OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (BY ORDER.) (Hansard, 9 July 1908)

§ *MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)
said he thought that out of courtesy to the. Scottish Fishery Board the right hon. Gentleman might have given some reason for the extraordinary course which he had adopted on the present occasion. For many years past this particular oyster water had been, so far as the fishermen were concerned, a place which had not been used. He had never heard of anyone having exposed for sale oysters from this bed, the only occasions when fishermen went out for a few oysters being when people in the neighbourhood were giving dinner parties. Anything he had done in connection with this matter had been entirety in conjunction with the Fishery Board. He had cordially supported the Board, and he had pleasure in acknowledging that the Board had cordially supported him. The Board had seen that a very valuable industry might be prosecuted in that particular water. A great many years ago there were many oysters there, and a number of working men earned a fair living in catching oysters. Hon. Members from Ireland would have no difficulty in realising what this meant in a poor district, for there were many similar districts in that country where practically no wages were paid, and the whole population earned their living by their own exertions either off the land or off the sea. He considered that he was only doing his duty to his constituents in endeavouring 206 to fall in with the Fishery Board in this matter. If this Order had been passed, ten or twenty families would have been enabled to live in comfort, and that result would have' more than realised his wildest dreams. Though there had been gross exaggerations in regard to what would happen if the Order were passed, he was not going to occupy the time of the House in going into the opposition to the measure. He thought the Secretary for Scotland might have allowed the Order to go to the vote of the House, so that it might have been decided fairly and squarely without the employment of the Government Whips as Tellers. There was nothing more intolerable for a man in public life than to bear secret and underhand attacks not knowing from whom the attacks emanated. The Secretary for Scotland had been grossly misled by secret reports and opinions, which in common fairness to his Department he should have made known. The right hon. Gentleman had informed him in the Scottish Committee-rooms that a petition against the Provisional Order had been received from the burgh of Kirkwall. On making inquiries into this he found that there was no opposition from the Provost or high council of Kirkwall, or from any local authority in the whole constituency. At the Bill Office he found that the petition which purported to come from Kirkwall, and which misled the right hon. Gentleman, had come from, comparatively speaking, a handful of people whose signatures had been obtained no one on earth knew how. The Fishery Board, having applied for this Order, held an inquiry in Kirkwall, and the whole of the evidence against the Order given at the inquiry was of the most 207 flimsy and untrustworthy character. Practically not a single fisherman came forward to oppose the Order. One man who was at the place three times a year for oysters opposed the measure. The opposition came only from persons who occasionally fished oysters for their own amusement. The whole opposition had arisen from local jealousy. He was one of the promoters of the Bill, he admitted; but it was not of his own free will. He did not want to have anything to do with it, except to help an industry to be started, and to subscribe what he could afford for that end; but he agreed to back the Bill when it was represented to him that it would benefit the fishermen and help to re-establish a fishery which had once afforded employment in a district where some industries were much needed. Beyond that he had no interest in the Bill, and any profits to be derived from it were signed away by him to be devoted to the public good. He had been actuated wholly and solely for the public good of his constituency. He would have been glad if the Secretary for Scotland had not adopted the attitude he had taken. It would have been much easier if he had let the matter take its ordinary course and let the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil move the rejection of the Bill. He understood that the principal objection to the Bill was that this fishery should be under the control of the local authority, but the Government knew that the local authorities had declined to undertake this responsibility, and he himself had suggested to the Secretary that if the Order were granted and the local authorities desired to undertake the responsibilities the matter could be arranged on fair terms. The other evening they were condemn- 208 ing trawling in the most unmeasured language; but here was an industry which had been absolutely destroyed and made useless, and all they wanted to do was to restore that industry to enable something to be done for the fishermen. The local authority were frightened about taking it over as it might lead to an increase in the already heavy rates, and so they definitely declined. If one fraction of the allegations that had been made against him with regard to this matter had been true, he was not fit to sit in the House of Commons.

*MR. KEIRHARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
asked if the hon. Gentleman insinuated that he had made any allegations against him personally.

§ *MR. CATHCART WASON
Certainly not; but owing to the course taken by the Secretary for Scotland in refusing to allow a free debate and free vote, he was prevented from answering the Member, and after all that had been said such a proceeding could not be justified.

§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshire
said he only intervened for the purpose of suggesting to his hon. friend that debate on this subject might be avoided; and it was for that purpose that he had moved that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. He could assure his hon. friend that he had in no sense whatever any desire to reflect upon his conduct. He was reflecting the general opinion of the House when he said that from no quarter had anyone heard any suggestion whatever which would lead to the idea 209 that the hon. Gentleman had throughout the whole matter acted other than from public-spirited motives, for which he had so honourable a record. The truth was that the opposition to the Bill had not come from any private consideration, but, so far as he was aware, was based entirely on public grounds. The procedure for the Provisional Order was taken under an old Act. He suggested that before taking this step the hon. Gentleman should ascertain whether there was a public authority willing to take the step which he and his colleagues proposed to undertake. Everybody knew a great effort was necessary to induce people to come forward and take up these matters, and that was one reason. Another reason that should further exonerate his hon. friend from any suspicion of interested motives was that these undertakings were most unprofitable. He asked the hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to be withdrawn, and if no public authority came forward to undertake the public duty in connection with this fishery they would be satisfied, that no other course than that suggested by his hon. friend could be pursued.

§ *MR. KEIR HARDIE
associated himself with the right hon. Gentleman in all that had been said with regard to the hon. Member who had endeavoured to induce an uncommercial company to develop the oyster and mussel fisheries. In regard to the county councils it was true that some time ago the Fishery Board had communicated with the county councils, but the matter was never seriously discussed and nothing was done. Nothing was known to the people of the locality of any attemptt being made to interfere with the old time custom. For at least, 210 400 years small crofters, tradesmen fishermen, and others had had the right to fish in these waters for oysters. Forty-five years ago dredging was introduced and the oyster beds practically destroyed. From that time little fishing had been done. But evidence showed that the oyster beds were again improving. His hon. friend said that no evidence was given by fishermen against the Order, but the point was that no evidence was given for the Order except by the members of the syndicate, and their relatives. The Order proposed to hand over for sixty years eight square miles of water to a small syndicate, and during all that time the public who from time immemorial had a right to fish there for oysters and mussels and to gather bait were to be prohibited from doing so. The oyster beds had been improved by crofters and others, who in their spare time had taken as many as 300 oysters a day and placed them in these beds. One witness said he had planted 1,000 or 1,200 a year. He had taken up this matter to protect the right of these small fishermen and others and to give the public authority an opportunity to carry out a proper supervision of these beds and properly develop them as an oyster fishery. He had received petitions against this Order being passed from landowners, merchants, farmers, fishermen, magistrates and so on, all constituents of the hon. Member. He hoped therefore, the hon. Member and his supporters would not challenge a division, but would allow the course suggested to be taken so as to give the local authorities an opportunity to take the matter over and look after the Bay as a public service.

*MR. DUNDAS WHITE (Dumbartonshire)
said that as one who had been an 211 opponent of this measure he hoped he might be allowed to associate himself in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in assuring his hon. friend the Member for Orkney that there was nothing whatever of a personal character in the opposition to the Bill. His opposition had been solely on account of the character and proposed terms of the Order, which it proposed to confirm. It would, of course, be out of place to discuss them that night, but if the question had arisen he would have had something to say about the proposed area being too large, about the monopoly for sixty years being too long, and he would have shown how in various ways the privileges of the undertakers were greater and the protection of the public interests less than in those Orders which were regarded as precedents. As, however, the Bill was being withdrawn, there was no occasion to do that, but he desired to take that opportunity of associating himself most heartily with the assurances which had been given to his hon. friend.