§ 5. Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the letter from the provost and town clerk of Pittenweem drawing attention to the unsatisfactory and dangerous state of Pittenweem harbour and the refusal of the Fishery Board for Scotland to make a grant for improvements; and whether; since the Fishery Board are unable to support the scheme prepared by their engineer he will instruct the board to make another survey of the harbour, with a view to preparing a less costly scheme, which will render the harbour safe and justify a substantial grant from the funds available to the board?
§ Mr. ElliotI have considered the letter referred to by my hon. Friend. I am informed by the Fishery Board for Scotland that the fullest consideration has been given to the possibility of preparing a less costly scheme, but that they are advised that nothing short of the full scheme would effect any material improvement at this harbour. As regard the full scheme, the opinion of the board is that the benefit which might be derived from it would not be commensurate with the cost involved.
Mr. StewartWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that even on the authority of the Fishery Board this harbour is most dangerous to life and property, and that it cannot, therefore, be neglected; and will he not persuade them to reconsider their decision in view of the serious nature of this complaint?
§ Mr. KennedyWhat sum is involved in this scheme, and may I ask on what grounds the scheme was rejected by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in view of the fact that it was prepared by the consulting engineer to the Fishery Board, and has the unanimous approval not only of the local fishermen but of the local town council?
§ Mr. ElliotThe estimated cost of the scheme is £8,400. As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this should be further examined, I will undertake to examine it further, but I do not want to hold our unreasonable hopes.
§ Mr. KennedyHave not larger sums been approved by the Minister involving expenditure at fishery centres of less importance than the harbour concerned here?
§ Mr. ElliotLarger sums have, of course, been approved, but the landings of herring, for instance, at this port are some 18,700 cwts., against Anstruther 160,800; and although the quantity of white fish is larger, one must take into account the probable economic return from a harbour in estimating whether expenditure is desirable or not.
Mr. StewartWhile accepting my right hon. Friend's latter remarks, may I ask him to bear in mind that this is an all-the-year-round harbour while the others are not of that nature?