the so-called Dominions but also the Colonies. The political arguments in favour of it do not seem to have anything against them that I have heard; the strategic arguments, some of which were used by the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, are generally in favour of the dispersal of our industrial potential and manpower from this country.

There are some experts who, I believe, would say that if we cannot get everyone out of the country, nobody should be taken out; that if we think this country is indefensible in a future war—if, unhappily, war should recur—no one should be here at all, but that if it is defensible, we should keep as many men and women here as possible. That is obviously a specious argument, and neither of those two extremes is at all right. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby rather over-stated his case when referring to the great disadvantages of concentration from the strategic point of view without referring to the manifold advantages of concentration which are particularly manifest in the industrial field, and which also occur in the purely military field. On balance, in present circumstances, following the great scientific advances which have been made, and particularly the tremendous advance in the power of the explosive weapon, it is obvious that the more we encourage dispersal, the better for our strength.

On the other hand, however, the time factor, which is often forgotten, must play a great part. I realise that quite apart from the practical possibility of doing so, it would not be wise to uproot everything from a country on which the Commonwealth's strength is based until there is something, somewhere else, as strong and as effective which can replace it. Therefore, from the strategic point of view we must proceed carefully and ensure that we do not so weaken ourselves here—if that were ever possible in the practical circumstances—that we turn ourselves and the Commonwealth from a first-class Power, as we still are, into something less.

On the economic side, there are many pundits who say that the population should be reduced by 10, 20 or 50 per cent., because, by so doing, we should be better off. But I know from first-hand discussions that there are many others who say that we could not possibly judge because there are so many imponderable factors. I believe that the population experts can never tell what the population of this country is going to be even if 10 million are taken today and then emigration is stopped.

One thing which the hon. Gentleman did not refer to and which always raises an interesting point is that if the population of this country were cut by 10 per cent., imports could be cut by 25 per cent. I do not say that that is an absolutely cast-iron argument, but it is certainly something considerable in favour of the proposition that the reduction of the population of this country need not necessarily be followed by a reduction in the standard of life here. There is nothing on the economic side of the argument which tells definitely against emigration in reasonably substantial numbers from this country to other countries of the Commonwealth.

At the beginning of these three points I referred to the political argument and perhaps I may be permitted to return to it, for it seems to me that too little stress is given by the Government and by this House as a whole to the importance of the Commonwealth in the world today. So many of our problems must be considered from the Commonwealth point of view, and I am quite certain that nothing can strengthen the Commonwealth feeling like spreading the population throughout it.

Hon. Members will, of course, realise that but for the emigration which took place from this country in the last 100 years we should not be sitting here now in a free and great country. It is only because of the 17 to 20 million people who went from this country to the far corners of our Commonwealth that we have survived two wars and that we now hold in the world such a high moral position. If we are to maintain that position—and I wish to see it not only maintained but increased—in a world which favours great blocs of power, we must see that our Commonwealth bonds, on which so much depends and has depended in the past for the relationships between the peoples of the Commonwealth, are greatly strengthened.

It seems to me that in this matter the Government, having decided that they are not going to direct any person here out of the country, there are four possible courses which might be taken. First, that the natural desire of young men and their families following a war to go and seek opportunities in other parts of the world should be encouraged. The Government can encourage emigration under the Empire Settlement Act or they can do it in other ways. Secondly, they can tolerate it passively. Thirdly, they can discourage it passively. Fourthly they can discourage it actively.

I understand from the statements which have been made that they do not wish to discourage it actively. We may also say from those statements and from the general facts of the situation that the Government have done very little to encourage it actively. They have allowed the Dominions governments, in whose short-term interests perhaps it is most desirable that young and skilled men go from this country to them, to do most of the direct and active encouragement. I want to make quite certain that the hon. Gentleman is at least not discouraging emigration passively and I should like to encourage him to give more active encouragement than the rather passive encouragement which appears to be given today.

Let me ask one or two questions—firstly, about the effect of the Control of Engagement Order. Is it a fact, or is it not, that men and women covered by the order who wish to emigrate cannot do so because of the Minister of Labour? If it is a fact—and I see the hon. Gentleman taking note of this—that they are stopped from emigrating if they are covered by that order, will he please take steps at once with the Minister of Labour to see that the order is so amended, or that the administration of the order is so carried out, that there is no discouragement? That is the first question which, as I see the hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber, seems to have gone home.

The second important question is this: owing to our financial difficulties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently reduced the amount of money which emigrants to Canada can take with them when they leave this country. The amount has been reduced from a total of £5,000, which was drawable in four sums of £1,250 a year, to £1,000, which is drawable annually in sums of £250 a year. I have no doubt that the factors for and against this, to my mind, disastrous Decision were fully weighed but, as I indicated in a supplementary question the other day, there seem to be in this matter many things of much more importance than the sheer saving of dollars. If it is important that those who wish to emigrate to Canada should be allowed to do 30 in order to strengthen the Commonwealth then, surely, we can afford the extra half million or one million dollars to see that they are allowed to do so? If we have to save this sum, let us look around somewhere else for a means of saving it which does not do so much damage to the spirit on which the present strength of the Commonwealth is founded.

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, somebody who wished to take this amount of money, by no means a rich man, might well want to take it to settle on a farm in Western Canada or to start up his own business. He may have planned his life in that way and may not be willing now, when he cannot get the sum of money, to go at all or, if he goes, he might like to go to some other part of the Commonwealth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that this matter is reconsidered, and if all the £5,000 cannot be taken, at least £3,000 should be allowed. I have accused the Government of not giving any active help. I should like to know what active help is being given from this country. What actual financial contributions are we making and, in particular, how is the Empire Settlement Act, which was prolonged in 1937, being worked out today?

I would end on this note. I am sure the House will agree that this matter is of the utmost importance and I hope that we shall discuss it at greater length on another occasion. It is a matter about which we on this side feel very strongly. It is one of those ways—and only one—in which the Government can show that from time to time they really do think on Commonwealth lines, and that they so examine problems such as this from a Commonwealth point of view. Solutions to problems like this may seem a little disadvantageous, perhaps to this country. But if the Government will examine such questions from a Commonwealth viewpoint and are prepared to risk a small short-term sacrifice, in the long run it will be to the great advantage of the British Commonwealth.

I should like to add my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House so that we may devote a little serious talk to a very urgent question. Nobody can deny the enormous advantages, to ourselves and to the Commonwealth as a whole, of the settlement in these great lands—Western Canada, the Rhodesias and Australia and New Zealand, with their opportunities—of men of British stock, accustomed to the British way of life and imbued with British ideas of freedom and liberty. Two aspects which were touched upon briefly require going into far more deeply. The great need in the Dominions is for trained or skilled men in the prime of life. It has been reckoned that it costs the country between £2,000 and £3,000 to produce a skilled, trained man of 22 or 23 years of age. We have to consider how far we can afford men of that calibre and with those qualities, in the very prime of life, leaving us, even for the advantages of settlement overseas.

My second point concerns one of the great problems we have to face—the entire re-casting of our sociological position by the increased expectation of life. We have now, for all practical purposes, a static producing population. We have a very large and growing age group who are far beyond the producing stage. If we are going to lose, even with the many benefits which will accrue, a substantial proportion of our producing population, whilst retaining the whole burden of maintaining the non-producing age group, we shall bring about a very serious dislocation in what is already a serious sociological position. That is why I welcome what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Derby about creating new townships overseas, to which whole families or industries should move, if we are to tackle this question seriously.

There has been talk about control and direction. There are supposed to be some 500,000 of our best and most adventurous spirits anxious to move abroad into the Dominions and there secure a wider and freer opportunity in life. That number will be considerably diminished when it comes to the test of producing passages. I should view with dismay, however, the idea of a very large number of these best and brightest of our men drifting overseas, coming face to face with grave disillusionment and possibly returning disappointed men, the worse, rather than the better, for their experience abroad.

Without using the word direction, which is abhorrent to some people, but not equally abhorrent to me, I feel strongly that there should be some guidance and control of the movements of emigration, however desirable it is itself, if we are to reap benefits from it rather than the reverse. I listened with some anxiety when the hon. and gallant Member spoke of the development of air travel as keeping the emigrant in very close touch with his home country. I think that may be very seriously prejudicial. We want these men and families to go to the Dominions and make their homes there and to feel part and parcel of the Dominions. While retaining a sentimental and affectionate regard for the mother country, they should not regard their life abroad as a mere incident of their lives. It should be of the very essence of their lives. I feel very strongly that young men considering life abroad in the Dominions, should complete their education in the Dominions because, although the curricula and general layout of the education system may be similar to our own, there is a different atmosphere.

I do not wish to be a pessimist, but I regard our economic future in this island with uncertainty. We have maintained our standard of life on two things. One is the receipts from overseas investments, which have substantially gone for all practical purposes, and the other is a large market in the Dominions for our manufactured products, while they were pursuing mainly agricultural operations. Those days have gone. In the Dominions secondary industries have been built up and have become primary industries. To their development most of the activities and energies of those living in the Dominions will go. We must face the position that there will be increasing competition in the Dominions for those manufactured articles the export of which has been such a powerful factor in raising and maintaining our present standard of life.

I belong to an emigrating family. I do not think there is a single Dominion where the bones of my people have not rested for the last two generations. I hope they have done more good under the soil than some of them did above the soil. I feel strongly that this is not just a passing question which we can discuss today and ignore in the months to come. It is one to which the Government and this House must give serious consideration. They must have a policy and there must be guidance and influence and, I think, preparation. Because I regard it as an issue of very nearly first-class importance in the changed conditions of our social and economic life, once again I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Derby for having so pertinently directed our attention to it.

I am sure the House will agree when I say that we have listened to three admirable speeches upon this topic of emigration. I agree, in the main, with most of the observations that fell from each of the three speakers. It seems clear that emigration may be a great loss to the nation if unplanned, but a great gain if well planned. If unplanned, it may lead, not only to a loss here at home, but to chaos in the country to which the unplanned emigration takes place. I venture to think that the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) laid rather too much stress upon the war aspect, and I should like to say a little about the other side.

Emigration may be a great opportunity which at present is badly needed for drawing together the various elements in the great British Commonwealth of Nations. It may have a very important effect on the formation of public opinion, on inter-Dominion and Commonwealth opinion, and form a surer, stronger and better basis for common action than we have at present. Indeed, it may help to spread and formulate, in a very constructive way, the British way of life. Never was that more important than it is today, in these post-war conditions when we see various world entities seeking for recognition. When we have suggestions for a United States of Europe, and the question whether we should revert to the old balance of power or the concert of Europe, it is very important that emigration between the various elements of the British Commonwealth of Nations should be, not merely tolerated but encouraged on a planned basis.

For that reason it is important to have an Imperial Conference, or a Commonwealth Conference, at the earliest moment. There are a great many problems affecting all the nine Dominions in the Commonwealth of Nations which could be hammered out in the course of such a conference. It is commonly said and we know that there are intangible bonds which bind the nations of the Commonwealth together. That was found, of course, during the war. But there are also a great many concrete tangible relations from which arise difficult industrial and economic problems. These should be discussed at an early Imperial or Commonwealth Conference. I hope that such a conference will take place at an early date, because there are, clamouring for discussion and decision, urgent problems, prominent amongst them being that of emigration, which needs to be put upon a really planned basis, so that it may lead to constructive and valuable results for the Commonwealth at large.

During the last six months there have been in another place two Debates, of very high quality indeed, on the subject which we are discussing here today. I mention that only because I wish to express my very deep regret that the Leader of the House has not been able to see his way, and only yesterday refused, to allow a Debate in this House on Commonwealth relations. As a result, it has been left to the initiative of the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) to raise this extremely important subject which, purely by good fortune, has had a certain amount of time available for its discussion instead of the customary half-hour.

The hon. and gallant Member for Derby asked the Government, in the clearest terms for a bold policy. In that I support him absolutely. He made it quite clear that in his opinion the Government have no policy at all at the moment. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will agree that that was the purport of the whole of his remarks. I fully support everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low). There was one remark of the hon. and gallant Member who opened this Debate which struck me as odd. He said—I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—that however unpopular the policy of emigration may be, he still advocated the wider dispersal of our manpower. I do not believe that a bold policy of emigration will be at all unpopular. There has been little attempt made to publish the colossal opportunities offered in the Dominions of Australia and Canada. I do not think there is any question at all of such a policy being unpopular.

Like the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) I thought I detected—I hope I was wrong a hint of compulsion in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who raised this matter originally. If I was wrong, I am glad. But, on the other hand, I have seen many indications recently that there are hon. Members opposite who, just as they like to direct labour in this country, would like to direct part of the population of the United Kingdom to the Dominions and Colonies. I, as a Conservative, reject utterly the basis of compulsion.

I am only sorry that I had not an opportunity before this Debate commenced, to see the Minister who is to reply. I apologise also if my speech is somewhat disjointed. I had no idea that I should have an opportunity to make a speech at all. I wish to ask the Government a series of questions. Is it the policy of the Government to encourage or to discourage emigration overseas from these islands? I am really not quite sure which it is. What advice has been tendered to the Government by our civil defence experts since the end of the war? We cannot ignore these matters; we are cluttered up in this island in an age when by the dropping of, shall I say, a dozen atomic bombs, the industrial potential of the whole of the London area could be wiped out. Let us face it. What advice has been tendered by the civil defence experts and what are the Government going to do as a result of that advice? Do they acept that we are extremely vulnerable in this area? Has any consideration been given to the whole problem of the dispersal of our industrial potential? What consideration has been given to it and what decisions have been made about it? From the purely military angle, what advice has been tendered to the Government by the Chiefs of Staff in this matter? I see the Minister shakes his head—

I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member.

The hon. Gentleman cannot tell me. That only goes to show that this matter is being dealt with, as is usual by this Government, in watertight compartments—

I did not mean that I was unable to tell the hon. and gallant Member. I meant that I was not entitled to tell him.

No doubt when he replies the Minister will be able to say that certain advice has been tendered, and that in the light of the advice, whatever it is, the Government are considering what they are to do. That is all I can expect him to say.

On the question of housing I asked a Question only a few days ago, on 15th June, of the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the export of prefabricated houses to the Dominions. My reason for asking that Question was because I saw several thousand prefabricated houses reported as likely to be sent to Victoria in Australia, and I wanted to know whether the Government had had any discussions with Dominion Governments about housing. The President of the Board of Trade replied that there had been no official export negotiation between His Majesty's Government and the Overseas Governments. He continued:

"There are no official statistics of the exports of houses as such."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 31.]

That was disappointing. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that if one is thinking of large-scale emigration one must think Imperially where houses are concerned; one must think not only of the actual houses, but of the materials for building them and of the building force required. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Derby made a most interesting suggestion about new towns. That opens up all sorts of possibilities which I hope the Government are considering. We are always told that large-scale emigration is precluded by the bottleneck in transport—I hate the word "bottleneck" but it has become so common in our language that I use it here. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby surprised me when he went so far as virtually to rule out the sea transport of emigrants. I think that he let his theme run away with him a little too much, in the light of his past Service record, and that he went just a little bit too far.

If this subject really is important and we really wish to encourage emigration, has consideration been given to the possibility of using aircraft carriers? They are very comfortable, and they could be fitted up to transfer tens of thousands of emigrants overseas. I suppose that they run reasonably economically. I should like the Minister to tell us whether such a possibility has been considered and, if not, whether the Government will consider it. I should also like him to say whether the Government are considering any large-scale air transport for emigrants.

On the question of manpower generally, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was correct in saying—I saw it in "The Economist" only a fortnight ago—that we have at last hit the 50 million mark. It is true that we have reached that total by only a very few thousand, but we have reached it. It is most extraordinary that the whole question of manpower has not been given more consideration by the Government. What would be the effect of a reduction of 5 million in our population over the next 10 years, or of 10 million over the next 20 or 25 years? This is an immense problem which will require many months of expert study by economists, industrialists and others. I would like an assurance that consideration is being given to that matter. If it is not, how is it possible for this Socialist Government to plan every stick and stone of the country without any idea of what is to be the manpower available in order to produce these sticks and stones which they say they are planning with such accuracy?

Only last year I believe that something in the nature of 100,000 displaced persons were brought to these islands. I have every sympathy with those people. I have seen them in their camps, and I think that maybe we were right to bring them here and to do all that we can for them. At the same time as 100,000 displaced persons or European Volunteer Workers were brought here, we accepted and resettled something like 80,000 Poles from the Polish Resettlement Corps. I think that we were entirely right to do that in the circumstances. This shows that the Government are doing their best to increase our working population. Not only are we taking ex-Allies but, at this moment, Ministry of Labour officials are in Germany looking for thousands of German girls to come to this island to supplement our labour force.

If the Government go to those lengths, it seems to me that their plan, far from allowing our population to decrease, is to allow it to increase. I should like to know whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage or discourage large-scale emigration. The Dominions want manpower, and I think the Government must face the fact that, if they cannot get British stock, they will go in for foreigners, because they are determined to increase their population. The implication of what I am saying must be obvious to hon. Members of all parties. How much easier it is for us in these islands to absorb foreigners and turn them into Britishers, with our comparatively large population, than it is for New Zealand, with less than 2,000,000 people, to absorb a large number of foreigners.

I asked the Prime Minister two Questions on 22nd April. One was what consideration had been given to the planned dispersal of the industrial potential of the United Kingdom throughout the Commonwealth, on which I asked him whether there was an identity of view between ourselves and the Dominion Governments on this matter, and the other asked the Prime Minister to state the policy of the Government regarding the encouragement and facilitating of large-scale emigration to the Dominions and Colonies. I want to read the Prime Minister's reply, because it was an amazing one. He said:

"I assume that these two questions are related and that they both refer to the suggestion that a large section of the industry and population of the United Kingdom should be removed to other parts of the Commonwealth"

The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in that assumption.

"No consultations have been held between the Governments of Commonwealth countries on this subject, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 22nd April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 2000.]

What an amazing thing that, almost three years after the end of the war, no consultations at all have taken place with the Dominion Governments on the question of emigration. It is a staggering thought. Are we really to be told that 16 nations can get together and discuss Marshall Aid, and hundreds of hon. Members opposite can talk of merging our sovereignty with the Portuguese and the Italians, when we cannot even discuss the question of emigration to the Commonwealth and cannot even call a conference to deal with it?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about emigration. In his question he talked about mass emigration, to which the Prime Minister's reply referred.

I did not talk about mass emigration; I said large-scale emigration.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the Prime Minister's assumption in his reply was correct.

All I am doing is reading my Question to the Prime Minister and telling the House what I wanted to know about large-scale emigration, and the answer was that no consultations had been held. I imagine that, if there were consultations about emigration at all, there was talk about both small-scale and large-scale emigration, because one cannot set a limit before one discusses a problem. The Government made it clear that there was no consultation at all. I want to ask whether, in fact, there is going to be a Dominions Conference in the near future and, if so, when it is to be held and where? I also want to know whether these important matters will be discussed at this Conference?

And in this House.

Yes, and in this House. I said earlier that I was disappointed that we had had no opportunity to discuss Commonwealth relations in this House, while the Government were perfectly prepared to keep the whole House up all night to nationalise the gas industry. I believe that 1947 will go down to history, if for nothing else, as the year in which the Socialist Party discovered the Empire. In spite of that, it is perfectly clear to me that they are still wholly unaware of the value of the Empire, although I admit that they have discovered it. In Australia today, for the first time in its history, there is a Socialist Government who favour immigration, and they are being broadminded and far-seeing on this particular problem. That fact should surely be of assistance to this Government, apart from the fact that the Australian Government have to face in Australia a Conservative Opposition which is thinking, if anything, on even more broadminded and far-seeing lines about the same problem. What size of population have Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in mind?

Ask them.

That is what I have done, and that is what the Government ought to be doing. I have asked them, and I understand from some people, who are not necessarily authorities, that there are many long-term views in the Dominions, all of which should be known to the Government. I have heard it said that the Australians may be budgeting many years hence, perhaps 15 or 20 years hence, for a population of 20 million. Some people say they are budgeting for an even larger population. Others say that New Zealand, with a population of less than two million, looks forward to the day, perhaps 25 or 30 years hence, when there may be more than three million. Canada, I am told by those who study these things, hopes to double its population during the next 25 years. If this information is true—and I believe it is—it only goes to show what an immense problem it is, and what a grave mistake has been made by the Government in not facing the problem until this moment. At any rate, I hope that when the Minister replies, he will make it clear that, as from this moment, the Government will do something. Finally—

Hear, hear.

I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not enjoyed my speech. There is a lot more that I could tell him. If he wants me to go on I certainly will. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman encourages me to go on. I have just remembered something else I wanted to say. I believe it is wrong, in the case of emigration, whether large-scale or small-scale, to give the impression to intending emigrants that they are going to be nurse-maided from the moment they leave these shores until the moment they arrive, and from then on until they die. I do not believe that the sort of men and women who will be most useful to the Dominions and Colonies want this constant mollycoddling which is so typical of this modern age. I believe there are plenty of young men and women, with their dependants—of course, I have been talking about a cross-section of the population—who are prepared to go out and rough it in the same way as people used to do, and perhaps build their own houses with their own hands, even if they are not allowed to do so here.

If we approach the problem from that angle, and make it clear that they will not be nurse-maided from the cradle to the grave and given every sort of assistance by the Government, such as guaranteed employment and all that sort of thing, the better type of people will go out and will seize their opportunities more willingly. This Government of small-minded men have shown themselves to be quite incapable of thinking big about this immense problem. They have shown themselves to be quite incapable of thinking Imperially, which is what they should be doing. I ask the Minister to give a categorical and bold statement, as he was asked to do by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby—who was so critical of the Government, as I have been—that the Government are aware of the problem, that they will face it and that they will face it quickly.

It is the easiest thing in the world to be controversial about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), but I do not think this is the occasion to do so. I think perhaps that some political platform would be a better place. I must point out, however, that he appeared to contradict himself. At the beginning of his speech he accused hon. Members on this side of being in favour of direction of large numbers of people in this country to some unspecified place overseas. Then, at the end, he was chiding the Government for not taking action to get some large-scale emigration. I fail to see how the Government could get large-scale emigration of unwilling people except by directing them. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is in favour of direction of people overseas.

Since I have been asked the question, let me say again, since the hon. Member apparently did not hear me, that I utterly reject direction—those were my words—nor have I in any way said that people are unwilling to go. The whole burden of my argument was that I believe people want to go, but that they are not being given any encouragement by the Government.

rose—

The hon. and gallant Member has already made his speech.

I hope that we are agreed on the point, and that the hon. and gallant Member will acquit anyone on this side of wanting to direct people overseas. Where I differ with him is on the size of the problem. I do not think there is such a tremendous problem as has been suggested by some Members in this Debate. There is glamour about emigration. It conjures up a vision of pioneering days when it was thought to be easy to go overseas and earn a fortune in a few years and then return to this country to live a life of ease. These days have gone, and I am inclined, like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), to speak with a certain degree of caution about these matters. People think in the immediate post-war years that they want to get away from something they regard as unpleasant. They think it is the easiest thing in the world to go overseas to a Dominion and carve out a career for themselves, but the evidence we have from people who are now returning disillusioned and disappointed from these countries should also be stressed a little. We do not want people to go overseas' and then be disillusioned, because that type of person is no good for any democracy.

I think the hon. Member may be misleading us. Surely the number of people who have returned is extremely small, and surely the hon. Member should pay some tribute to the steps that have been taken by the Dominions to see that people are not disillusioned.

I was just coming to that point, but every Member has evidence in his possession of people who have met with housing difficulties, employment difficulties, difficulties in the cost of living and so on who have preferred to come back to this country. My hon. Friend has been asked what the Government intend to do about all this, but it should be pointed out that this is a problem not only for this country, but for the Dominions. We must have discussion and consultation with the Dominions, but ultimately the decision as to how many people they are to take and the type of people they are to take, whether it is the married man, the craftsman or the unskilled worker, and whether they want people for the towns or backwoods, is a matter for the Dominions. These are all problems for the Dominions to face, and we ought to have as much information on these points as possible so that people can make their decisions in the right perspective.

I think that this Debate has tended to get a little out of proportion. If it is to serve any useful purpose we have to deal with this matter in its true perspective, and in this connection I ask my hon. Friend to tell us how many people have left our shores since the end of the war, and how many are now committed to go overseas—by that I do not include those who have a vague desire to go overseas. If we could get an answer to that question we should then have some idea of the problem involved. There are many reasons why people want to emigrate. Some want to go because they think they can get a life of ease, and this applies particularly among those who wish to go to South Africa. What is the position today about emigration of British subjects to South Africa? Recent events, I think, have caused a certain amount of disquiet about the future of British emigrants to South Africa, and if we could have information on that point it would be welcomed.

The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), who opened this Debate, spoke of what I would term an idealistic scheme of transferring people from his own county of Derby into some new town called Derby overseas. He gave us instances to show how people from the South Coast could be located in a similar climate overseas. I do not want to be disrespectful to Derbyshire, which is a beautiful county, and it may be that the people who leave there would want a similar place overseas, but, surely, many people leave this country because they want to get away from the particular environment in which they are living. I think that his scheme was a little bit of a fairy tale which cannot possibly come true.

I would say to all those who are considering going overseas that they ought to think again. We need every single able-bodied person in this country to help us through the present crisis, and I think that it is being escapist to leave this country for any of those reasons which have been put forward in certain cases—that people do not like the Government, or the restrictions and regulations that exist here. That has not been brought up in the Debate today, but there are people, we are told, who are leaving because of taxation, and so on. If those people were any good at all they would have stayed here and would have fought out the matter in this country. I make this final appeal: There is just as much sense of adventure in this country and just as many prizes to be won in this country by those who have the determination as in the Dominions, and I hope that we shall get a more commonsense approach to this problem.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) introduced party politics. As one who from these benches made continual demands on the Conservative Party when they were the Government of the day, I think that one of the surprising things about politics today is the record of the Government on Colonial and Empire development. No one expected the Labour Party when they came into power to do something about matters which the Conservative Party had neglected for a large number of years. I quite impartially pay my tribute to them for that. I think that if the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say so, he is forgetting that the Dominions are self-governing countries. They are free and independent democracies and full members within the British Commonwealth.

I have heard of that.

The whole of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was based on the old Conservative conception of telling the Colonies from Westminster what should be the policy of the British Empire. I say that all that has gone. I looked for a long time to see this new conception of a democratic Commonwealth coming from the Conservative Party when it was in power, but so far we have not had it. Therefore, I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to bear in mind that if his speech were read in the newspapers of Ottawa or Melbourne it might not achieve the purpose which he had in mind.

I should like to point out to the hon. Member that he has completely overlooked the fact that the Dominions want these men. He does not seem to understand that. All I can say is that if he will read the Dominion newspapers himself, he will see their reactions. This Government are so infernally slow over the matter.

If the hon. and gallant Member will study this from the Commonwealth point of view—

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has studied this problem from the point of view of the Dominions, but they want certain types of people from this country. They are not so anxious to get artisans, or workers from secondary industries; they want people like farm workers, who will go into the primary industries, and these people are just the ones we want to keep here. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "This is what they want in the Dominions," I would remind him that it has always been a question of balancing emigration and immigration.

We are indebted to the hon. Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) for raising this matter today. I asked the Lord President of the Council yesterday if we could have a Debate on Commonwealth relations and good fortune has given us the Adjournment Debate this afternoon. I hope, however, that the Government will give us more time to Debate this important subject, because we are, after all, members of the British Commonwealth. A great deal depends upon the initiative shown by the Government. It is a long time since we had before us a full conception of the Statute of Westminster. I believe that if the Foreign Secretary would give us a new democratic conception of that Statute there is no reason why India, Pakistan and South Africa should not remain free democratic members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I recognise that there is to be a conference this autumn, and that the Government may be in the middle of preliminary discussions. I hope they will take the initiative, as much will depend upon that. I hope that when a new declaration is forthcoming we shall be given the opportunity of discussing it.

I was surprised that the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. A. R. W. Low) suggested that we were in danger of too much decentralisation in the Commonwealth—

No.

If there is one thing the last war has taught us, and the trend of events is teaching us today, it is that the life of these islands will depend on the decentralising of our industrial war potential and scientific development.

The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood something I said about concentration. I was referring to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), that concentration was a bad thing. I said that, on balance, there were great advantages in reducing concentration but that there were arguments on the other side.

Here, again, a great deal of initiative must come from the Government. On the decentralisation of our industrial war potential and scientific development the future of these islands depends. We ought to have had a Commonwealth Academy of Science in London, and in the Dominions, too. We ought to have maintained contact with those scientific young men who came here from the Dominions during the war.

I have not seen any statement from the Parliamentary Secretary on what is being done about the area plan. That deals with Dominions and Colonies immediately around the Dominions, planning their own economic development as well as their defence problems. That subject was studied at several Imperial Conferences, and the Government ought to do something about it now. There are, of course, many who say that the capital of the British Commonwealth of Nations ought to be in one of the Dominions. If that is the spirit in which an approach is going to be made to great Commonwealth plans we should support it. What is wrong with having the capital in Ottawa, Canberra or somewhere else? If there is to be a democratic interest in the Dominions in this question we have to face up to it and we should tell them that we are at one with the Dominions in that policy.

I have seen it reported that there is some difficulty in getting some of the Dominion Prime Ministers to come here for the Dominion Conference because of some changes which have taken place. Why not have the Conference in South Africa, Canada or further afield? Is there any reason why we should not make history and have the Conference in one of the Dominion capitals? Finally, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby about an air plan. Canadian Airways have shown us the way that it might be done. There are a great many charter companies who would be willing to carry out such a scheme, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give some support to this proposal. What we want in the Commonwealth today is not so much emigration as exchange of population between the member States.

We are all indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Group Captain Wilcock) for having raised this important and fascinating subject. We have had a most useful Debate. I do not agree entirely with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) and I do not understand his references to the Statute of Westminster. I do not think that it introduces any change in this matter at all. I would urge upon the Government to take every possible step to encourage emigration provided it is planned and developed in accordance with the wishes of the Dominions. I hope we can look forward to a future in which there will be the closest possible integration between this country and the British Dominions which owe allegiance to His Majesty, including India and Pakistan.

I hope that as soon as possible we shall revert to the kind of civilisation in which every kind of national frontier and barrier, whether within the Commonwealth of the British Empire or outside it, is diminished to the greatest possible extent. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take the initiative in making possible an easier and freer interchange of population between one part of the Commonwealth and the other. There is, at the present moment, a Bill under consideration in another place, entitled, the British Nationality Bill which it would be out of Order for me to discuss here, but which makes a valuable contribution to the matter.

There are other aspects of this matter. For example, we have in this country, thanks to the beneficent contribution of this Government, a comprehensive plan of social insurance. I hope that the benefits of our present system of social insurance can be so interpreted and managed by agreement with the Dominions that nobody who emigrates from these islands will lose the benefit of social insurance by reason of that emigration. I happened to be in Paris a week ago today when the Minister of National Insurance, who is also chairman of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, was signing a concordat with his opposite number in France to ensure that the people who moved from here to France or vice versa would be able to maintain the benefits of social insurance conferred by the national Governments of those respective countries, a very desirable piece of international legislation welcomed in this country and welcomed in France, and throughout the French Press.

We hope that similar reciprocal arrangements may be made between this country and all the Dominions and Colonies, so that anybody who has any entitlement to benefit under our magnificent scheme of national insurance will be able to retain those benefits if he emigrates. I hope that in addition to our present conception of political nationality operating within the British Commonwealth of Nations, there may soon be something akin to an ideal of economic citizenship whereby there may be a preservation of economic benefit. I believe it would be of the greatest advantage to the British Commonwealth, and the conceptions and traditions which the British Commonwealth of Nations has conferred on humanity, that these benefits should be capable of the greatest possible assimilation and preservation, and applied with the greatest possible flexibility, to emigrants from this country abroad or to immigrants coming here. I believe it is possible to work out in greater detail than has been possible in the past a system whereby people who emigrate from this country can get the same kind of social benefits in the realm of social insurance, unemployment benefit, old age pensions and so forth, in our Dominions as they would if they remained in this country.

In common with other hon. Members I think this is something which should receive the earnest attention of the Government and of the Imperial Conference, which I hope will be convened shortly in this country or elsewhere in the Dominions, to discuss this and other problems of great and growing interest to the Commonwealth. I agree with the hon. Member for Eye that it is immaterial whether an Imperial Conference is held in this country or abroad, because it is no longer correct to regard ourselves as the Mother country and the Dominions as daughter Dominions; we are, in fact, sister Dominions of one Commonwealth and that is the concept we should adopt.

Canada has already renounced the name of Dominion and has assumed full nationhood.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) for raising this matter because it enables me to answer questions put by him and other hon. Members about our attitude on this general matter of emigration. I should like to say as clearly and firmly as I can that the Government want to encourage and facilitate the flow of emigration from this island to the various parts of the Commonwealth. We do not want to force anyone to go, but we want to facilitate the flow, with only this proviso, that we reserve the right to check too great a flow of certain types of highly skilled workers. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) raised the question of the Control of Engagement Order. The fact is that we reserve our rights under this so that it may be used, if necessary, to stop particular skilled workers from going, but there is no intention of applying it generally. A man coming under the Control of Engagement Order is not debarred from going unless we have decided, which we have not yet done, to invoke it.

I want to make it clear that we have paid great attention to the problem of emigration, particularly to those aspects which are the most pressing. The problems have to be solved in order that we may increase the flow. As was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), we are not the only party concerned. Certain speakers appeared to assume that it was merely a matter of this Government deciding to move people and that by so doing the problem would be settled. There are two other parties besides this Government—the emigrant, who must be willing to move, and the receiving Government, who must be willing to receive him. We are only one party in three in the whole transaction of emigration inside the Commonwealth.

The hon. and gallant Member for Derby said that no advice was available about migration and conditions. It is not the task of this Government to promulgate such advice. Dominion Governments, in fact, would resent our doing so, for it is their affair and they do it on a good and active scale. It is for the receiving Government to paint a picture of the conditions which the emigrant will find. There are two severe material difficulties in the way of the ordinary flow of migration. One is shipping. [Laughter.] It is of no use for hon. Members to laugh. This is a great and grave problem, as is the problem of housing in the Commonwealth. There is very little, if anything, which we can do about housing. The number of houses, which we can export is minute and could not become an important factor. Shipping we can do something about, and we have made all possible provision from the shipping available. There has never been any criticism from the Commonwealth about our failure to do so.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked how many people had emigrated since the war. The figure is roughly 150,000 in the last two years. He asked also the numbers now wanting to go from this country to the Commonwealth. It is impossible to give an answer. Only the High Commissioners of the various Dominions keep such lists and know the numbers who want to go to their own particular countries.

On a point of accuracy, the Under-Secretary said that 150,000 people had gone overseas in the last two years. Does that figure relate to the Dominions and Colonies—

It relates to the Dominions alone.

The figure recently given to me by the President of the Board of Trade was 210,000 to the British Empire.

I was talking about self-governing Dominions within the Commonwealth. I had rounded off the actual figure, which may be a little more or a little less.

The hon. Gentleman has said that the Dominion Governments keep lists of applicants. Is there any reason why he should not ask for the figures? Surely the various Governments will not be unwilling to let him know?

I do not know, but they have not been asked. A difficult problem of collation and a great deal of work would be involved to get such figures and there might be considerable overlapping. I do not know whether it is worth while to ask for the numbers of people who have put down their names. It is more important to know how many will back up their applications. I do not think it will be worth the labour involved.

There is an assisted passage scheme to Australia and a minor children's emigration scheme. Under that 11,800 people have gone to Australia with assistance partly from this Government and partly from Australia. The numbers will undoubtedly increase rapidly but shipping is still one of the major bottlenecks. There are two big ships, the "Monarch of Bermuda" and the "Cameronia" which we are rebuilding and redesigning as emigrant ships. When they are afloat they will add enormously to the numbers which can be carried around the Commonwealth. I would not like to give any estimate of what the rate of flow might be in two years' time, as there are many unknown factors such as the rate at which ships can be produced, but there will be a very big increase in two years in the number of emigrants who can be carried. We must not give up all space to emigrants, as it is important that business people, Government representatives and ordinary people visiting friends should be able to move about the Commonwealth.

The hon. and gallant Member raised the question of using the air almost as a substitute for sea transport. I think he was unintentionally exaggerating. It seems extremely doubtful that air transport can be anything more than an additional means. It cannot make a very big contribution towards solving the problem.

Surely my hon. Friend knows that at least 200,000 people crossed the Atlantic by air, and that the Canadian Government are now arranging for them all to go by air.

I was coming to that. It is very expensive and in all existing schemes the emigrant has to pay the cost, which makes it a selective process. One also has to carry a lot of luggage and to take clothes and tools when one emigrates. The Ontario scheme came to an end after eight months. It was fairly successful and some 7,000 were carried successfully. The Canadian Government have a scheme for a service by which the emigrant will pay £72, but I doubt whether it is going to make an enormous difference. I quite agree that the air must be used to supplement sea passages, but I do not want to raise false hopes that it will make a substantial difference. The great bulk must be carried by sea. Negotiations are going on with Australia about an air scheme. But the cost of air transport to Australia is extremely high and may prevent any such scheme being used.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) raised the question of a common policy on social security. That is an excellent idea which the Government strongly support. Last year there was an official expert Commonwealth Conference on this matter at which agreement in principle was arrived at in the whole Commonwealth for equating and bringing into balance the various schemes. The very complicated and detailed work is going ahead. To some extent it is in operation and the Australian Government are already giving short-term benefits, such as sickness benefits to emigrants, but the longer term benefits such as pensions, are much more difficult and are still being considered.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will press the Dominions Governments to give reciprocal benefits?

It would not be for us to press them, and it would not be necessary, as they need no pressing. The Governments want to have our emigrants and there is no need to press anyone. The Minister of National Insurance gave a specific undertaking in an answer the other day that he was pushing and would continue to push ahead in this matter in the Dominions and other foreign countries.

The question raised by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. A. R. W. Low) about the amount of capital that could be taken to Canada is very difficult. It is easy to say, "Find it from somewhere else; make the cut somewhere else," but it is very difficult to do it. I should not like to go so far as to say that it is being or will be reconsidered, but I will draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the point he and other hon. Members made. However, this question of dollars is very difficult, and cannot just be brushed aside.

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) about the need for a longer Debate. Of course there are Supply Days, and he could bring pressure to bear on his own Front Bench to secure that the party which has been so long interested in this, and, as he said, so much more interested than the Labour Government, could provide the necessary time for a Debate, It would be welcomed on the Government side, for I quite agree that we need a longer time for the proper debating of this matter.

The Under-Secretary has apparently passed by what I said. Would he indicate what are the prospects of an Imperial Conference to consider these problems?

No, I certainly could not. That is not for me. It would be for the Prime Minister in due course to announce the date of the calling of a Commonwealth Conference, if there is to be such an announcement.

I now turn to say something about the problem of mass emigration, which I have left to the end. It is a very difficult problem. I agree with the hon. Member for North Blackpool and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), that it has to be approached carefully; we must not rush into this idea of carting masses of people away from these islands; and we must not, as I thought my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby did, base the whole argument on the assumption that Britain is weak and finished; we must be very careful not to approach it in that way.

rose—

I cannot answer all the questions if I am continually to give way.

I really must ask my hon. Friend to let me say that said nothing about that. He cannot find anything in what I said to suggest that England is weak.

I will not pursue that. I apologise if I misrepresented my hon. and gallant Friend. This is something which just cannot be settled quickly; nor can a policy be made on it quickly. Extremely complex problems are involved, such as strategy and the balance of the population. One cannot quickly answer questions such as, "What would happen if we took away five million of the population?" It would take many months to produce answers to questions such as the relative requirements of the different Commonwealth countries—Canada against Australia, and so on. It would take us a very long time to work out the answers to these questions. Again, it must be remembered that this is not purely a British problem—

It is being studied, is it?

Let me finish what I was saying. It cannot be a purely British problem; the British Government cannot consider this on their own, sitting here in London. It is a problem which must be settled among the whole Commonwealth, each country of which has complicated problems to work out, including the intake rate, and so on. Before these things could be successfully discussed at all they would need a great deal of study. Meanwhile, we cannot get on with the present problem of emigration, owing to the difficulties of shipping and housing. Therefore, the other greater and more complex problem cannot possibly become a real one for quite a long time to come.

Because the Government do not enthusiastically embrace policies like that, which we have not had time to work out and settle properly, I hope it will not be thought we are not sympathetic. A lot of this idea that we are not concerned with emigration arises from our reluctance to commit ourselves on this very difficult and complicated problem of mass emigration. As long as emigration remains a problem we shall do our utmost to overcome all the difficulties standing in the way of the free flow of people who wish to go to the Dominions, provided the Dominions wish to receive them. It is not in the least true that we are not interested, or that we are not doing everything possible to facilitate and encourage the flow of emigration. I quite agree with the hon. Member for North Blackpool, it is essential that this flow of people from Britain round the Commonwealth should continue in the interests of the Common wealth as a whole.