Clause 2.—(Financial assistance for CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND REPAIR OF FISHING FACILITIES.) (Hansard, 28 February 1955)

§ Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)
I shall not detain the Committee for any length of time at this hour, but I should like to ask one or two questions about the Clause, which is of great importance to constituencies which have inshore fishing harbours. As I understand it, the grants for harbour improvements are made at present by the Treasury upon the advice provided from the Development Commission. But, in practice, in the case of Scotland the Development Commissioners, before recommending a grant, always go to the Scottish Home Department and ask for advice.
The Commissioners comprise, I believe, of seven or eight unpaid members, only one of whom represents Scotland. It must be clear, therefore, that the advice of the Scottish Home Department has been decisive in any consideration by the Treasury of whether a grant should be made.
I have no complaints about the way in which the present procedure has worked, but I have had recent experience, however, with regard to the harbour at Gourdon, in my constituency, where an improvement to the breakwater of the outer harbour and improvement to the quays and quay walls cost£27,000. That was a very heavy cost indeed. There was also a sum for harbour lighting.
Everyone was extremely helpful. We had very good advice from the Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association, whose jurisdiction extends as far north as my constituency. The Kincardineshire County Council, which is the harbour authority, was very helpful, and so was the Scottish Home Department. We received a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost. I do not complain about that, but 1844 it so happens that the grant does not really cover the cost.
The amount to be found by the county council is such that I am afraid it is almost inevitable that it will have to ask for increased landing dues on the fish landed in that harbour. In a small county like Kincardineshire the sums which are necessary to meet capital costs of improvements of this order on comparatively small harbours like Gourdon, Johnshaven and Stonehaven, together with the annual cost of maintenance of the harbours, are such that almost inevitably it is more than the harbour authority can bear, and more than the rates can bear without a considerable increase in landing dues.
It seems to me entirely justified that when the joint Under-Secretary, representing the Secretary of State, takes over responsibility for these harbours from the Development Commissioners, he should consider the ease of small counties like Kincardineshire, and that the grants should be generous, because these small harbours are harbours of refuge to shipping in times of storm.
Will the grants which are contemplated under the Clause coyer harbour lighting, which is an expensive item? It is not clear from the wording whether the Clause also covers the erection of fish markets at the pier head. That is something which is very often required. I hope that it is covered by the Clause. I plead with the Joint Under-Secretary that the Clause should be interpreted as widely and as generously as possible.

§ Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)
We have two great problems on the East Coast, one of recent origin and one of very ancient origin. They are the problem of erosion and the problem of flooding. I was very disappointed to find, on Second Reading, that the sum envisaged in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum in respect of harbours was more or less stabilised at£291,000 a year. I hope very much that the Minister will tell us that that sum can be extended ad infinitum—if that is the proper phrase.
It is obvious if we are going to have a limited sum, the position will be difficult when flooding or erosion takes place, as it does on the East Coast. I am hoping that these harbour grants will be available for the restitution of harbour works 1845 and that where necessary, it will be possible to make an arrangement with the coast protection authority where danger is caused by surrounding erosion and by flooding. I should like some sort of an assurance that we are not going to be tied down to the global sum of£291.000.

§ Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)
I should like to support what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said, that there should be a certain degree of flexibility in order to meet coast defence needs. Attention was drawn to that aspect on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I trust that the Minister will make a reference to it, and confirm that there is flexibility and that we are not limited to this sum.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)
I can give that assurance immediately, and say that it was given by the Minister of Agriculture in the Second Reading debate. In reply to a question of a similar nature by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) he said: As far as I know there is no limit whatever on the amount."—[Official Report, 14th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 39.] Each case will be considered on its merits, as it has been in the past.
The figure here is an estimate of what we fancy may be the expenditure next year, based upon our experience in the past year or two. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that applications will always be looked at in as generous and as liberal fashion as possible. But that is nor. quite ad infinitum as suggested by the hon. Member for Lowestoft.

§ Mr. Edward Evans
I could not think of a better term.

§ Mr. Stewart
No, I think we all appreciate that.
As to Gourdon Harbour, as my hon. Friend knows, there is an application by the county council before us now for a very substantial scheme costing a good deal of money, and that is being examined. I have no doubt that items such as harbour lighting and fish markets could quite properly be included in an application for a scheme under this Clause, but again each case must be examined and approved on its merits. That being so I hope that I 1846 have satisfied those who have asked questions.