HC Deb 15 November 1968 vol 773 cc794-808
Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (6).

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a probing Amendment. This subsection has a very close relationship with subsection (2), which places a restriction on the levy on products. Subsection (2) tells us, to paraphrase it, that the levy on products must not exceed the amount which would be produced by a 2d. levy on every stone of white fish used to produce one stone of the product in question. Therefore, if we take as an example, four stone of white fish to produce one stone of fishmeal—I daresay that fishmeal is one of the products under consideration here—I presume that the levy on fishmeal could not be more than 8d. per stone?

If we return to subsection (6), hitherto parts of white fish have been regarded as white fish. This goes back to Section 19 of the 1951 Act. Now we are told that parts of white fish shall be treated as products of white fish and not white fish—a highly illuminating remark. This is where we run up against some difficulty. Further down page 4, at line 22, we are told that the word "products" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. We are also so directed in Section 19 of this Act.

I have read through the 1951 Act three times in a determined effort to find the definition of the word "products" and I cannot find it anywhere. I find it mentioned only once in the whole of the Act. This is in Section 19 under the definition of processing, where it says: 'processing' (in relation to fish) includes preserving or preparing fish, or manufacturing products from fish, by any method for human or animal consumption. There is not a word as to what a fish product is. If the hon. Gentleman can give me the reference in the Act I will be delighted to apologise. If it does not feature in the Act, then in the later stages of this Bill it might be as well to make an Amendment.

Let us take a hypothetical case about the treatment of parts of white fish. If frozen fillets were treated in this way—and at the moment frozen fillets are regarded as white fish not as products—would there be an advantage in levying them as products? I do not know. I knew beforehand the relevant amounts of fish needed to make fishmeal, but I do not know the answer to the fillets question. If it were to take over a stone and a half or two stone of fresh fish to make a stone of frozen fillets, I can certainly see the point of this subsection. If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what is the object here.

12.45 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)

Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman in the complex sea in which he has been swimming for the last few minutes. One has to look at the Amendment and its possible effect. This would be to exclude from Clause 4 the possibility of levying parts of white fish, for example, fillets, at any different rate from whole white fish. Approximately two stones of whole white fish are needed to make a stone of fillets. It would not be equitable for any future levy regulations to ignore this. Such regulations are required to be published by the White Fish Authority in draft, and objectors could expect to see that the rate proposed was no higher than the whole fish content of the fillets justified on a reasonable view.

Ministers jointly consider these regulations and any objections, before confirming them, and the confirming order is subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

It is not an argument to say that fillets from British vessels should not be at risk of a higher levy on landing than whole fish. The larger quantity of whole fish required to provide a given quantity of fillets has already been explained.

In addition, an increasing proportion of foreign landings is in the form of fillets. In 1967, the imports of frozen fillets totalled 37,000 tons, against 5,000 tons landed from British vessels. At the least it should be open to consider that parts of fish should be treated as products in the light of arguments for and against a particular rate for a specific product. The power contained in subsection (6) should remain available to us.

As to the hon. Member's other point, the definition of "products" was added to the 1951 Act by an Amendment, in the 1962 Sea Fish Industry Act. I would refer the hon. Member to Paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule. These are the complexities with which we are involved, but when one looks at them carefully, they are reasonably simple.

Mr. Stodart

I thought it was too good to be true that I might have discovered a drafting error. This is one of the difficulties one encounters although one is trying to do one's best. We are referred to the 1951 Act, and I cannot see why the draftsmen should not, so as to help us, say that it was amended by the 1962 Act. It would have saved me a lot of reading. I am gratified to discover that my interpretation of the subsection was roughly correct, although it was as well to have that on record and to have the reasons for it.

I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wall

The Clause authorises the White Fish Authority to double their present levy, which will bring in about £1 million compared with the present £500,000. As the Minister told us on Second Reading, the original White Fish Authority levy was fixed as long ago as 1951. The Minister also said that he would have to authorise any increase and that it could be prayed against in the House. There cannot be any objection to that procedure. But it also allows a levy to be charged on all white fish landed, which I assume includes imports, and it includes white fish products, which I imagine includes fish meal. I hope that that is so. It would be a considerable encouragement to British vessels which are participating in industrial fishing. I understand that this year we are importing about £30 million worth of fish meal and that only one-fifth of the total requirements of this country are from the products of British catchers.

In this respect there is one point which I should like to put to the Minister which is worrying the inshore fishermen. Industrial fishing now will be permitted by the Immature Sea Fish Order, and I understand that it will attract subsidy if carried out by vessels over 80 ft. in length—in other words, the deep water fleet. The inshore vessels will have to pay a possible future levy which may be imposed under Clause 4 but they will. I understand, get no subsidy if they go in for industrial fishing, which I understand, is particularly appropriate for purse seine nets. Why is that so? This is a matter which is worrying the inshore fishermen around all our coasts.

The Clause refers to the White Fish Authority. On Second Reading, as reported in column 917 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Minister said that he wished to pay a tribute to the work of the Industrial Development Unit of the White Fish Authority. We on this side of the Committee would like to join in that tribute. He said that commercial development would be financed as to 50 per cent. from Government sources and as to 50 per cent. from the levy which we are discussing. He also said that in his view this form of development should be expanded and here, too, I support his views. It is extremely important.

This brings me to the Research and Development Progress Report of the White Fish Authority, published this year. It is a booklet of interest to all hon. Members who are concerned about the industry. It is only five years since the White Fish Authority started a development unit, and both sides of the Committee will agree that they have made a very good job of it. The Report points out that the White Fish Authority proceed under three different categories—first, to improve the facilities and catching capacity of the vessels; secondly, to improve handling, processing and distribution; and thirdly, to consider any future resources.

May I briefly refer to some of the main issues? In connection with improved efficiency the Report points to such diverse improvements as net drums, warp tension meters and facilities for introducing unmanned engine rooms in future trawlers. In connection with handling there is a reference to boxing at sea and the transfer of catches at sea. Those will be particularly important for the future of the industry. In connection with future development there is a reference not only to the exploration of the South Atlantic but also to research into unexploited species of fish which are not today relished by the British housewife, who has memories of wartime snoek, but which could probably be good edible fish.

The most important research for the future is in fish farming. I believe that Committee would like to encourage the White Fish Authority in any future research in that direction. Just as in agriculture we have gone from hunting to producing, so we must do the same in fishing. I am sure that we offer our congratulations to Sir Frederick Brundrett and his colleagues. I would add that the fact that there is a field for expansion in research and development is recognised by the industry. The White Fish Authority are not altogether popular in all sections of the industry, but the industry agrees that they are doing a very good job in this field, and it is one which should have the wholehearted support of all those interested in fishing.

On Second Reading, as reported in c. 917 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Minister spoke of a wide range of other functions of the White Fish Authority. One could mention promotion marketing, quality control—which is very important—and the promotion of industrial fishing; and the White Fish Authority would even like to take over some of the administration of the fish docks. In other words, there are those in the Authority who want to see it expand into a Commission rather than an Authority.

I hope that the Minister will recognise publicly that there is a need for investigation into the future of the White Fish Authority. Suggestions have been made by the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) was chairman. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Gourlay, later in the debate. I am sure that I carry his support when I speak of the need for some such investigation. I see from today's Order Paper that the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been given a reprieve and that in their wisdom the Government have decided to extend the life of that Committee from 31st December this year until 28th February next year. I hope very much that it will be possible for the Sub-Committee on Fisheries to go ahead with some such investigation, which I hope will have the support of the Ministry.

Many problems are involved. Do we need a White Fish Authority and a Herring Industry Board? There is also the question of statutory minimum prices and of industrial fishing. I must not develop these issues in much detail in Committee, but I have said enough for the Minister to appreciate that there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who sincerely believe that these problems should be looked into now, because though the White Fish Authority are doing an excellent job in research and development, it may be that they could do an even better job if they were given more powers. If it is decided not to give them these powers then there might be good cause for not spending all this money and for not raising the levy to maintaoin a White Fish Authority which many hon. Members believe is not an authority.

I should be grateful to the Minister if, in his reply, he would at least confirm that he acknowledges that many hon. Members feel that there is a need for an investigation into the future of the White Fish Authority. Although we support him in the Clause giving that Authority the possibility of raising further finance to develop their activities in the future, we believe that the whole of the activities and scope of the Authority should be looked into in considerable detail in the immediate future.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson

This is not a time or place for detailed comments about an outside body. I know that you, Mr. Gourlay, would soon stop me if I went into them, but, since I have been mentioned, and the Select Committee has been mentioned, I wish to make a short comment. I quote Fishing News which, in today's issue, commenting on this Clause, says: Equally important, the statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the Government wished to see an expansion of the research and development work of the White Fish Authority shows that efforts will be maintained to provide British fishermen with advanced catching, handling and processing techniques so necessary in a modern fishing industry. I yield to no one in my appreciation of the value of the work done by the White Fish Authority in this way, but I must confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about comment inside the industry on the value over the whole field of the work in the context of the levy. We have either to abolish any body of this nature, or, if it is handicapped by lack of finance, we must give it the chance to show its worth. Therefore, I welcome giving the Authority this extra finance.

I have said a word or two to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture about the continuation of its existence. I hope that the powers-that-be will use their good offices to ensure that those of us interested in fisheries will be able to continue this work. Good work is being done by the White Fish Authority and we could perhaps suggest that it could be multiplied and made even better than it has been in the last year or two.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

I wish to make one general point and one particular point. The general point relates to the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill. The Bill is primarily designed to assist the deep sea fishing industry. I heartily support that object, but for that reason it does not have any connection with the inshore fleet. The only effect, therefore, on inshore fishing will be the impact of the 100 per cent. increase in the levy on the catch imposed by the White Fish Authority.

It would be beyond human nature for any man in the inshore fishing fleet not to feel that this is liable to be unfair. Therefore, we must be very much aware of the possibility of that feeling in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) have borne witness to this.

There is much feeling in the industry about the value of these boards related to the work of the individual skipper or fisherman. There is sometimes a doubt in their minds, but there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone connected with the industry about the effect of the levy. It has an onerous effect and, as a result of the Bill, it will have a doubly onerous effect.

It is paradoxical that the philosophy of the Bill is that efficiency is to be rewarded, but to he that hath more shall be given. That is an ancient doctrine with some highly venerable antecedents, but in the Bill there is a qualification. It is that the man who has also a deep sea fishing boat and the inshore fleet gets nothing. Those in the inshore fleet are very efficient—they work hard and make money—but ther reward is a 100 per cent. increase in the levy.

My particular point relates to the fact that, in spite of the increase in the levy which the catch will now have to bear, there is the ambivalence about the inshore fishing fleet that it does not necessarily get the operating subsidy. For example, a constituent of mine has for the last few weeks sought to catch Norwegian pout. He has bought nets and gear especially for that purpose and his boat is a highly efficient modern boat equipped for all kinds of industrial fishing. For the last three weeks his catch has borne a levy of £150 and he has not received any operating subsidy. I hope that we shall hear the reasons for that from the Government either today or later. If the law we are passing today is to be of one kind for the big ships and another kind for the small ships, I do not want anything of it.

The Clause, in subsection (8), refers to the herring fishing industry. It seems that the Herring Industry Board will get more money for fishmeal. In that case the Board should reconsider its services to fishermen engaged in this part of the industry. I believe that last year a levy on herring caught for fishmeal was as much as 3s. 6d. a cran. At the price obtained, that was totally uneconomic and as a result quotas were imposed. We are going towards increasing production, but when there is a great amount of herring quotas are instantly put on and that gear is wasted.

If there is to be a development of herring for fishmeal markets, I do not want our fishermen to be left out. I should like to have more explanation from the Government, particularly about whether there is any reconsideration of policy concerning fishmeal.

Mr. McNamara

I make one comment about the inshore fleet being penalised. The inshore fleet has done better in the past year or two than has the deep sea fishing fleet. It has many advantages such as closeness to the market and the 12-mile limit, but I do not want to start a fight between the deep sea and the inshore sections. I want to consider the increase in the levy made by the White Fish Authority. This is tremendously important. There is the possibility, and indeed the hope of the Government, of making it more efficient, more productivity-conscious and able to do all the splendid things which hon. Members today have welcomed about the White Fish Authority. This links up most importantly with the provision announced today, in relation to the training scheme, for excluding training from costs.

One of the criticisms which have been made in the past is that as a result of research and development there has been a reluctance by certain parts of the industry to take advantage of developments pioneered by the White Fish Authority to see that people are trained. Therefore if we can strengthen the Authority by making an increased amount of money available and also ensure that more respect and attention is paid to its findings by the industry as a whole and by some gearing of the scheme which has been announced—if acceptance of the findings of the Authority in terms of efficiency and productivity means that they can extend by their researches through this increased levy—it will be more than welcome.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said. There has been and is continuing criticism of the Authority in the industry. This provision, if properly used, gives the Authority a chance to show that the criticisms are ill-founded and that the Authority has an important place in the industry as a whole.

Mr. Buchan

I am in no sense replying to the debate, but I should like to make an intervention on the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). I find his intervention slightly curious. I understand the reason for it and I know the situation he described as it affects his constituents—a firm and a boat I know.

When we are talking about a 100 per cent. increase in the levy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred several times, we are referring to 1d. increase. It is not quite so dramatic when one refers to 1d.

Mr. McNamara

Does that apply to the Secretary of State at the D.E.P. as well?

Mr. Buchan

We had better not cast our net too wide in this debate. We should stick to the subject of fish.

This is discretionary. We are not saying that it will increase by this amount. This merely gives the power to do so to the Authority.

It was contended that we should not bring in a levy and a subsidy in the one Bill. This is where the hon. Gentleman argued that unfairness existed. There is every reason why the Clause should be in the Bill. The two things either affect one another or they do not.

I want to deal with the point about the inshore fleet. It was said that those who have will get and that this is a deep sea Bill. This is not so. There are references throughout the Bill to the inshore fleet. Clause 1(3) extends the period of subsidy by one year and gives assurance of subsidy for this period to the inshore fleet. Clause 2 provides for a subsidy for trans-shipment, an operation in which the inshore fleet engages to a great extent. So, in addition to the announcement we made earlier this year, the inshore men are included in the Bill. Clause 5 will apply to the inshore fleet and benefit it in the general policing problems—incidents, accidents, and so on. Both in that aspect and in the subsidy aspect the inshore fleet is included.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon

The Under-Secretary will not deny, though, that a great proportion of the increase in the subsidy which is now to be available for the fishing fleet—about £2 million-is to go to the deep sea fleet.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman is looking at the levy/subsidy aspect. This is the basis of the argument. There is, therefore, every reason why the levy should be included here. We have dealt with this aspect, and it is a difficult problem. We recognise that the newest and most exciting part of the Bill refers to deep sea fish, but the other aspect is included. We made a statement about it. The hon. Gentleman must not keep repeating this.

One difficulty is that the hon. Gentleman tends to see the White Fish Authority as an organ of Government. The two things are separate. The levy is to enable the general functioning of the Authority to continue. This helps all the fishermen. The current subsidy scheme precludes payment of white fish subsidy on species of fish not normally sold for human consumption. This is because we have always regarded the purpose of the subsidy as being to encourage fishing for human consumption. Subsidy is not paid on species of fish not normally sold for human consumption and which are used in industrial production. The hon. Gentleman will know about the 10 per cent. rule which has been introduced.

1.15 p.m.

It would involve a change in the statutory position if we were to bring about a change. Therefore, we are reviewing this position about other species not normally sold for human consumption. They are being brought in under the 10 per cent. rule. We intend to consider what further changes should be made in this respect, which will go some way to meet the hon. Gentleman's problem. I cannot go further into this at present. The assurance that this will be reviewed is the important thing.

We have had complaints on the question of the levy for a long time. It is a general regulation which will be brought in by this Authority subject to the approval of the Ministers rather than being directly introduced by the Authority.

With this explanation I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content that the relationship between the two is under review on the subsidy side.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon

How long will the review take?

Mr. Buchan

I cannot, especially at short notice, answer that. It is a complex problem.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

Perhaps I may be permitted to reply briefly to some of the United Kingdom aspects of the discussion. The debate demonstrates how well representatives of the three countries of this island can work together, given the opportunity.

The Clause restores the possible maximum for the white fish levy to its 1951 value in real terms by substituting 2d. for 1d. It also permits both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board to propose measures increasing the coverage of their levies and increasing their income. All these are enabling powers. Any revised rate which either body may propose to charge for any description of fish or fish products will have to be given effect in the way provided for in existing legislation.

For white fish this will require the Authority to make regulations which do not take effect unless confirmed by Ministers after they have considered any objections which may be raised. The confirming Order is subject to the negative Resolution procedure. For herring the Board can make rules, but again only with the approval of Ministers, who must similarly consider any objections.

The new maximum limit of white fish general levy is likely to be sufficient for some time. But so that it could, if necessary, be altered more readily than by a Bill, as at present, the Clause enables Ministers to increase the new figure of 2d. by Order, subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. So again there is the opportunity for debate in the House. The maximum rate of the herring industry levy is not prescribed by the relevant legislation and there is no need for an amendment here.

The powers in the Clause are being taken both to ensure that the two statutory bodies have adequate financial resources, particularly for research and development, and also to enable the burden of providing these resources to be spread fairly.

I was glad to hear reference made to the importance of research. These references underline the tribute I paid on Second Reading to the Industrial Development Unit of the Authority. In paying tribute to the Unit, of course, we are paying tribute to the White Fish Authority, because this is part of its work. I entirely agree that its importance should not be underestimated if the industry is to go forward, to be modernised, to be streamlined, to be fully efficient, to make a contribution to the economy, to give good service, and to give proper employment to those who work in it. For all those reasons, it is appropriate that we should in due course make more money available to the Authority.

It may be appropriate to remind the Committee that at present the Authority obtains its general levy income from landings of whole fish and fillets, including imports. The present rate on landings, since 1963, has been 1d. a stone, which is the maximum. This bears less hardly on fillets, whether produced on British vessels or imported, than on whole fish, as each stone of the former represents about double the quantity of whole fish. It bears more hardly on condemned fish or fish which cannot be sold and is converted into fishmeal than on landings or imports of fishmeal or other fish products which pay no levy.

The way in which the powers provided under this important Clause should be used will depend on what case is made for additional expenditure by the two bodies and for any alteration in the arrangements where the present incidence of levy is uneven. The bodies have to make an adequate case, and Ministers will have to consider any proposals in the light of the objections, if any, made to them, and, as regards imports, in the light also of any considerations of commercial policy.

There has been a good deal of discussion directed to the White Fish Authority itself. The object of the Clause is to strengthen the Authority by giving it the opportunity to ask for additional resources. It would be wrong at this stage to undermine the confidence and authority of the White Fish Authority. I am anxious that the Authority should now, under the new régime, have a chance to work in a period of greater stability. I take this opportunity to wish it well over the next few years and to hope that the new policy which we are now launching will give it the opportunity and the confidence to do the job for which it was set up.

Questions have been raised concerning the imposition of levy on any new category of product. This is a matter which we shall have to consider in the light of any proposal by the White Fish Authority and any objection to it.

There have been references also to the Select Committee, which has done a good deal of work and published what I thought was an interesting Report from its Sub-Committee. However, the manner in which the Select Committee carries out its work and plans its programme is a matter for the Committee, and it would be more than my life is worth if I started interfering. All I can do is wish it well in its future studies.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office has replied on the question of inshore subsidy, but I think that it would be as well if I dealt with the point, too. The inshore subsidy comes up for consideration annually, and the question of covering industrial fishing arises then. We are dealing now with the deep-sea fishing industry. It is the deep-sea fishing industry which has been undergoing considerable difficulties for reasons of which we are all aware. The inshore section has done very much better and is dealt with differently, but it is certainly not neglected by the Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) that we shall be looking very carefully at the progress of the inshore fishing industry as well.

Question put and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to