WHITE FISH AUTHORITY (GENERAL LEVY)

HC Deb 13 April 1970 vol 799 cc1155-74

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I beg to move, That the White Fish Authority (General Levy) Regulations Confirmatory Order 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 117), dated 28th January, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be withdrawn. Needless to say, this debate is initiated more to obtain information than to oppose the Order. The Order allows the White Fish Authority to increase its levy on White Fish by 0.2d. per stone. The House will recall that it was recently allowed to charge a levy of 0.75d. for a special publicity scheme which it envisaged. Therefore, a total increase to be considered by the House in recent weeks is 0.95d. I said in a previous debate that this was a strange figure and I wondered how it would be decimalised on the introduction of decimal coinage.

I understand that the original request from the Authority was for an increase of a halfpenny, 0.5d., per stone, but the Authority was relieved of nearly £88,000 for publicity and this is probably why the increase is only 0.2d., just under a farthing instead of the halfpenny which was originally asked.

The last increase was in 1963 and it brought the levy from ½d. to 1d., which brought in £260,000 a year. Since then, the purchasing power of the has gone down and costs have risen, while the Authority is now employing a larger technical staff and spending more on research and development. As a result, the Authority has been in deficit for the last three years. The deficit showed on its accounts for last year is roughly £78,000. I should like to know how much this increase of 0.2d. will bring in. I imagine that it will be about £200,000 a year, so it will more than cancel the deficit and leave the White Fish Authority with more money to spend.

The House will therefore wish to consider two matters: first, the administrative expenses of the White Fish Authority and, secondly, the question of research and development which many people believe is its most important function.

The accounts of the White Fish Authority for the year ending 31st March, 1969, show that administration costs were £272,393. When I discussed the matter with the White Fish Authority it made the fair point that, though it is headed "Administration", it is really for general services. It was pointed out that £140,000 of this money went on the administration of the Grants and Loans Scheme, and, as that scheme now has outstanding loans of over £11 million, grants of £3 million and new loans of £1 million, perhaps that is not excessive. I believe that I am in order in discussing these matters of administration as we are discussing increased money voted by the House for the White Fish Authority.

We appreciate that the Authority has to maintain a large number of offices, because it deals with a scattered industry. A number of hon. Members on both sides visited the Authority in 1968 and, by and large, were impressed by what they saw. I have no criticism of the personnel or of the work of the Authority, but criticism has undoubtedly been expressed on both sides at the administrative costs of the organisation, which has to maintain offices in London, Hull, Edinburgh, and other places. The aim of both sides is to try to cut these administrative expenses as far as possible.

The first question I ask on this matter is: why is it necessary for the White Fish Authority to have its main offices in London? This is clearly the most expensive part of the country in which to maintain office accommodation. The industry is based far more on the north than on the south of the country. I think that it might be cheaper and probably better for the Authority to be situated on Humberside or, as Scotland must also be considered, perhaps Edinburgh would be the common centre of gravity. I think that either Edinburgh or Humberside would result in considerable administrative savings. Obviously top prices have to be paid for office accommodation in London. I understand that it is the Government's desire to get as many Government Departments, State Boards and other organisations as possible out of London.

Many people believe that there is not a full task for both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and that their amalgamation should be considered at some time. I refer the Minister, as I did in a previous debate, to Recommendation 7 in the Third Special Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, Sub-Committee on Fisheries: There should be a further inquiry into the alternatives of abolishing the White Fish Authority or giving it more real power as soon as the government have finally settled their policy for the industry. The Government have settled their policy for the industry. We have had a number of Bills and Orders recently and the Government have injected a large amount of public money into the industry. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should consider this recommendation with great care. Unfortunately, the Select Committee was abolished before it could get down to considering this task which it had set itself for the following year. It never lived to carry out that task. I suggest that the Ministry should now go into the matter fully and consider either abolishing the White Fish Authority or giving it more power and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the White Fish Authority on this Order. The Authority was set up under the Act. The hon. Gentleman would have to seek to amend the Act, and we are talking about the levy, to which he must come.

Mr. Wall

I turn then, Mr. Speaker, to the levy. Having dealt briefly with the question of administration, I shall discuss research and development. This year's accounts of the White Fish Authority show that £218,287 has been allotted to research and development in the year, plus a Government grant of, I think, £200,000. As I have said, in my view and that of, I believe, hon. Members on both sides, this is probably the most important function of the Authority. If its work is to be extended through the money which we are now discussing, I hope that it will be in this field. As the Minister knows, the Board of Trade is soon to bring out Regulations on safety at sea. Many of us feel that in experiments in safety, in deicing equipment and so on, the White Fish Authority might have an important part to play, and a greatly increased scope for research and development.

Article 2 of the Order lists certain modifications to the levy Regulations. The first excludes molluscs. I understand that the reason is that the fisheries organisation representing many of the inshore men and shell fishermen made representations that it was unfair to have to pay a levy on weight when the weight of shell fish included the shell as well as the edible part. I understand that the Minister accepted this view. At any rate, molluscs have been excluded from the levy, and I am sure that that is right. I understand that representations were made about oysters, too, but the Minister decided that they should not be excluded. I shall not labour further points about shell fish, though I understand that some of my hon. Friends will wish to take up this matter.

Now, the question of the date when the Order comes into operation. This is altered by Article 2(c). I gather that this has a good deal to do with the question of levy on fish meal. There has been a considerable dispute—the Minister had notice that we should raise this matter—between the White Fish Authority and the Cattle Food Trade Association. The charge is the Authority did not consult the trade association and comparable bodies in the agricultural industry before making these Regulations, and that the arrangements for collecting the levy are inadequate.

I gather that the trade association submitted objections to the draft Order on 18th August, 1969. These were acknowledged, but the White Fish Authority did not comment on them, and I understand that no explanation was offered of why the views of the trade association were not accepted by the Authority.

There was a meeting subsequently on 6th February at which the point was made that confusion had been caused by discrepancies in the wording of the Authority's circulars and letters, one of which referred to all transactions from Monday 16th February 1970", another to, first hand sales made after 16th February and another to date of purchase All these have slightly different meanings, and the question is of importance to the trade in view of the relationship between retroactive legislation and the forward purchasing which happens in this industry.

There was another meeting on 6th March, when the Cattle Food Trade Association stated that the real problem, so far as it was concerned, was that under the Regulations the party liable to pay was the first United Kingdom domiciled party to enter into a contract with a party overseas for import or fish meal, and the association pressed the case that contracts entered into prior to 15th February should not be subject to the levy. It pointed out that the only practical way of collecting the levy was by requiring the party who made the United Kingdom Customs entry to pay it. This would reduce the risk of evasion, and would benefit both the members of the trade association and the White Fish Authority. As a result of the second meeting, I understand that a joint delegation decided to see the Minister. I am not certain about the history of this dispute from then on.

Going back to Article 2(b), may I ask the Minister whether this amendment to the Regulations answers the case that has been put by the trade association? If it does not, what consideration has the Minister given, first, to the question of retroaction, and, second, to the whole case as put by the trade association about the lack of consultation, which has caused considerable bad feeling among certain sections of the industry?

I have one other point to raise, and this again is put forward by the same section of the industry. It relates to fish meal and cattle foodstuffs. In a speech the president of the association, Mr. Robinson, said …the imposition of a levy on imported Fish Meal which comes into operation in three days' time, which will affect so many of us, and which everyone agrees will ultimately be paid for by the Pig and Poultry Industries of this country. Such a levy will yield approximately £200,00 per annum, and we are informed that this money will be divided between the White Fish Authority and the Herring Board. For what purpose is this money required? The White Fish Authority has never attempted to justify its demand for such a sum—certainly the Ministry could not, or would not, tell us. He went on to say: …under what right can one industry demand, and obtain, a direct subsidy from another industry, a competitive industry at that? That is the question asked by certain sections of the agricultural industry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a reply tonight.

It is unfortunate that there has been this acrimony between the trade association and the White Fish Authority. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the differences and make certain that the lines of communication between all sections of the industry are kept open so that this kind of thing does not happen in future. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with the general question of the administration of the White Fish Authority, and particularly the importance of research and development, plus the dispute to which I have referred.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

It is the duty of the House, when it is faced with an Order such as this increasing a levy, to make sure that we are getting value for money. There are many boards and authorities. Their administrative costs go up steadily year by year, and there seem to be certain economies which could be made, most of which have been referred to. One is to amalgamate the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. The second is to move them out of London.

It is anomalous that the Government have an organisation called the Location of Offices Bureau designed to move people out of London, and yet they maintain large organisations in London, far away from their main centres of activity. I suggest that the authority should go to Edinburgh or, if not there, perhaps to Aberdeen. Failing either of those, I am prepared to settle for Hull.

One should also ask about the amount involved, because it has sometimes been said that these levies are not big enough to be effective, but big enough to be a nuisance to the industry. This is said particularly about the levy for publicity. I hope that the Minister will say something about the cost-effectiveness of the levy.

Article 2 says that the levy shall not be payable in respect of any mollusks…in shell… but there are certain exceptions to that. As drafted, it appears that scallops and queen scallops are liable to the levy, and that it is payable on these in shell. If that is so, it is most unfair. It is surely not intended that levy by weight should be payable on the weight of the shell as well as on the weight of the fish. I hope that the Minister will be able to set my mind at rest about that. As it stands, the drafting is, to say the least, peculiar.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

I want to follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the administrative side of the White Fish Authority. I support him in any move he might make to encourage the Authority to move its headquarters to Aberdeen—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) would join me in that.

I want to raise two points on the Order, both relating to the shellfish industry. I have raised these matters in direct correspondence with the Authority, but I want to bring them to the notice of the Government and hear the Minister's comments on them. I understand that concern has been expressed in some sections of the shellfish industry—especially by some processing firms—which have not been made aware exactly what is in the Order, or when it was published. The Authority issues a fairly exhaustive list of journals in which such Orders as this are publicised. In the routine sense, all practicable steps are taken to make sure that the contents of such Orders are known, but it appears that in this case some firms have been missed out.

It appears that many processing firms acquire their shellfish direct from the fishermen and not through salesmen, although it is at the salesmen point that the levy is collected and it is at that point that publicity concerning schemes such as this is directed. The salesmen concerned with the collection of the levy are informed how the scheme is applied, and about all the administrative arrangements that surround it. The problem arises because publicity and circulars that are sent round do not always reach processing firms. The Authority admits this and is attempting to circularise as many processers as possible. I hope that in the case of future orders the interests of firms processing shellfish will be fully taken into account.

My second point—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—concerns the burden of the levy on the shellfish industry. I understand that the right hon. Member is right about the type of shellfish covered by the Order, and that the levy is paid on the weight of the shellfish, including the shell.

That is a serious matter. The levy works out at 1.2d. per stone, which means that the percentage varies for different types of shellfish. For queen scallops and crab the levy will lead to an increase in the purchase price of between 1.25 per cent. and 1.66 per cent., but for nethrops, or Norway lobsters, the percentage increase will be only about 0.12 per cent. or 0.5 per cent., dependent on the size of the nethrops. The levy is likely to lead to an increase in the purchase price of lobster of about 0.07 per cent.

It is clear that the levy will bear much more heavily on the cheaper varieties of shellfish, because it is put on on the shellfish in the shell. It is an equally important factor that the large number of varieties of shellfish have a much larger outcome factor. The queen scallop yields only about 2.5 lb. per stone as caught. About 3.2 lb. of crab meat is the yield from a stone of crab caught. The yield is very much higher with nephrops and lobster. There is some concern in the shellfish industry, certainly among the very important section in my constituency—among the fishermen on the coast of Kincardine and Angus and in the very thriving processing firm at Inverbervie on the coast of Kincardine. They feel that this Order bears unfairly on them.

The White Fish Authority dealt very courteously with me when I raised the matter, but it replied by pointing out that there are differences in grades, qualities and varieties. I accept that it may be difficult to be absolutely fair across the board, but the range and variety seems to be greater in the shellfish industry and it also seems unfair to levy on the shell, which is a waste, which is ground down or thrown away or turned into a very cheap form of fertiliser. The people in the shellfish industry have a genuine complaint. Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite hold the same view as that which I have expressed about this important and fastest growing sector of the fishing industry in Scotland.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Aberdeen, South)

. No one in the House seriously objects to the Order. Indeed, it would be very difficult to do so, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) when he referred to the present financial situation of the White Fish Authority. In any event, the Order, I understand, is time barred and it would be impossible to reject it tonight even if the House were so minded. We are taking an opportunity of raising a number of points of varying degrees of importance in the hope of getting a satisfactory reply from the Minister and of drawing the Government's attention to one or two inconsistencies in the present situation.

In general terms, there is a degree of discontent with the way in which the White Fish Authority is organised and the way in which it operates. On a number of occasions I have been out of sympathy with the more extreme attacks made on the whole concept of the Authority. There is a deplorable willingness to sweep aside much of the very good work which it has done in research and development, for example, because of a loss of confidence and a loss of faith which I find exists in certain sections of the industry. I endorse what has been said in general terms by a number of people about the importance of trying to restore this confidence and of thinking about the rôle of the White Fish Authority over the years ahead. Clearly this is an industry in which a co-ordinating authority is necessary and almost certainly there ought to be an extended rather than a diminished rôle for the White Fish Authority.

But there is something wrong at the moment, and while no one grudges the finance essential to allow the operation to continue and to provide a proper financial basis, there will be need to be long and hard thinking in the not-too-distant future so that the friction which exists between the Authority and certain sections of the industry can be removed.

I cannot resist the temptation to agree with much that has been said about the location of the headquarters. Some very satisfactory solutions have been mentioned in the last 10 minutes. When we consider the efforts which the Government make to persuade private administrative headquarters to leave London through the Location of Offices Bureau —anyone who travels on the tube train sees evidence of the money which is being spent—I cannot help feeling that a little more energy might be shown when considering the location of Civil Service organisations of this type. This seems an ideal example of an administrative unit which could be sent north with advantage to everyone concerned.

Arguments have been adduced about the shellfish industry. As the House will have gathered, the general levy is, for the first time, being placed on this industry. Accordingly, this has raised a number of questions. I do not accept all the arguments that have been put forward, not in the House tonight but by some people in the industry; for example, the fact that shell fishermen should be exempt because they do not get operating subsidies as the white fish fleet does. That is no reason why they should not contribute towards the W.F.A. if they benefit from the Association's activities.

However, anomalies have arisen from the general application of the levy on which the Government have decided. Although I accept that it is difficult to make exceptions, such exceptions are made in the Order. For example, we read in Article …that the said levy shall not be payable in respect of any mollusks… and it goes on to limit this by making a number of exceptions to that general exclusion.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice put the general argument, which I think is accepted, that molluscs have been excluded because they are a low-value commodity. This is a crop or catch with a high wastage content and it would not be fair to bring it within the general levy, for which weight is the basis.

I appreciate that it is probably not possible to go over to an ad valorem duty for white fish generally, if only because of the technical difficulties involving the 1961 Act. But in general terms, if it is accepted that certain exclusions must be made—for example, for molluscs—the problem of where to draw the line is bound to arise. In this connection, the case has been well made for a more sympathetic look at the exceptions mentioned in Article 2, remembering that with …scallops or queen scallops… there is also a high degree of wastage. The shell is large and the financial out-turn, so to speak, from a stone of scallops is very small. This is not inconsiderable trade in financial terms, but it is not the kind of high-value product which lobster, scampi and so on represent.

I have received a significant number of representations from people in this industry urging that, because of these difficulties, scallops should be put on the same footing as molluscs. As a number of exceptions are being made, there is certainly a case for excluding these other items. There cannot be great mechanical difficulties standing in the way of this additional concession being made. As the machinery for doing this now exists, I urge the Minister to look sympathetically at the problems of the shellfish industry and, as soon as possible, remove the anomaly of which I have spoken.

10.48 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

Many hon. Members have underlined the difficulties of the shellfish industry. I will not add to their remarks, except to point out that in most cases shell fishing is an extremely seasonal trade.

The levy will mean the shell fisherman getting a little less for his catch at the end of the day. A man fishing all the year round for white fish may be able to pay the levy which less difficulty than a man whose fishing is a seasonal occupation. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind, in addition to the other facts which have been presented to him about this industry.

The Schedule refers to Any white fish product not referred to above…2.4d. Considering the products mentioned above that item, I should like to know what other products remain. In other words, what will pay at the rate of 2…4d.?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

The Regulations impose a levy on the sales of white fish based on 1.2d. per stone, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, 1.95d. if we include the publicity levy. This will certainly affect the shellfish industry in my constituency. The first criticism that I have is that this year there has been a lack of contact and consultation between the White Fish Authority and the primary producers about this Order. This is regrettable because there should be a high degree of co-operation between producers and the Authority. The producer in my constituency, one of the biggest in the country, knew nothing about the Order until it was in force, and I have the correspondence to confirm this.

My second criticism is about the firsthand purchases. This has become very much a levy on goodwill. How will the White Fish Authority be able to check all the catches? This is a highly competitive industry and if some catches escape the levy because of poor records they will be able to undercut the prices of firms of high repute, with good book-keeping. In this branch of the industry most purchases come direct from the fisherman and not from the salesman, where records are kept scrupulously. This is particularly true of scallops, queen scallops and shrimps, where we are dealing with small inshore boats.

In my constituency we have a processing plant at Annan that employs about 150 people. It is important for the whole of the industry that it is treated alike in respect of this levy. In an area of high unemployment such as Annan I cannot accept any loss of jobs, even if it is one or two, through the implementation of this Order. It could have an even more serious effect on the Highlands and Islands, because some of the factories which feed into Annan are spread out, as far apart as Thurso, Stornoway and Inverbervie, where the unemployment would have an even more serious effect than in the Solway.

There are very small profit margins in the shellfish industry and any price manipulations that have to take place because of the Order could be critical. There are very high transport costs from the outlying processing plants to the factories in the South of Scotland and high capital costs. The W.F.A. and the Government ought to think very hard before increasing this levy too much..

My third criticism is that this levy has done little for the shellfish industry. The majority of the money that has been brought into the fishing industry has gone to the trawlers of the middle or distant water boats. My view, and that of the industry, is that much more of the money should have gone to the inshore boats, specialising in shellfish.

A fair proportion of this money should have gone on research and development, including some of the new techniques such as deep water trawling for scallops developed by Mr. Willacy of Annan. Like other hon. Members, I have been to the Torry Research Station at Aberdeen, where we were most impressed by what we saw. The industry believes that insufficient is being spent from this levy on such important issues as the life cycle of shellfish. If we are to continue fishing for immature shellfish, restocking will be most important in the years ahead. I should like an assurance from the Minister that research and development is going ahead rapidly in the shellfish side of the fishing industry.

My final criticism was well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in relation to the levy as it affects the heavier and cheaper varieties of shellfish where there is a low profit margin and lower outcome in weight. On queens the outcome of edible meat is 2.5 lb. per stone, on crab it is 3.2 lb. per stone. Therefore, for queens the cost is up ½d per lb. and for crab 37d. per lb. The Minister should look at the weighting relation of the edible part of shellfish.

I believe this levy is unjust and a source of deep concern to the shellfish industry and to employment in it. An insufficient amount of the levy is being devoted to research and development as opposed to the less specialised side of the industry. I fear the long-term consequences for the shellfish side of the industry. Unless specific assurances can be given by the Minister, the Government should take this Order back and renegotiate it with the White Fish Authority taking the industry into consultation. Then a more acceptable Order could be brought before the House.

10.57 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

After listening to the speeches this evening, my impression is that the White Fish Authority no longer seems to hold such an important position as it did. In past years it had a great responsibility and drew to itself much support from every fishing port in Great Britain. From what has been said in this debate there seems to be a deterioration in the administration of the Authority, which is a pity.

I have noticed with some concern how, while hon. Members on both sides of the House have been making important points, the Minister has been receiving a large series of papers from the Official Box. This leads me to wonder whether he has been in touch with everything that has been going on in the industry. It seems rather odd that he should have to have such a large flow of information from the Official Box. I like to think that Ministers have gone deeply into matters before they are raised by hon. Members.

I would not have intervened if I had not heard so many hon. Members saying what a good idea it would be for the central headquarters of the Authority to be moved from London to Edinburgh, Aberdeen, or Hull. I do not see why it need be in London. Often London is out of touch with what is going on in the country, so it would be a good idea to move the Authority's headquarters out of London. In my constituency there is a very important but small fishing port. I do not want to be overwhelmed by either Scotland or Hull.

On all the occasions when we have discussed the fishing industry it has appeared that Hull and Aberdeen, because they are much larger, have taken up a great deal of the Authority's time. If the headquarters of the Authority are to be moved, it would be good to have them in a part of the country which is neither Scotland nor Hull. I therefore suggest that we on the North-East Coast would very much like the headquarters to be centred there. I always like to say to my Scottish friends that I represent a constituency on the right side of the Border. It would be a good idea if we had the Authority in the centre of the British Isles so that it would be easy for everybody interested in the fishing industry to make contact with the Authority. It has been difficult for the industry in Aberdeen, with its problems of distance, to do so. It would be equally difficult for my part of the world or for the West Country to travel up to Aber-deem It would be almost as bad as having to come trailing down to London. Therefore, it would be much better if the Authority were centred on the North-East Coast where there is a very high level of unemployment.

Apart from that, I support everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) argued for Aberdeen and Edinburgh, I thought I should put in a claim for the North of England. Otherwise, I hope that the Minister will take account of all that has been said by those who are able to speak for the various ports they represent. I hope that our criticisms will be answered beautifully and that we shall win the day against the Government.

11.2 p.m.

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

It will be very difficult to answer all the criticisms beautifully. I will do my best. I cannot guarantee that I will answer them satisfactorily.

I am continually astonished at the ingenuity of the House. Tonight a debate on fishing is turned into a debate on the location of industry and offices. One of the reasons such a discussion is meaningful is precisely this Government's policy of securing the dispersal of offices. I have no doubt that the various claims that have been put forward—Tynemouth, Aberdeen, Humberside—will be noted.

I have been slightly disturbed by the criticisms which have been made of the Authority and the position it now holds. It is correct for hon. Members to draw attention to the facts. It is clearly the duty of all of us to try to secure this kind of confidence in the working of the Authority. One of the means of doing this is precisely to give it the right tools for the job, which we are helping to do with the general levy being introduced tonight.

I was a little surprised when I discovered that the Opposition wanted to discuss the Order, because the Prayer was tabled when the period for the annulment of, the Order had all but gone and no attempt was made to move it at that point.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

The Minister must be aware that the Prayer was tabled within time but the Government could not find time for a debate on it.

Mr. Buchan

That is not my understanding. The Prayer was tabled very nearly at the end of the time. I am pretty sure that if we had been responsible for this, we should have heard much more about it from the Opposition. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that point, otherwise it would be a grave dereliction of duty if Opposition Members were not standing up and shouting about it.

Mr. Stodart

The Minister must be fair about this. Most urgent representations were made through the usual channels, but the Government would not find time to discuss the Prayer. That is why the matter is being discussed now.

Mr. Buchan

I am astonished that the procedure through the usual channels did not result in a debate at the usual time, but I shall look into the point. At any rate, we are having this discussion tonight, after the time for Prayer is over.

It might be useful to give some background to what was raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). The White Fish Authority has now been in existence for 17 or 18 years during which time the levy ceiling of ld. per stone has existed. The fact that 17 years has passed is clearly sufficient reason alone for a change now. There is also the power to give differential rates for fish and products of different descriptions, and that has not been contested in the period up to now, but it has come up sharply in two ways today. There is, firstly the shellfish aspect which is basically the question of inclusion of scallops and queen scallops and, secondly, there is the trade in fish meal.

In an earlier speech, the hon. Member for Haltemprice said: The Minister also said that he would have to authorise any increase and that it could be prayed against in the House. He also said: 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 is so. It would be a considerable encouragement to British vessels which are participating in industrial fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 797.] With that I agree, and it has been borne out. It was a little much, therefore, that the hon. Member should raise against that the objections of the agricultural industry. The quotation he used raised the question, why one industry, competitively based, should have to suffer in terms of subsidy because of another.

It might be useful if I read a letter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture sent to the President of the National Farmers Union last December. He outlined the object of our proposals, to give confidence to our own fishing industry, and said: The object of the proposals is to remove the serious discrimination in the present levy regulations against an increase in our home industrial fishery.… Quite certainly, it is in the interest of the farmers, no less than that of the fishermen, that we should increase fishmeal production at home. Over the last year, as indeed the President of the Association of Fishmeal Manufacturers was pointing out last month, the world fishmeal price has risen by roughly 50 per cent. or some £30 per ton, and supply difficulties in the industrial fisheries of Peru, Norway and Iceland have been largely responsible. Moreover the secular trend of world demand is upwards. An increasing catch of industrial fish by our fleets could well affect the market price of fishmeal much more signifycantly, and favourably for British farmers, than the levy change proposed. That is an important point. Even if all the fishmeal we use, including whatever turns out to be home-produced, is assumed to bear the proposed 10s. a ton—and I have not yet decided whether the proposed scale should be confirmed in full—it does not follow that all of it will be borne by the agricultural consumer and none by overseas suppliers, importers or compounders. If however, the whole amount…does come to be paid by farmers, it will compare with an estimated total annual expenditure on straight and compound feeding stuffs of nearly £450 million, a cost increase of about 0.05 per cent. Those two points are worth keeping in mind. I know the problem. We also have a fishing industry and it is our duty and responsibility to develop that. I should like to see the expansion of industrial fishing both in following up research and for the possible effect on supplies and import prices.

Mr. Wall

I accept what the Minister is saying, but he will, no doubt, recall that the point that I was making concerned the lack of consultation and the methods of collection. The other matter was merely a quotation from the president of the association.

Mr. Buchan

Yes, but it is important when one gives a quotation to remember one's previous view which rejected the the concept, and that one does not—like the flea on the wall—leave the quotation to stick.

The hon. Member raised a number of specific questions relating to cost. The general levy increase will bring in, in round figures, an extra £300,000, which is rather more than he calculated. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman also recognised that administration covered general services of various essential kinds. However, I do not want to spend a lot of time discussing the details of what is not covered by administration.

A question which he and almost every other hon. Member raised concerned the location of headquarters and other offices. Aberdeen, Tynemouth, Hull, Edinburgh and all stations west were argued. It is for the Authority to select its own headquarters and other offices in the light of Government policy, but I am sure that it will take note of what has been said tonight.

Dame Irene Ward

The hon. Gentleman said that it is for the White Fish Authority to decide on the location of its own headquarters, but surely the Government must exercise some control on expenditure. The Authority has been established by the Government.

Mr. Buchan

I believe that I have already said "in the light of Government policy". An important aspect of the Government's policy is to keep an eye on the public purse, which the present Government are doing extremely well.

On the question of trade associations, their views were put to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at a special meeting on 29th October. The merits of the arguments were considered. Also there has been later discussion. I understand the difficulties involved, but I wish that some of the points of detail and questions of application had been raised, such as prior buying and landing. I wish that more detailed points had been raised, instead of the general objections. It is for the two sides to work out the details. I have considered this matter very carefully and it seems to me that the problems raised are largely administrative.

I understand that there is already broad agreement that the levy should be collected from those who clear through the Customs. This is probably a basic starting point. They would be paying on their own behalf, or as agents it liability fell under the Order. This is the best way to leave the matter, that discussions should take place in this way, and that if an unexpected difficulty should arise, we should discuss the best way to meet it.

I was asked who takes the initiative in changing the Regulations. It is the White Fish Authority. This follows from Section 5 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) objects to my having a lot of notes, but it is useful to be reminded that it is Section 5 of the 1951 Act which applies. This restricts the Minister's to refusing or giving confirmation.

There is the large question of shellfish, and I understand the reasons behind the arguments which have been advanced. The Authority, in discussing this matter, recommended to us that any exemption should be kept to the minimum. Otherwise the burden on sectors not exempted is all the higher. What the Authority said was to this effect, that the scattered nature of the fisheries for mussels, cockles, whelks and winkles and the difficulty of keeping a check on the marketing channels suggested that levy collection would be so ineffective or so expensive as to make it not worth considering. It does not quite apply in the same way for scallops. But these species are of much higher value than those I have mentioned.

The Ministry notified all concerned of the intended modifications on 22nd January. This did not, however, until tonight, result in the reaction which we have had. I know the feeling from first hand, through my own contacts with the industry—fishermen and so on, including the catchers—rather than formal representations, but it has been raised strongly here tonight.

We must keep in mind that the shellfish industry has been a shining light in some ways in our fishing industry in recent years. In both value and quantity in 1969 as compared with 1968 there was an increase of about 20 per cent. in Great Britain and a 30 per cent. Increase in Scotland. But there is one precise difficulty as well, that the levy has to be in terms of weight and not value. Under the enabling legislation, which is the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, later amended by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, the White Fish Authority is required to fix the levy in terms of weight.

Those are most of the questions or themes that were raised. A number of hon. Members correctly concentrated on the question of research and development. This is a very important function of the Authority. I hope that it will note the view that there is a relationship between this and the safety discussions now going on with the Board of Trade.

I do not think that we have been particularly fair in talking about lack of consultations. If there have been failures exposed, of perhaps the kind the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke about in relation to processors, it must be seen as a technical fault rather than lack of desire for consultation. The consultation has been fairly well conducted, but often people prefer not to argue on the finer details but to say, "We object." There is also a tendency to say, if all their views have not been accepted, that they have not been listened to. We have all shared in this.

The Authority in my view is doing its best to keep this kind of firm contact with the industry. I am glad that there was recognition that we need to get firmer consolidation of confidence within the Authority, and I know that hon. Members will do their utmost to support it.

Question put and negatived.