HC Deb 09 August 1916 vol 85 cc1181-6

Motion made, and Question proposed,

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,969, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays." [NOTE.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]

Court of Judiciary to get the fines reduced, I would certainly have advised them to try. The fines still strike me as very heavy under the circumstances. If that course is still open to them, I, for one, think they would be well advised to take it. If it is not, on the whole I still retain the impression that the fines are heavy and a little unfair. But as to the question of negligence, and so on, the case has taken a different aspect and is much more serious than at first I thought it was on the somewhat scanty information which had been given. Certainly I should not be prepared to go to the length of voting against the right hon. Gentleman in a Division, and I hope the matter will not be pressed to that extent. Because, personally, I think it is clearly the inveterate practice that the prerogative is never exercised where there is a legal remedy open to the person to attain this end. There has never been an occasion, I think, where that has been done, and I think the matter should be left in that way.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £8,493 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 6.

Division No. 51.] AYES. [10.16 p.m.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Spear, Sir John Ward
Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Barrie, H. T. Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Sutton, John E.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Swiff, Rigby
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Macpherson, James Ian Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Brunner, John F. L. Munre, Rt. Hon. Robert Watson, Hon. W.
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Craik, Sir Henry Radford, Sir George Heynes Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Res, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Younger, Sir George
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Fell, Arthur Robinson, Sidney TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Holmes, Daniel Turner Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
NOES.
Bryce, J. Annan Keating, Matthew TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Byrne, Alfred Pratt, J. W. Sir J. Jardine and Mr. Hogge
Cowan, William Henry Pringle, William M. R.
Mr. COWAN

On these occasions in past years I have generally felt it my duty to voice some of the grievances of the fishing population of the North-East Coast of Scotland. This time I do not propose to follow that course, not because there are no grievances to be redressed, but because such grievances as are at all acutely felt under present circumstances are directly traceable to the state of war in which we are engaged. My Constituents are, I think, among the most patriotic people in Scotland, just as the Scottish people are undoubtedly amongst the most patriotic of the United Kingdom or the Empire, and they willingly submit to the many inconveniences and privations which the War imposes upon them. They are content to submit to the restrictions on fishing by which they are handicapped in almost every direction. They are unable to earn the living which in the past they have drawn from the bountiful harvest of the sea, and they are deprived of many other resources which have provided for them in the past. Consequently they look forward to the time when the War is over, and while the War is on they are content to man the mine-sweepers and the patrol boats and wait for their reward in the peaceful future to which they look forward. I do not think that I should let this occasion pass without reserving all their rights in regard to grievances which are still unredressed and from which the fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland suffer. I will not say one word to press those claims under present circumstances, but I ask the House to note that my Constituents, from patriotic motives acquiesce in the postponement of the redress of their very real grievances, and that I, as their representative, will call attention to those grievances and seek their redress as soon as the War comes to an end.

Mr. BYRNE

I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present to listen to the discussion of this important question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must be singularly lacking in his appreciation of numbers, because I have just announced that there were forty Members present.

Mr. HOGGE

As my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) has this year abandoned his catechism with regard to the difficulties of the fishermen in Scotland, I do not propose to take his place, but there is one item which I hope my right hon. Friend can give us some information about before we pass it. It is item (f), which deals with the North Sea Fisheries International Investigation. We all know the history of that International Investigation. It will be noticed that in 1915-16 £5,579 was the estimate, and I presume that amount was spent, whereas this year there is only a decrease of £751, which means that £4,828 is to be spent. That suggests that the activity in connection with this investigation is going on and I am rather curious to know what is being done. My hon. Friend says that the fishermen have no grievances, which I suppose means that they are making more money in other ways, or else it means that when fishing they are getting such prices that they are deprived of all their grievances.

Mr. COWAN

I said they reserved their grievances.

Mr. HOGGE

My hon. Friend says those grievances are in reserve, evidently because of the reasons I have stated. I want to know who is doing this work. Is it being pursued at all on the sea or is the money being spent on the land, and, if so, in what way? I suppose it is clear that the experiments could not be stopped without some serious loss to the whole investigation, but I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us information as to why this Vote has been decreased so little at a time when the North Sea is closed to everybody.

Mr. TENNANT

If I may refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan), first, I would say that what he has said in regard to the patriotic feelings of the fishing population of our country, and the way they have responded to the national cause, is by no means exaggerated. We all know that there has been a very remarkable response by those who inhabit the borders of the sea all over Scotland. Of course, the actual fact that we are in a condition of war now has interfered enormously with the prosperity of the fishing, but it is a very remarkable circumstance, in spite of that fact, that the herrings landed in 1915 were only 110,000 crans, while this year they have been 392,000 crans. That is a splendid fact in itself. Each cran, I think, represents two pounds. Therefore, to that extent the fishing population are to be congratulated on being in a comparatively flourishing condition. I quite admit that the white fishing is in a different condition altogether, and one cannot apply the same test to it. I am informed by my authorities that there has been no instance of the fishing industry being so seriously interfered with since the Crimean War. Therefore it is a very remarkable thing that there should be so good a return of fish landed as we have to show. Out of 56,700 fishermen, curers, and others en- gaged in the fishing industry, 23,000 are engaged in the naval and military forces. These are very good figures. There is another figure which I think will interest the Committee. In 1843 the exports of herrings to Europe reached 112,000 barrels, and in 1912 the enormous figure of over 1,500,000 barrels had been reached. I do not know the exact number of barrels for this year. Probably it is not quite so high as 1912, particularly as the Continental market, of course, is very much closed at the present time.

I now come to the question of the international investigation raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge). I used, at one time, to be conversant with the details of that scientific investigation, as I once presided over the Committee which had to deal with the subject, but I am bound to say that it has passed a little beyond my ken during the last year or so. I, therefore, cannot give him a specific answer to the question that he has put to me, but I can well imagine that an inquiry of this kind, which has now extended, I should think, over more than ten years—I cannot say without looking back, but certainly over a considerable period—could not and ought not to be interfered with ruthlessly though we are going through this very difficult period of the War. Continuity in an examination of this kind is absolutely of the essence of the inquiry, and anything like a hiatus would be prejudicial to the results which it is hoped will be achieved. That being so, I think the answer to my hon. Friend is that no doubt great effort has been made to preserve the continuity of the inquiry, in order not to diminish the value of the results to be achieved.

Mr. HOGGE

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any work is being done at sea now, and, if not, how the money is being spent?

Mr. TENNANT

No, I cannot say.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think my right hon. Friend is really under a misapprehension in regard to this Vote. He assumed that the work is still being pursued. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) had closely read the footnote, he would have seen that the larger part of the sum voted for the North Sea Fisheries International Investigation was really for the maintenance of the "Goldseeker." It is at present engaged on Admiralty work, but the cost of its maintenance is borne on this Vote. I think that had my right hon. Friend and the Scottish Fishery Board insisted that the. Admiralty should pay for the maintenance of the ship while it was under Admiralty control, that then the amount actually voted for the investigation would have been reduced by more than half, and my right hon. Friend would not then have been subjected to the interrogation with which he has found so much difficulty.

Mr. TENNANT

My hon. Friend accuses me of having found much difficulty in answering the question. There is really no difficulty if one had had a little notice and had had time to look it up. In point of fact, I have been informed since I sat down that the staff has been very greatly reduced, as one can assume have all staffs who are engaged on Government work or work in relation to Government inquiries. These staffs, as is very well known, have been very materially reduced and those who are left behind are working upon material which has been accumulated during recent years. That brings me to the mention of the laboratory which exists for scientific investigation upon a very interesting scale and which has been conducted over a long series of years by a staff which presumably has not been so seriously depleted as the staff upon the ships and upon other parts of the investigation. No doubt the investigations in that laboratory are being conducted as best they can conduct them with the depleted staff.

Mr. PRINGLE

The only suggestion I would make is that as the gold-seeker is not being employed by the Fishery Board for purposes of this investigation the cost of its maintenance should be borne by the Admiralty, and the Scottish Office should get credit for the economy which it is actually exercising. If the £2,306 were taken off these Votes it would then appear as so much less for Scottish administration. I think the Scottish Office should see another year that these sums are removed from our Votes.

Question put, and agreed to.