HL Deb 23 June 1903 vol 124 cc213-25

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to offer some criticisms and to ask for some explanation on the Bill which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has just submitted to your Lordships. The Bill, as your Lordships will observe, is one to transfer to the Board of Agriculture powers and duties relating to the fishing industry. The powers which are now exercised by a Department of the Board of Trade with regard to the fisheries of this country are to be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and that Board henceforth is to be known as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. What I venture to ask the noble Earl is this: whether he will explain what connection there is between the fishing industry of the United Kingdom and the great national industry of agriculture. It must inevitably have been considered by the Government, and I shall wait to hear the explanation of the noble Earl. As your Lordships are aware, the Board of Agriculture was constituted by an Act of 1879, which came into operation in the year 1890. It took over the powers with regard to contagious diseases of cattle and other germane matters which were previously possessed by a Department of the Privy Council under the Lord President; it took over the duties hitherto exercised by the Tithe Commissioners and the Land Commissioners, and it also took under its care the very important and the very extensive business of the Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom. I think your Lordships will agree that all these matters are cognate to the business of agriculture. But now it is proposed for the first time to transfer to the Board of Agriculture duties that have no reference whatever to the business which the Board was constituted to carry on, and the question that has occurred to some agriculturists, at any rate, is this, what relation is there between the great fishing industry of this country and the great national industry of agriculture? What benefit will such a transference as is proposed by this Bill be to agriculture, and what effect will it have upon the future usefulness of the Board of Agriculture? Although I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to give a sufficient explanation, I am bound to say that at first view I do not see what connection there possibly is between fisheries and agriculture.

There may, of course, be some occult reason for this of which I am not aware, and it is for the purpose of eliciting that reason from the noble Earl that I have ventured to put this question to him. I do not for a moment wish to deny that the fishing industry is of the greatest importance to the country, and it may be necessary and right that the duties in connection with that great industry should either be placed under a separate Board or handed over to some other department of the State. It is said that the Board of Trade has too much to do at the present moment and that its Department of fisheries does not receive all that attention that those who are interested in the fisheries would like; but what I venture to say in the name of a considerable number of agriculturists is this, that the Board of Agriculture, which was constituted to assist them in their industry, should not be made the dumping ground for the surplus products of the Board of Trade. So far as the expansion of the Board of Agriculture is concerned, I have no objection to it; on the contrary, I have always advocated it, but I think it desirable that that expansion should be in the direction of those subjects which are beneficial to the agricultural industry.

If there were no ways in which expansion could be made in this direction I should perhaps not offer any criticism as to the addition of these duties, but there are many directions in which the Board of Agriculture could be usefully expanded in a manner which ought to benefit agriculturists generally. There is the question of the Veterinary Department. I have not a single word to say against those able and capable officers, with whom I have had the honour to work in the past; but I think that their Department might be in some way expanded and made more useful to agriculturists generally. They might be encouraged to make experiments in bacteriological research and other scientific matters which would benefit agriculture as a whole. Then there is the matter of chemistry. I hope to hear that the question of chemistry, which is so useful to the scientific culture of the land, has been considered in any view of expansion of the duties of the Board of Agriculture. Then there is the question of botany. I am glad to hear that Kew Gardens have now been taken over by the Board of Agriculture. There was another Board of Agriculture some years ago which was not so fortunate as the noble Earl's Board to obtain assistance from the Treasury to get Kew Gardens under its care. I remember that my attention was drawn very closely to the matter in 1893. Kew Gardens had for years past done excellent and efficient work for India and the colonies in botanical experiments, but I found that nearer home nothing at all had been done for agriculture in this direction. The finances were not so prosperous then as they are now, and if I could have obtained something like £150 a year Kew Gardens would have been under the care of the Board of Agriculture in 1893 instead of 1903.

There is another of these small Departments which has no political head and which I think the noble Lord might have included in his Bill if he was seeking for the expansion of his agricultural duties, and that is the Meteorological Department. The weather has certainly a great deal to do with agriculture, and any good forecast of the weather which could be obtained and circulated amongst farmers would be of great advantage to that industry. Some ten years ago an experiment was made in that direction, but the forecasts were only issued some twenty-four hours beforehand, and that fact made them rather useless for farmers who did not see them in time to make them of value. If the noble Earl could take over the Meteorological Department, I think it might be of use to agriculture generally. These departments have no political head, but are practically under the Treasury, and I have very grave doubts myself whether it is for the advantage or the efficiency of those particular Departments that they should be solely represented by the Treasury in the House of Commons. The Treasury is certain to do everything possible to promote economy, and I venture to think that if the Departments were gathered under the Board of Agriculture and under a responsible Minister of the Crown, their efficiency would be better looked after.

I come now to the largest of these Departments which might have been included under the Board of Agriculture—the Office of Woods and Forests. It is well known that when the Act was passed constituting the Board of Agriculture, it was then discussed whether the Office of Woods and Forests should not be included as a Department of the Board of Agriculture. There were of course objections, and there may be objections now to such a course, but, so far as I know, the advantages which would accrue to the agricultural interests by such an incorporation would certainly outweigh any objections which I have heard up to the present moment. I imagine that there are very few in the Board of Agriculture who have any practical connection with the management of land. The Office of Woods and Forests manages the Crown lands of this country, and by making that Department a part of the Board of Agriculture, the latter Board would obtain a practical knowledge of the management of land which would be of great advantage, not only to them, but to agriculturists generally. I believe the Treasury object to that proposal on the ground that it might not be so economical, but that is not borne out by contemporary history. The same change which I am advocating took place in Prussia in the year 1879, when the State lands of that kingdom were transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Agriculture, and the result of that transference has been highly beneficial—beneficial from the point of view of economy of management, and in another direction, for it has brought in considerably increased revenue. The Board of Agriculture was constituted to assist an industry which, though it may not be quite so depressed as it was in 1893, is certainly not in that flourishing condition which we should all wish, and therefore it is that I question the wisdom of the transfer of any duty to the Board of Agriculture which is not germane to agriculture as a whole.

I think there are some agriculturists who would say that if any transference of duties from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture is to be made it had better be that Department which is connected with railways and railway rates rather than the Department con- nected with the fisheries of the country. I have ventured to put before your Lordships some criticisms with regard to this Bill, and I hope I shall obtain from the noble Earl the explanations I have asked for. I cannot, however, sit down without saying that we welcome the noble Earl as the President of the Board of Agriculture in this House. I will not go into the somewhat delicate question of whether the head of the Department of Agriculture should be in this House or in another place, except perhaps to say that there is possibly no assembly in this country which is more closely connected with the business of agriculture and which contains amongst its members those more closely connected with practical agriculture than your Lordships' House. I admit that the question is a debatable one. But if you are going to extend the Board of Agriculture and raise it to a position of greater influence and wider scope I do not think it ought to be represented in the other House except by a direct official of the Board. Mr. Fellowes is the representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House. I had the pleasure of sitting in the House of Commons with Mr. Fellowes and I know him to be a practical agriculturist. I know him to have represented an agricultural constituency and to have taken deep interest in agricultural matters for a long time past, but I think it would be advisable, as he will have to take charge of the Bills as well as the Estimates of the Department, that we should have some direct representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House rather than a minor Minister brought in as a kind of charwoman. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, but if the explanation for which I have asked is not satisfactory I reserve to myself the right of opposing or amending the measure in its future stages.

*LORD HENEAGE

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will not think me discourteous if I do not go into all the details of agriculture of which he has spoken. I have not the slightest fear that the Minister of Agriculture will be overworked by having the duties with regard to fisheries added to those he now possesses. I speak as one who is quite as much interested in agriculture as in fisheries, as one who has been Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture as well as one who is now President of the Sea Fisheries Association, and I do not see why there should not be a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries looking after the harvest of the sea and of the land at the same time. I for one venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having introduced this Bill. I know that there has been some delay, but they are in no way to blame for it. I do hope that now the Bill has been introduced it will not only be pressed forward in this House and in the other House, but that no time will be lost in bringing it into operation. I am glad to see that all the duties with regard to fisheries now supposed to be performed by the Board of Trade are to be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am also very glad to see that the Government have acceded to the request of the Shell Fisheries Association that shell fisheries should also be placed under the same Minister. I would venture to suggest, on that point, to my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, that he will require larger powers than he has now to deal with the oyster question, and I would refer him to a Report of your Lordships' Committee some three or four years ago presided over by Lord Harris, and of which the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Wenlock and myself were Members. We went thoroughly into this question. There was no difference between the Local Government Board, who introduced the Bill, and the Committee except on one point. We were agreed that powers were required to stop the pollution of the oyster beds, and as the local government authorities were most to blame we thought that the Local Government Board ought not to have those powers but that the powers should be given to the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade. On that point we were so divided that the Bill was not proceeded with.

As I so strongly support the Bill, and knowing that every Sea Fisheries Association, Salmon Fisheries Association, and Shell Fisheries Association are strongly in favour of it, I am sorry to utter one note of discord, but I notice in Sub-section 2 of Clause 3 some words to which I do not think we can possibly agree. I am well aware of the reason for which those words have been put in. The Act is to come into force on October 1, but the Treasury are allowed, if they choose, to postpone the operation of the Act till April 1 next year. That is not in the interest of the sea fisheries, or of the Minister who is going to take charge of the sea fisheries in the future. If these duties had been transferred from the Board of Trade ten or fifteen years ago the Department might have been taken over as a going concern, and everyone would have been perfectly satisfied, but the sea fisheries Department of the Board of Trade at the present moment is positively worthless. It is not worth taking over. I am saying what everyone connected with the fisheries industry will endorse. The noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well that resolutions have been passed giving me full authority to speak on behalf of the fisheries on this question. I do hope that an efficient staff will be given to the noble Earl, and that he will hold out for an efficient staff, and not be content to take over men who are thoroughly useless to him. But we would prefer that the Act should come into operation in October and that we should have a Minister, to whom we could go, with full authority to look into all the questions postponed throughout the present year, even without an efficient and thoroughly equipped Department, than that the operation of the Act should be postponed. The deputations which I was requested by the Sea Fisheries Conference at Grimsby to arrange with the Prime Minister had been put off at Mr. Balfour's request during the transfer of the duties from one Department to another, but if the operation of this Bill is to be postponed until April next, it simply means that every one of these questions will have to be deferred for a further year, as there would be no time for legislation. So strongly do I feel with regard to this matter, that I shall move to strike out in Committee the power given to the Treasury in this Sub-section.

*THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Earl on having introduced this Bill. I do so because the Irish Board of Agriculture, to whom the duties of the Fisheries Commissioners in Ireland were transferred, are able to do a great deal more for our fisheries than the old Commissioners did, and they are sympathetic with the wants of those interested in the fisheries. The noble Lord opposite inquired what fisheries have to do with agriculture. I would point out that fish that are cultivated in inland waters are just as much the harvest of the land as coin is. Then the noble Lord went on to say that he hoped the Board of Agriculture was not to be made the dumping ground of the Board of Trade. The real truth of the matter is that the Board of Trade have not very much to dump, because they take no interest whatever in fisheries, especially in inland fisheries. I hold in my hand a Report upon the Salmon Fisheries of Great Britain, and it would make one almost cry to see the effect of river pollution and the stoppages in those rivers which prevent salmon reaching the upper waters. Therefore I welcome this Bill, bearing in mind the good that our Board of Agriculture has done in this matter in Ireland. The noble Lord opposite referred to the date of the Bill coming into force. He Knows a great deal more about sea fisheries than I do, but I must say that the sooner the inland fisheries of this country are looked after by a competent Department the better; therefore I sincerely hope that the Treasury will not "put their finger in the pie" and that the Bill will come into operation on 1st October next.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW)

My Lords, I ventured to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill without adding any words of my own in explanation of it at the moment, because it is an extremely simple Bill and one which really needs no explanation at all. It is simply a transfer to the Board of Agriculture of duties which have hitherto been performed by the Board of Trade. It is not, as my noble friend opposite appeared to think, a Bill for the expansion of the powers of the Board of Agriculture, so I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him into all those duties which, in his opinion, might with greater advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture. All I will say is that I sympathise with a great deal of what he said on that subject. I think, so far as I have been able to see in the short time that I have had the honour of being President of the Department, that there are many subjects which might with advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, not necessarily from other Departments, but matters which really are not at this moment under the charge of any responsible Minister, but are under that sort of general omnibus arrangement which gives over everything that is not under the charge of some other Minister to the Treasury.

I am asked by my noble friend what is the connection between agriculture and fisheries. I admit that the word agriculture in its derivation, does not include the harvest of the sea, but at the same time your Lordships are aware that the fish supply in this country is one of the most important from the point of view of food. The Department over which I preside is essentially the Department which is connected with the food supply of the people, and therefore, I think that as we have already for many years had under our care the loaves, it is not too much to ask that Parliament should add to them the fishes. My noble friend Lord Heneage suggested that further powers in connection with the pollution of oyster beds should also be transferred, not from the Board of Trade, but from the Local Government Board, to the Board of Agriculture. I venture to point out to your Lordships that that is a matter which is connected with a very much wider subject — namely, the public health. Public health has always been under the Local Government Board, and I am not prepared at this moment to ask to take over any of those duties. I believe that before this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, I shall have time to consider the composition of the staff of the Fisheries Department of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I trust I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord that that staff will be a sufficient and an efficient one, but I can assure him that the date of the coming into operation of the Act has nothing to do with the question of the composition of the staff. I am as anxious as he is that the transfer should take place at the earliest possible date. I have every reason to believe that it will take effect in the month of October next. The noble Lord must know that there are certain arrangements which have to be made in connection with the Estimates. If this Bill passes into law, it will be necessary to supplement the Vote of the Board of Agriculture by the amount necessary to carry on the business for the rest of the financial year, although, at the same time, of course, an almost equivalent saving will be effected upon the Vote for the Board of Trade. All those things have got to be arranged, and it is only as a precautionary measure that the date may be extended. But if the noble Lord will put down an Amendment I will give it my earnest consideration and see if something can be done to meet his views. I am glad that the Bill meets with approval, and trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, I do not wish to throw cold water on the Bill, or attempt to damp the ardour of those who have so readily accepted it. But I do wish to point out to my noble friend that in assuming the duties of Minister of Fisheries he is assuming no light duties, but duties which will give him a considerable amount of work and bring him a great many communications and not a new protests. My noble friend has attempted to show that the subjects of agriculture and fisheries fall together naturally. I think he will find that there are a great many differences between them, that even the fateful word "protection" is interpreted in an entirely different way by agriculturists and fishermen. But, after all, I am afraid that the powers of the Fisheries Department are comparatively limited The Fisheries Department can, of course, do a great deal in the way of collecting statistics, supplying knowledge, and carrying on scientific inquiry, pro- vided always it can get the necessary funds from the Treasury, and of course, so far as in-shore fisheries are concerned, it can do something by way of the promotion of legislation and encouraging district fisheries committees to do their work. After all, these in-shore fisheries are a comparatively small part of the British fisheries. The main fishing ground is in the North Sea, and it is exploited not by British fishermen alone, but by the fishermen of the whole of Northern Europe. My noble friend will find that if his Department really intends to secure improvement in the condition of our fisheries in the North Sea, it will only be possible to do so by calling in his colleague the Foreign Minister and by securing joint action among all the Powers who send fishing fleets into the North Sea.

Take the question of immature fish. It may be very desirable, and it may do a certain amount of good, to endeavour to secure that in our own inland waters fish get some chance of existence; but, after all, the great home of these young fish is not on our shores but on the shores of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and those great flats opposite our own shores on the other side of the North Sea, and unless you can get the countries bordering on those waters to join with you, unless yon can get those countries which send fleets to the North Sea to combine with you in joint action, you will never be able to make a permanent improvement in the fisheries of the North Sea. With regard to our salmon fisheries, I think there is there a great opportunity for a Minister of Fisheries. The case is ripe to be dealt with. The inquiry necessary before the Government can act is, I believe, complete, and has been carried on under the ægis of the present Government. You have had inquiries and Commissions. There is an extraordinary mass of the latest opinion gathered together, and I venture to urge that the time has come when this question of the salmon fisheries of the British Isles should be taken up in a thorough manner. The first thing you want is uniformity of legislation for the British Isles. This question of the salmon fisheries is not merely one of the propagation and security of the salmon. Involved in it also are the great questions of pollution of rivers and the water supply, so that when you are dealing with the question of salmon fisheries you are also dealing in a thoroughly practical manner with two of the great necessities of a healthy existence—namely, the question of the water supply and also the question of the freedom of the rivers from pollution. I do think that these are subjects which might well be taken up by the new Minister of Fisheries. I hope my noble friend will take them up and will make it his business to press his colleagues in the Government to deal with the subject, which I believe is of immense importance, not only from the point of view of the food of the people, but also from the point of view of the health and comfort of the inhabitants of these islands.

On question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.