HL Deb 25 July 1960 vol 225 cc648-59

2.43 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

My Lords, I rise to move that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, be approved, but there are two other Schemes connected with the fishing industry on the Order Paper to-day, and, with your Lordships' permission, it may be convenient if I speak on all three Schemes together. I will, of course, move them separately.

My Lords, the White Fish Subsidy Scheme and the Herring Subsidy Scheme are annual Orders applying to the United Kingdom and subject to Affirmative Resolution. They provide for operating subsidies for the inshore, near and middle water fleets, based on the sizes of boats—a daily rate for the larger vessels and a storages rate on the catch landed by the smaller vessels. The third Order that I shall be moving, the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Extension) Order, 1960, is purely machinery. The 1953 Act allowed these subsidies to be paid until April 30. 1961, or until April 30, 1963, if provided for by Order, and this Extension Order does just that. The White Fish Subsidy Scheme provides for the payment of white fish subsidy for the year beginning August 1 next for the inshore, near and middle water fleets. As your Lordships know, the Government's policy has been to provide assistance, by way of white fish and herring subsidies, to enable the fishing industry to weather the difficult transition period while the fishing fleet is being reconstructed with the aid of grants and loans from the Exchequer. In this, our aim has always been to help the industry to stand ultimately on its own feet without the necessity for financial support from the Government.

I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the process of reconstruction has been proceeding very satisfactorily. At the beginning of 1952, when the scheme of assistance came into operation, there were 600 old coal-burning trawlers in operation. At the present time, that number has been reduced to under 150, and we now have more than 330 diesel trawlers fishing. Many more new vessels are on order, too. The rate at which coal-burners were being taken out of service was not always as satisfactory as it now is, and in 1958 and 1959 the subsidy payable to these coal-burning vessels was reduced as an incentive for their replacement. This reduction has had the desired effect. We have therefore felt able to leave the subsidy for the coal-burners at its present level, and the Scheme now before your Lordships makes no change.

The rates for some other classes of vessels have been altered. The Government's review of the operations of the fleet during the last year, and of the prospects for the coming year, suggests that, generally speaking, the financial position of most sections of the industry should not be greatly different in 1960–61 from that in 1959. The future, however, holds many uncertainties. I do not think I need go into much detail here. Your Lordships are, I am sure, familiar with these difficulties. If I may just touch on three major difficulties and uncertainties, I will say, first, that there is much uncertainty about fishing limits: but I should remind your Lordships here that, apart from Faroe (which, of course, is covered by an agreement with Denmark until 1963), this problem of the fishery limits affects the distant water fleet, which is not under discussion to-day.

The second problem is the fear of increased competition from foreign fishermen, and some of that fear stems from the recent reduction by 2 per cent., from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent., in the tariff on frozen fillets imported from other countries in the European Free Trade Association. There is also a trend towards more fresh fish landings from abroad, but I would emphasise that the 10 per cent. tariff on this has not been altered by the E.F.T.A. Agreement. Thirdly, there is the effect—and this is a serious effect—of the recent fall in the price of fish meal, which may not only have the effect of reducing the returns to the industry from their sales of offal and surplus fish but may also cause other countries to change over from industrial fishing, as it is called, to fishing for human consumption, and so further intensify the competition from foreign countries.

Because of all these factors, which I thought it proper just to touch upon today, the Government have thought it right to propose higher rates of subsidy for the diesel trawlers fishing in our near and middle waters. The Scheme provides for increases, as set out in the Schedule, of £l per day for vessels from 70 feet to 120 feet in length, and £2 per day for vessels from 120 feet to 130 feet in length. A new subsidy of £2 per day is proposed for vessels beyond that length, from 130 feet to 140 feet, which have not been in receipt of subsidy before.

The Scheme also provides for an increase in the stonage rates of 2d. per stone on the subsidy payable on fish landed from the inshore vessels. It has been suggested that the basis of the subsidy for this class of vessel should be altered, and a daily rate of subsidy paid, as in the case of larger vessels. There are, however, very considerable practical difficulties about the payment of a daily rate of subsidy for small vessels, and in any case we have not thought it appropriate to make a vital change of this kind in subsidy arrangements this year, when the whole question of the future of assistance to the industry is under consideration by the Fleck Committee. Their Report is expected at the end of this year, when the matter will then be carefully reviewed. In the meantime this increase of at least 25 per cent.—in some cases it is as high as 3⅓ per cent.—in the stonage rate of subsidy will undoubtedly assist the inshore fishermen.

The only other change provided for in the White Fish Subsidy Scheme is one which Her Majesty's Government foreshadowed last year—namely, the reduction of the subsidy for steam vessels that have been built since July 31, 1952, so that they have equal treatment with diesel vessels of the same size, with which they are broadly comparable. This means that the rate for these vessels, of which there are only five still left in operation, will be £2 per day, instead of £5 10s. as at present. So much for the white fish.

The second Order, the Herring Subsidy Scheme, 1960, provides for payment of herring subsidy in the twelve months from September 1 next. The only changes in this Scheme are increases in the rates for larger herring vessels— that is, the steam vessels—and for motor vessels over 80 feet in length. These vessels are to receive £12 per day at sea, instead of the present rates of £10 and £8 per day respectively. The rates for the smaller vessels are unchanged. The reason for this difference in treatment of herring vessels of different sizes is that although the smaller vessels, most of which come from Scotland, had a reasonably satisfactory year, the larger English vessels fared badly in 1959, and their prospects for the coming year are not good. An increase of subsidy is essential if these larger vessels, largely fishing from English ports, are to obtain crews and continue fishing in the coming season.

Your Lordships may like to know, although it is not part of the Scheme with which we are now dealing, that in order to protect the herring industry from the effects of the fall in fish meal prices which has taken place this year, the Government have to some extent underwritten the Herring Industry Board's possible losses on the production of oil and meal, so that the Board can continue to pay existing prices for surplus herring. It is the Scottish vessels that will derive the greatest benefit from this guarantee. I know that this arrangement has been criticised as being unfair to Scotland, and likely to lead to discontent among Scottish crews. I really do not think that this is the case, as I have explained it; the assistance is being given fairly to the herring catchers in the two countries, though in different ways.

My Lords, I do not think that there is more that I need say on these three Orders. The three Schemes are in accordance with the Government's general policy towards the fishing industry, which is, as set out in the explanatory note at the end of the statutory instrument: … with a view to promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish … These Orders are designed to enable the steady progress in the modernisation of the fleets to be continued. I commend them to your Lordships, and I now beg to move that the first Order be approved.

Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave

2.56 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, I want to make one or two observations of a general character about these Orders and I hope that noble Lords who have more knowledge than I have of the sea fishing industry will add to what I have to say. Many of us live within reach of fishing ports and it is only by voicing what we think about these Orders that we can persuade the Government that they may possibly be improved in one direction or another.

The first thing I want to say is in regard to the timing of these Orders. The first comes into operation at the end of this week and the second at the beginning of September, while the third, which is an extension Order, does not come into operation until May 1 of next year. I would, as was suggested in another place, suggest to the Government that the time given for the consideration of these Orders has been very short. I realise that at the end of a Session the Government are snowed up with regulations and Bills which have to be passed before the end of the Session, but on another occasion perhaps Orders like these could be presented at an earlier date.

I recognise that these proposals are only stop-gap measures. As the noble Earl has said, we are looking forward to the Report of the Fleck Committee, which I understand will be published by the end of this year. We hope that after it has been thoroughly considered by the Government and by those who are interested in the fishing industry, the Government may see fit to bring forward any proposals of importance and put them into operation in place of these Orders, which deal only with the present period.

The noble Earl has mentioned one or two of the difficulties which face the fishing industry and I think they bear repetition. The first difficulty is that the present arrangement in regard to Iceland comes to an end on August 12 and the fishing industry is wondering what is going to happen then. There is also the question of trading with Europe. Here, again, there is uncertainty in fishing circles as to what may happen as the outcome of the negotiations in regard to European trade. There is also the difficulty of the importation of frozen fish, which I understand is likely to come into this country in heavy tonnage. If this is the case, it obviously may affect the prosperity of the industry.

Another point which is worrying the industry is the reduction in the number of personnel engaged in fishing. There are also the interest rates on the money which has to be borrowed by those who run the fishing fleets, and furthermore the slackening off in the purchases of consumers as the result of the high prices in the shops and restaurants. There is also the question of the over-fishing of fishing grounds and the changes in fishing grounds. All these difficulties are not lessening. At the present time, they are piling up and the fishing industry is concerned about what may happen. I am in favour of the subsidies and grants which the Government are making and they are received with favour in the industry. But in regard to any subsidies I hope that the Government will see to it that those which are given to the producers—and in this case the fishermen are the producers of certain foodstuffs—do not find their way into the pockets of other people.

I mentioned a moment or two ago the interest which certain noble Lords may have in fishing. I am concerned with King's Lynn and the Wash and the small fishing villages on the north coast of Norfolk. Fishing generally in our area is inshore and it restricted to shell fishing and shrimping. There are no subsidy arrangements for this particular branch of the industry. I hope that when the Government are considering the Fleck Report and the future of the industry some consideration may be given to those fishermen along my part of the coastline. They are hardworking; their lives are difficult; and certainly the remuneration they have received for their efforts in producing food for our use is not very large.

There is one question that I should like to put to the noble Earl, and I am afraid I have not had the opportunity to give him notice of it. In another place a few days ago the Supplementary Estimates were passed. As will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place, at column 630, the Supplementary Estimate for "Fishery Grants and Services" was £5,560,000, and the Supplementary Estimate for "Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry (Revised sum)" amounted to £1,830,364. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us whether those figures include the additional cost which will fall on the Exchequer by reason of the subsidies included in these Orders or whether there will be separate figures to cover those amounts. I commend the Orders to your Lordships. I think they will be helpful to the industry and I hope that they will pass through this House to-day.

2.59 p.m.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. Once again we are asked to approve an annual subsidy for the near and middle water fishing industries, and I venture to think that this subsidy will not be so transitory as the noble Earl who moved it rather optimistically hoped. We have had it for a considerable number of years already, and I think we are likely to have it for a considerable number of years to come. I would only add that I am in full approval of the alterations that have been made this year, and will probably will have to be made from year to year as things go on; and I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Earl that, by and large, the reconstruction of the fishing fleets has been satisfactorily carried out.

The only point that I want to make this afternoon is one that I have made before, and which greatly concerns me—namely, the question of the conservation of stocks of fish. This industry will never stand on its own feet (as the noble Earl expressed the hope that one day it would) if there are not any fish. Fish are really essential to the wellbeing of the fishing industry, whether it be white fish or herring. So far as white fish are concerned, I can only remind your Lordships that we have seen them depleted in the past largely due to over-fishing of the North Sea grounds—that has happened two or three times in the present century —and to the catching of immature fish. This we can deal with only by international agreement, and I think there are hopes that we may be able to deal with it in that way. The situation here is grave, but not immediately menacing.

With regard to the herring industry, we are now seeing the herring depleted before our eyes for the first time since the reign of King Henry VIII; and to my mind it is extremely alarming, and the situation is very grave indeed. The great autumn fishing off the coast of East Anglia out of Yarmouth and Lowest of it is, for all practical purposes, dead; and this is absolutely disastrous for the fishing industry of this country. You will not be getting the Scottish fleet down there this autumn; they have practically given it up. It has been even more disastrous for the fishermen of East Anglia, in Yarmouth and Lowest oft and it has been caused by the virtual disappearance of the herring from the southern part of the North Sea for the first time for centuries. There must be a reason for it. None of the fishermen with whom I have had discussions about this—and I have discussed it with many of them—have any doubt that it is primarily due to the ruthless commercial fishing that has taken place since the war, and the use of trawl nets instead of drift nets—trawl nets which rake the bottom of the sea, and drag up the immature fish from the spawning grounds. These small fish are then taken off, not for human consumption, but to factories in Denmark and Germany for conversion into meal and oil. That, in my belief, is the real cause of what is nothing short of a disaster for the herring industry.

When I raised this matter recently in your Lordships' House the noble Earl said that he thought it would be necessary for an Atlantic Convention of some kind to be ratified by the seven Powers concerned before any useful progress could be made on the international front. I must say that I did not find that answer entirely convincing. This is an emergency, so far as the herring fishing industry is concerned; and it is one that confronts all the countries interested in herring fishing, particularly Denmark, West Germany and Holland, and of course ourselves, because it cannot be in the interests of any of us that the herring should disappear altogether from the southern part of the North Sea. The noble Earl said the last time he answered a question of mine in your Lordships' House that he would bring to the attention of the Government the suggestion that they might summon an international conference of experts from the countries directly concerned, to consider the causes of the disappearance of the herring from the southern part of the North Sea, and what remedies might be applied. I would still press upon the Government the desirability of summoning such a conference, under the auspices of this country, at the earliest possible moment. Otherwise I think you will see this industry die out completely so far as England is concerned.

Meanwhile, I have only one other point that I want to make. Every country at the moment, and particularly Iceland and Norway, is taking steps to conserve its own spawning grounds. We have two great spawning grounds in Scotland. One is the Moray Firth, and the other is the Minch. We have them effectively under our control. I have never been able to see why we should not keep trawlers, both foreign and British, out of these two great spawning grounds. The record of the Foreign Office in this matter over the last 50 years has been deplorable. They have always made it an excuse that they have some inter- national agreements. But these international agreements have now been violated in the case of Iceland; and I suggest that, instead of sending, destroyers to Iceland, we should take some steps to preserve our own spawning grounds. That, I believe, would be much more practical action. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised the matter the other day, and I should like to give him full support.

That is all I want to say. I was mixed up with this industry for about 35 years in another place, where I represented the greater part of the Scottish herring fleet; and I feel the menace of this thing—the tragedy of it—and the danger of the gradual disappearance of the herring from the North Sea, which is a thing that in the old days of the drift net we thought could never happen. All I would say, in conclusion, is that I beg Her Majesty's Government to take this question very seriously indeed.

3.10 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to add a word to what the noble Lord. Lord Boothby, has said. I do not speak with any sort of expertise on this subject, but I must say that I was very impressed by what the noble Lord said. Anybody who knows anything about the history of this country, even before the time of Henry VIII, knows how enormously important the herring industry always has been. In the eighteenth century no Secretary of State for the Northern Department, as I think he then was, would have dared to allow the herring fisheries to lack Government support in the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has clearly pointed out, the Foreign Office have been doing of recent years. I do not think it was using too strong language when the noble Lord said that we were on the verge of a national disaster in regard to this particular matter. It is obviously very serious, and I hope the Government will realise that the noble Lord's voice is not one crying in the wilderness, but that he speaks for a large number of people who, without being experts on the matter, feel that there is a great danger here.

3.12 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am much obliged to your Lordships for the support that you have given to these three Orders. I will turn briefly for a moment to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. I will, of course, consider them, and I apologise if the noble Lord feels that he has not had sufficient time to consider these Orders. We must see whether we cannot bring them in rather earlier next year. I am sorry about that. The noble Lord referred to one or two of the points that I raised myself, about the doubts that may exist in the minds of some people, but he also raised a new point, which was the question of interest rates for the new construction. I think all the noble Lords will agree that this is a matter we must take broadly. I do not think we could possibly isolate this particular industry from paying the rates for the time being in force. If we were to say that they should get their loans at less than the market rate, could we say the same for houses, local authority borrowing, and so on? I think that is a very big matter, and in any case it goes rather wide of these Orders.

The noble Lord would not expect to see anything in these Orders for his shrimpers, because if he will read the definition he will see that it says: 'White fish means fish of any kind found in the sea, except herring, salmon, migratory trout and shell fish. This Order does not cover shrimps and shell fish, but the question will be considered when the Fleck Committee make their recommendations. As I mentioned, that Report is likely to be in our hands this autumn. The noble Lord also mentioned the figures in the Supplementary Estimates debate in another place. I had not seen these figures until I sent just now for the Hansard, and they are not very easy to follow. Perhaps I might communicate with the noble Lord afterwards.

The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as I suspected he would—and as we are grateful to him for doing—emphasised the great dangers of over-fishing, and depleting what is a traditional industry. He was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who spoke of the historical importance of the herring, which none of us would wish to deny. I think the point has been made before by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—and it is none the worse for that—and will be made again, until we have solved this problem. What I will say is that we are well aware of this problem and this difficulty. Whether we can ever go so far as to having the Minch and the Moray Firth made into a "National Park" where nothing can be caught, I do not know.

There is one point for the record which I should like to straighten out with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I do not think I said, when we had this little discussion here before, that I would give favourable consideration to a conference of experts. I think I took rather the other line. I seem to remember saying that the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention was in process of being ratified and it was not only the seven ratification signatories who are concerned with the Treaty. Speaking from memory, I think there are five who have ratified already. West Germany is likely to ratify very soon—which gives us six—and the seventh ratification is not the only other country involved. I think there are good hopes, therefore, that we may get the Fisheries Convention ratified—I hope that we may. As I said last time, I think we had better proceed by the orthodox method of trying to get that Convention ratified before we start some new ad hoc conference. My Lords, I hope that I have answered the points that have been raised.

On Question, Motion agreed to.