§ 1.34 p.m.
§ Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)I am grateful for the opportunity of making some representations which arise out of the Fish Sales (Charges) Order which has been passed today and which takes effect from the 20th September. It is only fair that I should begin by saying how much good work has been done by the Ministry of Food to sustain the fishing industry, and how much the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has done to get to know an industry with which she was perhaps not wholly familiar when she took office, and how much she has felt, as I think she has, the hardships undergone by fishermen in earning their livelihood. It is relevant to mention in connection with my representations that it is the Ministry of Food which first took out accounts of how much was made by fishermen, and that those accounts showed what I had always maintained in regard to the fishermen with whom I am familiar, men owning small boats, that their average earnings work out at about £2 15s. a week. I am not talking about large fishing combines or companies which may well make large profits—an entirely different matter—but about the average takings of a fisherman going out in a 1293 small boat, 20, 30, 40, even eighty miles away from our shores.
When these Orders were first brought in, it was understood, and it is still understood, that the levy is imposed in order to produce money to run the Control in respect of transport and allocation committees, many of which have functioned with great success and advantage to everyone concerned. So far, on the figures it appears that the amount of money coming in from these levies has about equalled the amount expended on running the Control. In the first place I ask very earnestly that this process should be watched because the fishermen feel that it would be wrong if it were not watched and if the money coming from these levies were to exceed substantially the sum expended on running the Control. One observes under this regulation which we have passed that the levy on white fish has been doubled; it has gone up from fivepence to tenpence a stone. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us, and thereby explain to all concerned, why the levy has been doubled. In that connection it is also right to point out that the control has been taken off mackerel. There we owe a great deal to the Minister. At one time the control was such that the fishermen could get no price for mackerel which would make it worth while their going out for this fish, with the result that the public were not getting any.
There is one other matter I shall mention because I know this process is under constant review. Under the order which has been passed, there is a liability to pay a charge in respect of fish bought for bait. The regulation has been passed and there would have been no chance of dividing the House on it. I should like this reviewed, because in my submission these levies were never meant for fish bait. They were meant to apply to sales where fish was going to the consumer. Only a few days ago I was talking with some fishermen in a little cove named Cadgwith, and they said they had to use gurnards for bait, and as it happened they have none available in their own waters. They asked why they should have this liability, when the levy should only apply to fish sold to be consumed. It would be just the same if a levy were imposed on fishermen buying nets or gear, for this is an impost on an essential implement of the fisherman's trade.
§ 1.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill)May I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beeehman) on his ingenuity on getting the Adjournment today, and thank him for his appreciation of the work we do in my Department. We fully appreciate the contribution which the fishermen are making, and I think the hon. Member will agree that whenever they ask for help or advice we have been only too willing to serve them. He was quite right when he said that the Fund was originally introduced in order to equalise the transport charges which the fish trade would be called upon to bear. I expect he also appreciates that by imposing this levy we are helping the producer, who is thereby enabled to enjoy the maximum price for his fish. If the levy were not imposed, it might be that the first-hand merchant might have to reduce the amount he pays to the fisherman in order to pay for transport. We have found that this scheme has worked very well, but I must confess that I think he is under a misapprehension so far as the proceeds of this Fund are concerned. I think he suggested that perhaps it was being administered in such a way that the income is greater than the expenditure.
§ Dr. SummerskillI am glad the hon. and learned Member has raised this point, because I think certain Members of the trade suffer from the same misapprehension. At the risk of wearying the House, I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman certain figures. It was in the year 1946–47 that the Fund showed a surplus of £781,917, and this was in some measure due to the fact that we anticipated there would be a second increase of railway rates, but this did not materialise. At the same time, however, there was a drop in the average cost of carriage of herring, as a result of the switchover from rail to road transport. It was agreed that the surplus should not be lost to the industry. The figure I want to draw to the attention of the hon. and learned Member is the estimated shortfall of £935,000 in the ensuing year. This sum is higher than we expected, and due in part to the increase in railway charges as from 1st October, 1947, and also due 1295 to the fact that the Fund has been run at a loss during the summer months. The excess over the £781,917 will be covered by employing a reserve Fund of £150,000. I bring these points to the notice of the hon. and learned Member in order that he may reassure those sections of the trade who, perhaps, believe that the Ministry of Food are doing rather well out of the Fund. I will look into the question of bait again, but he need have no fear about that. Before we introduced the new order, we did of course consult every section of the trade, and they all concurred in the arrangement. I can assure him that before any amending order is introduced we shall, as is customary, continue to consult the trade.