§ Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Secretary to the Treasury from what source does the sum of £18,347, provided from public funds for the Scottish Fishery Board, come, to which reference is made in the Report of the Committee appointed by the 1515 Prime Minister, on page 6, paragraph 6; from what source does the expense of the steamer placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board, with £5,500 for its upkeep, come, to which reference is made on page 8, paragraph 2, of the Report; do the Scottish Board spend their grants in ordinary police administration as well as in scientific researeh; and will he consider favourably the claim by Lancashire and Cumberland to similar grants, for similar purposes, from similar sources, in addition to the present system of placing the burden entirely on local rates in these two counties?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)The sum of £18,347, mentioned by the hon. Member (which I understand is £21,993, the total sum voted for the service of the Scottish Fishery Board, 1908–9, less £3,651, surplus Herring Brand Fees), was provided from Votes of Parliament (Class II., Vote 28). The sum of £5,500 is the amount placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for carrying out the Scottish share of the International Investigation of the North Sea, and is voted by Parliament (Class IV., Vote 6, Sub-head R). The Scottish Fishery Board Vote is expended on the ordinary administration (including police work) of that Board, but includes £770 for scientific investigation (Sub-head F of the Vote). No part of the £5,500 for the North Sea investigation is spent on police work. The corresponding payments in England are (1) the provision in the Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for Fishery Administration (Class II., Vote 11). (2) The provision in the Vote for Scientific Investigation (Class IV., Sub-head F) of the grant of £1,000 for the Marine Biological Association in respect of scientific fishery investigation. (3) The sum of £5,500 administered by that association in carrying out the English share of the International Investigation of the North Sea (Class IV., Vote 6, Sub-head R). I am not prepared to agree to give special grants to the local authorities for Lancashire and Cumberland, similar to the grants voted for the Scottish Fishery Board, the corresponding grants to which for England I have indicated above.
§ Sir J. RANDLESI understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that no money reached the counties in question from any of these sources. Would he not consider representations from the Fishery 1516 Committees of these two counties urging their claim to some consideration in view of what is done for other parts of the Kingdom?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWhat the hon. Gentleman asked me was as to grants without any change in policy as to the local rates, which, of course, are the governing words of my answer. My replies to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) must be governed by these words.
§ Sir J. RANDLESWill the right hon. Gentleman receive representations from the representatives of these two counties who may desire to wait upon him to urge their claim, and will he give favourable consideration to their representations?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI cannot promise favourable consideration, but I shall be glad to receive representations.
§ Mr. ASHLEYWhy should Lancashire and Cumberland have to pay out of the rates the whole of this fishery investigation and researeh, whereas Scotland receives a large grant from the Exchequer?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo local authority receives any grant from Imperial funds, either in Scotland or in England.
§ Mr. ASHLEYAm I to understand that it goes to the whole of Scotland and not to particular counties?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat is so.