FISH FARMING

HC Deb 31 July 1975 vol 896 cc2343-50

6.13 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

When I found that I was fortunate to be drawn No. 4 in the Ballot, I hardly expected to be waiting until 13 minutes past six before rising to speak. I apologise to the Minister whom I have obviously kept up for a similar length of time. Nevertheless, that is the way that we run these matters in this House. We had a long debate on devolution, which must have been the third occasion on which we have debated that subject.

I wish to raise a subject of vital importance to this country—I do not propose to go into it at any great length—concerning the future of food production. The aspect to which I wish to refer is fish farming.

I am a stock farmer. I am not a very good stock farmer, but I am an even worse fisherman. Nevertheless, I profoundly believe that this country will face a real shortage of food within a few years and that it is our duty to maximise our production in whatever ways we can.

There are reports emanating from the United States and Canada about large sales of wheat to Russia. It is obvious that this year we shall have a much smaller harvest than is customary. Indeed, stock farmers in the South—myself included—and probably in other parts of the country are having to feed their hay crops because of the drought. The Minister cannot be blamed for that. They have had very small crops of good quality hay, but small crops do not augur well for the years ahead.

In Newtown, the old capital of the Isle of Wight, we have oyster beds, and the managing director of the firm operating them is chairman of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. He has restored the tradition of oyster fisheries and is building up his business into a successful enterprise. Turnover last year was £150,000 and most of the production goes for export.

I was further stimulated in my interest in fish farming during a lengthy conversation on the lovely journey from Mallaig to London two years ago. On that beautiful stretch of railway line, I fell in with a gentleman who held a senior position with the White Fish Authority and he told me of exciting developments in a loch on the west coast of Scotland. I do not remember the name of the loch and our Scottish hon. Friends have left now, so they cannot remind me. It was on the coast above Fort William. I was told that after the initial breakthrough and the breeding of turbot and halibut, they were being held back through lack of research finance. They were first in the field and had attracted visitors from the United States, Japan and other countries. They showed great interest and, with the knowledge we had imparted to them, went back to their own countries and forged ahead more quickly than we did. Regrettably, this has not been an unusual occurrence in this country in recent years. We seem to do the spadework and others cash in on our research. I have an Adjournment debate at 4 p.m. today on hovercraft—another field in which we have allowed ourselves to be overtaken after doing all the spadework.

The Scottish Inshore Fisheries Committee issued a report in 1970 in which it said: Fish is the only major source of food which is still obtained mainly by the exploitation of naturally occurring stocks of wild creatures, but, as the human population increases and its standards of living rise, the demand for fish grows and it seems certain must ultimately exceed the reproductive capacity of the wild stocks. Indeed, there is some evidence that this situation already exists in relation to certain species of fish in certain areas. Fish is also a major source of protein in a world which is currently suffering from a deficiency of protein. This report, which is also known as the Cameron Report, was written in 1970. That deficiency has become very much more serious since then. The report continues: These facts—a rising demand and a static or perhaps even declining supply—have stimulated not only scientific but governmental and commercial interest in fish farming and it is believed that the next five to ten years will witness considerable progress in this direction. I fear that the confidence predicted at that time has not yet been justified by what has come to pass and I will be explaining why I think this situation has arisen.

The same report set out in paragraph 227 the great potential for commercial exploitation of various types of fish farming and highlighted the disastrous fall that had taken place over the years in stocks, particularly of oysters and mussels, due to over-fishing and the lack of adequate protective legislation.

If I journey too much into the realms of legislation I suspect that I shall be ruled out of order, although such expenditure as has already been committed by the Government into research—reputed to be £400,000 per annum, judging from a debate in another place two years ago—might well have been largely wasted without the legislative protection which the fish farmers so badly need.

I hope that soon we shall have a full debate in this House on the unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists and that much-needed legislation will be introduced. There must be greater investment by the Government. Research and development is unlikely to be followed by the large-scale commercial exploitation which is so necessary until the marine farmer's position in law is properly defined in a way which will remove existing anomalies.

The industry believes that it should be classified as agricultural, thereby establishing parity with the land-based farmer for grant aid, rating relief, planning dispensations, reduced vehicle licence charges, capital transfer tax and similar matters. Some of these advantages already obtain in many EEC countries. Moves in this direction would provide both the necessary solutions to many particular problems and a more favourable general climate, which would in turn promote the growth of important national resources. There is a great need for practical measures of this sort if we are to exploit the very real contribution that fish farming can make to the national larder.

Baroness Emmet of Amberley has long been campaigning in another place for more urgency to be given to the expansion of fish farming. Like her and Lord Thurso, I was disappointed that the White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources" made no mention of fish farming, except by drawing attention to its absence by referring to the value of fish and fish preparations imported in 1972, 1973 and 1974 on page 18. The cost is put at £122 million for 1974, which represents a rise over three years of about 27 per cent. There was no mention of how we could improve food supplies by fish farming, which is surely a grave omission in that otherwise highly desirable White Paper.

It is nonsense that a nation surrounded by water, with suitable havens such as estuaries, lakes and streams, and whose most favoured meal is supposed to be fish and chips, should not be actively encouraged by the Government to concentrate its efforts on the production of suitable species of fish for home and export purposes.

The Royal Society of Arts held an important one-day conference on the whole subject of fish farming on 10th June. I commend to the Minister the various papers read at the conference. Mr. J. B. C. Simmons, B.A. set out at some length many of the anomalies to which I have referred about the legislation situation.

Our friends in Northern Ireland for example, are able to obtain certain grants and loans under the terms of an Act passed in 1972, a situation which causes some envy to the fish farmers in the remainder of the United Kingdom.

Messrs. Kerr and Howard concluded their paper with the words, The nature and extent of the United Kingdom coastline offers the embryonic fish farming industry great scope for development. Given some further progress with technical problems,"— I imagine that that means further Government aid— the right climate for investment and marketing, fish farming could one day become an industry earning over £50 million annually. They pointed out how the cultivation of oysters had fallen from 100 million annually a century ago to roughly 5 million today, although I gather that there has been some progress to report in this area and that some expansion is now taking place.

In that same paper they dealt with mussels, clams and scallops and went on to talk about the likely production targets for Dover sole, turbot and halibut among other varieties, some of which make the mouth water.

Other papers on the same day dealt with salmon and trout, disease prevention, the design and construction of fish farms and marketing. Apart from the edible species to which I have just referred there are also the valuable byproducts which derive from the non-edible parts of fish which are associated with animal feeds and fertilisers. The expertise is there. All that is needed is the necessary encouragement.

Last year the control of Pollution Act passed through this House with all-party approval, but, regrettably and in some respects understandably, because of the cost, it has not yet been implemented. For fish farming to succeed every effort should be made to bring Part II of that Act into force. We could make a good start by trying to clean up the Solent, where I live. With a high rate of unemployment is it not possible to devise ways and means whereby those unhappily out of work could play a part in carrying out socially desirable projects, such as cleaning up our rivers and canals?

As the chairman of the Shellfish Association so rightly pointed out in a recent speech at that association's annual dinner, Now that we have made up our minds to remain in the EEC we have less than 10 years before the full effects of the common fisheries policy come to be realised. We also have to face ever-increasing claims from many directions on the rapidly diminishing sites most suited for fish farms. One can think of oil rigs, recreations and other sports which make claim on some areas which are suitable for fish farming.

Time is, therefore, not on our side and the sooner the Government formulate their policy on this subject and take action the better. I understand that the National Farmers' Union has taken up the cause of fish farming. Perhaps this will bring about more action from the Government. For the sake of our country's food reserves I sincerely hope that it will be so.

6.28 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop)

Although the House may deplore the rather late or early hour of this debate, I wish to be brief out of consideration to those who are yet to follow.

I am glad to have this opportunity of replying to the points made upon this important subject by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). There have been a number of discussions about fish farming, both in this House, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in another place in recent months. These have provided the opportunity to examine the various problems in some detail.

I should like to underline the fact that the Government are well seized of the problems which are of concern to those engaged in this activity, whether in the marine, shellfish or freshwater fields. More recently I made it clear in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that my Ministry is responsible for fish farming in its various facets in precisely the same way as for agriculture, horticulture and fisheries. I hope that this will have made clear a point about which there seems to have been some confusion in the past.

Within this broad framework, fisheries departments are responsible for the oversight of the subject. In this they have paid, and will continue to pay, very close attention to the shellfish activities which I know are of interest to the hon. Member.

Considerable attention has been devoted to the question whether fish farm-should be deemed to be agriculture. The hon. Gentleman made this point. We do not think that this is the best approach. We consider that it is far better to look at the different aspects of the very wide field and see where there is difficulty. We accept that some analogies can be drawn between fish farming and agri- cultural pursuits. This analogy is obviously closer for freshwater activities, but we do not believe that it would be productive to attempt a blanket application of agricultural legislation to fish farming any more than to fisheries in general.

It is necessary to examine the different aspects of fish farming to determine precisely the specific problems. Whilst there is undoubtedly some overlap, different considerations arise between shellfish, marine and freshwater farming. On shellfish, the cultivation of molluscs is well established and, broadly speaking, research in the Ministry's laboratories has now reached the stage where we think it is for industry to exploit existing resources more fully. On the freshwater side, we are looking very closely at the research and development work required over and above what is already done. On the marine side, which with shellfish has received the greatest emphasis, work on the problems of rearing sole and turbot will continue at the present level. Disease control research on all aspects also continues.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Can the Minister give me some idea as to the extent of the research into turbot and sole? Is any further finance going in that direction? I think that it is the White Fish Authority that is doing that experimentation. Is that experimentation likely to be increased at all?

Mr. Bishop

I am aware of the work being done by the White Fish Authority and by the Ministry in this field. I am not able at this stage to give the details which the hon. Gentleman has sought, but I am prepared to look into this matter and write to him about it in more detail.

These are the areas where my Ministry is most active. But it should be borne in mind that, notwithstanding the progress that has been made, there remain major problems to be overcome in the raising of marine fin fish—that includes turbot and sole, of course—before they are likely to make any contribution to our supplies.

We know that shellfish farmers, and fish farmers in general, are concerned about their treatment in relation to planning and rating matters, as the hon. Gentleman said, and, indeed, about the security of their operations when these are undertaken in sea water. On rating we recognise that anomalies occur. As the hon. Gentleman may know, this matter is under a very detailed examination by the Layfield Committee on rating in general and it would not be worth while trying to deal with fish farming issues until the conclusions of the Committee become available. On shellfisheries, the security problem has special significance because the law is not entirely clear about the situation of shellfish reared above the sea bed.

I want to say something now, which I think is of some importance, about progress.

Officials of my Department met representatives of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, the Fish Farmers' Union and other organisations recently, when we had a full discussion of these and related matters. The Ministry is now circulating what may be termed a consultation paper on these issues, with particular emphasis on legal problems which arise. We shall be anxious to hear what organisations have to say about this. By this process we can determine where action is possible or where it has to await the outcome of other decisions, for example on rating, or whether legislation is in fact necessary to up-date the existing provisions.

In the nature of things it is not possible to provide the complete or quick answer to many of the difficulties. I hope, however, that what I have said will be sufficient to assure the hon. Member that we are actively pursuing matters in consultation with the Shellfish Association and other organisations with the intention of assisting their members to the maximum extent.