HC Deb 21 January 1974 vol 867 cc1400-9

2.15 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart)

I beg to move, That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved. It may also be convenient if with this motion we discuss the next— That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved. I shall be very brief in asking the House to approve these two motions, which will put us, in 1974, in exactly the same position as has obtained throughout 1973.

The motion amending the grant scheme means that approvals given by the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board for vessels or for improvements will continue to attract the same rate of grant as before, that is, 30 per cent. for vessels under 80 ft. in length and 25 per cent. for longer vessels. Vessels under 80 ft. may also be the subject of loans, and that is one of the reasons for the order which relaxes time limits. It will allow my right hon. Friends to continue for another year to put the authority and the board in funds to make such loans. The other reason for the time limits order is to allow us to go on grant-aiding approved projects in the current research and development programmes of the authority and the board, which is clearly right.

There is no more to these two motions than that, but there are two related matters that I should briefly mention. One is, as I told the House on 13th December in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), that we have had to interrupt the issue of new grant and loan provision for the present, except for improvements essentially directed to the safety of the vessel or crew. I explained then that this was a temporary step and I repeat that as soon as acceptable arrangements can be worked out in consultation with the industry and the statutory bodies, it is our intention that the powers that I am asking the House tonight to continue for the whole of 1974 will again be available.

We shall of course have to be quite sure what we are doing when approvals restart, for there are sizeable amounts of public money involved, particularly for new vessels, financed by the White Fish Authority. During 1972–73, the authority approved 165 applications for new vessels and committed about £4½ million in grants and £2½ million in loans. Since the start of the current financial year the number of new vessel applications under consideration has almost doubled, and we are still looking into what this implies for further expenditure. I am sorry, therefore, not to be able tonight to give the date for resuming approvals, but I shall be in touch with the industry, which I intend to consult about future arrangements as soon as we usefully can.

The other point that I should like to mention, if only to avoid misunderstanding, is that the subject of what might happen further ahead if current EEC proposals are adopted is a separate issue. There is a Commission proposal, of which discussion has only just begun, to impose a common ceiling on aids given by member States from their own national resources for vessel building and for other purposes. As the proposal stands, there can be varied ceilings between 15 and 30 per cent. and because they are ceilings, individual member States would be able to give anything or nothing within them.

We shall be discussing this proposal with our industry, whose views my right hon. Friends will want to take into account before they take a decision, and it will also in due course no doubt come before the European Parliament. I cannot forecast when or at what level any Community ceiling on aids might become effective, or what might at that time be thought appropriate within that ceiling, but, as I have said, this is an altogether separate issue from continuing for 1974 the arrangements that we already have, which is what I am asking the House to do by approving these two motions.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I must thank the Minister for his short speech at this hour of the morning. He has managed to convey an enormous amount of matter to us. Although he has great stamina I think I should not test it long at this time because it is in a sense a little unfair to force a debate upon him now. It is not a fiction to have a debate on the two statutory instruments, but in a sense it is a façade, because, looking at their text, one sees that all that has happened, compared with what happened last year is that a number has been altered. We have now a "4" instead of a "3"—1974 instead of 1973. That was the year in which the cascade of applications came in.

The Minister has a question to answer about the moratorium he mentioned on 13th December. He is in a position rather like Alice's, because he is walking at a standstill. He mentioned the EEC and its grants and loans. We have a familiar device at the EEC whereby the clock stands still. In this case it is the other way round now, is it not? We have moved the clock forward to 1974 for applications. There is no money being spent except the money which, I take it, has been voted or allocated for those orders which came in before 13th December—that cascade. I take it we are having this standstill because we had so many orders and so much money in the pipeline that the Minister's Department just could not handle them. So that finances, I take it, at the moment are at a standstill. No one will get any money unless and until the moratorium ends some time in 1974. I think that is the position. The Minister will, perhaps, confirm this.

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is anxiety. I was reading a speech made by the Editor of Fishing News in December at Torquay, when he said that the Government added that it was to suspend this- aid for an indefinite time"— we have heard that tonight— because there had been too many applications and it was costing too much money. I hope that we shall be told fairly soon that the moratorium will end, because it may be that we have this standstill because the Government or the Chancellor got into some financial difficulty. We were tight for money in the autumn of last year.

One word about the 16 per cent. to 18 per cent. which the EEC nations—the Germans, the Dutch, and so on—give to their vessel owners when they build a new ship in, say, Cuxhaven. What is to happen in December 1974 before we move into 1975, when we shall, I understand, share with the Germans and others this lower figure? The Minister said, I think, that we would be allowed to do as we liked ; we could make our own arrangements here. Is it fair to assume that we may stay at 30 per cent. in 1975? If each State may maintain its domestic tariff, so to speak, we can stay at 30 per cent. This would greatly help, and it would allay the fears of many fishermen, inshore and others.

Lastly I would like the Minister to comment on the finances of the industry itself. There are some people who question the need for help of this nature. The Minister well knows that. Sometimes my London colleagues quiz me jocularly, asking why on the Hull fish dock fish is costing 75p a pound and boats such as the "Somerset Maugham" and "CS. Forester" are coming in with catches worth over £60,000. They allege that people are making fortunes, despite the fact that Governments of both political complexions have given them this aid. I know, the White Fish Authority knows, and the Minister knows, to almost a penny, what are the finances of the firms that go fishing in the North-East Atlantic.

I know the difficulties of some Hull firms with their cash flows. They may have five vessels in dock eating off their heads like horses and costing, perhaps £2,000 a day but not getting any fish, whereas the public see 75p a pound as the price for fish and £60,000 worth of fish coming into the auctions. It would be much better for the Government, in giving this aid, and for those in the House who talk about it, if much more were known by the public about the industry's finances, if books were disclosed much more openly and we knew exactly what was happening. This would be healthier for the whole industry and would make for better relations between vessel owners, the unions and the public.

2.27 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on these Statutory Instruments. I was interested in the figures he gave about the mortorium. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office confirm, in replying, that these discussions have started and that there will be an indication fairly soon of the time when the mortorium will end?

Can we expect a continuation of present policy if the harmonisation of State aids within the EEC takes a considerable time to achieve?

There is much discussion about the initial deposit of 10 per cent. Ten per cent. used to be a reasonable figure when the price of fishing boats was not the enormous capital cost that it now is, but 10 per cent. of between £120,000 and £160,000 is a large sum for share fishermen in my constituency, anyway, to find, especially when the money can be left lying out for anything up to two or three years because of delays in deliveries. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter of the initial deposit?

At present, boat owners must pay their full contribution before any Government money is committed. Again, there is discussion about this. What is the objection to matching the contribution by the fishermen as it goes in to pay for the boats?

Unfortunate developments in one or two areas in recent months have resulted in a number of fishing boats and fishermen being left stranded with boats sometimes half built, sometimes with only the keel laid, sometimes with just the initial deposit paid. Are the Government considering any help for fishermen who have lost considerable sums as a result of this? Will they consider paying grants when money has been lost?

Are the Government satisfied that sufficient care is being taken over placing yards on the Government approved lists of builders? Fishermen spend almost all the time out, in very difficult circumstances, plying their trade and catching fish. If the yards entrusted with building their boats acquire the stamp of respectability by getting on the Government approved list, there is a temptation to be inclined not to investigate standards at that yard much further ; and I would not blame the Government for that.

There seems to be some confusion about the three-day week, and I should greatly value my hon. Friend's assistance. Yards which are doing repairs are, I understand, exempt, whereas yards which are producing new vessels and not doing repairs have to observe the three-day week. Plainly, this is an anomaly, for these yards are producing vessels for the catching of fish, which is an essential part of our food production. I hope that the Minister can help on that.

2.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) for the welcome they have given to the scheme, which, as we all recognise, is of great importance and interest to the fishing industry.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about the finances available under the scheme, with particular reference to the moratorium. The moratorium applies only to new applications. As my right hon. Friend said, the number of applications increased vastly in the course of last year. The moratorium is on applications which have not been approved at the date on which it was announced. This does not affect the payment of money on applications which have already been approved.

The moratorium does not affect the processing of applications which were outstanding at that date. Such applications can still be processed, with marine surveys and preliminary work done, so that when the moratorium comes to an end those who have put in applications will not have them delayed on account of lack of processing. I hope that that gives some reassurance.

I cannot give an assurance tonight on the date for the end of the moratorium. The White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are discussing this in co-operation with the fishing industry. The consultations have started, and we hope that they will come to a conclusion as soon as possible. A practical point to be made here is that, while certain people who have applications in find the moratorium a nuisance and an annoyance, one must at the same time recognise the tremendous pressure and congestion in many yards. This does not apply in every case—sometimes a berth is available—but it is worth remembering that the yards themselves are operating under great congestion because of the great increase in orders. I should emphasise also that the moratorium does not apply to improvements in the safety of vessels.

The hon. Gentleman asked also about the EEC. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the proposal from the Commission—that is all it is at the moment, and one should not treat it as anything more—is that there could be various ceilings between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. That is the range. Since there are ceilings, individual member States would be able to give anything or nothing within them. But, as I say, these are only proposals, and one should not put any more emphasis on them at this stage than that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman commented on the relative prosperity of the fishing industry. I use the word "relative" advisedly, because the industry has gone through some very difficult years and has had to face many financial problems. It is enjoying a period of greater prosperity at the moment. I agree that the more the public can be told about the precise financing of the industry the more helpful it is. The firms about which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is concerned are public companies and that is a point which some of them will take into account in disclosing precisely where they stand financially.

Mr. James Johnson

Is the Minister saying that we need not expect to go into the EEC scheme with a ceiling of 16 per cent., 18 per cent., 30 per cent., or whatever it may be at the beginning of 1975? I understood that we were going into some EEC set-up in that year. Am I mistaken?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Eventually we shall go into such a scheme, but at the moment we are concerned only with a proposal which must be looked at. Until there is agreement we cannot say on what date the scheme will come into effect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East asked what would happen to our grants scheme if the EEC policy was not formulated by the time the scheme ran out. Our scheme is designed to run for one year and if no EEC proposals are agreed by the end of 1974 we shall have to consider our position. The Act which enables the scheme to be made contains no time limit, so the power exists for us to take action.

My hon. Friend asked for confirmation about the number of applications affected by the moratorium. As at April 1973, the end of the financial year for the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, 69 applications were on the table. By the time of the moratorium in early December the number on the table was 126. That indicates the degree of increase. My hon. Friend asked about the 10 per cent. deposit and the burdens on the industry resulting from the applicant's having to put up the money as the building progressed. These are conditions of the scheme which have not been forcefully represented to us as presenting difficulties. I should like to discuss this with the authority and the board to see what element of difficulty they present, although we are not aware of them causing particular problems.

My hon. Friend asked about the problems of yards which have run into difficulties and the trouble this causes for the owner who is having a boat built. He has raised this before in correspondence, and I understand that he has taken the matter up with the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for the shipbuilding aspect of the matter. I have suggested to him the question of performance bonds, which is a perfectly proper commercial procedure between two parties. If this is a problem it must be considered in a proper commercial context.

My hon. Friend also asked me about yards on the approved list of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board. I emphasise that those bodies are responsible for carrying out the day-today administration of the scheme. Obviously the Government have an interest in such matters, but they are, strictly speaking, the concern of the two statutory bodies which I have mentioned. I understand that this is a matter that has not raised particular problems for the statutory bodies. Of course, they have an obligation to satisfy themselves that the yards are on the approved list and that they are properly qualified to carry out the work.

My hon. Friend then raised the matter of the three-day working week and the effect which it was having. No particular problems have been notified to us. If my hon. Friend has any specific difficulty to raise, I shall be glad to hear from him and to consider it. The fishing side of the industry has not notified any such problem to us. If there is any specific problem or difficulty it might be more appropriate to raise it with the Department of Energy. That Department is responsible for the applications and administration and the restrictions on the use of energy in our present difficulties. I should be interested to hear of any such difficulties.

I hope that I have anwered all the points of detail which hon. Members have raised. I echo what my right hon. Friend said in opening, namely, that I believe that the scheme is welcomed by the industry and that it will help the industry in the proper provision of boats with which to carry out its job.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Resolved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

    cc1408-9
  1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
Forward to