SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 14 February 1913)

§ Mr. MORTON
I once heard Mr. Gladstone say that Ireland was always with us and that is so to-day. I want a few minutes to discuss Scottish affairs, and particularly the Interdepartmental Committee on Fisheries. I gave notice to the Chancellor of the Duch of Lancaster. I do not see him in his place. I hope the suffragettes have not got hold of him on his way clown to the House. The matters referred to the Committee were herring trawling, the destruction of immature fish, the territorial limit, and the close time. The question of the territorial limit must wait a considerable time before it is settled, and I am not raising, that at present, but we have by letters and otherwise urged upon the Departmental Committee the necessity of coming to some conclusion with regard to the destruction of immature fish and trawling for herrings. That is an urgent matter, and something should be done. We have a letter from them saying they will consider the matter, but we are in this difficulty, that we have failed to get the Government to put upon this Committee any Scottish Member who 1514 has any knowledge of the fishery ports in the North of Scotland, and we know nothing of what is going on excepting what we get from time to time from the man in the street. We would like some information or some assurance that this matter is going to be considered shortly and reported upon. What we have asked for is an interim Report upon that particular question, with a view to getting something done. It is an unfortunate fact with regard to these Committees and Commissions that they take such a long time in considering these questions. We recently had an excellent example to these people given by the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. A. Dewar), who visited the North of Scotland, and within two or three months reported the results of their investigations. I should like to say to this Interdepartmental Committee, "Go thou and do likewise." Instead of doing like that, they adjourned, we were told, from last December until early in February. Why they wanted all that long time for adjournment when it was admitted that the particular question I have mentioned was urgent I cannot say. I hope somebody on the Front Bench will convey to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is Chairman of the Committee, what our wishes are in the matter. This is a very important question in Scotland, and we are not raising it upon our own account, but trying to represent the wishes of our constituents, who have a very strong feeling in the matter.

§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
I desire to ask the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any settlement has been come to between the Office of Works and the Edinburgh Corporation with regard to the Inverleith Row property? Unfortunately, the, erection of the building was carried out without the knowledge of the Office of Works, and trouble occurred locally. A misunderstanding has arisen, and it would be of great importance if the hon. Gentleman would say whether any settlement has been made and what its terms are, so that we may have a record upon the Journals of the House in case any dispute should arise in future.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury)
I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that the matter has been settled. I do not think that any statement of mine in this House would take the place 1515 of any proper agreement or correspondence which may pass between the Office of Works and the Edinburgh Town Council. The First Commissioner, however, is quite as eager to preserve the beauties of Edinburgh as is the Edinburgh Town Council. The hon. Member will concede that the First Commissioner cannot be and is not to blame for anything that has occurred in this matter. The Office of Works four years ago spontaneously, without any demand from the town council, submitted their plans to the Dean of Guild Court, and no objection whatever was raised to the plans. The twenty-five feet line was agreed upon between the engineer of the town council, and the corporation themselves admitted in a Court of Law that they had not sought representation at the Dean of Guild Court when the plans were put forward. In these circumstances the building was put up, and I think the hon. Member will agree that the First Commissioner was in no way to blame for the building protruding.

§ Mr. C. PRICE
Is it not a fact that the plans which were submitted to the Dean of Guild Court had a docket on them saying that they were passed subject to the building being put back?

§ Mr. BENN
No, Sir. The docket was not placed on them, and the Office of Works had no knowledge of what position the town council took in the matter. There was no letter recording such a position at the time the building was erected. The building is there. The question is how to get it back. The arrangement which has been made is as follows: that the cost of demolishing the building and setting it back five feet shall be borne 1516 by the Edinburgh Town Council, and the First Commissioner, on his side, shall concede the land that is necessary, namely, a strip of nine feet both along the existing block and in front of the block which is to be erected, and also shall lose a certain amount of space in the building itself, and submit to the inconvenience of the alteration. On the other hand, the Edinburgh Town Council is to have the cost of the demolition and re-erection of the building which, I understand, is to amount to a sum of £1,500. I may add that the Office of Works is fortunate in having found so courteous an intermediary as the hon. Member, and Central Edinburgh in having a Member so capable and so persistent.