§ Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the reasons for the refusal of the Fishery Board for Scotland to recommend a grant for the improvement of Pittenweem harbour?
§ Mr. ElliotThe scheme of improvement contemplated by the harbour authority would involve an expenditure of over £8,000, and the authority desired a grant of three-fourths of the cost. The Fishery Board for Scotland came to the conclusion that the benefit to be derived from the proposed improvement was not commensurate with expenditure of that order.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many 1382W days in each of the years 1935 and 1936 fish were landed at the harbours of An-struther, St. Monance, and Pittenweem; how many fishermen regularly depend for their living upon Pittenweem harbour; and whether, in view of the all-the-year-round nature of the trade at Pittenweem, he will request the Fishery Board for Scotland to reconsider their recent decision with a view to recommending grants for necessary improvements to this harbour in order to preserve the trade and safeguard the lives of the fishermen concerned?
§ Mr. ElliotThe numbers of days on which landings of fish were made at the harbours of Anstruther, St. Monance and Pittenweem during 1935 and 1936 are as follow:
Days. Days. Harbour. 1935. 1936. Anstruther … 90 84 St. Monance … 95 94 Pitteweem … 294 298 The number of fishermen who are regularly employed from Pittenweem harbour is 120. The fishing carried on from these harbours is, however, of a different character—the two former having a seasonal herring fishing and being the home ports of herring fishermen who fish elsewhere during most of the year and Pittenweem being the base for fishing for white fish with small boats. As regards the last part of the question I am informed that a petition has been presented to the Fishery Board for Scotland by the town council of Pittenweem asking that their decision be reconsidered, and that the matter is being re-examined by the board.