§ 30. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the case that fishermen whose trawlers and drifters were taken by the Admiralty and lost by mine or otherwise in the course of the War are only receiving compensation either on the pre-war value of their boats or at least sums insufficient to replace their boats, and consequently are unable to put to sea; and whether he will take steps to secure that these men get new or second-hand boats equal to those that were lost, and further secure that all fishermen who were members of the Fleet, Grand or Auxiliary, and whose tackle has decayed in their absence, have advances made to them to enable them to again engage in their calling?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is not the case that compensation for trawlers and drifters lost on Admiralty service during the War is being paid on their pre-war value. When these vessels were first requisitioned a valuation on a pre-war basis calculated on an agreed formula was inserted in the Charter Parties, but, subsequently, on the representations of owners, the Admiralty agreed to pay market value at the time of loss. The losses of trawlers were very numerous, but compensation has been accepted by all owners who have lost vessels, with six exceptions only to date. In the case of drifters, a scale of compensation has not, unfortunately, been agreed generally, but settlements have been reached with the majority of English owners who have lost vessels on Admiralty service by individual negotiation. I hope settlement may soon be reached in outstanding cases. The question of enabling fishermen, who have served in the Fleet during the War, and whose tackle has decayed in their absence, to engage again in their calling has been under consideration and is at present under correspondence with the Military Service (Civil Liabilites) Department.
§ Mr. FRANCEWill the right hon. Gentleman see that the scale of compensation is such that due appreciation will be shown to these gallant men for their conduct during the War?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe compensation is according to the market value at the time of loss. Our appreciation we hope to mark by assisting the men in some other way apart from that question.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONIs it not a fact that the market value is frequently a sum between £2,000 and £3,000, whereas the cost of replacing the vessel would amount to £5,000 or £6,000, and would it not be a graceful act on the part of the Government to recognise the services of the fishermen by giving them a boat instead of giving them money which would not be sufficient to provide a new boat?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAOf course, I quite agree that the market value at the time of loss is not the cost of replacing these boats. We have settled the trawler cases—there are only six or seven left—and I hope that we may be able to settle the drifter cases. But we do desire to mark the country's sense of the services which these men have performed, and we have a scheme under discussion which I will be very glad to show to the right hon. Gentleman if he will examine it.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONWill they replace the boat which has been lost by another boat instead of giving a money payment?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am not competent to say whether that will be a feasible proposition.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENWill you give the men the means of putting to sea? It is a great calamity to us all that these men cannot be fishing, and it would be a good investment to give them a boat and let them get to sea at once.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI agree, and I hope, as we have settled the English drifters' question to be able to settle the Scottish drifters' question.
§ Mr. D. HERBERTHas the right hon. Gentleman considered whether these men have not got a legal claim, as in the case of de Keysers Hotel, which is reported in to-day's paper?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have not examined that. I should think it is farfetched. What they get is the market value at the time of the loss. The difficulty is that the present market value is far more than that.