HC Deb 21 July 1969 vol 787 cc1412-28

12.14 a.m.

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

I beg to move, That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1969, dated 3rd July, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. The Scheme before the House tonight deals only with white fish subsidy for inshore vessels and herring subsidy for the 12 months from 1st August, 1969. I should explain that for purposes of the Scheme now before the House "inshore white fish vessels" means those under 80 ft. registered length; and the Scheme covers all herring vessels, but, with very few exceptions, vessels engaged in herring fishing are also under 80 ft.

We are, therefore, concerned tonight with a section of the industry using relatively small boats, but it is nevertheless an important section. In 1968 the value of its white fish and herring catch rose by nearly £1 million to £18½4 million, or roughly 32 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. These figures do not include shellfish, and as quite a number of white fish boats engage in shellfish catching for part of the year it is pertinent to note that the United Kingdom shellfish catch reached a record value of £4½7 million in 1968, an increase of 20 per cent. over the 1967 figure.

The basis for our annual review of subsidy rates is a summary of the operating results of the various size groups of vessels in the previous calendar year; but, as we announced last year, we also have regard to the import-saving potential of the fleets. As about two-thirds of the United Kingdom inshore white fish landings and 85 per cent. of herring landings are made in Scotland, I will start at the Scottish end.

The returns collected by my Department show how each boat fared during 1968. As is to be expected, there was a considerable range in the performance of individual boats, but taking the fleet as a whole the results were better than in 1967. For most of the length groups, both the average net profits—that is, after allowing for depreciation—and average crew earnings were higher than in the previous year. The main exceptions to this were white fish boats below 40 ft. in length and the relatively small number of herring drifters, but even these groups were making operating profits. Overall average operating profits were about 7 per cent. up on last year.

The results in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland were not quite so good as in the previous year, but overall operating profits before depreciation were about 5 per cent. higher than in 1967.

Taking the fleet as a whole, these results indicate a reasonably satisfactory position and, I think, show that we were not far off the mark in the decision we took last year to leave subsidy rates unchanged. The results take account of the higher operating costs actually incurred in 1968. We have also taken into account the trend in landings so far in 1969 and the prospects for the remainder of the year. Up to the end of May the value of the white fish and herring landings showed some improvement over the corresponding period of 1968—£7.17 million compared with £7.13 million—and the improvement would probably have been greater if fishing had not been so interrupted by the unusually prolonged and severe bad weather in the early months of the year.

The indications are that this improvement will be maintained. Our scientists tell us that the 1967 haddock brood was particularly good: catch rates should improve later in the year. At the half-year stage, the herring catch was more than 25 per cent. above the 1968 level, in both weight and value, and the autumn and winter fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland are expected by the scientists to yield good catches, although perhaps not up to the high level of last year.

Having regard to all these factors and the views expressed by the fishermen's Associations in our discusions with them, the Government came to the conclusion that the total subsidy provision for the inshore and herring fleets should be maintained at the same level as in the current subsidy year—that is, £1.4 million for the United Kingdom. We are confident indeed that with this measure of support it will be capable of the expansion we expect from the inshore fleet. Incidentally, since 1st April more applications for assistance for new boats have been approved in Scotland than in the corresponding period last year. This is an indication of the confidence that fishermen have in the future. In addition to all this, hon. Members from Scotland will know of the substantial help given by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

The actual daily rates of subsidy specified in the Scheme for white fish boats on voyage payments are higher than the current rates approved a year ago. The reason for this is we have found it desirable to alter the conditions under which the subsidy is paid out, and I shall mention these briefly. The most significant change concerns the qualifying days for the daily rate subsidy. Hitherto the schemes have provided that days spent in port from the day of arrival until the catch is actually sold have been reckoned as days at sea. This is somewhat anomalous for a subsidy intended to encourage fishing and the reasons for which the arrangement was adopted no longer apply. We have, there, concluded that the days in port after the day of arrival should no longer be reckonable as days at sea. Overall the payments for these days in port have amounted latterly to some 10 per cert. of the daily rate payments, and to compensate for the change we have increased the white fish daily rates by approximately 10 per cent. all round. This change will, I believe, be generally acceptable to and welcomed in the industry.

A similar change is not appropriate for the herring daily rates, because herring are normally sold on the day of arrival; so the daily rates for herring vessels remain unchanged. On the other hand, we are introducing a small change in the qualification for these daily rates. Up to now, there has been an administrative arrangement which allowed vessels to qualify for voyage rate subsidy for voyages from one base port to another between herring seasons. The pattern of herring seasons is not as distinct as it used to be, and we have decided to bring this arrangement to an end. The relatively small amount of money thus saved has enabled us to in crease by 1s. per cran the special subsidy for surplus herring selling for oil and meal, which will be 22s. per cran within the same monthly quota arrangements. Finally, we are proposing to simplify the criteria which determine whether white fish and herring vessels receive subsidy on stonage rates or on daily rates. In 1966, when the majority of white fish vessels between 35 ft. and 60 ft. were transferred from stonage rates to daily rates, we excepted from the transfer those vessels whose white fish and herring subsidy did not exceed £500 in 1965. Herring vessels between 35 ft. and 40 ft. were similarly treated. The purpose was to provide daily rates for vessels regularly engaged in fishing, while those only irregularly engaged continued on stonage rates. In 1967 and 1968, we continued this arrangement with lower qualifying figures but on the basis that a vessel that had already qualified on the criteria for an earlier year would continue to receive daily rates whether or not it continued to fish with the same regularity.

This, even as an experiment, was becoming increasingly complex year by year, and we have now decided that the qualification for voyage rates should be a criterion related to the previous year's fishing activity. We are, therefore, providing that vessels will qualify for voyage rates if their white fish and herring subsidies in 1968 alone were more than £250. This will, in effect, mean that some vessels now on voyage rates will return to stonage rates because of irregular fishing for white fish or herring in 1968. If, however, low subsidy payments are caused by special circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the vessel may be allowed to retain its entitlement to voyage rates. Again, we feel that this is a desirable change.

With these explanations of the changes we are making to use the same subsidy provision more effectively by directing it towards encouragement of the actual fishing effort, I commend the Scheme to the House.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

It is probably fair to say that when subjects to do with white fish are mentioned in the House they draw a good natured laugh, but white fishing is a highly important matter, affecting though it does only a comparatively small section of the fleet. While I do not want to detain the House for long, it is desir- able to have one or two points answered and to get certain things on the record.

The Report of the Herring Industry Board seems largely a rather gloomy story about 1968. It states in paragraph 2: … the value of the catch was slightly down…. The number of vessels operating in the Minches was less than in the 1967 winter season and the total catch failed to reach the 1967 level. The report also states: Despite increased landings in Shetlands, the South Minch and from the Irish Sea area, the overall result of fishing during the summer season was disappointing… The summer season in the Clyde was rather poor. Altogether, it paints a rather sombre picture.

When one looks at the overall landings, we find that, with the exception of 1966, we have had a decline, though not very big, from 1965 until 1968. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that so far the 1969 prospects are good. He said that catches are up on the same period of last year, and I hope profoundly that this trend continues.

One has often emphasised the excellence of herrings to eat and how, if only people would eat more of them, one could get the catch up. Certainly the herring this year seem as good and delectable as ever.

The herring now assumes a much more important rôle. There is an import-saving potential of the £29 million spent on importing fish meal. There is no doubt of the need for a factory on the West Coast to save hauling herring right across Scotland to Fraserburgh. There is also a need for enough fish to be caught to make that factory viable. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the latest position about the factory? There are several references to it in the Herring Industry Report. The case was submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland towards the end of May. A meeting with the officials of the Department was held in June and on 1st August the Board was able to discuss the project with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister himself confirmed the view that there is need for a plant on the West Coast of Scotland. However, he had yet to be satisfied that the project could be viable and suggested that further inquiries should be made.

How are we getting on with this? It seems undeniable that the price paid for fish which has to go for meal or oil limits the catching effort. Up to 20 pet cent. of the total daily landings is subsidised at the moment if they go for oil or meal, but if more than that goes for that purpose the price becomes open and, when the cost of transport to the factory is taken off it may come down as low as 8s. a cran. That is no earthly use to any fisherman. If the Government are really serious about import-saving, they have a considerable chance here of putting their ideas into practice. Probably the expenditure of between £500,000 and £1 million more in subsidy would allow very large reductions in imports to be made. To this the Government have pledged themselves as extremely attached. I hope we may have their views on the suggestion I have made.

Turning to the white fish inshore side of the industry, here again we have a picture of landings in 1968 lower than four years ago. There has been a steady reduction in subsidy over the last four years—£1.75 million in 1965, £1.3 million in 1966, £1.20 million in 1967 and £1.18 million in 1968. It is interesting to note that in 1966 the herring subsidy was £280,000, in 1967 it was £240,000 and down to £208,000 in 1968. This is a good development provided incomes are maintained by other factors. An obvious one is higher market prices, but I notice that the White Fish Authority says in its report: Taking the year as a whole, although there were increases in revenue in some sections of the fleet, these gains were overshadowed by a massive increase in average operating costs. What is the precise state of the inshore fleet, some parts of which, according to the Minister, have done well while other parts have not done well? As there has been a reduction in subsidies for this sector of the fleet, has this reduction been balanced by an increase in return so that the income of the fleet has not been reduced?

What is the present state of play, as it were, on the minimum price scheme? There are voluntary schemes in various ports and the White Fish Authority is trying to promote a limited scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Are the Government well disposed to this scheme and are they convinced of the need for something stronger than what has been proposed? In other words, do they agree that a statutory minimum price scheme is vital for the future prosperity of the industry, which is my view, after giving the matter considerable thought?

What precisely do the Government expect of the inshore and herring fleets, which are the only sections of the industry we are discussing tonight? While we cannot discuss deep sea fishing, one cannot isolate the effect of action taken in one sector from the results it has on other sectors of the industry. Heavy imports of a type of deep sea fish are bound to affect the prices of fish in all sectors of the industry.

Imports of foreign-caught fish are up from 16.2 per cent. of all supplies in 1967 to 17.8 per cent. in 1968. The actual tonnage of imports is up by 14 per cent. above the figure for last year. This is a significant increase and is a straw in the wind which I do not like. It adds to my doubts about whether the Government are as serious as they claim to be on the saving of imports and the assistance thereby given to our balance of trade position.

I hope that the Minister will say more about what the Government expect the fleet to do and whether they genuinely believe that it has the same sort of contribution to make as agriculture—a matter on which they have crossed their heart—in saving imports for the benefit of the country.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

These annual debates on the state of the inshore fishing industry have a certain sameness. They always seem to take place at a late hour and in a thin House. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, this is an important industry which we should treat with the greatest seriousness.

What worries me is that the sameness of the debates does not seem to get us any closer to an understanding of what the policy is and what the Government intend for the industry year by year. The major problem is that every year the Minister assures us that the industry is in a healthy condition, that everything is going satisfactorily and that, therefore, their policy is meeting its purposes.

In the fishing ports we find a situation by no means as convincing. What I find even more difficult is the problem of understanding precisely what are our policy problems in this sector. The policy is supposed to have been laid down by the Fleck Report and it argued that the size of the British fishing industry was too great and that sectors of the industry were—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Scheme and not to the Fleck Report.

Mr. Mackintosh

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The annual reduction in the subsidy was generally discussed in the report and the decision to review it and possibly reduce it was contained in the report. The Government are pursuing this policy in supporting the fishing industry in this way.

It was assumed that Government assistance to the inshore fishing fleet and to the fishing industry in general would be reduced over a period of 10 years by 10 per cent. per annum until this assistance disappeared and a smaller and viable industry was left. I am puzzled about this, because, whereas one can see that other industries have a competitive advantage or disadvantage in Britain, one can see no reason why the British fishing industry should not be as capable as getting fish out of the same seas as foreign—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue a general debate on the fishing industry under this Scheme. He may state why he is prepared to support the Scheme, or otherwise.

Mr. Mackintosh

I am discussing why I am prepared to support the Scheme, but with limitations. In this context, I thought it was normally the tradition, as the Under-Secretary did in his opening, to give figures for the income, health, and welfare of the industry. I shall try to follow the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. The argument that we needed a smaller and more profitable fishing fleet puzzled me, in that imports of white fresh fish have steadily been rising. It is difficult to understand how this is happening when I can see no advantage, such as Canadian farmers have over ours because of the vast prairies. There is no inherent advantage for the foreigners. They are fishing the same seas. Will the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply be kind enough to deal with this question by saying what is the precise amount of money being offered to the industry through this Scheme and whether he can say whether the foreign fleets which are landing an increasing amount of fresh white fish and frozen fish fillets have greater or lesser subsidy and whether this is considered in dealing with the E.F.T.A. arrangements for import controls in these countries?

In discussing the health of the industry, and its income by direct subsidies, may I ask the Minister to clarify the overall direction of Government policy and whether they expect the subsidy to continue as a permanent feature, or are they sticking to the view described in the Fleck Report, that the subsidy will have to disappear?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing the general subsidies but whether this Scheme should be approved or not. One cannot have a detailed debate on the fishing industry on this. The hon. Member must relate his remarks more closely to the substance of the Scheme.

Mr. Stodart

On a point of order. This is the only occasion available to us each year to discuss the problems of this important section of the sea fish industry. Without discourtesy, may I say that in the past it has been customary to allow one to range slightly more widely than perhaps the immediate confines of the Scheme for that reason.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am bound by the rules of the House, the same as any hon. Member. Therefore, I must rule in accordance with the position as I see it.

Mr. Mackintosh

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am hoping to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West in a discussion of the fish meal problem. I do not know whether you will regard this as in order, but it was in order about 20 minutes ago when the hon. Member made his speech.

Having made my general point about the subsidy and having discussed whether the subsidy is to continue or whether it is part of a different subsidy policy which we had before, I want to move on to the question of other methods of supporting the industry in addition to this subsidy, and particularly to take up the point of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West on the subject of fish meal, which is one of our heaviest imports, running to the tune of £30 million a year.

This is a very peculiar situation. We have this insistence that our fishermen may land 10 per cent. of the dead fish caught for industrial purposes, but that small dead fish caught when fishing for fresh fish must be thrown back into the sea. Yet these are the sort of fish which foreign vessels are taking back to their countries, processing into fish meal, and we are buying it as an import into this country. We have this very peculiar situation in which our own industry is not allowed to take advantage of this source of fish meal which we are, therefore, having to buy from other countries. This causes continued difficulty among the fishermen in our ports.

I am wondering whether, in order that the Government may have some extra help in their subsidy proposals and in supporting the industry, why the Government would not consider relaxing this rule, thus providing a steady source of fish of lower than normal consumption size for use by a fish meal factory. The great problem of a factory is to supply a sufficient throughput of fish to make it economic.

At times I find fishermen in my ports are throwing back four boxes of good-sized fish for every one which they land. This is fishing with regulation mesh nets. The answer is the stricter policing of the mesh of nets, with permission to land at least a percentage of these fish for fish meal purposes.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned a minimum price scheme which has been kicking around in the industry for 15 years. I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in the process of laying this Scheme before the House every year, providing us with a little more information of the kind which is obviously worked on by the Ministry in the course of its calculations and its negotiations with the fishermen, so that we could have something like the material provided in the Annual Price Review in relation to farming. We would then know more about incomes, the general health and welfare of the industry, and in particular we could do more work on establishing the best method of employing this amount of money in aid of the industry and decide whether putting some of it into a statutory minimum prices scheme would not yield a better return and more stability in the industry than other possible methods of financing.

You have restricted the debate by your Rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry that I am not able to develop my speech in the way in which we have done in past years, to consider the general health of the industry and some of the other subjects that I would have liked to touch upon. I agree with all who have spoken in this debate that this is an important subject, as to which there is an element of obscurity about Government policy, which I would like cleared up. This is an industry in which one wants, above all, a certain stability and confidence. If manpower leaves this industry, it will never return. At the ports which I know, some of the boats are down to the operating minimum. They used to operate with a crew of six, then five, and now some are going to sea with a crew of four. One below that and the boat becomes inoperable.

In these circumstances, we want not merely this annual debate on an annual Scheme but a greater guarantee for the industry's future. I say again, as I have said on previous occasions, that I cannot for the life of me see why we need to have an industry which is running at a level which means that we import about £30 million worth of fresh and frozen white fish and £30 worth of fish meal. I am sure that our fishermen could put this right, given an adequate level of support from the Government.

I am certain that other countries give a different level of support to their fishing fleets, and I shall be glad to have comparative figures. I cannot see how they can otherwise manage to compete with us as effectively as they do.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)

Speaking to some farmers in my constituency the other day, I asked one of them what the average size of farm was in his parish. He said, "About 100 acres, but, of course, they vary". The Under-Secretary of State said that the inshore fleet had been having a good season so far this year and had had better results last year. That is not the whole truth. The results in various parts of my constituency show a considerable variation.

I do not believe that the terms of the Scheme will meet with great approval in the inshore fleet. Some of the boats welcome the increase, but it is an increase with a condition. It is a subtraction in one sense. The global sum has been reduced, yet the daily rate has been increased by between 7s. and 9s. a day, according to size of boat. Will the Minister tell us how the breakdown, as it were, was worked out within the increase in the daily rate? The middle band is exactly the same, at 8s. Why not have a difference within the 7s. to 9s., at 7s., 7s. 6d., 8s., 8s. 6d., and 9s.? No doubt, the negotiations between the Ministries and the fishermen's associations took this variation in boat size into consideration, but it seems arbitrary to fix a lower limit for the under-40 ft. boats at 7s. increase, then upwards until one comes to the 6080 ft. boats.

In Fishing News last Friday, Mr. Alex Dempster was reported as saying that the rates of subsidy for the coming year are likely to cause disappointment to many Scottish fishermen". That is true. The secretary of the Herring Producers' Association, Mr. Graham Fulton, said that he felt that the industry needed more help.

The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) sketched the picture and said that more help is needed. But how will it be given? Mr. Fulton went on to say that it was difficult to say how the adjustments in the meal-and-oil and white fish subsidies would affect catchers. They would have to see how it worked out in practice. That is all very well, but unless we can have some sort of basic guarantee for the future, there is bound to be a contraction in the catching fleet, not only in Scotland but, no doubt, in England and Wales as well. Speaking of the review based on the size of boats, the Under-Secretary said that the results of boats of 40 ft. and less in the past year were not as good as those of some of the others. He knows that I have had some correspondence with him about the vessels which fish partly as seine netters and partly as line fishing boats. Others fish part time. In the four ports in my constituency, there are 29 such boats.

In a reply to a letter of mine asking what the Government's policy would be on these smaller boats changing from one type of fishing to another, the Minister said that he hoped that there would be some alteration in the subsidy scheme for the coming year. This was in December, 1968. He also said that the limit for ranking for subsidy in 1967 was £250. That applies in this Statutory Instrument. Therefore, presumably these boats will not come on the daily rate but will remain on the stonage rate. To be comparable in earning power vis-à-vis the subsidy, these boats would have to catch up to 11 boxes a day to make up on the subsidy rate what they would be catching were they on the daily rate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that point, which is rather complicated.

He said in his letter: In making the rules, we tried to be as fair as we could to all concerned. I certainly appreciate that, as do the fishermen, of course, but there will be hardships and fishermen with boats of this kind will be inclined to go out of business if they think that they are being unfairly treated compared with their neighbours and those who fish from the same port under similar conditions. He ended his letter by saying: I think you will appreciate, however, that in doing so"— that is, in fixing the rates— we must have regard to the position of the boats in each class as a whole. That is perfectly true and fair, but there are these anomalies, and I hope that, in the not too distant future, and certainly before the next Scheme is laid, this kind of anomaly can be got over.

The inshore industry as a whole has accepted the Scottish Committee's proposals on the minimum price scheme pretty favourably, and it now needs approval by the Minister and final approval by this House. The Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority very much hoped that the Scheme would be under way by the end of this year but it will have to receive pretty sharp and quick treatment when the House resumes in October if it is to be under way this year. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell us when the Government are likely to give their approval and to lay the Scheme before the House.

The other question is that of the White Fish Authority's general advertising scheme. Has this received the approval of the Ministers yet, and if it has, when w ill it be paid before Parliament? I always think it is a pity that we cannot amend a Statutory Instrument. It is true to say that consultations go on between fishermens' associations and the Government before subsidy rates for the ensuing year are agreed. Nevertheless, it would be a great improvement not only in the business of the House but for the convenience of Members if more information could be made available to Members so that we could make up our minds on the whole position.

It is all very well going round the fishing ports in one's constituency and talking to the fishermen without all the information that one requires. For instance, the latest information in statutory form that the House is able to read is the Fisheries of Scotland Report for 1967, Cmnd. 3800, dated November, 1968, and now nearly two years out of date.

I appreciate that the Ministers in framing the Order and deciding what the rate of subsidy will be have the information, but we certainly have not. [Interruption.]

[Sitting suspended at 12.56 a.m. and resumed at 1.2 a.m.]

1.2 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)

I am sure that I express the wish of the whole House when I say that I hope that our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) will soon recover from his illness and will be with us well again.

Hon Member

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hoy

The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked how the new white fish rates are working out. They are the 1968 rates increased by about 10 per cent. The lowest rate last year was £3 10s. and we are proposing £3 17s. The highest rate last year was £5 5s. and this year it is being increased to £5 16s. These increases vary between 7s. and 11s. and I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about the differences in relation to boats and certain anomalies. I am sure that we cannot hammer them out in debating this Scheme but I assure him that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with this problem.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that the herring industry presented a somewhat sombre picture. Occasionally, herring do not turn up where one wants them. I remember the late James Henderson Stuart complaining that herring had not turned up in the Forth and rather insisting that this was due to the Labour Government. When we had a Conservative Government, no one told the herring and they never came back. It is difficult to get fish out which are not there. On the whole, I think that the herring fishermen have been doing reasonably well.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will be interested to learn that the price for oil meal herring, which they claimed was down to 8s. per cran, the average price in 1968, was in fact 32s. 10d. per cran, including the oil and meal subsidy. That was the figure paid.

My hon. Friend spoke about fish going to the factory. He must have overlooked the change we made in the last Scheme, when we allowed 10 per cent. of undersized fish in the catch to go for fish meal. This was a change which I thought the industry welcomed. It was a change made for the first time.

Mr. Mackintosh

I said that 10 per cent. of the industrial catch could go. My point is that it is peculiar that fish caught in the process of fishing for consumption and not for industrial purposes cannot go likewise.

Mr. Hoy

Of the industrial catch 10 per cent. undersized can go for industrial purposes.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked about imports. The House is well aware that a 10 per cent. duty was imposed on imports of fish fillets from Scandinavia. We felt that the imports did not conform to the agreement and we therefore imposed the duty. Imposition of the duty was welcomed at the time by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).

Mr. Stodart

That was not a subject which I mentioned this evening.

Mr. Hoy

I thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to it.

It is always difficult even to find a site for a fish meal factory. Everyone thinks that we should have one, but not in his area.

Mr. Mackintosh

My area would welcome it.

Mr. Hoy

My hon. Friend should put up a proposal for it. I can assure him, if he does not already know, that in some places where it has been suggested the local authorities have rejected it very firmly.

Progress with a factory depends on many things, including the willingness of a commercial firm to take up the proposal. There have been talks, but so far no industrialist has indicated a genuine intention to go ahead, despite the availability of generous Board of Trade assistance. However, talks are still going on and we do not underestimate their importance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian referred to the cut of 10 per cent. I remind him that this progressive diminution was in the subsidy to the trawler fleet and that it is a different matter for the inshore fleet. It was laid down that the inshore subsidy should be reviewed every year, but this year, despite the improved condition of the industry, we have maintained the subsidy, and I think that that has been the case for the past two years. In the past, whenever the industry showed any improvement, the Government of the day always skimmed off a little, but that has not happened for the past two years.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked about differences in income. The value of white fish and herring caught by Scottish fishermen in 1968 rose by nearly £½ million—and profits rose by 4 per cent. after depreciation. Total United Kingdom inshore landings rose by £1 million to £18.4 million, or roughly 32 per cent. of total United Kingdom fish landings. Results were not so good, I regret to say, south of the Border, where profits before depreciations were only about 5 per cent. higher than in 1967. We have done better in the North than has been done in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We have made it perfectly clear that we expect the industry to make a much greater contribution and this import saving would be good not only for the industry, but for the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West asked what we proposed to do about the minimum price scheme. It has not altogether been kicking about for 15 years. May I remind my hon. Friend that the British Trawlers Federation got into considerable trouble over having a minimum price scheme. The Monopolies Commission was brought into this, even if at the end of the day the Federation won its case. That is one problem that confronts the industry.

The White Fish Authority said that, while it does not propose to proceed with a United Kingdom minimum prices scheme, it considers that a scheme applicable only to Scotland and Northern Ireland should be introduced. A scheme has recently been submitted for approval and is currently being considered. I cannot tonight go into the merits of the proposal, but an announcement will be made as soon as Ministers have made a decision. The hon. Member for Haltemprice will know that minimum import prices do not meet with unanimous approval from the whole fishing industry, but a decision will be made very soon on Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme. 1969, dated 3rd July, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.