HL Deb 21 June 1934 vol 93 cc123-7

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Constitution of local fisheries committees.

1.—(1) The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act") shall, so far as regards any local fisheries committee to be constituted or reconstituted after the commencement of this Act, have effect as if for subsection (2) of Section one of the said Act of 1888 (which subsection relates to the constitution of local fisheries committees) there were substituted the following subsection:—

(2) The local fisheries committee for a sea-fisheries district shall be a committee of such county council, or a committee of such borough council, or a joint committee of such councils, being county councils or borough councils, as may be determined by the order creating the district, and shall consist of—

  1. (i) such number of members to be appointed by the council, or by the constituent councils in such proportions, and
  2. (ii) such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district,
as may be so determined.

LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), in paragraph (ii) of substituted subsection (2), after "least," to insert "chosen by the fishermen in the locality or nominated by the Minister from persons having special knowledge of the needs of the fishermen, and including one representative at least".

The noble Lord said: I have only this one Amendment on the Order Paper, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is rather important, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is acceptable. At present the paragraph, if your Lordships will permit me to read it, runs as follows: such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district. If the Amendment is accepted it will then read in this way: such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, chosen by the fishermen in the locality or nominated by the Minister from persons having special knowledge of the needs of the fishermen, and including one representative at least of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district. That would make it obligatory to find in some way some person or each committee who could speak directly for the fishermen themselves, which at present is not allowed for under any existing Act or under this Bill.

On the Motion for the Second Reading I raised this matter and the noble Earl was very sympathetic indeed and said he would look into it; but he pointed out—as indeed I admitted in my own remarks—that it was very often difficult to get the working fisherman, the active fisherman, or his direct representative to serve on such a committee. That is admitted, of course, but arising out of that I have here a letter of which I will, with your Lordships' leave, read one short paragraph, from the Transport and General Workers' Union, who organise the fishermen at all the principal fishing ports. They say, referring of course to this Bill and to the debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion for the Second Reading: The question of representation upon the committees is an important one, however, and if it were possible to secure direct representation of fishermen it would be an advantage. I notice that Earl De La Warr referred to the difficulty of getting practical fishermen to take part in these committees, but if it were an instruction from the Minister to consult the organisations of the men, the difficulty could be overcome. In a number of the ports the crews are now well organised. Milford Haven, Swansea, Fleet-wood, South Shields, Hall and Grimsby have well-established organisations or branches of this union, and I am quite sure that with consultation adequate representation could be found. This is one of the largest unions in the country, and they are very easy people to deal with in these matters, as everyone of your Lordships who has had dealings with them knows.

They deal with fishermen, dockers, and waterworkers on the inland waterways. They are a very well-led union under Mr. Ernest Bevin, and they always try to work with the local authorities, with the Ministry, and with all the other people concerned in their particular industry. They are a most terrible fighting union when it comes to a strike, as anyone who has had anything to do with dockers knows, but, perhaps for that reason, they always try to smooth over difficulties and to look after the interests of their members by negotiation and consultation. If I may suggest it, I think the noble Earl would be well advised to accept this Amendment, and to try to find his suitable people by consultation with the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is done in the case of other joint bodies dealing with the interests of workmen and employers, and there is no difficulty at all. Since the original committees were set up the fishermen have become much better organised, and there is now somebody to speak for them in many fishery districts. For that reason I commend this Amendment to your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, after ("least") insert the said new words.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

EARI, DE LA WARR

I should have very much liked to accept this Amendment, because I think we all realise that the noble Lord who has just spoken is entirely friendly to the Bill, and he has brought forward a point with which I think we must all have the very greatest sympathy; but unfortunately the purpose of his Amendment goes in a direction exactly opposite to that in which the remainder of the Bill goes. That is not to say that we are anxious not to have fishermen's representatives on the committees, but we are anxious that the Minister should have a freer hand in the choice of representatives, for the very reason that the noble. Lord has put forward, that it is difficult as things are to obtain representatives. The noble Lord suggested that we might consult the Transport and General Workers' Union, the fishermen's organisation, but that really does not help us in dealing with the in-shore fishermen, who are not in any way organised.

I think the real point of substance in what the noble Lord has put forward is the question of payment—not payment of travelling expenses, because that can be done, but payment for loss of time and subsistence. Upon that point, if we were dealing with a question which would be confined entirely to the fishery representatives, I think I may tell the noble Lord that he would meet with very great sympathy from the Ministry of Agriculture; but unfortunately, it raises the whole issue of the payment of subsistence allowances. I am quite prepared to admit to the noble Lord that there is a great deal to be said for it, but if we do it with regard to fishery representatives, why not on all the local authorities? The noble Lord would be in favour of that, and he might find some of us not unsympathetic, but I think he will agree that we cannot deal with it on a Fisheries Regulation Bill. It is a matter of general policy with regard to the whole local government of the country. To come back to the specific Amendment, I hope the noble Lord will not press it, but will be content with the very definite and sincere assurance on our behalf that we do intend, as we have done in the past, to do everything we can to see that we get hold of representatives of the fishermen themselves. I can give him that very genuine assur- ance, that we will do all that we can, but we are faced with the difficulty which I have already mentioned.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

My Lords, I would like to say a word in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend, and after the sympathetic way in which it has been treated by the noble Earl, I feel sure that if he will consult with those who advise him on the subject, on the Report stage he may be able to yield to the representations made by my noble friend behind me, because although of course we accept his assurance in a quite unqualified manner, an assurance by a Minister is not the same thing as a clause in a Bill. We feel therefore that we are justified in pressing this matter just a little further.

LORD STRABOLGI

I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.