HC Deb 17 June 1915 vol 72 cc892-905

Resolution reported,

"That a sum, not exceeding £13,030, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in aid of Piers or Quays."

Resolution read a second time,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. AINSWORTH

I desire to get from the Secretary for Scotland some statement as to the present position of the fishing industry in that country. Everybody knows that that is one of the most important industries we have there, and it must be realised that it is enormously to the advantage of the country that it should be carried on under proper conditions. We ought therefore all to unite in doing everything we can for the benefit of those who are engaged in it. We must remember that they carry on their industry under circumstances of very great difficulty and hardship. They pursue their calling in weather of all kinds. The fishing population is the nursery for our mercantile marine, and it is also a valuable adjunct to the reserve of His Majesty's Navy. Everything possible should therefore be done to strengthen and encourage the fishing population who suffer under so many hardships and yet do work so valuable for the nation and Empire at large. The fishing industry of Scotland has, it must be known, been seriously affected by the War, and many men have lost their lives through the action of the enemy. Therefore anything that we are able to do to mitigate the hardships of their lot and to protect them against such dangers should be done. The House will be extremely glad to hear from the Secretary for Scotland what steps are being taken for their protection against the dangers to which they are subjected by reason of the War. We shall also be glad to be informed of the details of the insurance proposals which are put forward in the interests of the fishermen.

The money of the Fishery Board for Scotland is exceedingly well spent, and my only object in raising the question is that we should get from the Secretary for Scotland a full statement of the matters affecting the industry. If further sums are required, the right hon. Gentleman will find that Scottish Members, and I have no doubt that English Members also, will be extremely glad to add to the Vote. I should be glad if hon. Members would bear in mind always how extremely dependent the fishing population of Scotland is upon the assistance which they can get from the House of Commons. In addition to the dangers and difficulties of the War, from which they are suffering, there has been a very large interference with the mail service in the West of Scotland. It may be supposed that the mail service cannot have much to do with the interests of the fishing industry, but the goods traffic and the mail and passenger service depend on the same lines. I understand that in the interests of economy which have to be met at the present time, it would either be necessary to reduce the sailings of the steamers, or ask for a larger sum, or diminish the number of steamers. It must be evident that if that is done it will seriously interfere with the trade, and if the cost of getting goods into the market is increased it will largely do away with the profits. The Board having inherited the money of the Congested Districts Board, it is incumbent upon them in every way that they should assist by every means in their power the strengthening and improvement of all public communications in the West of Scotland. Not only the whole of the fishing population, but also the whole of the population of Scotland, will be largely interested in hearing what the Secretary for Scotland can tell us as to what he is going to do for the fishing industry.

Mr. MORTON

It seems unfortunate that we were not able to bring this matter up last Wednesday. Not one of the Scottish Members thought that this matter would come on to-night, consequently they are not here to take part in the discussion of such an important matter to Scotland as the fishing industry. I regret it, but it is not our fault, and I am sorry that somebody did not take means which would have allowed an opportunity to tell hon. Members that it was coming on to-night. With regard to the Fishery Board, I cannot understand why we have not yet got the Report for 1914. The latest Report is that for 1913. I believe the Report is carried up to the 31st December. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland has seen it, but we have not seen it; therefore we are not in a position fairly and properly to discuss the question. I hope that in future the Secretary for Scotland will see that the Report is out before the Vote is brought on. The Government brought the Vote on last week knowing that the Report we were supposed to discuss had not been issued. I should like to have some explanation and proper excuse why the Report was not issued before the Vote was brought on. The Secretary for Scotland refused to answer a number of questions I put to him with regard to another matter last week, and I have had serious complaints because they were not answered. I hope that tonight the Secretary for Scotland will be in a better humour. With regard to the salted herrings which we are anxious should go to Russia, I should like to know whether the Secretary for Scotland has any information of what has been done and whether fishermen have been in any way compensated for the loss, if there was a loss, in connection therewith.

There is another exceedingly important matter, and that is the Committee that sat for some years and reported about two years ago in regard to North Sea fishing. I have not heard, and I should like to hear, that any steps have been taken by the Secretary for Scotland, or any Department of any sort whatever, to carry into effect any of the recommendations which that Committee might have made in a useful direction. I know they did not make any recommendation of any good to anyone—in fact, the Report is made up of their visiting various places. They made some recommendations in regard to a Fishery Board which would have amounted to an increased cost. I do not know whether they have the increased cost, but certainly we have had none of the other reforms which we hope to see effected. One of the principal ones was that we were in favour of Government loans being granted to fishermen for the purchase or building of boats. The minority of that Departmental Committee were in favour of something being done, but the majority were not, I believe, in favour of Government loans being granted for the building or purchase of boats. I should like to know whether anything has been done on that Report or whether it has been further considered by the Secretary for Scotland and what has been the result, or if there is going to be any result. I am as perfectly well aware of the difficulty of the Secretary for Scotland as I am of our own at present, as under the late Government we had a truce and under the new Government we have a Coalition, and we are so anxious not to interfere with the Government in carrying out the War, which we hope they will bring to a successful conclusion soon, that we have no opportunity of forcing our views upon the Government as we should under other circumstances. But I am aware of a further difficulty that the Secretary for Scotland has, and it wants an exceedingly strong man to deal with it—that is, the Boards which are sitting in Edinburgh and elsewhere. It is they very often which stand in the way of the reforms being carried out, and I am anxious, as I am sure all my colleagues are, to help them in that direction to master those permanent officials who at present dictate what is to be done. It is they, with regard to these fishery matters, who dictate the policy apparently and say there shall or shall not be anything done.

I am sure the Secretary for Scotland realises, as I do, that this is a matter which very much effects the county of Sutherland, which I have tried to represent, but I am sure the Secretary for Scotland is aware of the importance of the fishery industry in Scotland, and the Government ought to assist in every direction in carrying that out, not only for the employment of the people, but for the sake of the food that is produced by the industry for the benefit of the people of this country. I hope it will be realised by the Secretary for Scotland that we are anxious for something to be done. We acknowledge the importance of the industry and we are aware, too, that it produces a large class of men who have pretty well all joined the Naval Reserve and are away now fighting for our protection. We are also aware, and I deplore it, that so many of the fishermen engaged generally in trawling operations have lost their lives in a scandalous and barbaric way by the action of the Kaiser and his friends. I know that has interfered with the industry to a great extent. I am very sorry for it, and I desire to sympathise with the families of those who have lost their lives in working for their country. Better times we hope may come presently, and meantime we ought to help all industries like this, which employ some 50,000 or 60,000 men and women, not by way of charity, but so as to get the greatest benefit we can out of the fishing industry or any other industry on which they may be employed. I second this Amendment as a matter of form, but we are not going to a Division. I would go to a Division if we did not get a satisfactory reply, but we are anxious to help the Government in another direction in regard to carrying on this cruel War, and, therefore, we will not interfere with them in any way whatever. I am further convinced that it is right and proper for us to carry out that policy, and therefore we do not want to go to a Division, but we expect that, notwithstanding the War and its results, the Secretary for Scotland and all the Departments which are his masters, though they should be under his control, will do their best to help on this immense fishing industry of Scotland.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

I should like to call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to a matter which I brought before the House when the Vote for the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was being considered. I asked a question as to how it was that under the English Vote for the Board of Fishery no amount appeared for the North Sea Fishery International Investigation, whilst in referring the Scottish Department for a similar Grant for the North Sea Fishery International Investigation, Scotland shows a Vote there of £5,579, and I asked the hon. Member representing the Board of Agriculture if he could give me any explanation as to why it was that that amount had disappeared under the English Vote. The answer was because by its disappearance the amount, so far as Scotland was concerned, appeared to be considerably greater than should have been the case, and since then I have received a letter from the Department in these words:— With regard to the Vote in respect of fisheries, you drew attention to the absence of any figures under Sub-head E. The reason for this is that from 21st April, 1914, with the concurrence of the Treasury, the temporary scientific staff employed upon this investigation have been placed upon a regular footing, a proportion being brought on to the permanent and pensionable establishment. The result is that the provision hitherto made under Sub-head E, amounting to £7,530, has been now transferred to Sub-heads A, B, and Q. So that these officials who were formerly considered as belonging to the temporary staff have, under the English Board, been transferred to the permanent Department and do not appear under this Fishery Board Vote. It seems to me that when the Treasury was considering the question of altering the status of these officials they should at the same time have considered the addition of the officials so far as Scotland is concerned. It was scarcely fair to make any difference between the men who are employed, say, under the English Board of Fisheries in contradistinction to those employed by the Scottish. Whilst it appears as if the division of this amount is entirely confined to Scotland, that is really not the case, because I think they come down as far as Newcastle with the Scottish Vote. If that amount were taken out we should then appear in a worse position than we do now so far as having a big reduction of Grant for Scotland is concerned under the two Votes. I was very curious in looking at this Vote to find that thirty years ago there was actually a Vote for the Board of Fisheries to the extent of something like £3,000 more than was voted last year, and compared with this year it was something like £5,000 more than we have at the present time. I think that this fact is unique in financial experience, even in connection with Scottish Estimates. I am taking the Fishery Vote as a whole. Another great difficulty in realising what is the total amount of money we get for the Fishery Board in Scotland is when you look up the Development Grant, which, I am sorry to say, is not directly under the control of this House. We vote a total amount of money, and the Board is left free to make Grants as it thinks fit. Under the Fishery Board Vote for England you show relatively not so big an amount of Grant as you should do, and you have difficulty in comparing the whole service given, because they are given under different Votes. If you take the Development Grant, I find, for instance, in the four years 1912–16 the Development Fund Grant given to the English Board of Agriculture and Fishery was £43,910, whilst, so far as Scotland is concerned we have only received £1,812. That is a tremendous difference in the two Grants. Bearing in mind that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Board of Fisheries is an earning Department as well as a spending Department, I think we have a reason to expect that the Department would receive better consideration than it has received.

Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is raised in the letter I received from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. They compare the landing of fish in England with the landing of fish in Scotland, but everyone knows that Yarmouth and other English ports on the East Coast are frequently used for the landing of fish which are raised and gathered by the Scottish fishermen, so that that comparison is scarcely fair. I sould be glad if the Secretary for Scotland could give me some assurance on the two points I have raised. The first is in regard to Scottish fishery men being treated in precisely the same manner as the corresponding men in England; that they should be put on the permanent staff, so that they would get pensions. The second point upon which I desire assurance is in regard to the great disparity as to fisheries under the Development Vote.

Mr. WATT

Like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I do not represent a fishing constituency. The only way in which my Constituents are interested in fish is in the way of consumption, but I have been asked by the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs (Sir A. Williamson)—whose absence we all deplore, and especially the cause of it—to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to two points in connection with the fishing industry. The hon. Member is under the impression that the Secretary for Scotland has not done sufficient in the way of alleviating distress in the fishing industry, which distress is admitted on all hands to be very deep. The Government have sought to alleviate distress in other trades. The Stock Exchange was relieved from its difficulties, the bankers were assisted, and the bill brokers were helped. But a line was drawn apparently by the late Government against assisting the fishing industry. My hon. Friend is inclined to think that the Secretary for Scotland might have moved his fellow members in the Cabinet to interest themselves in the sad condition of the fishing industry, and he hopes that the time is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to take some action in that direction.

The second point which the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs desired me to call attention to is the question of the feeding of prisoners of war in this country by the product of the fishing industry, namely, cured herrings. If any branch of the fishing industry is depressed more than another it is the branch connected with the curing of herrings, because the export of those herrings practically has been entirely stopped by the War. Very large quantities of cured herrings were sent regularly to Germany and Russia, but the export to both these countries has been stopped, and it has been largely stopped at the initiation of the Government, who are under the impression that a large percentage of the exported fish is finding its way to Germany. My hon. Friend has said again and again that opportunities should be taken of using this fish for consumption by prisoners of war in this country, who, when they are at home in Germany or Austria, were in the habit of consuming this cured fish. The Under-Secretary of State for War, in answer to a question, said that experiments were being made with a view to getting the prisoners to consume as an article of diet the cured fish which they were in the habit of consuming at home, but we have since been informed by the Under-Secretary for War that it was a failure, and that the German prisoners would not when resident here consume the same food that they have consumed on the other side of the Channel. It is a question whether the food was provided to them in the same way as they were in the habit of getting it at home. No doubt the English and Scottish cooks who had the culinary work to do for these spoiled prisoners did not do it in a satisfactory manner, but I think if the Secretary for Scotland was persistent in seeking to get this fish consumed by the German prisoners that a way would be found and he would succeed. I should like to call attention also to a characteristic of the Fishery Board, namely, the fact that a practical fisherman has not a seat on that Board. For many years there has been an outcry because a practical fisherman has not had a place on the Board, but it seems reasonable that that should be the case. My right hon. Friend has been very drastic in some things he has brought about, but, unfortunately, he has not devoted his attention to that particular matter. I think the Fishery Board to-day is constituted in precisely the same way as it was when he took office. If he could see his way, with his democratic principles, to put a representative fisherman on the Board, I think it would meet with the approval of the whole of the fishing community.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland dwelt with much force on the fact that the value of the Scottish fishing industry is not measured by the interests of those concerned in it but is a national interest, because you are dealing there with one of the greatest sources of food supply of the country, and I am sure that we must all agree with him in lamenting that the circumstances of war have rendered it necessary on the part of the British Government to restrict the area of fishing, partly in the interests of the fishermen themselves and partly in the interest of the safe conduct of naval warfare, and I am also sure that all the Scottish Members will agree that we are bound to bow to the decision of the Admiralty and that they must be the judges of what areas are safe and what are unsafe. At the same time I am bound to say that in my opinion the Fishery Board has rendered most valuable services in advising the Admiralty and in securing as far as possible that, though great interference necessarily take place, yet wherever it is practicable the fishing should be allowed. I am sure that we all share the indignation expressed by my hon. Friend at the cruel breach of the immemorial rules of naval war which protected the fishermen and which have been violated by the German Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland complained that all his questions were not answered the other day. If that is so, I apologise to him; I thought that I had answered them all.

Mr. MORTON

If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I made a complaint that no attempt was made to reply to any one of the questions which I put with regard to another matter.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I am very sorry. I have forgotten for the moment what the other questions were, but I will try to answer the questions which the hon. Member put to-day. First of all, about the Report. It was not a report by me but to me by the Fishery Board. I inquired of the Fishery Board some weeks ago about this Report. Their explanation amounts to this, that circumstances were so abnormal and they have been occupied with matters so different from the ordinary work that they really had not been able to produce the Report in time, but they will have it ready soon. The next point raised by my hon. Friend was as to the export of herrings to Russia. I believe that the figures with regard to the export to Russia are as follows: The quantity exported to Russia up to the outbreak of the War, in the season, was 150,000 barrels. Since the beginning of the War we were most anxious that as far as possible there should be a large export to Russia. The Government did not desire to see the herrings go to enemy countries but were anxious that they should go to our Allies for their benefit and for the benefit of the fish curers in Scotland. Nearly 100,000 barrels have gone to Russia. I believe that the quantity is 97,000 barrels, while 77,000 barrels have gone to America and about 88,000 barrels have gone to Norway and to Scandinavian countries. At the beginning of the War there was a large stock of about 310,000 barrels. I am very glad to say that, if that is not all disposed of, it is very materially reduced. The bulk of it has gone and I am told that there are now only about 47,000 barrels in Scotland.

My hon. Friend raised a question which has been raised a good many times, appropriately, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, as to the giving of herrings to German prisoners of war. He said, quite truly, that in Germany these herrings were a customary food. I can only say that the persistence with which we, representing Scotland, and the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries also, have pressed the consumption of herrings upon the War Office would, I think, satisfy even my hon. Friend if he was aware of what we have done. I cannot add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War. They have not succeeded in supplying large quantities. I do not know that it is a case of bad cooking, because I believe that these gentlemen eat the herrings raw. In any case we have not succeeded in getting any large quantities supplied. A certain amount goes over to allied countries for the feeding of German prisoners of war there. With regard to the question of distress in the fishing industry, undoubtedly that industry has been interfered with in a very serious way indeed, and the supply of food and of fish for a large trade to the Colonies and of foreign countries undoubtedly has been greatly diminished. I think that the Admiralty have tried, in consultation with the Fishery Board, to leave as much scope for fishing as they thought safe. I think that they honestly tried to do that but, as I said before, they must be the ultimate judges. No doubt the interference with the trade of fish curers has been very serious indeed. The people employed in the trade have, however, found other occupations. There is no evidence of any serious distress among those who were employed in the trade. Thousands of them have entered Government employment in various capacities. Some have entered the Services; others are employed in various ways in connection with the Services, and I do not think that any great distress arises, so far as they are concerned, through the interference with the fishing industries—at least, I have no information of it, and I do not believe that it exists.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

What about the case of the women?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Other occupations have been found for the women. In one of the western islands it was supposed that large numbers of women accustoned to working in the herring trade would be out of employment. Speaking from memory, I think that we were told that a thousand of them could be employed, but the total number that we could get was twelve. There is no doubt that in a great many cases the separation allowance has brought in a great deal of money and, so far as money is concerned, has left the people in much better circumstances than is usually the case. There is no doubt, also, that there is occupation for all the women—in fact, at the present moment, there is occupation in one way or another for everybody in the country who is willing to work. But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that a number of the fish curers must be very hard hit by the circumstances of this last season, and by the circumstances of the next season, because they will, in many cases, find it quite impossible to supply the needs of their ordinary trade or to use up the stock which they may have in hand, and no doubt there will be a great deal of distress caused in that way. It is, however, not the case that nothing has been done for them. Several things have been done by the Government. For example, the Board of Trade has drawn up a scheme for the insurance at moderate premiums of the effects of fishermen as well as other people lost at sea. And, again, provisions have been passed by the Government which apply to this trade as well as to other trades. There is, for example, the Courts Emergency Act, which enables people to obtain relief, when they are unable to pay debts owing to circumstances arising out of the War. There is, also, the work done by the Foreign Trade Debts Committee, which enables people which have debts abroad to obtain advances on those debts through the bankers. We have called the attention of the trade to this fact, but, so far as I know, not much use has been made of it by the fish-curing trade. Of course in many cases the fish were not sold but were consigned, but the Committee were prepared to adapt the scheme to that circumstance as far as possible.

Mr. MORTON

Are the owners of the trawlers compensated when their vessels are destroyed?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

The owners of the trawlers are insured, but if the trawler is in the service of the Admiralty, in that case, of course, the Admiralty is responsible. My hon. Friend for Edinburgh asked me about the scientific staff. There were circumstances which led to the English system being set up without any consideration of what existed in Scotland, but the Fishery Board are considering the question. This, however, is not a very happy time to go to the Treasury for improving salaries or status. I do not want to hold out any rosy hopes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have the matter under consideration. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the reduction of the Maintenance Vote. That is not so bad as it appears, because, as a matter of fact, our fishery cruisers have been taken over by the Admiralty for patrol work, and the expense of those cruisers is being borne by the Admiralty. That, therefore, accounts entirely, completely, and absolutely for the difference to which my hon. Friend has called attention. I think I have answered all the questions of my hon. Friend for Sutherland.

Mr. MORTON

What about the Departmental Committee and the loans to fishermen?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

As to the loans to fishermen, I think my hon. Friend answered himself very completely, because he pointed out that the Committee has reported against granting loans, and we have acted on the Report of the Committee. I am sure that no one will seriously suggest that this is a time for the Treasury to give loans for building boats.

Mr. MORTON

Have you increased the salaries?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I am not aware of any increases in the past year. In regard to the alteration in the constitution of the Fishery Board, I do not think that anything will be done so long as the War lasts, and it is not a matter so important that it should be pressed.

Mr. MORTON

I quite agree. I only wanted to know as to whether the salaries were increased.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Then my hon. Friend is satisfied on that point.

Mr. PRICE

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the great disparity between the amount allowed to the Fishery Board of Scotland and that allowed in the case of England? I would point out that the English Board has had £43,910 and the Scottish Board only £812.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I will not be so rash as to take up figures thrown out in Debate in this casual manner and pretend to explain every item. It is a question of what takes place with regard to English business and Scottish business, and the figures cannot be taken without any investigation of the facts. In some cases in Scotland we have Grants for harbours, whereas in England they have not had those Grants. I can only assure my hon. Friend that whatever Grants in England there are for services similar to those in Scotland which are not otherwise provided for, I am always careful to see that a proper proportion is applied for in the case of Scotland. I never fail in my duty in that respect.

Mr. MORTON

When shall we have the Report for 1914?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

I can only say that I asked for it some weeks ago, and hope to have it soon. Of course, there was very little this year to report upon.

Mr. MORTON

Then we ought to have had it earlier instead of later.

Question put, and agreed to.