FISH SALES (CHARGES) ORDER, 1944 (Hansard, 8 June 1944)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)
I beg to move, That the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, 1944, dated 9th May, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 16th May, be approved.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)
I rise only to ask if my hon. Friend will be good enough to explain this to the House.

§ Mr. Mabane
This is an Order with which, I think, the House by now is very familiar. It is the eighth of such Orders that have been made. These Orders are made at the present time twice a year to vary the carriage charges according to the winter or summer season. Briefly, the purpose of this Order is to increase the levy, imposed to meet the cost of the carriage charges, on first sale of white fish to 1s. per stone and to retain the levy on what is called pelagic fish at 9d. per stone during the summer months. The purpose of this levy to meet the cost of these carriage charges is to secure a wide distribution. If fish were to bear the 1622 carriage charges according to the journey it had to make it might be that we would get a distribution heavy near the port of landing and light at distant towns. Therefore the Ministry of Food has made an arrangement, with which the trade is perfectly happy, for a uniform charge for carriage. It has also made an arrangement with the railways so that we receive all the money from those who sell the fish and then we ourselves pay the railway charge. Thus we are able to get a fair distribution all over the country, not influenced by the carriage charges the fish has to bear.

Mr. Robertson (Streatham)
I am glad the Minister has spoken to this Order, for I think it is the first time he has done so since the carriage charge was stepped up last year from 6d. to 1s. I think the levy system is a good one; it does ensure that fish does not go only to the near-by places but goes also to the distant places. But the Minister has not explained to us, at least I did not hear him do so in his few remarks, that this levy of 1s. a stone is being brought about by the reduction in the price of fish to the trawler owner of 11d. a stone. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the cost of carriage which the Ministry of Food pays, but he did not say what the cost of carriage is per stone, the cost of getting the fish from the port of original landing to the inland market or town where it is consumed. I presume that charge of 1s. must be at least twice as much as the amount the Ministry pays, because when this scheme was operated last year the charge was 1s. on the consumer, who pays all the costs in connection with fish-catching and distribution, in the summer months, and 1d. only per stone during the winter months.
The effect of that was that the trawler owners received different prices in summer and winter but there was no variation to the public. The public are paying more than they ought to for fish. I have here a few figures which will probably interest hon. Members, because they show the amount which the trawler owner is still getting, after this reduction of 11d. per stone. The trawler owner is getting, on bream, 330 per cent. more than he got pre-war. I have taken the 1938 figures, which are the last recorded figures, and the increase which the trawler owners are getting now, 1623 after this reduction which the Ministry are imposing, and which the Ministry are not passing on to the public, is 330 per cent. The percentage increase, up to a few weeks ago, was 405 per cent., and I presume that it will go back to that in the winter months. The average to the trawler owner now, for the different sorts of fish, is over 300 per cent. Catfish is 200 per cent, up, at the reduced price; flounders are 550 per cent. up at the reduced price; saithe, a very common variety of fish, is 750 per cent. up. My submission is that these prices are much too high. The time has come for this House to say so, in the most emphatic fashion.
Not only are the prices so high, not only is this levy in excess of the actual amount of carriage, but the sea is full of fish, after the long rest it has had during the war. Catches are ever so much greater than they were before the war. We have only a quarter of the catching power in operation, and the vessels are catching two-thirds of the pre-war supply. Every boat coming into port is landing twice the quantity of fish that it did before the war, but this very generous Government Department is giving the trawler owner a reduction which leaves him a 300 per cent. increase in prices, at a time when he is getting double the quantity of fish. The people who are paying are our constituents, the women and children, and the old men too, who are standing so patiently in the queues.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)
If the trawler owners are doing so well, how is it that in some parts of the country we never see any fish at all?

Mr. Robertson
You are seeing a wonderful volume of fish for the reduced fleet that is fishing. Also, there is an increased demand for fish in war-time, owing to the scarcity of other foods.

§ Mr. Speaker
Before the discussion gets too wide, I would remind hon. Members that the Order deals only with the levy, and nothing else, not with the general quantity of fish available, nor the price.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
Surely the hon. Member is entitled to give an illustration, so that the House may follow his point, when he makes the 1624 charge that 300 per cent. increase is given to those who catch the fish.

§ Mr. Mabane
Only the trawler owners, not the small men.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Surely he is entitled to make his point.

§ Mr. Mabane
The Order does not deal with any percentage of increase, because it does not deal with prices at all.

Mr. Robertson
I wild endeavour to keep in Order, but I must draw attention to the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed when a similar Order was brought in July last year. It was brought in at the end of a Parliamentary day. No explanation of the Order was given, and the Minister did not say a word about it. When another similar Order was brought in on 9th November, it was the second item on the list of Business for the day, just as it is to-day. A few minutes after a certain hour the Vote of Credit Debate, which took precedence, collapsed, and my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was very adroit, and got his Order through very quickly. I do not know that I can compliment him on his adroitness, but—

§ Mr. Speaker
If hon. Members were not present to discuss it when the Order was passed, they cannot discuss it now. That is their fault.

Mr. Robertson
That may be so, but, in spite of the indignation which my right hon. Friend is expressing, I beg you to allow this very important point, which affects every family in Britain, to be discussed.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Cannot you stretch a point, Sir, to allow this important matter to be debated?

Mr. Robertson
It is an important question that people who are working so hard for the victory which is now in sight should be penalised over this very important food. I have held my peace on this subject for a very long time, but I feel that it should be ventilated, because of the excessive prices which the Ministry are now allowing, and which are reflected in the prices that the trawler owners get.

§ Mr. Speaker
I could not allow that to be debated. It is a matter to be discussed when the Ministry of Food Vote comes along.

Mr. Robertson
In view of your Ruling, Sir, I must be content with the protest that I have already made, in the interests of my constituents and of the constituents of other Members, and I will take the opportunity, which I believe will occur to-morrow, to raise the matter again.

§ Mr. Barnes (East Ham, South)
I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) wished to express. Some time ago, on the Ministry of Food Vote, I myself emphasised the excessive prices charged for fish; but I agree that, on this occasion, we are limited to a very narrow point. It appears to me that, whatever our views about the policy generally of the Ministry of Food in relation to prices, we cannot very well disagree with the purpose of the Ministry in regard to this Order, which is to equalise the transport rates throughout the country, and, as far as possible, to give districts far from the sources of supply a chance to get fish from time to time. From that angle, I support the Order. I am not clear why this Order has to come before us every six months. If it provided the opportunity of raising matters of public interest, as the hon. Member wished to do, one would welcome the opportunity, but we are confronted with your strict Ruling, Sir, which causes one to ask why the Ministry trouble us every six months to pass more or less the same Order. As far as my recollection goes, the trade, in the early days of this difficulty, had an opportunity of making this arrangement themselves, but they failed completely to do so. We should bear that in mind. As they failed as a trade to carry out this responsibility to the community, I see no other way out than for the Ministry to do this job itself. Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to re-examine this problem to see if it is necessary to have this six-monthly Order; but in the meantime, I think we should be wise to endorse the continuation of this procedure.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I wish to raise the following point. A few days ago, in my constituency, I attended a meeting of a body of which I am president—the Wolverhampton and District Fish Friers' Association. I wrote to them about this Order and asked them whether there was any point in connection with 1626 it which they thought ought to be raised in the public interest. They gave careful consideration to the matter, and told me that the only point they wished me to bring up was that the rates are not justified, in their opinion, because there ought to be a larger supply of hake on the market, but that it is not available by reason of the fact that the rates do not give sufficient inducement to catch that fish—

§ Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern)
They cannot choose.

§ Mr. Mander
—and they suggest that there should be less inducement to catch other sorts of fish and more inducement to catch this sort, so that a better supply would be available to the public. I am asking my right hon. Friend, therefore, to be good enough to consider this point and let me know whether satisfaction can be given to this admirable body of citizens in Wolverhampton and their customers.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
I wish to say a word about the somewhat sensational remarks of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson). His figures may be correct regarding some people, but they are quite incorrect—indeed they are nowhere within a mile of being correct—regarding the fishermen I represent, the inshore fishermen. They got good prices in the old days, because they sold the fish fresh, but, to-day, the men I represent suffer great hardship because of the prices. I want to make a plea for these gallant men whom I am here to represent.

§ Mr. Boothby
I did not want to intervene at all, because I understand that almost anything I say will be out of Order and I hope to have an opportunity in the near future to discuss the general question of fish, but I wish to point out to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that it is really too much to expect the fishermen of this country to choose a particular fish in fishing—hake—because it commands a higher price than other sorts. It does not seem likely that we can affect the catch by laying down a schedule of prices before the fisherman puts to sea. Whatever the prices may be, it is difficult, perhaps, to induce a particular fish to go into the net.

§ Mr. Mander
Surely the fishermen would naturally go to those areas where hake abounds.

§ Mr. Woods (Finsbury)
If the particular intention is to secure a more equitable distribution of fish, those of us who want fish to be made cheaper are wondering whether the Minister could do something under this Order to facilitate the transport of fish to the rural areas, so that people there will occasionally have the chance to get a little fish. If he was able to do that he would gratify a considerable number of people.

§ Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)
I am at a loss to know why it should be necessary to have a special levy on fish. There are other cases, I think, in which the Ministry of Food have a flat rate for carriage for certain commodities, whether the distance is ten miles or 100 miles, and I am wondering why fish could not be dealt with on that basis.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
The statement made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) is a fact, as far as the consumer is concerned. That is to say, the price of fish at the moment is simply ridiculous, and there is a greater demand for fish than in normal circumstances because of the lack of meat. Could not the Minister of Food devise some method whereby the working classes will have a chance to get fish much cheaper than it is to-day?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)
At the risk of being out of Order, may I say a word first about prices? The price of fish, of course, is determined by the price paid to the producer. Naturally, the Ministry of Food desire to buy our fish as cheaply as we can. The fishermen represent, quite rightly, that they have a difficult and arduous task. I think every hon. Member in the House has, on occasion, heard the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) suggesting that, far from the price of fish being too high, it is far too low to suit him. The House will also remember that, 15 months or so ago, there was a strike of fishermen on this very matter of the price of hake. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is suggesting that the wages of the producer should be reduced—

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Not at all.

§ Mr. Mabane
The hon. Member says not. I think he will recognise that he is 1628 depriving himself of the only opportunity for securing that reduction of price for which he is clamouring. If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) had looked at the Explanatory Memorandum, he would have seen references to hake. We desire more hake and for that reason increased the price by ½d. a pound. I think the position to which the hon. Member referred has, to that extent, been met. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) asked why this Order has to be presented every six months. The reason, of course, is that the rules of the House require it, for it imposes a charge and it is a Treasury Order. As to the suggestion that I was adroit in getting the Order "on the nod" last year, I would like to point out that, so anxious was I to secure that there should be a Debate, that I approached the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and asked him to raise a point in the House, so that I should at least have an opportunity to reply. It is not my fault if the hon. Member who complains was not in his place, and if the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) was not in his place, he must not accuse me of being adroit.
As to the effect of the Order in equalising the carriage charges, the hon. Member behind me asked why the rate of levy of 1s. a stone in summer is higher than the rate in winter, which is id. We do that in order that there will be a smaller levy in the winter and therefore a greater inducement to the fishermen to catch more fish, when fish is more difficult to catch. The shilling in summer and the penny in winter, I can assure the House, very nearly exactly balance the amount of money we have to pay out by way of carriage. Regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), the effect he desires is achieved, and there is no difference in the carriage charges on fish, wherever it goes. We take the whole lot and we have a flat rate arrangement with the railways. Without this arrangement it would be more difficult to take fish to distant parts because the carriage would be higher. In reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) the effect, not merely of this Order, but of the fish zoning scheme generally, is to move fish to rural areas, and, at the present time, rural areas are getting a far higher proportion of fish, 1629 in relation to the total amount available, than before the fish zoning scheme and this Order were put into effect. I think I have dealt with every point that has been raised, and I hope that the House will let me have the Order.