HC Deb 08 May 1967 vol 746 cc971-84

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.20 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I know that the Minister is anxious to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I hope to make but a few comments today. I understand that last week the proceedings were somewhat unusual, and linked with something about hares and coursing. I hope that we shall not be long this morning. The Minister said that this was a short, simple Bill, and that there should not be much controversy.

I shall begin by quoting from an O.E.C.D. publication about financial support to the British fishing industry. Page 206, paragraph 30 says: The way in which the support has been given has created the danger of a fishing industry largely depending on a permanent Government support. I do not want this, and I do not think that Members opposite want it either. I am certain that the owners do not. The Minister said that the performance of the industry in 1967 had been good. At col. 456 last week he said that this had been achieved … with fewer vessels and fewer men". I am not sure that this was a good thing. I want to see more vessels and more men catching more fish. We are importing far too much fish, and should be catching more ourselves. This should be the object of Government financial support. I accept the Minister's dictum last week that The key to increasing productivity lies in new investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 456.] Additional aid of this nature should naturally mean more productivity. It would be funny if it did not. Knowing the Minister, I am quite sure that he cannot be wanting fewer men in the industry to catch these fish. There is no doubt that manpower is decreasing, despite the money that we invest in the industry. This is a serious matter for the nation, and is similar to that in the coal mining industry. It will be a waste of public money to give assistance to build modern vessels if these vessels will be unable to leave port because of the lack of deck hands. I understand that in the last debate there was talk about some boats being unable to leave Fleetwood, because of a lack of manpower. This happily is not the case at North Shields or Hull.

May I quote someone with whom no one can quibble. This is what Sir Roy Matthews, former chief of the White Fish Authority said: I see an exodus of fishermen leaving the industry, never to return, so that even if at some stage the Government decide to invest and expand, there will be no trained manpower left. This is the situation facing us, at a time when we are talking of granting sums of about £350,000. Every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency knows of the dissatisfaction of the workers in the industry. It is to adopt the attitude of an ostrich to think that this decline in manpower is due to militant unionism. All union officials, whether Transport and General Workers or General and Municipal, which is my own union, must always fight for the betterment of their members' working conditions and the day-by-day terms of service. The reasons lie deeper.

Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope that this money will be spent mainly in the provision of better facilities for deck hands. It is mainly the "deckies" who need the better conditions. I hope that owners will consult with architects to ensure that these better amenities are provided in new vessels. There is no industry which works such long hours under such dangerous conditions as the deep sea fishing industry. I notice that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), talked about the symposium upon the fishing industry held at Grimsby, which I thought was a first-class effort. I, too, wish to quote from a paper read there, not that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but that read by Mr. Roberts, who is the operations director for Ross Trawlers, Ltd. Mr. Roberts had something to say about the training of fishermen and the rôle of the unions. He said: Let us face it, competent fishermen are grossly underpaid vis-à-vis semi-skilled men ashore. If it is beyond the wit of management to create better conditions at sea then obviously there is no future in commercial fishing because there will be nobody left to man the vessels. This is the context in which we are discussing the allocation of the extra money. I could not agree more with hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that we should use it to obtain better working conditions for the fishermen.

However, I go further and say that this money would be better spent, not so much on building better vessels to catch more fish, although this is important; but it would be better spent in the building of a training vessel for fishermen.

I understand that the White Fish Authority has asked for the provision and financing of training vessels. I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who talked about E.E.C. fleets and the Communist State fleets. He said that he had been doing some homework and had attempted to find out what the E.E.C. nations gave in aid to their fishing fleets. It is all in an O.E.C.D. volume which I have here. Those of us who attend the Council of Europe and sit on the Fishing Committee know all about this.

I talk to my colleagues from Bremer-haven or any fishing port in France, like Brest, and they tell me how much they are aided. I have no quibble about this money being granted, but it is the way in which it is being used which is vital. The Minister should give some hint of how he intends the money should be spent, perhaps on the lines suggested by Sir Roy Matthews.

I have just been to Poland, as the guest of the Polish Fishermen, Dockers and Seamens' Union. There are no statistics to be found about State aid to Polish and Soviet fleets in the way that they can be quoted from O.E.C.D. for Western European fleets. The Polish fleet began from nothing in 1945. It was advised by the Hull vessel owner, Mr. Basil Parks. No fisherman is allowed to go to sea in a Polish vessel until he has undergone a course of training, in the same way as we qualify our officers. This is the efficient kind of set-up we should consider, when thinking of what the competitive conditions will be if, and when, we get into the Common Market or even into a wider community. Not long ago there was an article in Fishing News about these conditions in the Polish fleet.

Like hon. Members opposite I hope that the aid given by this modest Bill will be spent mainly on safety devices and better amenities for the crews. I believe, as the Poles do, that if we send seamen away for five, six, seven or even eight weeks, they should have the best possible conditions when they are at sea. They are now going for 59 days out of Hull on long-distance voyages to Newfoundland and perhaps soon the West Coast of Africa. It is bad for men physically and mentally if they have to live four or five men together in over-crowded conditions. To design two bunks in a cabin does not cost very much extra the ships architects tell me. This is a negligible factor in the £500,000 overall cost of a vessel, and it could be undertaken and thus give the men better living and working conditions. This is where owners must look if they are to justify their accepting more grants from Government funds.

I know that the Minister wishes to get the Bill through, so I shall conclude on this note. Last week much was said about the Common Market and competition from various nations, but I touch on one point only. When we questioned the Prime Minister a few days ago we discussed the subject of mobility of labour. The money we are voting today will help our fleet to be better equipped so that our seamen can work in competition with other nations. I do not wish to see Continental labour moving here to be employed when our own fishermen need work so badly, and when their services are needed to build a viable, efficient and happy industry.

I am delighted to see that the Minister has just taken his seat on the Front Bench. Unlike what was said by some Opposition Members last week, I say this in a kind spirit. I was delighted to read that he then said: there are other aspects of the Government's policy towards investment in the industry in which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested. He went on to speak of a review of policy and the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, and concluded by saying. I hope we shall be in a position to give a reply to the Committee before long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 457.] I sincerely hope that that will be so.

Those of us who represent fishing ports feel that we are Cinderellas compared with the powerful men from the shires who represent agricultural constituencies. We should like to have more debates on fishing. I hope that the Minister will give us a chance of a wide-ranging debate on the industry, as he suggested in his speech last week.

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I think it will be agreed that the importance of the fishing industry has been shown by the attendance and the very warm welcome—a somewhat protracted welcome—given to this Bill. It is of course absolutely right that attention should be paid to this Bill even though it does not occupy much space and could be described as a piece of amending legislation. It could be of great potential benefit for the fishing industry. It is, therefore, right that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the situation in the industry.

I must claim to be an agriculturist, not from the shires but one trying to scratch a living from the hillsides of Scotland. It seems that the fishing industry is going through what the agricultural industry went through some years ago, a considerable revolution in methods. Tremendous things are happening with the introduction of freezer trawlers and so forth. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), although I am not sure that I go the whole way with him. I got the impression that he wanted more men in the fishing industry. I would agree, with the qualification that we must not forget that in the farming industry there are now half the number of people employed yet they are producing about twice the amount of food per head. I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean to imply that while wanting an increase in manpower we should forget productivity.

As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and some others, one doubts if any industry has been so cruelly a victim of spiralling costs. I received the British Trawler Federation's Report on Thursday. In its foreword it says that in the year of the "freeze" there was an 8½ per cent. increase in operation costs. This makes us recognise that the maximum amount of confidence and assurance for the future are needed. Over much of the debate last Wednesday there brooded the question of the review, to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted his peroration, and matters such as competitive tendering, which were referred to by the Select Committee, whether or not one should go on scrapping two old vessels for each new freezer or one-and-a-half old vessels for each new conventional vessel. These are all matters which are causing considerable uncertainty in the industry.

In November, 1964, in the very first flush of enthusiasm of a new Government, we were told that a review was being instigated and it was expected to be finished by the end of 1966. In March, 1967, a Government spokesman expressed the hope that the review would be completed this year. That would be a year late, but the Minister on Wednesday did not go even so far as to express that hope. He said "before long". Before long may mean many things depending on how vigorous one is in considering the future and what one wants to come out at the other end. When winding up this debate, can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us what is causing this matter of the review to drag behind? Over a year has passed, and that is a fair percentage increase on the time that was forecast originally. I hope that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend are fully seized with, I will not say necessarily the anxiety, but the considerable interest which is attending the review and will show signs that they are anxious to bring it to a conclusion and to announce the result to the House.

I should like to put to the Under-Secretary two questions perhaps of detail. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the question of grants for British vessels built in foreign yards. Will the proposed increase apply to those vessels? Secondly, will the implementation of the Bill have any effect upon the Highlands and Islands Fishery Scheme, under which boats are provided and grants are given by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? If not, what will be the position of the Orkney and Shetland Islands vis-à-vis the Outer Islands concerning grant?

Is the Bill supposed to be no more than an academic exercise? It is not altogether insignificant that it will come to an end at the end of 1969, and by all accounts something may happen at the beginning of 1970 if certain advances and negotiations are successful. How will these grants fare if the Prime Minister succeeds in doing what the Minister has, I understand, always been so anxious that the Prime Minister should not do—that is, to go into the Common Market? Have any soundings been made of the Community concerning its reactions to our subsidy system and to this subsidy in particular? I should have thought that if anything was of a structural nature, and structural improvements are warmly supported within the Community, this one should be quite all right.

As many of my hon. Friends said on Wednesday, it would be a tragedy and it would be to a large extent futile if we were to pass the Bill and lend our support to many other grants of this kind and anything were then to happen as a result of going into the Common Market which would undo the enormously valuable work which was done at great length and with enormous pains at the London Conference on Fishery Limits.

If by any chance—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can give us any reassurance about this—there were to be any reneging on those limts, which were so carefully worked out, whereby other nations were allowed to come and fish closer in than is possible now, much of the work that we have been doing on Wednesday and this morning would be negatived.

I return, finally, to the need for a speedy conclusion of the review which is taking place. It is essential because fishing is every bit as long-term an investment in its requirements as is agriculture. Therefore, the further that the Minister is able to allow the industry to see ahead, the better service he will do.

10.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)

We have had a lengthy debate and I do not want to go over all the events or to examine the causes of the length of the debate last week. A number of the points which have been raised have little relevance to the Bill and it is just as well to keep in mind what the Bill does and does not do. It certainly does not cover the multitude of problems which have been raised either last week or this morning, ranging from the Common Market to the laying of a new breeding reef in the form of old motor cars. I certainly do not intend to pursue those points.

This simple Bill allows us to vary the maxima of grants. Having got the Bill, we intend to introduce a scheme which would allow us to increase the grant for boats under 80 ft. in length from 40 to 45 per cent. and for boats over 80 ft. in length from 35 to 40 per cent. That is the sole purpose of the Bill and we should keep this in mind. Nevertheless, certain points were raised both today and on Wednesday which need comment.

A point which has been raised frequently concerns the relationship of the Bill to possible entry into the Common Market. The Common Market is now the "in" thing which must, apparently, come into every debate. I make the simple point that we are on the eve of a three-day debate on the Common Market. If hon. Members opposite are so very concerned, we would be delighted to hear them advocating the needs of the British fishing industry throughout the next three days. I hope that they will take the opportunity to tumble over themselves to do this. Secondly, whether or not we go into the Common Market, the importance of a strong fishing industry must always remain. Therefore, anything which strengthens the fishing industry is what we should be concerned with today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has this morning underlined the question of the conditions of the men in the industry and, involved in that, the safety factors for the men. I know that with his keen interest on behalf of the fishermen, particularly of Hull, this is very close to my hon. Friend's heart. The answer is that in the scheme which we produced on 8th March, which the Bill will allow us to assist even further, we laid down certain requirements concerning the conditions of the crews as one of the criteria. I agree with what my hon. Friend said concerning the problem of shortage of personnel as against increased productivity. This is one of the measures which, we hope, will assist in this direction.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Common Market, as other hon. Members have done. This morning, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) raised—

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a new subject may I ask him to deal with this one which is not a matter which will come up during the next three days? Will there be any effect on fishing limits, which have recently been extended to 12 miles?

Mr. Buchan

As the hon. Member should have seen, that was mentioned in the White Paper on the Common Market which was published last week. It would be helpful if hon. Members were to do their homework before raising such points this morning. The hon. Member will still have the three days during which, having read the White Paper, he can come in and raise those matters.

Among the other aspects which run like a red thread through the debate is the argument about delay in the review, to which various hon. Members have referred. It was raised with me on 8th March, when I said that we were expecting to have the review this year. I said that I would not give any further promise than that. We expect it this year.

I also said, however, that we had been criticised for not having produced the grants more quickly in the scheme which we produced on 8th March. I pointed out that, by having had that delay, we had got a better scheme in the long run. There were various new factors which we had taken into consideration. I said on 8th March that hon. Members should restrain themselves with patience knowing that it was better to have a thoroughgoing review than to come out with something which was half-cooked. We are, therefore, entitled to ask hon. Members to wait.

We prefer that the review should take in some of the discussions which have been taking place this year including, for example, the important recommendations of the Estimates Committee, which we have to bring into consideration in the review rather than adding them at a later stage. We make no apology for the delay. We know that the result of the review will be worth waiting for.

I was asked, both by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), whether the additional 5 per cent. grant will be available for British fishing vessels built abroad. The answer is in the affirmative.

I was asked this morning about the relationship with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Of course, that Board gives loans and is concerned with the grants aspect and loans in general. The grants themselves will come into the normal operation of this scheme.

Mr. G. Campbell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan

I think not. I have a good deal to get through. I waited in silence for two and a half hours last week when hon. Gentlemen demonstrated that apparently they were more concerned with allowing people to pursue hares than with the interests of our fishermen.

Mr. G. Campbell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. HANSARD recorded that I spoke for six minutes in the debate last Wednesday, and I would ask you if that is not correct?

Mr. Speaker

Obviously it is correct. The hon. Gentleman would not ask me the question in that form if it was not so. However, it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Campbell

In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give way. I made a brief and concise speech, and I am here this morning at considerable effort to hear his reply. With regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I hope that he will tell me whether its grants are confined to its own area, which is the seven Highland counties.

On the subject of territorial waters and fishing limits, I have looked at the White Paper, and it says that the question is in doubt. I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he can throw some light on it.

Mr. Buchan

That is precisely—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot go too far on this debate. We have already gone pretty wide of the subject-matter.

Mr. Buchan

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be allowed to answer the earlier point at slightly greater length. In the first place, this is the kind of problem which is not concerned with the Bill. We cannot go into every aspect of fishery problems. The question of limits is a matter which is continually subject to international discussion and negotiation. It has no relevance to a Bill which allows us to increase the grants for fishing vessels by an additional 5 per cent. If the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) wishes to raise this question, he has three days in which to do it. In another three or four hours, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deploy that kind of argument.

Mr. Stodart rose—

Mr. Buchan

No. I am not giving way any more. It is a matter of little relevance to the Bill. It is of immense relevance to the debate on the Common Market and, as I have said, I expect to see hon. Members opposite tumbling over themselves to fight about fishing limits in the course of the next three days, but it is not a matter which we can discuss now.

Mr. Stodart

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that certain information could be found in the White Paper. It cannot. Will he, therefore, give the House that information?

Mr. Buchan

The information is that the matter is in doubt and has to be discussed. It is a matter for international negotiation and discussion.

Mr. Stodart

That is no answer.

Mr. Buchan

That is the answer. What other answer does the hon. Gentleman want? Does he want me, before discussing Britain's entry into the Common Market, to lay down new fishing limits throughout the world? I have no intention of doing that. I am far too modest.

Returning to the need for grants for fishing vessels, among the points raised was one by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) about whether grants would be payable on the conversion of a boat from one type of fishing to another. The answer is that it will, subject to approval by the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board. The hon. Gentleman raised the same question on 8th March, and he raised it again last week, though he is not here to hear my reply. Perhaps my impatience is understandable.

A large number of hon. Members raised extremely important questions last week and are not here to hear the answers. Among them was the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who thought that this was a dark scheme to increase fishing and asked if we were bringing it forward because we wanted more fish. He will be pleased to know that the answer is yes, we do want more fish.

The hon. Member for Banff asked, if a man applied for a grant in 1969 and the boat was not constructed until 1970, would he get the increase in grant. This is an indefinite Bill. The increase will be operating in 1967 and 1968. Other aspects of the future beyond that will have to await the results of the review which we are pushing through rapidly.

The question of timing was raised, and the answer is that the 5 per cent. increase will be paid on approved expenditure paid within the calendar years 1967 and 1968.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton), another of the hon. Members who kept us going for two and a half hours last week and is not here today, almost started to do shark fishing and asked why the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. The answer is that these Bills have never applied to Northern Ireland, but I understand that the intention there is to push through a scheme on the pattern of our own.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), with his well-known fishing interests, asked what were the upper and lower limits of vessel length which would apply for grant. If he had done his homework, he would have realised that the problem of maximum length was removed by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The only length which is a factor is 80 feet, which decides between the 40 and 45 per cent. grant. The hon. Gentleman also asked how one could say with accuracy that a 5 per cent. increase might result in an additional estimated expenditure of £350,000. Of course, it is an estimate. If one was to stop any scheme of legislation because one could not get down to the last 1½d. of cost, one would not have a pension scheme or widows' scheme. It is difficult to estimate how many widows we shall have in 12 months, but that does not stop us having a pension scheme. In the same way, the best estimate which we can make of the additional cost of the 5 per cent. increase is £350,000.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was afraid that the increase in grants might push up costs. The corollary of that would be to cut grants to keep costs down, and we have no intention of doing that. It is necessary to give adequate and generous grants to improve the quality of fishing vessels. Incidentally, we had an extraordinary question from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who is yet another hon. Member not present this morning. He asked if fishing vessels were not too well built. He would prefer them to be not so well built. He is obviously a real apostle of the waste economy.

The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) spent 20 minutes telling us that he was fond of fish. I am glad to hear it.

Questions about research were raised. There are available from the White Fish Authority grants for research which are rather more generous than the normal grant scheme. Those will continue.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

The hon. Gentleman may remember that I asked him whether the scheme was part of a package deal, because the mere giving of a grant was not enough to help inshore fishermen, and marketing was necessary.

Mr. Buchan

We are restricting ourselves to this point about the increase of 5 per cent. Earlier, I have said that in relation to inshore fishermen the argument was that the bigger companies could produce statistical records of their efficiency, and I expressed the hope that other means than statistical would be found to ensure that proper kinds of grants went to inshore fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has promoted a good deal of heat. This is a little Bill which will be of great value. It will allow the fishing industry to share in the generosity extended to other sections of British industry, and it will also help equip it for its important rôle in the British economy in the years ahead—

Mr. G. Campbell

There is one further point which I raised and with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Can he tell us something about the 25 per cent. deposit?

Mr. Buchan

This Bill does not affect loans. The total allowable amount is about 85 per cent. The deposit is of particular concern to the inshore fisherman. But we have now increased the grant. It will be 45 per cent. for boats under 80 ft., and that of itself should be of assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

Committee tomorrow.