HL Deb 06 April 1949 vol 161 cc1038-50

3.34 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS rose to call attention to the state of the harbours used by the inshore fishing industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid that since I put this. Motion down on the Order Paper it has become, rather unfortunately, topical as the result of the cut in the meat ration, but I think it is perhaps fitting that, in the week when this terrible thing has occurred, this House should consider promoting a remedy by increasing our fishing industry. So, although the Motion came on to-day purely by accident, it is, perhaps, not altogether a bad thing.

As your Lordships well know, this country is provided by nature with a singularly large number of good harbours, and men, at one time or another, have added a good deal to them and have built new ones. But I do not wish to call to your Lordships' attention all the harbours of this country—that would be rather too large a subject with which to deal in an odd corner of an afternoon. I wish only to bring to your notice questions relating to the smaller harbours which are of use to the inshore fishing industry. There are, of course, many large harbours which are used by the inshore fishing industry, but these are, in general, in the hands of public corporations or large companies and they are fairly well kept up. Where they have any shortcomings, they are shortcomings of a particular nature; each case needs dealing with separately and cannot be made the subject of a general debate. I would like to call to your Lordships' attention harbours of smaller size than these—the little harbours where a few fishing boats shelter behind an old stone quay or in some little creek or inlet, and where stone work or, perhaps, dredging work, which has put the place in a condition to receive ships, may have been carried out some time ago. In many instances a great deal of work on these harbours is needed, and I think your Lordships will agree that this is a matter to which the attention of this House should be called.

As your Lordships may know, fishing boats, and especially the small inshore fishing boats, have not a very great range. They cannot travel very great distances and they must not go far away from shelter. They can fish only at spots where their crews feel that, should the weather become heavy, they can get rid of their gear and make for shelter—in short, that they can cut and run for it. If these boats have no home within reasonable distance to which to go, they are in trouble, and they may be in very serious trouble. The fish, on the other hand, are by no means so limited in the matter of travel. They move along the coast according to the seasons and according to their own whims, and the fishing boats try to follow them. If there is an area of the coast—and this is the case with regard to quite large stretches of our coat—where there is no small harbour readily available for the smaller fishing craft, the fish, so to speak, "get away with it." As I say, the fish quite often move according to the season, and this may mean that a fishing boat working out of one harbour may follow the fish to the limit of its area, and then, as there is no harbour immediately beyond that point which it can use, it has to leave the fish and return home. That may mean giving up fishing until the season comes round again. I submit that it is therefore most important that we should maintain not only the big harbours but an adequate chain of small harbours all round our coast, to make certain that wherever the fish go our fishermen can follow.

The harbours to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention are little harbours of whose names you probably have not heard, unless you happen to belong to those parts of the country or have taken holidays there. Such harhours are, in fact, scattered along the whole length of our coast line. Some of them are, perhaps, harbours with walls, built, as so many of them were, by some old quarrying company or some old mining company. It may have been, in some instances, that they were built by a farmer, in order to enable small coasters to come in bringing limestone to be converted into lime for dressing the fields. But in the case of the majority of these little harbours you will find that the authority which originally built them has ceased to exist.

I can call several of these harbours to mind. I know one where a quarrying company built a little stone jetty to enable coasters to be brought in. Small fishing craft now use it and find good shelter behind it. But quarrying activities ceased years ago. No one is looking after the quay now; the sea has beheaded it for a length of some thirty yards and the area of sheltered water behind it gets smaller and smaller each year. As the sheltered water diminishes, the fishing craft disappear also. Another case I call to mind is one where there is a most interesting old jetty, originally built by the Romans, which is still fundamentally sound but is becoming damaged by the sea. Its original owners, of course, have gone some time now, and it has fallen into the hands of a large authority who own a considerable area of land and who are taking little care of the harbour and do not seem inclined to let anybody else take care of it, either. As a result, a very picturesque and useful little harbour, which for many years has been crowded with small fishing craft, is becoming emptier and emptier, and the time is foreseeable in the very near future when there will be no craft left there at all.

We must consider further that there are a number of inlets, bays and stretches of sheltered or nearly sheltered water, which not only have jetties which need looking after but which also would be much improved—and it would pay us to improve them—not merely by keeping the old works in repair, but by building new ones. I understand that it is the idea of the fishing industry to go in for a larger and more seaworthy type of coastal fishing boat. I think that is a magnificent idea. We so often find an English fishing craft and a big French sea-going fishing craft lying on their nets somewhere off our coast. A bit of a blow comes up. The Frenchman, using his greater seaworthiness, tucks his head in and stays there through the blow, riding to his nets. The small English craft, not being able to take so much, has to cut his nets and run for shelter, losing not only his catch but most likely his nets—a thing which should never occur. It might be of interest to His Majesty's Government to know that in general they are not the fishermen's nets but the nets of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, who pay considerable sums of money for them. To know that these nets are left lying around at the bottom of the sea must give the Minister a certain amount of pain.

Larger fishing boats must have decent harbours to go to, and there are so many places in our rocky coast lines where even a small breakwater or jetty would create a patch of deeper sheltered water for larger fishing boats, that something should be done to bring the importance of this matter to the attention of the fishing industry and the local authorities. The Minister needs no further powers. The powers already in existence, in the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and in the special Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, are large enough. Both those Acts give the Minister powers to create harbour boards for the purpose of looking after small harbours. There is also the possibility of getting money for the purpose of erecting harbour walls and breakwaters from the Development Corporation, with the consent and backing of the Ministry of Agriculture. This money would be handed to a fishery harbour board which could be created by order of the Minister for the particular harbour where the work is needed. Although this power has been in existence for some time, it does not seem that local authorities and others interested in the coastal regions—the fishermen, the parish councils and the inhabitants in general—realise what they can do.

Over and over again we find fishermen, fishing from little boats in a small harbour or bay and selling their fish to the local fishmonger. When he is stocked up, he tells them he will take no more, and the fishermen limit their catch to the amount they know the fishmonger can take. I understand the Ministry are now doing their best to end this state of affairs by encouraging co-operatives of fishermen, who join together and arrange for transport to collect their catch and take it inland, where there is a larger demand for it. I am sure that this method must have the general agreement and approval of us all. But it does not seem to be realised that these fishermen's co-operatives can form the bases of harbour authorities by an order of the Minister under the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, and that once they are so constituted they can apply, through the Minister and the Development Corporation, for subsidies, in the form of either grants or loans for the purpose of erecting breakwaters and other facilities they need. As soon as it became clear to the Ministry that the fishing of that area would be thus improved, the loan would be granted.

I am not asking the Government to increase their powers in this regard. It is much more a matter of asking the Government to advertise their powers, to bring them to the notice of local authorities, to broadcast them so far as they can and generally to try to push people into doing that which is good for themselves and good for the country. That is the main reason for my raising this question to-day. I wish people to realise that they can get great help from the Ministry if they get together and do something about it, and that, if they can show good reason, help will not be withheld from them. Something must be done in this matter, because at the moment we have a position where rural district councils and other local bodies are receiving requests from local fishermen to maintain these small and (many of them) antiquated harbours, and the councils are simply saying, "We cannot do what you ask because it would add a vast sum to our rates." That is not true. It would not add a vast sum to their rates. I would like the noble Earl, when he replies, to say so, and to amplify, so far as he can, the remarks I have made. I beg to move for Papers.

3.50 p.m.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of this Motion, which I think is one that has long needed ventilating. Out of sight is out of mind, and what goes on round the coasts is not attended to quite so closely as these terrible accidents, as they were called this afternoon, which occur on the roads. If a woman is knocked down in Piccadilly, the reports of that incident occupy far more space in the newspapers than a trawler lost off, say, the Scottish coast. I think the present state of the Benches in your Lordships' House illustrates the difference between the interest in pedestrian crossings and that in ships lost at sea.

The noble Viscount who moved the Motion has spoken about fishermen and fish. I propose to leave the fish out of my remarks, but I do want to say something about the fishermen. The fishermen are one of the finest communities we have, and unfortunately that community is dwindling. The more we can do to improve the conditions of the fishermen, the better for the country. At certain times we badly need these men, and we want them now to assist in the difficult food situation. The man who goes out to sea to fish, or in any small craft for any purpose, must have an uncomfortable, wet, cold and tiring job. When one thinks of the difference between the conditions of the fishermen, and what I call the pampered conditions of people living on the land, one can understand the temptation to the fishermen to say: "Look at the fine time they are having, and I have to go out to sea to-night:" so, naturally, he turns to the shore. I shall not be considered impartial when I say that I think the men who live on the sea are better than anybody else.

It is not only the fishermen. All round the coast there are men sailing in trawlers, drifters and other small vessels. If they know there is a good harbour into which they can go to get out of danger, they will go there. In my view, it is far more dangerous to try to enter a harbour about which you are not sure than it is to ride out the gale at sea. There will be more trouble round the coasts with people coming into the country in aeroplanes, which may well come down in the sea. The more harbours we have, and the more the boats are dispersed around the coast, the greater chance of survival those people have. Then there are the lifeboats. I am sorry that the noble Earl, the President of the Lifeboat Institution, has left the Chamber. Lifeboats are very often at sea, and have to remain at sea because they cannot run for harbour. The harbours we have at present should be looked after so that every person on the sea may have in mind that he can run for harbour when there is danger. Many a lifeboat has been lost because it could not find anywhere to go. Every time a gale warning goes up, sooner or later a drifter or some small craft will run ashore and will be lost. There have been three cases in the last forty-eight hours where small vessels have come to grief. If there had been a harbour for them to go to they would have been safe. I do not mean that we should build harbours everywhere, but where we have them they should be kept in "apple-pie" order, and we should see that they serve a useful purpose.

3.54 p.m.

LORD MOUNTEVANS

My Lords, in Norway, the country to which I have to go to live cheaply, they have a saying "Alle gode ting er tre"—all good things are three. In supporting the noble Lord who moved this Motion and the noble Earl, Lord Cork, I find that all three of us are, or have been, sailors. Twenty-five years ago the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries were fortunate in their choice of a Hull solicitor, the late Harry Moss-Blundell, to be Chief Inspector of Fisheries. He had the interests of the fishermen at heart, as have the two noble Lords who have spoken on this Motion. But in those days of peace that Chief Inspector of Fisheries, of forceful character, who really knew his job, inculcated a spirit of support for the deep-sea fishermen—the men manning the trawlers from Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen. So much attention was paid to the deep-sea fishermen that the longshore fishermen (as Harry Moss-Blundell called them) in their small craft were undoubtedly neglected.

Civil Service administration takes a long time to work, and also to change, but to-day every fish should find a market. The world food shortage makes it imperative that the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, should receive immediate attention. I should like to support the noble Lords who have spoken, especially when, as has been said, a lady knocked down in Piccadilly will attract much more notice than the loss of half a dozen fishing boats, or the loss of gallant fishermen's lives. In the lifeboat service, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has given much attention—to the advantage of those who have had their lives saved, including myself recently—the voluntary crews who man the lifeboats are very often fishermen. The great point is that these harbours for small craft would house the lifeboats and make the lives of the crews more secure.

3.58 p.m.

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I would like to ask whether there has been a recent survey by his Department of the condition of the harbours on the east side of the Irish Sea—that is to say, in Cornwall, Devon, South Wales, West Wales and North Wales. We hear these days of the overfishing of the North Sea, and the great development of fishing right up to the Dogger Bank, and the like, and the serious danger of the extinction of white fish by overfishing. The Irish Sea has nothing like the North Sea in quantity or variety of fish, but I have felt of recent years (I have been on the coasts of Wales) that there has been a steady decline in the number of local fishing craft in that part of the country. I could understand that before the war when, with the cost of transport, and so on, fishing did not pay; but I am sure that with the shortage of food, increased prices and better organisation of transport those fishing grounds could now be revived. The noble Viscount who introduced the Motion knows Pembrokeshire much better than I do, but it seems to me that there are along that deeply indented coast many old places which used to support a number of inshore fishermen with small vessels but which to-day have hardly any fishermen at all. I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to that part of the world.

Of course, other factors arise in connection with that. On the coast of Wales that I know best—that is, round South Carnarvonshire—the harbours were maintained for the slate trade; and it was the slate quarrying which largely maintained the smaller harbours round Cardigan Bay. To-day the slates have to be delivered in a hurry, for the purpose of some local authority's housing scheme, and they are railed forthwith. In the old days they used to go leisurely round in the small coastal steamers, find their markets and depôts and await sale. The last war put the finishing touch on a lot of that kind of trade. I would ask the noble Earl to consider making a survey as to which of our harbours could best be renovated, and that serious efforts should be made to organise all the way up those coasts the extension and development of the longshore fishing industry.

4.3 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

My Lords, I rise for one moment only. I am aware that the noble Earl who is to reply will speak from the point of view of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the matter about which I desire to make a few remarks, the Scottish fishing industry, really comes under another Minister. But the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Scottish Fishery Department, work closely together, so I have no doubt that much of what the noble Earl says will be helpful to us in Scotland.

I would like to emphasise the importance of the Motion which has been raised by the noble Viscount. In Scotland, a great part of our economy is dependent on the fishing industry. Yesterday we passed an instrument in this House forming a new development area in the Cromarty Firth. Important as that may be in restoring a measure of prosperity to the Highlands, and in preventing depopulation, there is nothing so important as preserving the old indigenous industry of inshore fishing which is carried on all round the coast—and on the west coast in particular. One feature I would like to mention is the protection given by the Scottish fishery cruiser fleet. I cannot speak of what takes place round the coast of England, but during the war most of these vessels, as was to be expected, were absent on war service. Do I understand that they are now all back on duty? I do not expect the noble Earl to answer this point now, but I would be glad if he would ensure that the point is conveyed to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It would be encouraging to know that all these ships are again giving the measure of protection which is required for the security of inshore fishing. The importance of this old industry to all parts of the Kingdom, and especially to Scotland, cannot be neglected, and while promoting new industries, we should not in any way overlook one which has so strong a claim on our interests.

4.7 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has initiated a short but extremely interesting debate, and is to be congratulated on having supporters such as the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Mountevans. They have raised very far-reaching issues concerning our inshore fishing industry and its future development. In this, as with other industries, the position is gradually changing, and the tendency at present seems to be towards bigger ships, and for these ships to go out much further afield for bigger catches, coming back to larger harbours and ports. Just how far this is to the national interest, and how far, from the State point of view, we should support the inshore fishing industry, are very big questions and I would rather not deal with them this afternoon. I want to keep to the main point of the Motion—namely, the state of some of these inshore fishery harbours.

As the noble Viscount pointed out, the difficulty is that many of these harbours were originally built by private companies and, in many cases, the companies have ceased to exist or have no further interest in the harbours. In many cases, they are falling gradually into a state of disrepair. It is not really the responsibility of the Government to put these harbours back into repair, but in reasonable cases they will help towards the cost. I should like to give a short résumé of the situation to your Lordships and explain how far His Majesty's Government can help towards either a further extension of these harbours or the repair of broken sea walls or whatever else might be necessary.

As has already been mentioned this afternoon, the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, puts the small harbours—those harbours which are principally concerned with small fishing boats—under the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. These particular harbours are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. Under that same Act the Minister has power to appoint harbour authorities. The authorities may be appointed by order—by the Minister—subject to Parliamentary approval. The Minister cannot help in the matter of running costs but may make grants in respect of capital expenses. Further assistance may be given by the Treasury under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, towards the cost of capital works. That is the position.

What I would like to suggest to the noble Viscount is that the fishermen, or whoever are interested in a case of this nature, should submit a scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. That scheme will be carefully and sympathetically looked into. If it is a reasonable scheme, and is approved by the Treasury, it will probably be eligible for a grant. There is no prescribed level of grant; it would depend entirely on the scheme—its cost, and its probable use. If the schemes are sent to us we will certainly examine them and help in every way we can. The difficulty, as has been pointed out, is to persuade the people to originate their schemes. I do not see how we can do anything about that except to give publicity to the matter.

There is just one other question which I would like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked me whether a survey could be carried out. In fact a survey is now being undertaken in North Wales with the co-operation of the Fisheries Organisation Society. Finally, I should like to say that we do recognise the importance of these harbours, and we wish to be helpful. I hope noble Lords will realise, however, that this problem, of small, scattered harbours in very bad repair, sometimes owned by persons who are hard to find, is a difficult one. We realise that it is an important question and that it will have to be examined. In the meantime, we will give the matter all the sympathetic consideration that we can.

4.11 p.m.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any contact in this matter between his Department and the Ministry of Food? I have listened to this debate with great interest, and I realise that the matter has been presented to the House largely from the standpoint of the loss of industry to inshore fishermen who are unable to make the optimum use of harbours as of yore. The noble Viscount who in a most interesting speech initiated this debate, emphasised, so far as I could gather, the cessation or reduction of the activities of the fishermen owing to the dilapidated condition of so many of the small harbours. What I am rather anxious to know arises from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and it is this: has any sort of assessment been made of the loss of fish as the result of the non-repair and neglect of these small harbours? I happen to live on the Estuary of the River Severn which is about one-and-a-half miles across, looking over the river from my home. For several miles down the river, I have seen various small fisheries which in my young days were extremely active, disappear one after another. We are faced with an extreme shortage of meat—or, to be scientifically precise, a shortage of protein food. The most important alternative to meat as a source of protein food is fish; and it would be interesting to know whether, in fact, by further attention to our fisheries, especially on the West Coast, in which also I am interested, we might not materially augment the output and availability of fish.

I have only lately returned from a small and unimportant mission in connection with canned fruit (and incidentally canned fish) supplied by South Africa to this country. I came to the conclusion (and a very strong conclusion, to which I gave utterance before I left South Africa) that instead of exporting large quantities of canned fruit every effort should be made to expand the export of canned fish—and not only canned fish but, so far as possible, fresh fish. I am certain that in that and other parts of the British Commonwealth there is great scope for the enlargement of the fishing industry, with a view to a larger amount of fish becoming available for this country as the chief alternative to meat as a source of protein food. I venture to hope that this matter is exercising the minds of those who control the Ministry of Food as well as those who, like my noble friends opposite, are interested in such parts of the fishing industry as fall under their jurisdiction.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, if by leave of the House I might speak again, I should like to say that there is the closest co-operation between the Ministry of Food and my own Department at all levels on this subject. We have considered the question of harbours but there is no evidence that the state of the harbours is affecting the supply of fish in the country. We are, of course, extremely interested in getting as much fish as we can, and one could argue whether all help should not be given to the better and bigger ships rather than a large amount to inshore fisheries. I do not, however, want to raise that issue to-day.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I must thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been, though a small one, perhaps not one of the least interesting. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, in their efforts to publicise the possibilities, will make sure that local authorities are properly circularised on these subjects and that the noble Earl's words will not be confined solely to Hansard. Having said that, and knowing that your Lordships are all wishing to go and hear what has happened to your income, or what is to be done with it, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.