THURSO AND SCRABSTER HARBOURS. (Hansard, 16 June 1892)

§ (9.20.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, because, as I notified to him yesterday, I have to make a serious charge against his action on this stage of the Vote. Last year we had a grant before this House of £50,000 for certain piers and harbours in Scotland. I then moved the reduction of that grant to £47,000, and the reduced sum was put from the Chair and carried, the right hon. Gentleman assenting to it. My reason for moving to reduce the Vote was this: A Commission went to Thurso Bay to report as to the comparative merits of two harbours there, which, with assistance from the Government, could be utilised for a 1353 new fishing station in that part of Scotland. The Commission arrived in Thurso on Saturday night, and they left on Monday morning. The Trustees of Thurso harbour and the fishermen there were desirous of giving evidence, but the Commission heard no evidence from anybody, but they reported in favour of Scrabster harbour and disparagingly of Thurso harbour. I pointed out to the House that probably these gentlemen had not seen the Thurso harbour, except from a distance; and, from information I could gather in Thurso, it appears that some person had met them and that they went and had some liquor in a hotel, and that upon the information given them by a local laird they reported. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Lyell), the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider the question of obtaining further evidence with regard to these two harbours, but, as far as I can find out, he has not done so. The pier at Scrabster belongs to a private company, and it would be impossible to make a proper harbour there except at great cost, because the cliffs are two hundred feet high and run right down into the sea. Altogether, from lack of room for curing stations and being two miles away from any station, the place is utterly unsuited for the purpose of a new harbour or fishing station. At Thurso, on the other hand, there is a railway station; and if £3,000 or £4,000 more were expended on the harbour there, it could be made useful for all purposes. The harbour at Scrabster, without great improvement, would be perfectly useless, and the Company who own it would lose their dividends; but, as the members of that Company are good Unionists, something was required to be done for them. The Unionist candidate has been doing his level best; and the Scotch Office not being able of itself to make an inquiry, and not looking into the Report already made, have agreed to give £3,000 towards improving this miserable harbour, notwithstanding that Parliamant last year refused to grant the money. Personally, I do not care whether the money goes to one harbour or the other. All I want is that the fishermen and other local men should have the 1354 opportunity of giving evidence on the matter before any tribunal; and I told Lord Lothian, when I spoke to him on this matter, that I did not care who was sent down to hold the inquiry. My object all along has simply been to prevent Parliament voting the money on inadequate grounds. I regret that I am not able to take any effective action with respect to this matter. There is no Vote of which I can move the reduction, and of course I cannot go against the Second Reading of this Bill. All I can do is to protest against the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We virtually carried a reduction of this Vote, and an inquiry was promised, and now, without any inquiry, this thing has been done. The only way in which the money can be obtained is by saving it out of the Votes for Harbours. They have got £10,000 for Provisional Orders for harbours, and they may save £1,500 out of that; but why is it not put on the Estimates of the House in a straightforward manner so that we can discuss it?

§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

The hon. Member has put his case forward under several aspects, and the way in which he has dealt with the question renders it necessary for me to remind the House that he is hardly accurate when he represents that last year's reduction of the Vote committed the House to any particular application of this money. The hon. Gentleman represented that this sum of £1,500 would be lost to Thurso, but Thurso is now engaged in spending a considerable sum of money, £13,000, advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Of this sum only £6,000 or £7,000 has been spent, and the present object is to render the harbour available in all conditions of the tide and to give a depth of four feet. But there is now a proposal to make the depth eight feet, and a considerable further sum will be required. Therefore this sum of £1,500 is not in question at all, because there is already at the disposal of the Local Authorities more money than they are likely to want for the authorised purpose in the present financial year. Thurso has credit with the Public Works Loan 1355 Commissioners for the remainder of the £13,000, and therefore it is not in any sense fair to put the case as one between Thurso and Scrabster. When Thurso has used up all the money that has been advanced on certain securities, then will be the time to raise this question and to make inquiry whether Thurso ought or ought not to get a grant. It does not, however, seem very pertinent to the question before the House. With reference to what the hon. Member said about the undertaking to make an inquiry, I have only to say that the West Highlands Commission, after such investigation as they on their responsibility thought sufficient, pronounced for aid to Scrabster much on the lines which the Government are now proposing. There was absolutely no question as between Thurso and Scrabster, because Thurso was already provided for so far as the present financial year was concerned. It was a question between Scrabster or nothing. Either this £1,500 was to be granted to Scrabster or it must go back into the balances. It seems to me that the Commission have sufficiently considered the matter to warrant the Government in devoting this money to the improvement of the harbour at Scrabster. The Government are not likely to go back on their decision, and I think the hon. Member in pressing the case of Thurso makes a mistake. Thurso has ample credit to go on with, and when they have finished the present loan then will be the time to raise the question. At present I hardly think this is a subject for discussion.