FISHING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES)

HC Deb 20 July 1960 vol 627 cc633-83

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare)

I beg to move, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, dated 29th June, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved. We have submitted three Motions that affect the fishing industry, and I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be convenient to discuss with this Motion the next two Motions: That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, dated 29th June, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved. That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Extension) Order, 1960, dated 28th June, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, he approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

That will be convenient. It must be understood, however, that there will be only one debate.

Mr. Hare

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that that course will commend itself to the House.

Before I deal with these Schemes, the House might find it helpful if I were to outline the Government's policy on assistance to the fishing industry. This assistance takes two forms. First, there are the grants and loans, administered by the White Fish Authority, which are designed to help the inshore, near and middle water sections of the fishing fleet to modernise and to bring itself up to date. Only a few years ago the near and middle water fleets consisted almost entirely of obsolescent coal-burning vessels. That will be recognised by anyone who has been in the House for any number of years. It has always been the object of our policy to see these old type vessels replaced by modern oil-burning or diesel vessels of high efficiency. Secondly, alongside this system of grants and loans there is an operating subsidy designed to keep in operation a fleet large enough to maintain adequate supplies of fish during the period of transition while new vessels are being built and then, having been built, brought into service.

As the House knows, the policy of the Government has been to accept fishing subsidies as a temporary measure to keep the industry going during this fundamental reconstruction of the fleet. I should like to make this clear to the House. We do not intend to leave the industry in the lurch should the circumstances of the day be such that continuance of Government aid in one form or another is necessary.

I do not think there is any need for me to mention that the Fleck Committee is considering the whole subject of our fishing industry. Its Report will be available to us by the end of the year. We shall then have the benefit of its advice in time to give that advice full consideration before future subsidy arrangements are decided upon. It may well be that the House would wish to debate that very important Report together with the general state of the fishing industry after the Report is made available to us.

It has been very good to see the progress that has been made in reconstructing the fleets. There are now fewer than 150 coal-burners. Last year when we were debating this subject my right hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told the House that there were 257 of those vessels in commission. At the end of 1956 the figure stood at more than 360. In contrast to this declining number of coal-burners, the number of diesel trawlers has risen from 179 at the end of 1956 to more than 330 today. Besides these, there are 90 more diesel trawlers now on order which are expected to join the fleet before the end of 1961. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a satisfactory picture. It reflects both the enterprise of the industry and—with reasonable modesty—I think I can say that it shows the success of the policies that the Government have been carrying out.

I wish to mention briefly the considerations which have led us to recommend to Parliament the increases in the subsidies in the Schemes which are before the House tonight. In 1959 the total catch of fish declined compared with the previous year, but prices rose and the value of the catch increased slightly. This pattern applied to both near and middle water vessels and the inshore fleet. Hon. Members who study this matter will see that supporting figures are given in paragraph 15 of the last Report of the White Fish Authority.

In the course of our review of the industry, we get figures of catches and costs from vessels operating in the different ports. Those figures bear out that, compared with 1958, results for 1959 in the near and middle water fleets showed a slight improvement, but we have to remember that last year the subsidy on coal-burning trawlers and the older oil-burning vessels was reduced. Taking this reduction into account, the 1959 results show an average reduction of £28 per vessel compared with 1958. Broadly speaking, the financial position of the industry was maintained over the two years, but we have to remember—and I think everyone in the Chamber at the moment would recognise this—that the averages I have just mentioned conceal a number of considerable variations. All of us know that there can be very substantial variation at particular times between the different classes of vessel and—what is very important—between one port and another.

By way of illustration, I might mention that in Aberdeen last year the coal-burners on average did much the same as in the previous year, whereas at Granton this class of vessel did worse. In England coal-burners at North Shields did better in 1959 than in 1958. At Milford Haven, in contrast, the coal-burners did very much worse, although, again to be fair and to complete the picture, the diesel vessels at Milford Haven showed an improvement.

Coming to the present year, the best advice which I can get shows that, when the known increase in costs which face the industry are taken into account, the probable outcome will be very much the same as it was in 1959.

Having said that, however, I want to emphasise that the Government fully recognise that an appraisal of this kind cannot make allowances for uncertainties such as those which face our fishing industry today. Let us make no bones about it. These uncertainties are very grave. There is the question of fishery limits. Following the failure of the Geneva Conference to secure the necessary majority—which I know both sides of the House dearly wanted to see—for a common rule of law, the Government have been endeavouring to find other ways of achieving a satisfactory settlement. But, in the meantime, uncertainty in this vital issue is, as we all know, hanging like a black cloud on the industry's horizon.

There is also the question of foreign competition, although here, under the E.F.T.A. Agreement, we have done a good deal to provide for orderly and regulated arrangements. In addition—and this is of great concern to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—there is the fall in the price of fish meal, which not only affects the returns of our own vessels but also may lead foreign countries to switch from industrial trawling and so intensify their fishing effort in the North Sea. This adds to the industry's fears about fish stocks and foreign competition.

We have tried to take all these circumstances into account, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that we were right to take these outside factors into account. We have come to the conclusion that an increase in the subsidies for white fish is justified. That is why we are proposing to Parliament an increase of £1 a day on the smaller diesel vessels or £2 a day on the larger diesel vessels, and a new subsidy of £2 a day on diesel vessels of the 130 to 140 ft. class which previously was unsubsidised. In one case only—a rather special case—are we proposing a reduction in subsidies. This applies to the five modern oil-fired steam trawlers which have previously been in a class of their own. The subsidy on them will be brought into line with that on diesels of the same size.

We have not forgotten the inshore fishermen, either, and for them we are proposing an increase of 2d. a stone on fish landed. I know that the pilchard industry and other sections of the inshore fleet would have liked to change to a daily rate of subsidy for their vessels, but I am afraid that I could not meet that point. Hon. Members will recall that I considered it last year. But the quite substantial increase in the subsidy which I have just mentioned, I hope and believe, will be of real value to them; and, of course, we shall look again at the whole matter after the Fleck Committee has reported later this year.

I should like to say a word or two about coal-burners. We have reduced the subsidies on them over the years and, as I have mentioned, the object of our policy has been to encourage the replacement of these out-of-date vessels by modern vessels, and the change-over is proceeding satisfactorily.

This year we propose to keep the subsidy at the same rate as last year. Had it not been for the satisfactory increase in the rate at which the coal-burners are dropping out, we might well have proposed a further reduction in the subsidy in order to maintain the pace of replacement. We have not done so. By leaving the subsidy unchanged, we have kept a fair balance between, on the one hand, our wish to help the industry in its difficulties and, on the other, our desire not to slow up the vital process of seeing that the replacement programme goes ahead.

I turn now to herring. The results of the Scottish vessels—the main part of the fleet—did not change greatly in 1959 compared with 1958, but the English fleet had what I can only describe as a disastrous year. Indeed, the fall in fishmeal prices would, in the absence of Government assistance, have meant that the Herring Industry Board would have been unable to maintain its existing guaranteed level of prices for surplus herring. As hon. Gentlemen from North of the Border will recognise, this would particularly have affected the Scottish fleet.

We have met this situation by substantially underwriting the Herring Industry Board's possible losses on meal and oil prices. I mention this in passing, because it does not arise directly on the Motions before the House. We are also proposing to meet the particular difficulties of the larger herring drifters by an increase of £4 a day for diesel-driven vessels of over 80 ft. and £2 a day for coal-burning drifters.

I admit that these changes will help the English vessels more than the Scottish vessels, but the last season was disastrous for the English fleet, whereas I am glad to say that in Scotland the season was nowhere near so bad. The oil and meal arrangements will, of course, to a very substantial extent benefit Scotland more than England.

I need not go into detail about the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Extension) Order. The reasons for this are obvious. Under the provisions of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, subsidies may be paid only if an application is made before 1st May, 1961. What we are doing under this Order is to extend the period up to 1st May, 1963. Obviously this extension is necessary if subsidy payments are to continue throughout the period covered by the Schemes. It will give us time also to develop our policies in the light of the recommendations of the Fleck Committee.

I am sorry to have detained the House, but I wanted to go into some detail on these important proposals. These then are our proposals. I hope that the House will agree that they should be helpful to the industry. No one should think for a moment that in framing them we have not been most mindful of the problems facing the industry. These problems have been given the fullest and most sympathetic consideration by Her Majesty's Government. I can truly say that our proposals have been formulated in accordance with our broad policy for the industry, which aims at the development of a thriving and efficient fleet. They have been tempered to meet the particular circumstances confronting the industry. Believing them to be fair and balanced, I accordingly ask the House to give them its approval.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

Let me first tell the Minister how grateful we are that he took some trouble to explain these proposals, but he went just a little far when he said that this plan "of ours" had created all these new trawlers. We should remember that all these new trawlers have been built as a result of an Act passed by the Labour Government in 1948. We are delighted that the Government should have continued the good work started by us, but let us not forget the foundation of this scheme.

I was also interested to hear that the Minister had taken into consideration the circumstances under which we are discussing these subsidies tonight. We cannot decide whether the subsidies are right or wrong unless we think of the state in which the fishing industry finds itself. In that respect, I should like to repeat what I have said before—we are grateful to the Minister for what he sought to achieve at Geneva. Having said that, however, we also have to admit that the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva was a failure from our point of view because we did not achieve what we set out to do. That is one thing with which the industry is concerned.

On top of that, of course, we have still to find a solution of the dispute with Iceland, which, as long as it continues, will hamper our fishing industry. Added to that, we have had in recent days the decision of Norway and Denmark also to extend their limits to twelve miles. It is true that Norway very kindly offered to negotiate with us on it, and it is a pity that that example was not followed by other nations. We are having trouble at the Faroes with our fishing fleet. It is not good to know that it is being knocked about just a little by the protecting country, Denmark. That is causing considerable concern to that section of our industry. It is amid all those difficulties that we are considering the Minister's proposals.

In addition to all that, we have, as the Minister rightly said, this very substantial fall in the industry's income from fish meal. Until the drop in prices, that income was running at a total of about £3½ million, on which the industry could depend, but I would hazard that it is not running at much more than half that total now. That means a very substantial fall in the industry's income, which is not only to the detriment of the fishing industry itself but to the associated fish meal industry. These things do not make for happiness in the industry.

It is true that the subsidies are meant, as the Minister said, in the main for the renewal of our fishing fleet, but they have another purpose that should be stressed. They have to make trading economically possible for those engaged in the industry. It has been suggested that these subsidies might come to an end as early as next year. I think that that was a pious hope, and I use the phrase "pious hope" because it has been used in this regard by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) in the last two debates. I believe that those who think that they will get rid of them in twelve months' time are absolutely wrong. As I hope to show, it will be impossible for the industry to work without them.

Nor must we forget that there was a fairly substantial cut in the subsidies last year. I know that the Minister said that that dealt, in the main, with the steam vessels, but he will not forget that when the Joint Under-Secretary of Scotland introduced them last year he pointed out that the reduction was 7 per cent. on average over the whole industry. Therefore, when considering the increases that the Minister has put forward tonight, we must bear in mind what he took out of the industry last year. There was then a very substantial cut. It is against that background also that we have to measure these proposals. On top of all this, the industry is faced with certain other problems. It is all very well for the Minister to come here and say—and I agree with him—that the industry has got to be renewed, that we have got to get new vessels and scrap old ones and get a fleet that is economic. But there are other ways in which the Government can help, though we have to confess that on this occasion they are very much hindering.

I wish to refer to the interest charges which the industry has got to pay to the White Fish Authority for loans. It is all very well to say, "We are increasing the subsidy by £1 a day." The Minister ought to have made it clear that on the other side of the balance sheet, as a result of Government policy, the industry has got to face substantial increases in interest charges arising from the Chancellor's policy. If this industry is going to plan ahead it has got to have some assurance from the Government that the financial policy will not change from week to week, bearing in mind that interest charges keep moving in an upward direction.

Let us consider what has happened this year. Interest charges this year alone show six changes at the very least, and the interest rate on loans from the White Fish Authority has now moved up to 6½ per cent., which I am fairly certain is the highest rate of interest ever charged by the White Fish Authority. When one remembers that two increases came in a matter of seventeen days, it makes it extremely difficult for the industry in any way to budget for the building of new ships or to meet the loan charges.

Therefore, when the Minister replies, I hope he will be able to tell us that the Government propose to do something about this. It is rather nonsensical to give to the industry something by way of increased subsidy and then take it back in increased charges through the White Fish Authority. It is the sort of agreement which does not meet with the approval of those engaged in the industry. They cannot help contrasting their position with the action taken by the Government in connection not only with the agricultural industry but other industries in Great Britain. Indeed, the very generous terms, according to them—and they argue this with a fair amount of confidence—that have been offered to certain other industries compared with the charges that they have got to meet make them very resentful.

I want to make it clear that the White Fish Authority has not imposed these charges because it wants to. The blame rests not with the Authority but with the Government. That is one more thing that we have got to take into consideration when we consider whether these subsidies are right or wrong.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that this flat rate of subsidy might have more beneficial effects on one district as compared with another. I was delighted to hear him say so because I have been trying to explain that to the Scottish Office for a considerable time. If we admit that that is the case, that these subsidies may be all right for one port but not all right for another, it should be the duty of the Government so to vary the subsidy as to take account of the difficulties in various parts of the country.

The Minister has gone some way in this direction in the subsidies that he is paying to the herring industry. He has made alterations and changes. The Minister said tonight quite clearly, "I am doing this because the herring industry in England had a disastrous year even compared with the industry in Scotland, and, as the result of the measures I have introduced, the herring industry in England will do much better than in Scotland". If that is the case, there can be no logic in the Scottish Office refusing to take the same kind of action to give greater assistance to the ports which are in difficulties. As far back as 1957, we argued that this ought to be done. Since 1957, of course, we have always been told that nothing very much can be done about it until we receive the report of the Fleck Committee. The industry is a little tired of waiting for Sir Alexander Fleck and his Committee to present their report.

The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he held the office now held by the present Minister, had this to say: It is sad that the results so far, from the first few diesel vessels operating in Scotland last year, have been disappointing, but it is too early to judge real prospects from the first season's fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 741.] I thought that there was a little strength in his argument then. Conditions have not improved since. It is true that in Aberdeen they have improved somewhat, but on the whole in Scotland they have not improved. The Minister should have sought to make changes in the scheme.

I will take the example of my own port. As regards Granton and Newhaven, the Minister gives it as his forecast that this year will be very much the same as last year. Last year, the Ministry thought that they would have a better year, but things did not turn out like that. Taking the best view of the port I represent, there was a loss at the end of the year, for the vessels operating from Granton and Newhaven, of £96,000. That is on figures proved by the Scottish Office. If one takes the diesel as distinct from the old steam trawlers, the profits shown on the new diesel trawlers amounted to £1 8s. 6d. per vessel per annum. Those are the figures which confront us and which confronted the Scottish Office.

I suggest that, with the increased interest charges which have to be paid to the White Fish authority, the port will not be rehabilitated by this scheme. In addition, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has reminded us in the past, these ports have to carry additional costs which do not affect certain other ports. There are boxing and transport charges because more than 70 per cent. of the catch is sold outside the port. Of course, the farther north one goes, the greater the transport costs become. I should have thought that there was on this occasion a case for differentiating from one port and another.

All in all, the Minister will not expect us to go into raptures about the proposals he has put before us. I agree that the problem cannot be tackled or solved merely by discussing the Schemes. We have already waited with great patience and we shall have to await the outcome of the Fleck Committee's work, but I am bound to say with that, when the report arrives, we shall expect the Government to make decisions which will cover the whole fishing industry. It was done in 1948 and it put the industry in the condition it is today in the matter of new vessels.

We give a rather lukewarm welcome to the Minister's proposals, and I do not think he expects anything else. The industry is not, on the whole, in good shape. It is an industry which ought to have had even greater encouragement because it has shown considerable patience in the fact of great provocation. We had this co-operation shown by every section of the industry—I am sure the Minister would be the first to agree with this—at the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva. I do not think that any other industry could have shown such patience.

Therefore, while we welcome these proposals—we give a qualified welcome to them—we are bound to point out to the Minister that we shall look for something very much stronger before this year has gone.

10.20 p.m.

Sir William Duthie (Banff)

I feel much pleasure in following the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on this occasion. It is very nice to see him leading for the Labour Party on fishing matters in the House. One knows the profound and intimate interest which he takes in the industry. I join him in expressing the high appreciation of hon. Members on this side of the House for the splendid efforts which were made by my right hon. Friend the Minister at Geneva. It was through no fault of his that a successful issue was not obtained.

Reference has been made to loan charges. Loan charges have become an almost insoluble problem in the fishing industry. Indeed, a noted leader of the industry speaking about a fortnight ago to a meeting of hon. Members of all parties interested in fishing matters stated that it was virtually impossible to plan ahead in a big way in the industry on account of these self-same loan charges. The way they are jumping about—on a vessel the loan charge may be 5 per cent. and the next it may be 6½ per cent.—it is quite impossible for a company or individual to plan ahead, in these circumstances particularly in view of the very low yield that capital is obtaining from the fishing industry as a whole.

As we usually have to do in a debate of this kind, we must again complain about the lateness of the hour at which a debate of this importance begins. It is a pity that it should be so. There were extenuating circumstances this year, but there have been "extenuating circumstances" in former years. We should like to see these debates started as a more seemly hour.

Also, these Orders should be published in good time for us to discuss their import with our fishermen constituents and with the fishing associations. The debate should take place earlier in the Session before the Recess so that we may have an opportunity to recommend adjustments with some hope of our being listened to.

The white fish subsidy terminates on 31st July and the herring subsidy on 31st August. We are in the position that we have to take the subsidies as they are now offered or perhaps lose them alto- gether, because in the event of any one of these Orders being rejected there would not be time for a replacement Order to be produced and agreed by the House before the Recess.

In 1957 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, induced us to accept the subsidies that year on a promise of the Fleck Report, emphasising that the subsidies were only stopgaps pending the publication and implementation of that Report. We have had the same story in 1958, 1959 and now 1960 without any interim report. The Report is to be published this year, we believe. I should like the Minister to promise the House that it will be published, considered and debated and its practical recommendations put into effect without any delay whatsoever, because we look upon this long-promised Report as being something in the nature of a new charter, a new Magna Carta, for the fishing industry.

Much has been said about Scottish affairs in this debate, and will be, I am sure. The best survey that I have seen of the fishing industry for the year, at least the Scottish side of it, was published in the Scotsman on 14th July. It was an extremely well-informed article. I should be glad to know that it has been fully digested at St. Andrew's House.

These increases in the white fish subsidy which have been announced are most necessary and most welcome. should like to interject—and I hope that I shall not be out of order in so doing—that the time is rapidly approaching, in view of the fishing limits and the like, when trawlers proceeding to our distant grounds will have to be considered for assistance.

I welcome, too, the increase in the herring subsidy for vessels over 80 ft. from £8 to £12 per day. This increase for these craft is most necessary. I must, however, join issue with my right hon. Friend over the treatment of the herring vessels from 40 ft. to 80 ft. These comprise practically the whole of the Scottish herring fleet of some 200 to 250 vessels, and in that number of vessels there are only two over 80 ft. The subsidy for the Scottish vessels of 40 ft. to 80 ft. is £6 10s. per day and there is no change, whereas there is an increase of £4 per day for the English vessels. Yet I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is this self-same Scottish herring fleet that really keeps the industry going in all its phases and activities—the fresh market, the processors, the canners, curers, redders, marinators, kipperers, Klondykers, etc. It is these vessels which supply the bulk of the catch for all these purposes.

I cannot begin to fathom the process of reasoning, or of lack of reasoning, which has resulted in the standstill in the Scottish herring fleet, for that is what it amounts to, bearing in mind that these subsidies which we are debating tonight and have debated in previous years are only stopgaps to tide the industry over till the Fleck Report is received and acted upon. Why differentiate against the Scottish herring fleet? I will repeat to the House the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Minister of Fisheries. When announcing these subsidies for on 25th July, he said that the object of the subsidy was to reverse the drift from herring fishing to white fish catching. In the herring fleet, costs have gone up, and we cannot safely assume that the proceeds of sales during this year or in the near future are likely to increase. The present subsidy, which the House will remember was instituted a good few months ago, does not seem, on present evidence, to be likely to attract vessels back to herring fishing from white fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 741–2.] What is happening today is that that very laudable process, which was instituted in 1957, is now being reversed and the disparity between white fishing and herring fishing as productive of wages and employment is being restored. The alleged reason for the revival of this disparity is that the oil and meal subsidy goes largely to the Scottish vessels, If that is so, I would point out that if the Scottish vessels are catching the bulk of herring sold for oil and meal then the English catches must be sold at a much higher average figure than the Scottish catches are obtaining. I will deal with that point in greater detail a little later. I think that the House should know how the subsidies apply in so far as the crews are concerned.

Provision is made in the Scheme for applying the white fish subsidy. It deals with white fish and it states that in a case where the vessel does not exceed 70 ft. in length overall or is a motor vessel falling within category A specified in the Schedule to this scheme, any grant paid under this scheme shall be deemed to be part of the gross proceeds of the catch. That is to say, it is to be applied on all the costs—the cost of gear, fuel, and so on.

When the herring subsidy was introduced in the House of Commons, an appeal went from these benches that it should be given to the crew in toto, and that is exactly what has been done. In a Scottish vessel which gets £6 10s. per day, or a £39 subsidy per week the crew is usually ten men. They get £3 per week each, £3 is used for the purchase of insurance stamps and £6 goes to the gross earnings. It must be remembered that fishermen engaged in white fishing and herring fishing work about double the weekly hours worked by skilled workmen ashore.

With this disparity of subsidy in the herring industry, let us consider what will happen in East Anglia this year. The Scottish fishermen believes that the subsidy is applied to English vessels as it is applied to Scottish vessels. A vessel of 80 ft. or over, however, and with a crew of twelve, will get £72 subsidy a week, whereas a Scottish vessel gets £39. The Scottish fishermen, therefore, imagines that his English counterpart gets something like £6 a week subsidy as compared with his own £3. That cannot lead to any peace of mind among workmen who work side by side with each other, especially when it is remembered that they fish exactly the same grounds, make exactly the same voyages, shoot exactly the same number of nets and land their catches at the same quayside. This must lead to all kinds of discontent, a state of affairs which should never have been allowed to arise.

The figures suggested by the Scottish Herring Producers' Association, who agree that the English vessels, on account of their heavier costs, deserve a larger subsidy and that there should be an increased subsidy of £2 per day for 40–60 ft. vessels and £3 per day for 60–80 ft. vessels, have been rejected. I ask both my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to think again in this matter. The amount paid for oil and meal was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his opening remarks. As I have said, if our vessels are catching a large quantity of oil and meal herring, they must, on average, be getting a lower price than the English vessels.

Ullapool is the main landing port in the west of Scotland. The west of Scotland fishing has been the salvation of the herring industry. Indeed, the industry could not have survived without that West Coast fishing in view of the calamitous failure of the seasons in East Anglia. Ullapool is the main landing port, but it is not an "A" port and there is virtually no subsidy paid for oil and meal herring landed there. Neither is any subsidy paid at the Clyde ports, none of which are "A" ports.

My right hon. Friend stated that oil and meal herring would be subsidised only to the extent of 25 per cent. of the total catch in any one week. What will happen if there is heavy fishing? What will happen to herring over and above the 25 per cent.? Will they be dumped back into the sea? It seems that there is no other solution and complete chaos is likely to ensue.

We are always told that costings are taken. I would say in all sincerity that no snap costings are any yardstick whatsoever to the state of the industry. What really matters is the incidence of shoals, weather conditions, the herring quality, and the cost of gear, and be it borne in mind that so far this year in the summer herring season the catches are only about half what they were last year.

Again I mention cost of gear. There is another consideration, which, I think, has not been fully borne in mind, and that is that it is quite outside the scope of many herring fishermen today to buy new nets. They have been dependent on secondhand nets coming from Holland costing about £8 to £10 each. That supply is drying up, and herring nets today are costing over £20. For a vessel to be fully equipped with nets to work the whole year round requires a fleet of 300 nets with renewal some-like 100 nets a year. That is about £2,000 for nets a year, plus the cost of ropes and buoys and nets under repair.

The crewing difficulty we have had in the herring industry is getting worse as time goes, and this will make it a great deal harder, this, plus the utter nonsense we have to experience from time to time with people in employment offices labelling many herring fishermen as seasonal workers.

I cannot vote against this Herring Subsidy Scheme for the reasons I have given, but I ask the Minister to think again. If I accept this Scheme, I accept it under very strong protest, and I fervently hope that the Fleck Report will show that measure of practical, businesslike approach to this industry, which this Scheme so lamentably lacks.

10.37 p.m.

George Jeger (Goole)

My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), who is sitting alongside me, remarked a moment or two ago that it would be a great delight if some time or another we were to hear a Member on the other side of the House congratulating some Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on his policy. So far, for many years, we have not been able to enjoy that delightful experience.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

If the hon. Member was present during the remarks of my right hon. Friend, did he not observe that a number of Members on this side did cheer him and say "Hear, hear" to certain of his remarks?

Mr. Jeger

I was referring, as no doubt was my hon. Friend, to the actual speeches, not to the fulsome noises from a sedentary position made by one or two Members. The Members who have spoken and who are informed about the policy of the present Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries are extremely critical of that policy.

It is perfectly true that we, like the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie), cannot vote against these Schemes because we do not want to deprive the industry of the subsidy which has been theirs since these subsidies were introduced by the Labour Government. We know quite well that the present difficulties of the fishing industry would be very much increased, and perhaps it would be made impossible for them to carry on their work if these subsidies were not continued.

The Minister referred to the difficulties through which the industry is passing. I should like to ask him to amplify a little one of those difficulties. He referred in passing to the fishing limits dispute. I know that that is not a matter which comes very much within the bounds of these Schemes, but since he did refer to them I think we should like to hear a little more about the progress of the negotiations in connection with the dispute. He will be aware, as we all are, of the fact that 12th August is the deadline for the British Trawlers Federation, that it has agreed with him to hold its hands for three months which expire on 12th August. We shall have no other opportunity of discussing this matter before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and 12th August will pretty soon be upon us. I would appreciate it, and I am sure that the industry would appreciate it, if the Minister would make some statement, either in the course of this debate or before the House rises for the Summer Recess, so as to reassure the industry as to what the position is likely to be when 12th August arrives.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I think that it would, perhaps, be proper for me to say now that the Minister could scarcely go into great detail on the question of the fishing dispute on these three Schemes, although it is, of course, in order to refer to it.

Mr. Jeger

I fully realise that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it. I would, however, ask the Minister if he would, perhaps, take another opportunity of making a statement about that difficulty, because it is one of the main difficulties through which the industry is passing at the moment.

This debate is, of course, about the help being given through the subsidies. These subsidies are designed to keep the industry in action and to ensure, as is said in one of the Schemes, a continuous and plentiful supply of fish. That is very necessary.

On a recent occasion when some of us were privileged to visit Lowestoft and look over the trawlers and to inspect the fish market and see the way in which the auctions are carried out, I remember how impressed we were with the efficiency and general cleanliness of Lowestoft's fish market. We were told—I had not realised it till then—that fish is actually the only pure food that comes to the consumer. It is not adulterated in any way, it is not chemically fed or reared artificially. Therefore, if for no other reason than the maintenance of good health, we should ensure that there is a plentiful and continuing supply of good and fresh fish to the consumers. That is why subsidies are essential for this industry.

I know that there is a good deal of dispute over subsidies in any industry and that there are various avenues of attack, but I think it true to say that without the subsidy this industry would have to go out of business. I was impressed to see in one of the City columns the other day that the demand for subsidies is spreading even to tramp shipping. It was said at a meeting of one of the shipping companies that without a direct Government subsidy to tramp shipping the decline in the fortunes of that industry could not be arrested. How much more necessary then is a subsidy for an industry which is not merely carrying goods from one part of the world to another but is providing fresh food for the people of this country?

As the Minister quite rightly said, good progress has been made in modernising the fishing fleet, and we are all very pleased at that. Modern vessels can bring fresh fish much more quickly and in much better condition to our ports and to the housewives. I have noticed in my awn constituency, where many of these trawlers are built, that the orders for them are becoming fewer and fewer and that the work in the shipyards is becoming more precarious. When I have inquired about the state of the order books I have been told that each order is now watched for anxiously and is heralded as a triumph when received.

One of the reasons for this, as has already been mentioned by both previous speakers, is the high interest charges. The trawler owners are reluctant to place orders when they know that the initial charges are going to be very high and that the interest charges might quite likely be raised several times during the period that they are paying off their loans. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to use all the influence that he has with the Chancellor regarding the high interest charges on the loans made for the purchase of these modern vessels. We want the whole fleet modernised as quickly as possible, and this is one way in which it can be done.

It is very little use subsidising the trawler owners and the fishing industry generally if a large portion of that subsidy has to be repaid in loan charges, and it is very little use increasing or even maintaining the subsidy if at the same time the industry is faced with another increasing charge by way of port dues and dock charges which the British Transport Commission is contemplating at the moment. This seems to me an indirect way of subsidising the Transport Commission. Whilst the Commission is entitled to a reasonable amount of dues for the use of its services, the way it is attempting to impose a disproportionate charge on the industry seems to me a matter of giving the fishing industry a subsidy on the one hand and taking it away doubly on the other with interest charges and dock charges.

All who have spoken in the debate have mentioned the Fleck Report. Between now and the time we receive it, I suppose it will continue to be mentioned. This indicates how the industry is dissatisfied with its position. The fact that we who represent various sections of the industry continue to refer to the Report indicates how sick the industry is and how we hope that a comprehensive report will be submitted so that the Government may take action on it.

Will the Government act when they receive the Report? I hate to cause a blush to rise in the Minister's cheeks, but dare I mention the Heneage Report? We waited eight years for it. No action has been taken yet on that Report. We have waited a long time for the Fleck Report. We are told that we shall have it at the end of this year, but how long will we have to wait for action? I hope that the Minister will benefit from the criticism made of the present temporary policy to which we are now agreeing faute de mieux and that we shall have the Fleck Report and then action on it without undue delay.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on his policy. I am warmly enthusiastic for his actions because, first, they extend the system of subsidies for a further two years to April. 1963; secondly, because they reverse the trend of recent years and show an increase in subsidies; and, thirdly, because my right hon. Friend has shown in his speech today that he fully appreciates the difficulties which the industry is facing.

Allusion has been made to some of these difficulties, and perhaps I may be permitted to make a further mention. We all welcome the lead which my right hon. Friend gave at Geneva and the way in which he has supported the industry throughout the dispute about territorial waters, but on 12th August when the three months truce is ended he will face the decision of having to recognise the twelve-mile limit or having to protect our fishing vessels when they are fishing on their lawful occasions. Both these alternatives have dangerous implications.

We hope that my right hon. Friend will bring the fullest possible pressure to bear on the Foreign Office to make it realise that the time is getting short within which some solution must be reached with Iceland either directly or in conjunction with other countries. There is not only the question of limits. There is the European Free Trade Area and the fact that is now becoming recognised the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty on imported fish will gradually disappear. There is also the problem of the Common Market which will become increasingly restricted against British imports; and the problem of cheap Peruvian fish meal imports which are having a financial effect on the industry.

Loan charges have also been mentioned in the debate. It has been pointed out that they have been changed six times this year. Then there is the problem of the dock charges, which has also been mentioned. If the British Transport Commission imposes the maximum charges it is allowed to charge under the proposed regulations it will impose an increase of £¼ million on the fishing industry of Hull. Even if the British Transport Commission imposes a lesser charge that has been suggested, it will mean an increase of £160,000 a year for the fishing industry in Hull. Those are heavy burdens for the industry to bear, particularly as the slipways in Hull, owned and managed by the British Transport Commission, cannot slip more than 5 to 10 per cent. of the trawlers operating from that port.

With these facts in mind, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has not reduced the subsidy for coal burners. It is important to keep those vessels in operation until they can be replaced—and so keep the crews in employment. I also welcome the additional subsidy to the modern motor trawler. This will go a long way to offset the increase in loan charges.

There is one point I want to put to my right hon. Friend which I have mentioned during the past four years. With increased costs, and with the difficulties to which I have referred, particularly in the increased cost of building new vessels, the distant water vessel owners are bound to come along to my right hon. Friend and ask for a subsidy. They do not want to do so. They want to avoid it if they can, but for economic reasons they are bound eventually to make this request, at least for subsidies for the building of new vessels. If one starts giving subsidies to new building, inevitably a request follows for subsidies for the less economical and older vessels to enable them to compete with the new vessels, so really one extends the subsidies we are talking about this evening to the whole of the distant-water fleet.

Mr. Jeger

Would it not be a better policy to increase the subsidy for building new vessels and reduce the subsidy for older vessels and thus induce the owners to convert to more modern vessels?

Mr. Wall

Yes, it would, but that cannot be done overnight. One has to keep the uneconomical vessels operating until there is time to build a new fleet, otherwise one causes unemployment and loses trained crews and skippers.

This problem underlines the need for a full debate. It is only in that way that we are allowed to discuss matters which we can only mention tonight. We cannot now go into detail and debate this problem more fully. This happens year after year. We cannot now go fully into the problems affecting the distant-water section of the industry which, after all, is the most important section of the industry and is of great concern to Hull, which is not only the largest fishing port but the only wholly distant-water port in the country.

I hope that when the Fleck Report comes out it will enable us to have a full debate in which we can cover all these vital problems of the distant-water section of this great industry.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland (Grimsby)

I should like to reinforce very strongly what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said about the scope of the debate tonight. I have been concerned for only one year in Parliament with these matters, but that does not stop me from saying that it is intolerable that we are limited by the scope of the debate from reviewing the whole prospects of the industry.

I should like to say a brief word about one part of the industry which has not so far been mentioned, a part of the industry with which I am particularly concerned, namely, crab and other forms of shell fishing. This part of the industry is not at the moment eligible for any form of subsidy. It has had an extremely difficult time during the past twelve months, not only because of the bad weather of last winter, but because of the increase year by year in the imports of crab meat from other countries causing a depressed market. It seems to me that on grounds of logic and justice that part of the industry has a claim to be considered for an extension of the white fish subsidy.

Our debate this evening is mainly about the near and middle-water sections of the fleet because they are the people primarily involved in the increase in the subsidy rates. Here it is only right to congratulate possibly the Minister but certainly the White Fish Authority and those sections of the industry on having substantially achieved what has been the object of the Government and the industry in their policy for the last ten to fifteen years. The near and middle-water fleet is now substantially post-war. The middle-water section is almost entirely post-1945 and the near-water section, given the rate at which scrapping and new building is going on, will soon be a predominantly post-war fleet. That is a considerable achievement which, in all fairness, we ought to recognise.

That does not mean that the near and middle-water fleets have no troubles to consider. Last year they had a particularly bad year. The Minister pointed out that all sections of the fleet had suffered a drop in production last year, but that suffered by the near and middle-water sections of the fleet was considerably larger than that suffered by the inshore or the distant-water sections. There was a drop of 7 per cent. in their catch last year, and it is presumably partly because of that and partly because of the various difficulties facing these sections of the fleet that we have this increase in the subsidy rates.

The question is whether an increase varying between £1 and £2 a day granted under the Schemes is sufficient in view of the problems which this section of the industry has to face. These problems have been listed many times this evening and I will not go through the list again. It includes Peruvian fish meal, the European Free Trade Association and all the rest of it.

May I say a word on the question of loan charges, which most hon. Members have mentioned? I should have a good deal of sympathy with the Government if they were giving no aid of any kind to this industry and if they then said that they must charge competitive rates of interest for Government loans. But it seems to me illogical for them to say that they must not subsidise the rates of interest which they charge on loans when in any event they are subsidising the industry. I can understand their saying, "We do not want any direct or concealed subsidy going to the industry at all", but, as the industry is being subsidised, it seems to me illogical to insist, in this almost ideological manner, on competitive or market rates of interest.

Given the increase in the rates of interest compared with last year—and they are considerably higher than they were at this time last year—and given the other difficulties which have been mentioned this evening, the question is whether an increase of £1 and £2 a day in the subsidy rates is sufficient for the near and middle-water sections of the fleet. On the basis of figures which I have been given for Grimsby, it seems to me that this increase may not be sufficient. I have been given figures by people in Grimsby which suggest that a very high proportion of the diesel trawlers in this section of the fleet made a loss during the last year—a loss which the increased subsidy of £1 or £2 a day will not be sufficient to meet. In common with one or two other hon. Members, therefore, I think that there might have been a case for a larger increase in the subsidy than that which has been made.

I do not always accept everything which the trawler owners say by any manner of means—that would be a great mistake for any hon. Member concerned with the fishing industry. But, taking the picture in some detail, it seems to me that on these figures they have a reasonable case for stating that the increase ought to have been larger.

Most hon. Members have made a fleeting reference to the distant-water section of the fleet, and I should like to do the same, because the problems facing this section of the industry are far greater than those facing the near and middle-water sections. I need not go over the various difficulties which have been created for them by the events of the last year. It seems to me that the basic question raised by these difficulties is whether it is desirable—and whether we should press for this to happen—that the distant-water section should be brought within the scope of the financial aid given by the White Fish Authority. I do not think that so far the industry has put forward a convincing case on this, nor does it ever put forward a single-minded case; it normally speaks with about 179 different voices, and I have not yet heard what I regard as a sufficiently convincing case. But I think one could nevertheless make out a case on grounds which the Government have already accepted in the case of other industries. For example, in certain ports one could make out a case on grounds of local employment. Grimsby is currently dependent to the extent of 40 per cent. of its employment on the fishing industry. I do not mean there is serious unemployment there now, but if things got worse a case for aid could be made out on those grounds.

One could also perhaps make out a case on wider social grounds comparable to those which influence us in the case of agriculture. Some hon. Members opposite representing agricultural constituencies may not agree, but my view is that the case for agricultural subsidies is not so much an economic as a social case; for various social reasons we do not want the countryside to run down or the rural areas to become depressed, and so large sums of money are paid into agriculture primarily for social reasons. This argument might apply in the case of a number of ports which are heavily engaged in fishing.

Then, again, there is a strong and well-established case in this country for giving Government aid to an industry which is faced with an exceptional problem of once-for-all adjustment to an entirely new situation. This is the argument for giving aid to the cotton industry. This is also the argument for giving aid to the near and middle water section of the industry. The main object originally was sharply to reduce the total size of the fleet and also to modernise it.

One can argue that the distant water section of the industry is likely in the next five years to have to adjust its entire mode of operation, to fish very much further afield in less favourable grounds, and this will involve it in a major change, both in its capital investment policy and in its techniques. There will be more factory ships; an aircraft carrier is now to be utilised; we are to have the "Lord Nelson", Marr & Sons' new ship, and so on. All these are attempts by the industry to adjust itself to an entirely new situation. A case could be made by the industry for Government help to hasten and facilitate this process of a once-for-all adjustment. At any rate, that is something which we shall have to consider in future years, although by the time we do consider it I think the industry should get matters a good deal clearer in its own mind.

My last point has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Haltemprice, that all these considerations which we are discussing are overshadowed by what may or may not happen on 12th August. This is something about which, sitting for Grimsby, I am extremely nervous. The three months are nearly up now. The Minister was given these three months with very good grace by the industry, and also by hon. Members interested in the industry. But the trouble is that most of us, at any rate, have no idea whether anything is happening or has happened. We know that negotiations have started with Norway and have apparently gone well, and I am delighted to hear it, but we have no idea of what has happened to all these schemes which were put forward after the failure of the Geneva Conference—schemes for a North Atlantic limits agreement, a West European agreement, and possibly a bilateral approach to Iceland. We have no idea what prospects there are of success in any of these directions.

Meanwhile, while we are in this state of uncertainty incidents are becoming more and more common. The great majority of them have affected Grimsby trawlers, for which I am very sorry. Tempers are getting frayed on both sides. I entirely support the attempt by the British Trawler Federation to get the skippers to keep outside the 12 mile limit, since these incidents do us no good at all. I hope that either now or before the House goes into Recess the Minister will be able to say something about his view of the whole situation. Otherwise, if we do go into Recess with nothing said at all before 12th August, such little that some of us who are interested in the matter might do as envoys of good sense and restraint we shall not be in a position to do.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

Everyone who has spoken has referred to the anxieties about the 12th August, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very well aware of that date and what may flow from it. At the same time, it is only right that we should, as most hon. Members have done, pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend for the very wonderful stand he made at Geneva in trying to reach a settlement. Now, we must realise that, whether good or bad, a settlement was not reached, and we now approach 12th August with some concern.

There has been much reference to the work of the Fleck Committee and its forthcoming report, and my right hon. Friend has referred to the different delaying actions which, apparently, have to take place until the report is before us. It is perfectly true that, when we are awaiting reports from committees which are in course of preparing them, it does meet convenience that there should be a certain amount of delaying action, but what worries me a little is that this is not the first Committee to be set up to study the fishing industry. Its report will not be the first one to come before the House.

At the end of 1944, we were awaiting the report of the Committee presided over by Sir Basil Neven-Spence. We received it in 1945, and a great many very good suggestions were made in it. I do not criticise the Government of that day for not being able to implement or for not in fact implementing many of those suggestions; they were extremely complicated to put into actual practical effect. I am, therefore, cautious and anxious, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) said, about the Minister being able immediately to implement the suggestions which emerge when the report of the Fleck Committee is before the House. For one thing, until we have seen the report, we shall not know whether what it suggests will accord with what the fishing industry or we may wish.

In discussing these Measures before us tonight, the last thing one would wish to do would be to appear churlish in discussing certain of the subsidies covered by them. One must recognise, that in one case the subsidy has been raised from 8d. to 10d. a stone. That is a rise of 25 per cent., and 25 per cent. at any time is a fairly considerable rise. In present conditions, taking into account various other things which have happened during the past six or eight months, it is a quite substantial rise. I am extremely happy that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to make that rise of 25 per cent.

I did not quite understand what the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) meant when he referred to the Scheme not conferring very much on the inshore fishing industry.

Mr. Crosland

The shellfish industry.

Mr. Marshall

Of course, I should be out of order if I were to discuss the shellfish industry or the crab and lobster fishing industries. I thought the hon. Member was referring to the inshore fishing industry, and perhaps I misunderstood him. Of course, there is considerable reference to the inshore fishing industry. For example, a great part of page 4 of the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, refers to the inshore fishing industry.

I mentioned just now the Spence and Fleck Reports. I remind the Minister that after nothing was done to carry out the Spence Report recommendations there was a great deal of discussion in the House which led to the setting up of the White Fish Authority. One of the things debated again and again in Standing Committee was that here was an Authority being set up to put forward suggestions to help the industry. It was difficult for it to do so. We knew that when we set up the Authority. Not an enormous number of suggestions has been put forward by the Authority. That is no criticism of that authority.

But lately it has made suggestions to deal with that part of the inshore fishing industry which has particular reference to the pilchard industry, which is mentioned in their Report and to which I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend make special reference. With regard to that industry, last year the Authority suggested that there should be an alteration in the form of subsidy, that it should apply to the voyage and not, as it does in the Scheme, to the catch. My right hon. Friend in his speech said that he had considered this and had turned it down and was awaiting the Fleck Report. I mentioned this matter to my right hon. Friend in a speech last year, expressing the hope that he would not again defer the matter until he received the Fleck Committee Report.

The interesting thing is that the Authority not only recommended this to my right hon. Friend last year but recommended it again about four months ago. It has made a great study of the subject, and so have the different committees which have been set up to examine this part of the industry. If we are to set up bodies to try to deal with the fishing industry and after protracted study a suggestion is made which is practicable and then the Minister in his wisdom, after listening to what his very excellent servants have said, says "No. It will not do. It is too difficult", the whole thing becomes very tiresome.

I ask my right hon Friend to note that last year—and, for that matter, this year—those who were particularly interested in this part of the industry were not asking for a 25 per cent. rise in the subsidy. They were asking for no more money than the subsidy would in fact pay. They were asking for an alteration of the payment of the subsidy so that there would be a more even flow of fish through to the canning factories and so on.

Therefore, I rather agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) who said that he did not go into raptures over these proposals. On the other hand, I equally think that it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for what he had done. Nevertheless, I would point out to my right hon. Friend that this part of the inshore fishing industry, which represents a goodly portion of the pilchard industry fleet, met on 9th July—that is an important date because these Schemes were laid on 29th June and were, therefore, known at the time of those deliberations—and passed this resolution: That this meeting deplores the loss of time in implementing the proposals of the White Fish Authority for the development of the Pilchard Industry, and requests all Cornish Members to use their best endeavour with departments to expedite this matter. Also as an immediate measure of assistance, Members are asked to continue to press for a daily voyage subsidy for Pilchard vessels. It is important that my right hon. Friend should bear that in mind.

As to the research side, we are very content. The Minister has given his authority. A conference is meeting at Plymouth tomorrow on the question of converting a vessel and so on and going into the research which is so much needed in the industry. That, however, will take at least two years, and there will be nothing else in the meantime. I rather doubt if that will help this industry to survive now, but I personally thank the Minister for what he has done with regard to the subsidy.

I do not entirely accept that it is going to solve the problem, and I hope that he will not think that the report of the Fleck Committee will solve the problem. One of the things which I hope the Minister will do is to alter the whole pattern of payments so far as the pilchards industry is concerned.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Nobody has yet drawn attention to the fact that this is an unusual fisheries debate in that it started before ten o'clock this evening. Usually, the Government show such disrespect for this industry that they arrange the business in such a way that a debate of this nature starts around about midnight. Hon. Members have been kept in the House after midnight discussing fisheries on many occasions.

Mr. Hare indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes

I see that the Minister nods his head, so I take it that he agrees with me. It is a shocking thing that so much disrespect should be shown to one of the nation's great industries.

The hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) appeared to be in some doubt as to which of the Statutory Instruments he would address his mind, but I take the view that all three are of very great importance, not only to the fisheries industry and its ancillary industries, but to the consumers of this country and to the thousands of workers in all branches of the industry. But I make my protest, as I have on other occasions, against the Government initiating a debate on this great industry at so late an hour when hon. Members are not in the mood to consider all the implications of it as they should be examined. Tonight is only one of a series of such occasions when the business of fisheries has been tacked on to the end of the day's business instead of its being treated as a primary matter of great concern to the nation.

Other hon. Members have addressed their minds to details, some of them mathematical and some of them historical, but I want to invite attention to another aspect of this topic which so far has not been mentioned. On former occasions, Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and what a nomenclature, as though fisheries did not produce food and agriculture had nothing to do with food—have dealt with similar Statutory Instruments in a hurried and casual way. Tonight, the Minister gave some consideration to what he called outside considerations, and I wish to ask him to take a somewhat longer view of the implications of these Statutory Instruments.

There are larger considerations which merit careful discussion and analysis, and whatever may have happened on former occasions, the Statutory Instrument have not been dealt with in a perfunctory manner tonight. I congratulate the Minister upon that fact. These Statutory Instruments merit careful, long-term consideration, because the conditions in the fishing industry have changed and are changing and the future of the industry is uncertain, as I shall indicate briefly. It may well be that the statutory conditions and provisions which sufficed for the fishing industry in the present and in the past may suffice this year and next year. The question we have to ask tonight is whether the subsidies now proposed are sufficient for their purposes.

The Minister very fairly said that the whole topic will be considered when the Fleck Report is published. Presumably, by that he means that it will be considered in a long-term manner. As has been indicated by other hon. Members on this side, however, other Reports of a similar character have not been considered for a long time. It is important that we should give consideration tonight to the long-term implications of these three Statutory Instruments.

I have said that the conditions of the industry for this year, with which these Statutory Instruments are conversant, are not certain. I say that because of the new economic proposals which are before the Government and before the country and which shortly will be before the House, arising from the Common Market, the European Community and agreements with regard to the Six and the Seven. Those agreements may vitally affect the fishing industry and its need for subsidies and the amount of the subsidy.

I shall deal with only one of these Statutory Instruments, the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, which succeeds last year's similar scheme. The Explanatory Note to the Scheme states that The conditions relating to grants in respect of voyages made and fish landed remain the same as those under the previous scheme. That is not true. The conditions are not the same, as I shall indicate.

As recently as 7th July, I asked the Prime Minister about what were called threats by the Common Market to British trade, including the fishing industry. The Prime Minister quoted his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who said that the present economic division of Europe threatened the normal development of European trade, including our own, even though this was not the design or intention of the members of the Common Market. This is also the view of Her Majesty's Government. Then, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that the policy of the Government is a confused mass of threats and fears arising from the situation in Europe? In the interests of industry and progress in Britain, will he do something to clarify the situation and remove the threats? I was speaking of the fishing industry. I had the fishing industry in mind, and so had the Prime Minister. Here is his answer: what we want is an arrangement for a partnership between the two groupings for a common system of European trade. That implies, first, loyalty to our friends in the E.F.T.A. and, secondly, every possible effort to reach agreement between the Six and the Seven to see how this larger system can be brought about. We are anxious for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 696.] The Prime Minister was then, and apparently is still, anxious for an arrangement with a formidable entity which may engulf Britain's industries, including Britain's fishing industry. These Statutory Instruments should take account of that, the immediate future of the industry. Britain's fishing industry will need much greater subsidies than these Statutory Instruments now provide to save it from damage or, perhaps, extinction.

The European Community is enormous. It covers an area of 449,000 square miles, as many as there are in the United States. It has a population of 169 million people. Its workers—I am not going into great detail, Mr. DeputySpeaker—number 73 million, more than the United States. Its associated countries contain a further 53 million people. It is the world's largest importer and second largest exporter. It makes these Statutory Instruments inadequate for their purpose.

I pass, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from that dangerous territorial ground concerning which you were about to call me to order, but in my submission it is strictly relevant. I say that the British fishing industry is in danger. These Statutory Instruments do not mitigate that danger as they should. The relevant problems need further consideration. I shall give one example of that danger, and, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in my submission it is strictly relevant. It was supplied to me by the British Trawlers Federation in a statement, dated as recently as 6th July, on what the Prime Minister calls "a partnership which implies loyalty to our friends in E.F.T.A." The British Trawlers Federation said this: The Norwegian fishing industry estimates that if Britain will accept frozen fish as an industrial product Norway can send her about £75 million worth a year. This would enable the Norwegian fishing industry to work all the year round and employ about 10,000 more workers in the freezing plants. This will take employment from British industry and it will therefore need greater subsidies in the future. I am asking the Minister to take a long-term view of this. This agreement I have referred to will probably so damage Britain's fishing industry and its ancillary industries that higher subsidies will be needed if British crews and fish market workers are not to be thrown out of employment. This is a pistol at the head of the industry, and presented to this House now at the dead of night with no alternative but to accept it or reject it. As we have the utmost care for the fishing industry we do not reject it, but I ask the Minister to take into account the considerations I have suggested so that he may evolve a long-term policy in the interests of the fishing industry.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives)

The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the rather dangerous vicissitudes of the Sixes and the Sevens.

I should like to welcome the news the Minister has given us tonight. I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who led for the Opposition tonight, on his speech. I should like to say how much we all miss a certain person who is un- fortunately deceased, and his great knowledge and experience of this industry.

I personally am very sorry that the Minister cannot change his mind about day payments as opposed to stone payments. If we set up an authority such as the White Fish Authority, and if for two years running it says that a thing ought to die, then it does seem a pity that the Government cannot act on that advice. Of course, I must say once again, as I say every year, how much I agree with the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) about shell fishing. We try to get this matter reconsidered every year. There never seems to be any good reason why it should not be reconsidered, but, unfortunately, it never is. However, we can at least mention it every year and hope for the best.

I now come to something in more general terms which has not yet been mentioned. It is the intolerable situation in which the Royal Navy is placed at the moment vis-à-vis the Icelandic situation. It is no good going on month after month making kind references to the Royal Navy and saying what a wonderful job it is doing and, at the same time, leave it with no guidance whatever to get on with the job.

As the House knows, the idea of the havens is no longer operating. Therefore, it means that the ships which are in Icelandic waters are having to cover vast areas and having to deal with more and more difficult situations with practically no guidance. I know that the Government say, "Give us a little bit longer." Goodness knows, this House has been very patient in the matter, and we will certainly go on being patient. But I wish to emphasise that it is really up to the Foreign Office to be a little more active in the matter.

The Foreign Office seems to have the word "appeasement" written for all to see in everything it does. When we say, "All right, if these other people wish to make 12-mile limits why should not we do the same?", the Foreign Office says, "For goodness sake do not do that; it will upset somebody." It seems to me that we are the people who are always being upset and who never do anything about it. It is not fair to our inshore fishermen. Everyone else seems to have these increased limits, but we do not. We are told. "Give us a little bit longer" There really must be a limit to this. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue.

The Royal Navy cannot be asked to go on indefinitely defending the present intolerable situation in Iceland. The Trawler Federation is doing a wonderful job in trying to restrain its members. I think that the telegram recently sent by the Federation was a statesmanlike action, not only on the part of the owners but on the part of the skippers and the trade unions involved.

When it is proposed that we should tell the people who threaten to extend their limits that if they do so we will cut off their imports of frozen fish, we always seem to be told that we dare not do so because it would upset someone. It is obvious from the telegram which the Trawler Federation sent that the continuation of recent incidents will stop any possibility of getting talks started.

Our naval ships have been told that it is essential for them to obey instructions and keep outside the 12-mile limit while fishing is going on. Nothing could be more definite than that. The trawlermen are saying that they are on the side of the Icelanders and the Icelanders are saying that they are on the side of our trawlermen, and the Royal Navy is getting the sticky end both ways with very little direction. There is always the knowledge that the captain in charge of the ship, who has to discharge arduous and seemingly endless duties, has to make the decision which may involve him in all kinds of trouble.

I beg the Government to make some sort of decision fairly soon on the matter because it is not fair to these men, apart from their extremely arduous and unpleasant duty of protecting the areas, to have to go on interminably in this manner.

What can we do about it? I suggest that after 12th August, if we do not get any satisfaction in the matter, it is up to us to try something really active. One knows if one reads the Icelandic sagas that that kind of diplomacy is more or less the diplomacy of two men lined up against each other.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am becoming a little anxious lest the hon. Member should go further than the reasonable reference to the Icelandic dispute which would be in order in this debate.

Mr. Howard

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I suggest to the Government that there is a very good reference to this dispute in the 8th July issue of Fishing News, in which it is said that To ensure that more 'incidents' do not mar the proceedings, it might be worthwhile to set up a neutral zone, say between nine and 12 miles from the Icelandic coast, policed by vessels of the British and Icelandic navies working in pairs. To some, such action may seem fantastic … but it might be something worth considering. It should be clearly known that if we cannot come to an agreement by 12th August we shall take firm and drastic action to try to end the dispute.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

I accept with gratitude most of what is in these Schemes and support wholeheartedly the general direction of the Government's policy on the fishing industry. At the same time, mistakes are sometimes made and it is because I am frightened that one may be in the process of being made, that I have been anxious to speak in the debate tonight.

I refer to the decision to provide an extra £4 daily subsidy for boats of over 80 ft. in length, bringing them up to £12 per day at sea, while the boats with which I am principally concerned, those of under 80 ft. in length, receive only £6 10s. per day at sea. This looks like unfair discrimination and it may have serious effects on the industry in the North.

There are boats from Fraserburgh and Peterhead of 73 ft. in length competing with those of over 80 ft. in the same waters, regardless of distance and weather, and they are landing in the same market fish in just as good condition. If the reason for the different rate of subsidy is that the 80 ft. boats have to go farther and need a higher subsidy in consequence, why should other boats which do likewise be denied it? Could there not be an arrangement whereby boats doing the same fishing as boats of over 80 ft. should receive a similar subsidy administered independently to them on those grounds?

If the reason for this subsidy is simply that boats of this class have been doing badly, I, of course, support giving them the help that they need; but could not comparable help be given to boats under the 80 ft. mark, which need such help pretty badly also? The reaction of the men in the under 80 ft. boats to these Schemes will be that they are being penalised in some way; that is the reason for my forebodings on this matter. It is not a matter of figures and of adjusting one set of balance sheets to conform with another set, or it ought not to be. This has to do with people in the industry.

I should like to quote from a letter I received from one of my constituents. This man is the skipper of a boat fishing out of Fraserburgh. He says: What I fear personally if the present proposed subsidies come into force is our crew reaction. It is impossible to overemphasise the serious nature of this fact; the crews of these vessels are the backbone of the industry. They are the majority interest of the industry. The Scottish Herring Association has more vessels in membership, or affiliated to it, than all the other Scottish and English Herring Catchers Associations combined. They do a very hard day's work, and they do it well. When they go to East Anglia and find themselves working alongside 80 ft. boats with a £12 per day subsidy they will feel the inequity very strongly.

Let me make another point. Before the daily subsidy was introduced, the herring industry was falling off at an alarming rate. It was revitalised, but there is the feeling once again up in the North that a recession is creeping on, and when the discrepancy between the under 80 ft. and over 80 ft. boats becomes obvious there will be a real possibility of trouble. These boats are dual-purpose boats. For many that has been so since before the war. They can change over in 24 hours, and they may do so.

As the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) mentioned in a wider survey, fish meal and oil prospects are not bright. The East Anglia fishing prospects are not bright. The West Coast fishing will suffer from the extra fishing that a fall off at East Anglia will produce. These under 80 feet herring drifters may change their lines of production. Are the Government prepared to face that with equanimity?

Finally, towns like Fraserburgh and Peterhead depend upon the herring fishing. When the fishing is good the towns are buoyant. When the fishing is bad there is gloom, and sympathy with that gloom. If there is less and less herring fishing, we have to face the cost to the whole economy of the North-East. Canning factories, fish meal factories, and freezing establishments have been built at tremendous capital cost and they employ large numbers of people. These concerns are largely dependent on the under 80 feet boats. If they are forced to switch to alternative lines of production there will be resultant unemployment.

It is for that reason, as well as for the reasons of comparable interest between the crews of the under 80 feet boats as apposed to those in the over 80 feet class, that I ask the Government to consider very carefully indeed this decision they are making tonight.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily at this late hour. I merely wish to put on record that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) in congratulating the Minister on the improved grants as far as they apply to inshore fishermen, but I regret that it has not been possible to alter the method of payment.

It occurs to me that possibly the reluctance of my right hon. Friend to make any alteration is because it is suspected that perhaps a grant made to an inshore man on a day basis might somehow get confused with that form of activity which in my part of the world is described as "going on the ruby." That means taking out a boat with visitors, not primarily for fishing, but more as a form of entertainment for tourists.

I cannot help thinking that if that may be the case there is justifiable reluctance to pay the money, but that could be got over and some definition could be found which would confine the subsidy grant to fishing that is fishing, and not merely another form of activity.

If that be the case, I hope that the Minister will look at this again, because a number of different organisations and numerous persons concerned with the industry have said that they think it would be an improvement, so far as the inshore men are concerned, if it were possible to make the payment to them on a different system from that which appertains at the present, and that it should be given to them on a daily basis.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I will deal very briefly with a most important secondary aspect of these subsidies. For 300 years the purchasing power of the Royal Navy has sustained our small-boat-building industry. The Royal Navy went on ordering small ships and small boats up to the latter days of the last war. From the end of the war we have been very fortunate in having these subsidies, which have taken over, as it were, the position of the Royal Navy in giving support to the boat-building industry.

There is a popular feeling that the small-boat industry is booming, and so it is in plywood dinghies and that sort of boat, but if we are to maintain the traditional crafts and skills in out-of-the-way places such as the Highlands and other widely scattered areas of the nation, it is essential that the 'boat-building industry should continue to have Government support through subsidies such as these. The subsidy is indirectly to the boat-building industry, as I am sure hon. Members realise, but it is of the greatest assistance.

The boat-building industry is somewhat concerned that, with the introduction of E.F.T.A., those fishermen who wish to buy new boats may look overseas for their purchases. It would give the industry some assurance if my right hon. Friend would ask the President of the Board of Trade to look into that in the future and to assure the boat-building industry that these subsidies will be paid on British-built craft only.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I have no wish to delay the House unduly at a time of the evening at which much inconvenience can be caused if we talk longer than we need, but I say at once that it is not fair to those hon. Members who represent the fishing industry, in particular, to have these debates at this time of the day. Nor is it fair that the debates are limited, as this is, because we have to deal with these Statutory Instruments.

This is particularly unfair tonight, because I do not believe that we have discussed the essential problem at all. I protest particularly because we have been discussing a subsidy to a private industry, and we ought to discuss it at an appropriate time; but we have not discussed the essential question. The right hon. Gentleman has had a more favourable reception in the discussion of these Schemes because he has stated that they increase the subsidy following certain Government actions which have prejudiced the industry. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that what we want to discuss is the actions of the Government to the prejudice of the industry.

Mention has been made of the failure to reach agreement at Geneva. I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he was put in an impossible position by the failure of the Attorney-General. I do not absolve the Government from blame. This has been a failure, and politicians cannot afford failures; they are accountable for them. While I absolve the right hon. Gentleman, I say that, as a result of the mismanagement and miscalculation at the earlier conference, he was put in an impossible position. We ought to have had an opportunity to debate this.

Mr. Hare

On a point of order. I think that this is not in order, and I regret this attack on my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I think the Minister has drawn attention to the difficulty in which the House finds itself, in that we can make only passing reference and not go into these matters in detail in discussing these Schemes.

Mr. Willey

I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You know how generous I am. I was endeavouring to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to pursue the matter further.

I say again about the subsidy as a whole—I think I have said this before in previous debates of this kind—that where we are providing public funds there is a duty upon us to see that the purposes for which the funds are provided are fulfilled. I found it most disturbing that the right hon. Gentleman should be so complacent about there being 150 coal-burners still at sea. I should have thought if this was the position that we should consider a little more fully whether the purpose of the Government subsidy is being properly met.

Here again, I have every sympathy with the point that has been made about loan charges and interest rates. What is the purpose of the Government? The Government are accountable. We have got the highest interest rate now because of Government policy. This is an extraordinarily flagrant waste of public funds, to provide a subsidy on the one hand and, through deliberate Government policy on the other hand, to discourage new construction. This is exactly what is going to happen. We have had it before.

The right hon. Gentleman touched upon this. He said that the coal-burners might well have had a reduction in subsidy this year if they had not put in so many orders for new vessels this year. But we know that this is only a reflection of Government policy. Of course, the building record has been better in the past twelve months because interest rates were lower. Now interest rates are going up and the Government say, on top of everything else, "We penalise you." I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). If one is, for proper purposes, giving aid to an industry, one has got to be consistent about this.

So with regard to the other matters that have been discussed. It is really a flagrant waste of public funds to come to the House and meekly say, "We are awaiting the Fleck Committee." If meanwhile this very substantial subsidy is being paid, the Government had better speed up the Fleck Committee. As I have said before, why could we not have had an interim report on some of these matters? I believe it is very likely that the Fleck Committee will make very wide-sweeping general recommendations about this industry. What are the Government going to do? Shall we, because of these wide recommendations, get a long delay in their implementation? These are matters of policy. We have got to have a Government that is capable of taking policy decisions. I hope that at any rate this will be the last debate in which we await the Fleck Committee. I warn the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not Minister of Defence by then, that we simply cannot wait year after year while the Government make up their minds about the Fleck Committee.

These matters may be extraordinarily difficult, but here we have an industry which for ten years has been State-aided. The Government, having State-aided the industry for good reasons, should know something about the industry. They should know how it has responded to that subsidy. Otherwise it is extraordinarily unfair to an industry. This is a question of putting money into an industry. The same applies to almost every aspect of this industry.

I will make no more than a passing reference to it, but I should have expected something to be said about the Icelandic dispute. We know what is to happen next month. It is these uncertainties which affect the future and livelihood of people in an industry such as this. Again, there is the matter of the E.F.T.A. Agreement and the frozen fillets from Norway. We know that there was a condition written into that, and there was the possibility of further discussions about it in the circumstances now obtaining. These are the things in which we have a very real interest since we are, for what I regard as very proper reasons, supporting the industry.

I do not wish to say much more because I want to give the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland time to reply. Because of the difficulties of a debate such as this, I do not expect him to answer all the points which have been made, but I hope that the Government will keep them in mind and that they will face these matters squarely in an effort to reach conclusions. Otherwise, we shall have an unsatisfactory situation. We look anxiously from year to year to see what adjustments in subsidy are made, but what the industry wants to know is what is the Government's fundamental approach to the support they are prepared to give. The industry has seen some very disturbing developments which, though not necessarily the result of Government policy—I am not being unfair—are attributable to Government policy. They are not unassociated with Government policy.

The important thing is to have as quickly as we can a report from the Fleck Committee and then, whatever the difficulties in coming to firm conclusions, we should have clear and definite conclusions from the Government as soon as possible thereafter. The industry is not in an easy position in the new developments which are taking place in European trade. It will be prejudiced both ways, prejudiced by concessions made by the Government at a time when the Government are not sufficiently resolute in seeing that the industry itself is able as effectively as possible to meet the new situation. While I qualify a little further the qualifications which have been put on the work which has gone into the Measures before us, I must say—I think that in fishery debates I can always speak for both sides of the House on this—that I hope that, by the time we next discuss these matters, we shall have a clear definition of policy from the Government.

11.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn)

This evening, we have had, as usual on this subject, an interesting and exhaustive debate, and I shall do my best to deal with some of the points which have been raised. Hon. Members will not expect me to cover the whole ground and try to answer all the questions which have been put, but I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will take very careful note of some extremely interesting suggestions which have been made.

The debate has shown that, while there are certain criticisms of various details of the subsidy schemes, there is broad agreement, albeit a little lukewarm, perhaps, in some quarters, on our aims and on the policies intended to achieve them. The subsidies, together with grants and loans for new vessels, and the measures we are seeking to promote internationally for the conservation of fish stocks, constitute a concerted policy with a view to tiding the industry over a difficult period while the fleet is modernised and placed, we hope, upon a sound economic footing. I have no doubt that hon. Members particularly noted some remarks made by my right hon. Friend at the start of his speech.

As several hon. Members have pointed out, the industry is still confronted by a number of difficulties—fishery limits, fluctuations in stocks and so on. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, we shall have to consider the whole position very carefully following the report of the Fleck Committee. In the meantime, we believe that we are pursuing policies which are basically sound and that the Schemes that we ask the House to approve tonight conform to them.

I should like to touch on one or two of the points which have been raised this evening. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the uncertainties facing the industry over fishing limits off other countries, particularly Iceland, Norway and the Faroes. The Faroes is the area of most direct concern to the vessels that we are considering tonight—the near and middle water fleet. There the fishing limits are fixed by the agreement that we made with Denmark last year, and this provides for consultation between us in October, 1961, if a general convention regulating the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery limits has not by then come into force.

In the case of Norway, hon. Members will know that talks with the Norwegians have already taken place this summer about a bilateral agreement. A substantial measure of agreement was reached, and we hope that it may he possible in further talks in the autumn to reach full agreement.

In the case of Iceland, the Government have repeatedly expressed their willingness to discuss the situation with the Icelandic Government, and they will continue to do their utmost to bring about talks for the settlement of the situation.

A number of hon. Members have raised the question of the date—

Mr. Crosland

It is very agreeable to hear that the Government have repeatedly expressed their willingness to discuss the situation with the Icelandic Government. Have they actually thought of sending someone to Iceland to discuss matters?

Mr. Leburn

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. A number of hon. Members have raised the question of what arises on 12th August. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that this is, as well as being a very difficult problem, a very delicate one. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with the situation, and I know that he will consider, along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, whether it would be helpful to make some statement before we rise for the Recess. I do not think that I can go further than that tonight.

Turning now to the question raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North as to whether or not—

Mr. Hoy

Has the hon. Gentleman moved from the Faroes for good, or would he not just like to say a further word, because there is considerable trouble and danger arising there because of the Danish vessel which is patrolling in that area?

Mr. Leburn

I am aware that there have been some difficulties recently in the waters to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think he would expect me to comment on cases which are still sub judice since the owners have lodged appeals against the convictions of the two skippers concerned. I can, however, tell him that we are concerned at certain aspects of recent incidents which do not concern the judicial proceedings taking place, and appropriate representations have been made to the Danish authorities through diplomatic channels.

I was about to say a word about interest rates, because that is a subject which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. The question of interest rates on loans is not new It has been said that the fluctuating rates of interest charged by the White Fish Authority have caused difficulties and uncertainty to borrowers, but I can only repeat what has been said on previous occasions. The plain fact is that such fluctuations are inevitable. The Authority has to borrow the money it lends, and the rates which it charges must reflect the rates at which the Authority can borrow from the Exchequer for corresponding terms.

I can hold out no hope of a means being found by which the fishery industry can be insulated from the changes which affect other industries; I believe and am advised that the rates charged by the Authority compare favourably with those obtained from other sources. Paragraph 13 of the Report of the White Fish Authority states that there is no evidence that higher rates of interest are retarding the modernisation of the inshore and near and middle water fleets.

Mr. Hoy

But since that Report was printed there have been two further increases in interest rates which now stand at the highest point ever reached.

Mr. Leburn

I do not think that that changes in any way what I have said. The two changes in question amount to only three-eighths of 1 per cent. and, while not insignificant, I do not think that changes the general principle.

The hon. Member for Leith, raised the question of the Granton trawlers and, as he is aware, I have considered very carefully his suggestion that the so-called "boxing allowance" should be reintroduced. I am afraid I must tell him that on consideration we cannot do this.

The circumstances in which this allowance operated at Granton prior to 1956 no longer apply. At that time subsidy payments were related to gross earnings and the subsidy was reduced, or ceased altogether, if gross earnings per day at sea exceeded certain amounts. This allowance was simply a recognition of the fact that, as a result of their marketing methods, and the resulting method of determining their earnings, the Granton owners would have been unfairly penalised without an allowance of this kind. In other words, its purpose was not to give the Granton trawlers more subsidy than other trawlers received, but to prevent them from getting less.

That problem no longer arises since the subsidy is now paid at the full daily rate, irrespective of earnings. The hon. Member is asking that the subsidy scheme should be so drafted as to permit the Granton trawlers to get more subsidy than similar vessels at other ports and that, of course, is a very difficult proposition to accept.

The hon. Member for Leith suggested that the Minister said that differing factors were being taken into account in making the herring subsidy; but there is a distinct difference. The subsidy does not differentiate by ports and countries. The subsidy for vessels of more than 80 feet will apply to both English and Scottish ships. The difference is not between ports and countries, but between ships.

Mr. Hoy

If that is the test, and as these particular trawlers are about the only type in this country, then why does the Minister not put them into that class and pay the higher subsidy?

Mr. Leburn

That may at first sight appear to be an attractive suggestion, but I should need to look at it carefully. There might be vessels in other parts of the country which, it might be claimed, had to bear higher transport charges or to travel longer distances to the fishing grounds. Instead of having a small number of categories, we might have dozens of them to contend with.

I should like to say a few words to my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), who complained about what, I think, they would term unequal treatment for Scottish and English herring fisheries. I could not agree that there is such inequality. The English suffered a big drop in earnings last year—my right hon. Friend described it as disastrous—as a result of which both motor and steam vessels made substantial losses, whereas they made profits in 1958.

The subsidy rates for vessels over 80 ft. have thus been increased by £4 a day for motor vessels and £2 a day in the case of steam vessels. These are increases which, I agree, benefit mainly, but not wholly, the English fleet. The Scottish herring vessels as a whole, however, did not suffer a corresponding drop in earnings. The ring net vessels made bigger profits than in 1958 and the drifters continued to make quite satisfactory profits, although slightly less than in 1958.

It is true that if the Government were not assisting the Herring Industry Board to maintain its present prices for surplus herring purchased for reduction to meal and oil, the Scottish vessels could expect to suffer a big drop in earnings. For that reason, this assistance is being continued. Thus the English are being helped primarily by an increase in the ordinary subsidy and the Scots by the oil and meal arrangements. In each case, the assistance being given is equivalent to about a 50 per cent. increase in the present subsidy. I genuinely believe that this is fair all round.

Simply because those classes which need an increase in subsidy are to get it, to say that others should also automatically get it—in other words, when we widen a band in order to narrow the gap in profits—is to take a view which is neither sound, fair nor attractive.

Sir W. Duthie

Surely, my hon. Friend realises the effect of this disparity in the subsidy between fishermen operating alongside each other in the same fishing grounds, shooting the same number of nets, and landing their catches at the same quayside, when one vessel gets £72 a week and the other gets £39, each with a crew of similar size. My hon. Friend must appreciate that this will lead to unpleasant circumstances in East Anglia.

Mr. Leburn

I take the point and I sympathise with it, but that does not happen all the year round. In any event, if the differences in the profit margins between the two types of vessel are properly explained to the fishermen, I believe that we can overcome that. The hour is late and I do not want to go on too long. We have had extremely interesting contributions particularly from the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and Bodmin (Mr. Marshall).

This matter of fisheries is of extreme importance. I am appalled that throughout the whole of this debate no representative of the Liberal Party has been present. I said at the beginning that my right hon. Friend and myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take careful note of what has been said during the whole of the debate. I do not think that there is any fundamental disagreement with the Schemes which we have considered tonight, whose importance to the fishing industry is self-evident. I should like to finish by paying my tribute to all those who fish in the industry. It is a job which is dangerous and hazardous. I am sure that they all command our respect, and I would pay my tribute particularly to them.

With that, I recommend these Schemes to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, dated 29th June, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, dated 29th June, 1960 [copy laid before the House, 30th June], approved.—[Mr. Hare.]

White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Extension) Order, 1960, dated 28th June, 1960 [copy laid before the House, 30th June], approved.—[Mr. Hare.]