HC Deb 18 April 1923 vol 162 cc2207-16

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

I have received your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise to-night a question of supremely urgent importance to Scottish fishermen. As other hon. Members wish to speak, my time is short, and that is the more unfortunate, because it appears from the answers that I have received to questions put to the Government that this question and its urgency is imperfectly realised by His Majesty's Government. Let me describe the plight in which these Scottish fishermen find themselves. The principal feature of the drift net and line-fishing industry on the North and East Coasts of Scotland is the herring fishing, but since the War the herring industry has lost its chief markets. Their principal markets were in Germany and Russia. Consequently, the industry has been passing through a period of unexampled depression. This was fully realised by the late Secretary for Scotland, Lord Alness, and in 1019–20 the industry received a subsidy to enable it to tide over the critical years 1919–20. Otherwise it would have foundered. Now the markets in Russia and Germany show some signs of reviving, but they are still lamentably restricted. Efforts have been made to obtain alternative markets, and to some extent progress has been made, but there, again, progress has been slow, and the opportunities are severely limited.

This difficulty of the markets is formidable, but by no means the only obstacle which this industry has to face. I may refer by way of illustration to the difficulty of the Moray Firth, where foreign trawlers are allowed to come up to the three mile limit while British trawlers are not. That has its repercussion on the question of illegal trawling from which all the fishing communities in the North East of Scotland are suffering so severely. When the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar) raised this question of illegal trawling the other day he was told that the Courts did not make the greatest use of their existing powers, but the hon. and gallant Member who replied forgot that, one reason for this was that the Courts will not inflict heavy penalties on British trawlers which are fishing where German trawlers are allowed to fish. Then there are other difficulties. Harbours have been neglected since the War and it has been impossible for the fishermen to repair them out of their own resources, though these resources have been generously used. In face of all these difficulties, these men during the last two or three years have barely been able to maintain themselves and their families. It is a mockery to talk to them about laying aside money to cover depreciation of their capital. Their capital has been depreciating all the time their nets and gear have been damaged or lost and the ordinary wear and tear have been going on, and they have been unable to put aside the necessary funds to cover this depreciation. The position has been made infinitely worse by the storms of January and February, which swept away so much of the fishermen's tackle. The hon. Member may say that the Government could not stop the storms, but. I want them to realise the plight to which the industry is now reduced, and then we can come to consider whether the industry is worth saving or not.

The distress of the fishermen is now a burden on the local exchequer and a loss of revenue to the Treasury on account of the drying up of the sources of revenue from the sea fisheries. Take the case of Wick, which is one of the great fishing ports in the north-east of Scotland. It could put scores of boats on the sea only a few years ago, and scores of good boats and. fine crews are now available for fishing, but it is calculated that on account of the lack of gear and nets, only some 12 or 15 boats will be engaged in the summer fishing next month unless the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Elliot) will give support. I am advocating Government assistance to these men to purchase nets to replace those which they have lost and those which have been damaged by wear and tear. This will not in itself set the industry on its feet again and place it in a prosperous position—it is not a panacea—but unless you give this assistance the industry will founder in a sea of trouble in this coming summer season. Is the industry worth saving? I am not going to waste the time at my disposal in arguing that question now. The two basic industries of the country are agriculture and the sea fishing. The sea fishing is the backbone of our sea power. During the War, these very fishermen were the shield and buckler of the Allied forces against the German submarines. These fishermen who take to the sea as boys from the harbours on the North and East coasts of Scotland are the finest and most daring fishermen in the whole of the fishing fleets, and they kept the sea when the fishermen of other nations sought the shelter of their harbours. If you do not give them help now, you will lose these men. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) referred yesterday to emigration in the Hebrides. When I was in Sutherland and Caithness at Easter, I was met everywhere by men on the verge of emigrating because they could not pay their way in this country. People, say, if you help fishermen, you must help carpenters and lorry drivers, but theirs is not a basic industry like fishing and agriculture. You will be losing a great national asset if you lose these men. You have a great source of wealth here. You have the boats, the fish, the sea, the markets, and all you want is a little help to these men to get this gear to keep them going. The peculiar conditions obtaining in the fishing industry were recognised in the Crofters Act, 1886. Under that Act the hon. and gallant Gentleman has power to give to all those engaged in fishing, whether crofters or not, a grant to enable them to replace damaged gear, and to purchase the nets they want; and what is the emergency against which this Crofters Act was provided to guard, if it is not the emergency which has now arisen? Why should the Act be made a dead letter? How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman, knowing the distress these fishermen and their families have suffered, knowing the promises which were made to these men in the Press and on the platform during the War, and knowing how well they played their part in the War—how can he refuse to come to their help? I confidently appeal to the hon. and gallant. Gentleman to give us the assurance for which we ask.

Mr. F. MARTIN

I wish to say one or two words in support of the appeal put so ably and eloquently by my hon. and gallant Friend. I was brought up among fishermen, I went to school among them, and I could tell you many interesting things about them, but I am basing my appeal on the grounds of national interest. The House may not be aware that the organisation of the fishing industry is peculiar to itself; that is to say, that ships, drifters and boats are owned by fishermen and capitalists in cooperation, and almost invariably the gear which is put on board the vessels is the property of the fishermen; and for the maintenance of that gear a certain proportion of the earnings of the craft is devoted from year to year. Certain fishermen, directly through the War, and through no fault of their own, have lost their gear, and have been unable to replace it. Like other things, it is at a very high price. The capitalist owners of the vessels have done their best to help the fishermen to replace the gear, but the industry is unable to do any more for itself. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) that he should consult with the Fishery Board for Scotland and devise a scheme for helping these fishermen to get the necessary gear. If they are not provided with that asset, you are not merely going to hamper an industry, but you are going to destroy a race; you are going to reduce these independent, individualistic men to the condition which hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are fond of describing as a condition of wage slavery. At all events, without going so far as that, I say that you will destroy a race which has rendered magnificent services to the country. As representing one of the most important herring fishery constituencies in Scotland, I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in urging this question upon the sympathetic consideration of the Scottish Office.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL

I am sure the House must have been gratified to hear the two speeches on this subject, and to see the two hon. Members supported by a considerable number of other Members on the Opposition side of the House—Members who as a rule support the policy of Free Trade. I rise only to say that it is gratifying to those who believe in the policy of protecting home industries from the ravages of foreign competition to see many Members of the Liberal party urging the Minister who represents the Scottish Office to press upon the Government what really amounts to the adoption of the policy which every other civilized industrial country in the world has for some time past adopted.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

As to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I say only that I am surprised that a case of such seriousness should be made fun of. I have nothing to add to the admirable case which has been made out for the fishermen, but before we have a reply from the representative of the Scottish Office I would like to refresh his memory by reading to him a portion of Section 32 of the Crofters' Act. It says: For the purpose of enabling the Fishery Board for Scotland, established under the Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882, to make advances by way of loans to persons engaged in the prosecution of the fishing industry, whether crofters or others in crofting parishes, in all or any of the counties to which this Act applies, abutting on the sea, it shall be lawful for the Treasury to advance to the Fishery Board such sums as may from time to time be placed at their disposal by Parliament for the purpose. In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend this afternoon, I understood that there was no money for the purpose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Scottish Office said that he was sympathetic, but that there was no money. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the Board can get the money if Parliament chooses to place it at its disposal.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland)

I have been unwilling to cut short this Debate, knowing how keenly hen. Members on all sides of the House feel the plight in which this great industry has been placed. Before dealing with the argument which has been put forward, I would say in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) that he seems to take an optimistic view when he says the main difficulty will be got over now that we have got power to spend this money, if only we can get the Treasury to place it at our disposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Parliament!"] He may perhaps realise, in the many years to come, during which he will no doubt honourably represent his constituency in Parliament, that there is considerable difficulty in obtaining monics from the Treasury or from the Government for the subsidy of any one particular industry —[HON. MEMBERS: "What about loans? "] —I merely say that there is great difficulty in obtaining a subsidy for any particular industry, as against any other particular industry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Dolls eyes

Captain ELLIOT

I will deal with the case so eloquently urged by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). His speech was divided into two sections one with which we are all in accord, namely, our admiration for the fishermen of Great Britain, and our appreciation of the desperate plight to which this industry has been reduced. On the constructive side- of his speech, he seemed to minimise the difficulties in which we find ourselves when we attempt to take practical steps to remedy the state of affairs. One of these difficulties was brought out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. F. Martin). The speeches to-night have all been based on the necessity, the advisability and the usefulness, of the Government making advances under a Section of the Crofters Act which was quoted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton).

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, in pointing out the grave state of the fishing industry in his constituency, seemed to have forgotten that his constituency is precluded by Statute from receiving any assistance under this Act, which only applies to certain crating counties in the Highlands, and has no reference whatever to the counties of Aberdeen and Kincardineshire, which he represents. That is one example of the difficulties with which we are confronted. [Interruption.] Perhaps, if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) represented a Scottish constituency, he would grasp the fact that, while this industry is a very important one in general, to a Scottish constituency—and especially to a fishing constituency —it is very important, and hon. Members who bring it forward do so because they are interested to see everything possible done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am supporting my hon. Friends in this matter, although the fishing industry in Hull is in a very prosperous condition.

Captain ELLIOT

I quite admit the fact, but I beg my hon. and gallant Friend to realise that what the hon. Member for Aberdeen was pointing out was that this particular industry was not in a prosperous condition, but was suffering grievous hardships. The Act which has been mentioned as a panacea is one under which the fishermen of his constituency are precluded by Statute from deriving any benefit.

Mr. MARTIN

May I correct the hon. and gallant Member? I specifically suggested that he should consult the Fishery Board for Scotland with a view to assisting all the share fishermen on the East Coast.

Mr. STURROCK

The hon. and gallant Member should address his main argu- ment to the question of the fishing interests on the East Coast and the North Coast, without dwelling, at this late hour, on one particular section, and snaking a debating point which is not a point of substance.

Captain ELLIOT

I am willing to address myself to the argument as a whole, but on a question raised on the Motion for the Adjournment I consider it is a little hard, when one addresses oneself to the examination of the specific remedy brought forward by the hon. Members who have raised this question—

Mr. STURROCK

We tried to raise the matter before Easter.

Captain ELLIOT

My hon. Friend who interrupts is no doubt desirous of speaking also, but I regret to say that I cannot oblige him on this occasion. The herring fishery, undoubtedly, is undergoing, and has undergone since the War, the gravest hardships. There are, undoubtedly, special points which commend this industry, of all industries, to the interest of the people of this country. The debt which we owe to our seamen, and our fishermen in particular, it is impossible to over-estimate; but let the House remember that the debt has already been recognised in some fashion by the Government; that for two years, in 1919 and 1920, the most drastic steps were taken by the Government to support this industry. In the year 1919 a third of the catch was purchased by the Government to keep up the price which the fishermen were receiving for their catch.

In 1920, not a third of the catch, but over 90 per cent. of the catch, was purchased by the Government, and on the two transactions for Scotland alone the Government loss was over £500,000. To this must be added the loss over the English fisheries, because hon. Members in other parts of the House will realise that it is impossible to support the Scottish herring fisheries alone without also taking steps to support those of England, and in the two years, 1919 and 1920, the Government supplied what was in effect a subsidy to the herring fishery of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, amounting to a loss of not less than £1,000,000. The hon. Member raised one or two other questions. One was the question of illegal fishing in the Moray Firth. I am greatly interested in that. We are examining that question at the present time.

Mr. MACPHERSON

Are you going to appoint the Committee

Captain ELLIOT

I cannot promise to appoint a Committee at the present moment. In regard to the point about illegal trawling around the coasts the Fishery Board is taking steps to deal with it, and in regard to the general question of making advances under the Act for the purchase of gear by fishermen, it is not possible far me to make an advance on the position I have had before to take up in the House that the advance of money by the Government for this purpose is not one which they can see their way to undertake. Coming to the question of the Crofters' Act, 1896, no advances have been made under that since 1891.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPRAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.