I do not know why “submarine regions” have been excluded from the scope of this entry. Only the other day we adopted an article whereby all lands and all minerals underlying the ocean were vested in the Centre. I am told on reliable authority that the Pearl Industry, to mention only one instance, could be very usefully developed in the Cutch region, and I am sure that in many other parts of our oceanic areas the pearl industry stands a good chance of development in the future. Japan has developed this industry very considerably, and some Japanese scientists or experts have observed that India also can produce pearls of a very high quality. This will be a submarine industry and it will be as hazardous an occupation as labour is in mines and oil fields. I therefore feel that when you are regulating for labour and for their safety in mines and oilfields, it is equally necessary and essential in the public interest to regulate for labour and its safety in those industries which we might develop in submarine regions. As I have already said, that is an equally dangerous occupation and the House might consider whether it is not desirable that an amendment to this effect should be incorporated in entry 65. I move, Sir, this amendment, seeking to incorporate submarine regions in entry 65 and commend it to the House for its consideration.
