§ 55 and 56. Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he will give consideration to the Distant Water Vessels Scheme Agreement and take the necessary action to protect the consumers' interests;
(2) if he is aware of the concern at that part of the Distant Water Vessels Scheme Agreement which includes a penalty of £25,000 for breaking an agreement by firms engaged in the fishing industry building new trawlers or expanding their fleets in any way; and, in view of the undesirability of restrictive practices, if he will state what consultation took place with the White Fish Authority before the scheme was put into effect.
§ Mr. NugentThe agreement to which the hon. Member refers does not prohibit new building by subscribing owners, but confines it to the replacement of old vessels. It is designed to prevent production of distant water fish from seriously outrunning consumer demand, with resulting slumps and distress, such as occurred in 1950. The White Fish 1904 Authority were not in existence when the agreement was drawn up, but have, I understand, since been informed of its contents. As regards those parts of the agreement which relate to catching. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food on 10th March to the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) and Wallsend (Mr. McKay).
§ Mr. DoddsDoes the Minister deny that in one Clause the trawler owners have agreed that, in the event of a full catch, 20 per cent. will go to the salters at below cost price, and does he really think that skippers who depend upon commission on net earnings are really going to be encouraged to get that additional 20 per cent.? Is he aware that in the agreement there is a £25,000 fine for expanding their fleet, and can the Minister say if he thinks that half-a-dozen housewives are going to subscribe to get a trawler to catch this additional fish?
§ Mr. NugentTo answer the second question first, since at the present time no fewer than 23 new trawlers are being built, evidently the penalty is not working in the way which the hon. Member expects.
§ Mr. NugentI do not deny that it is there, but the object of building restriction is to prevent large-scale over-production of distant water fish for which there is no consumer demand. If we have a recurrence of the slump of 1950, the inevitable result will be bankruptcy, ships going out of commission, and eventually smaller supplies of fish for the market and at higher prices.
§ Mr. DoddsIs the hon. Gentleman aware that he did not answer the first part of the question I asked him?
§ Mr. NugentI think the first part of the question was addressed to the restrictive clause, which requires that not more than 80 per cent. of the full catch may be landed. The explanation of that is that, in practice, its restrictive effect is virtually nil. It is very rare indeed for a 100 per cent. catch to be brought home, and it is virtually impossible to bring home a 100 per cent. catch in good condition. If an 80 per cent. catch is brought home, it is normally a very full catch.
§ Air Commodore A. V. HarveyIs my hon. Friend aware that these difficulties could be overcome if the Icelandic trawlers brought fish home in the winter months, instead of the more plentiful times of the spring and summer; and will he point out to the hon. Gentleman opposite that the skippers are paid on gross earnings, not net earnings?
§ Mr. Hector HughesDoes the hon. Gentleman realise that the allegations made conflict with the powers given by this House to the White Fish Authority, and that that is a very serious matter? Will he look into it and consider issuing a White Paper?
§ Mr. NugentNo, Sir. I have no doubt that if the White Fish Authority consider that there is a restrictive result from this agreement they will take proper action.
§ Mr. DoddsIn view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.