HL Deb 11 April 1961 vol 230 cc226-37

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

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

My Lords, the Bill which is now before your Lordships has two main objectives. First, it gives the Government the power to pay white fish subsidy to the distant water fishing industry and secondly, it enables the White Fish Authority to make additional loans for the building and modernisation of inshore, near and middle water vessels.

Your Lordships will be aware of the recommendations for the future of the fishing industry contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry published early this year, known the the Fleck Report. The Report is a very thorough and valuable study of the problems of the industry, and we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, and to the other members of the Committee for the time and thought they have devoted to this work. The proposals in the Report are important, but decisions on them can be taken only after the views of the different interests which would be affected have been obtained and the Government have been able to give these views the attention they deserve. The need to come to speedy decisions on the future of the industry is very much in our minds, and the uncertainty which must prevail until these decisions are reached will be removed as soon as possible. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will agree that it would be wrong to be over-hasty in the consideration of measures which will affect the fortunes of this great industry for many years to come. For these reasons, the present Bill is not concerned with the long-term proposals contained in the Fleck Report. I can assure your Lordships, however, that this Bill does not conflict with any of the Committee's recommendations and will not prejudice the Government's action on the Report.

This Bill deals with two matters of importance to the industry which require immediate attention. The first of these is the change which has come about in the conditions in which the distant water section of the industry operates. Your Lordships will be aware that the longstanding concept of national fishing rights extending three or four miles off-shore is no longer acceptable to many countries, and that there is a movement to extend fishery limits to much greater distances. The Government have recently concluded Agreements with Norway and with Iceland under which we have agreed to observe wider limits off the coasts of those countries. United Kingdom fishing vessels will for some time have special rights to fish in some areas within the new limits, but there is no doubt that our distant water vessels will be deprived of the opportunity of fishing in grounds from which up to now they have been taking a substantial part of their total catch. To enable the lost supplies to be made up, it is probable that the industry will have to find and explore new fishing grounds, and to develop new types of vessels and methods of fishing. All this is likely to be expensive and to take time, and it may be that assistance from the Government will be necessary to make sure that it can be done as quickly as is desirable.

The Fleck Report makes recommendations for assistance to the distant water fleet, and, as I have said, the Government are examining these proposals in consultation with the industry. In the meantime, however, it is important that some immediate help should be given to the distant water fleet in such a way as to assist not only the trawler owners but also the skippers and the crews, who are remunerated partly by a share in the proceeds of the catch. The most convenient way in which such speedy assistance can be given to the distant water fleet is by the payment of a white fish subsidy on similar lines to that now paid to the inner and middle water fleets. This is the purpose of the first part of the Bill.

At present, schemes providing for payment of subsidy to the inshore, near and middle water fleets are placed before Parliament annually for approval. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill enables future schemes of this kind to provide for payment to the distant water fleet also, by omitting the limiting words in Section 5 of the 1953 Act. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 enables extra funds to be provided not only to meet the cost of any extension of the subsidy to the distant water fleet, but also to meet any additional sums which may be required for subsidy on the vessels which are at present eligible. At present there is a limit of £22 million on the total amount which may be spent on white fish and herring subsidies, but the Government have power under existing legislation to add an extra £2 million by Order. But this will not be quite enough, so provision is made by subsection (2) of this clause for the Government to increase the sum available by making Orders adding not more than £3 million at any one time. No upper limit has been placed on the total amount, since it is not yet possible to decide precisely how the distant water fleet will be affected by the changes in fishery limits which have taken place, or what the appropriate rates of subsidy may be.

The Bill does not extend the period during which white fish and herring subsidies may be paid, which, under the present authority, expires early in, 1963. The inclusion of power to pay a subsidy to the distant water fleet constitutes, therefore, no more than a holding operation while consideration is being given to any more permanent measures which the Government may decide upon after they have fully examined the Fleck Report.

To turn to the second part of the Bill, this is also really in the nature of a holding operation. The White Fish Authority has at the present moment power under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, to make grants and loans for the acquisition and modernisation of inshore, near and middle water fishing vessels, but not for distant water vessels. The funds out of which loans are made are advanced to the Authority out of the Exchequer, and there is at present a limit of £20 million on the amount which may be outstanding from the Authority in respect of such advances. In the last year or so there has been a very gratifying increase in the number of vessels constructed with assistance under the grant and loans scheme, and the result has been that the limit of £20 million will very soon be reached. In addition, an increase in the amount available for grants has been made by Order to enable this process of modernisation to be continued. This will involve further loans to supplement the grants, though the scale of new construction may, therefore, be expected to slacken. For these reasons Clause 2 of the Bill raises the limit from £20 million to £25 million. This increase will enable the Authority to provide loans for all the building which ought to be done in the near future.

To sum up, my Lords, this is an enabling Bill, to do three main things which are immediately necessary pending comprehensive legislation for the fishing industry arising out of the Fleck Report. These are: first, to enable the Government to pay white fish subsidy to any fishing vessel wherever it may be fishing —the present legislation excluding the distant water fleet; secondly, to provide funds necessary to pay this subsidy when the Orders under which it is authorised are made; and thirdly, to provide additional funds so that the White Fish Authority can make more loans on those vessels eligible under the existing arrangements—that is, all vessels other than the distant water fleet. I trust that your Lordships will agree that the provisions of this Bill are useful, necessary and noncontroversial. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

2.50 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, the Minister in charge of this Bill has fully explained it, and therefore it does not fall to me to make many comments about it. As he says, it is a holding Bill and is really of a temporary character until the Government have been able to consider what permanent operations should be brought in for the benefit of the fishing industry. It also seems to be mainly a Money Bill and, for that reason, it is not within our powers in this House to oppose it or to throw it out. In addition, full discussion on the Bill has taken place in another place—in fact, I know of no short Bill which has been so fully discussed before arriving in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it would not become me to be as lengthy in what I have to say as were some Members of the other place during that discussion. Serious opposition was provoked in another place, not so much upon the merits of the Bill, but apparently upon the wording of the Money Resolution; and, naturally, we cannot express ourselves upon that particular Resolution, which I believe has now been rectified there.

As the Minister has said, Clause 1 opens up the number of types of vessels to which a subsidy may now be applicable and covers those whose fishing scope extends to deep sea and distant waters. There seems now to be no limit of area outside territorial waters in which they can operate. They can operate not only in distant waters, but also in inshore, near and middle waters. Doubts have been expressed, however, that the new subsidy under this clause, which will be paid when a scheme is brought in and approved by Parliament, will find its way more into the pockets of operators who are already extremely prosperous than into the pockets of those who are in need at the present time. Therefore I think we are justified in advising the Government to exercise the greatest care in this matter and to keep a watchful and investigating eye to see that money paid out in subsidies does not augment profits which are already high, but is used to sustain those who have to struggle on low returns and low incomes, as is the case in certain fisheries. As the Minister has said, at a later date, within a period perhaps not longer than two or three years, the Government may be in a position to brine forth amending legislation after full consideration of the Report of the Fleck Committee, and as experience will be gained by the operations of the provisions of the Bill now before us the future position of our fishing industry can then no doubt be discussed at full length.

The Bill also provides for loans for building and equipping vessels and increases the Government's financial liability. Considerable and significant progress has already been made in the building of new ships and in modernising and better equipping others. This is commendable, and it is essential that our fishing fleets, in whatever waters they may have to operate, should possess facilities of the best and most modern character. No one can work efficiently with inferior or defective tools or equipment. That can be truly said of the fishing industry, the operations of which have sometimes to be carried out in most trying and hazardous conditions. Therefore remedies should be sought and in due course applied, if necessary.

The Bill removes some restrictions which were attached to certain types of vessels. I personally am always in favour of removing any restrictions which may hamper the fullest possible production of food, whether it be from the land or from the sea. Every encouragement should be given to both industries, agriculture and fishing, to supply our national needs with sufficiency and effectiveness. Reports as to some areas and ports may suggest that there has been overfishing in the past. If a problem in this direction is being, or has been, created, a solution must be evolved when our fishing activities come under more intensive review at a later date. I hope that our old saying that there is "just as good fish in the sea as ever came out" still holds good and is as true to-clay as it always has been. We on this side of the House are glad to accord a Second Reading to this Bill and to support it.

2.58 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has tempted me to remind your Lordships that there is no limit to any action your Lordships choose to take on a Money Bill or a Money Resolution. The effect of what your Lordships do is another matter. I would remind your Lordships that since the 1911 Parliament Act your Lordships have amended a Finance Bill and the House of Commons has accepted that Amendment. So that there is no limitation such as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, on what your Lordships may desire to do with this Bill.

But I wish to take this opportunity—and it is a very good one—of thanking the noble Earl. Lord Waldegrave, and, through him, the Government for the accommodation which they have come to with the people of Iceland. I think this is a most important step. The noble Earl probably knows that this is something which I have been advocating for a long time, and I am glad to see that it has now come into effect. The fact that the Icelanders, who possess one of the most valuable breeding grounds for fish in the world, may themselves plunder and devastate those breeding grounds for money is not really a matter that we can help. As they are a most likeable and educated people, it is to be hoped that they will adopt wise measures to preserve their own breeding grounds.

I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take example from the people of Iceland and do something to preserve our own devastated breeding grounds, which were as good as any in the world. The Minches and the Moray Firth can yield only a fraction of the fish that they used to yield thirty years ago, and they are being steadily more and more devastated. I should like to see a line drawn from Cape Malin, around the Hebrides, to the Butt of Lewis, Cape Wrath and the Orkneys and down to Kinnaird Head, and have properly preserved breeding grounds for our British fish. The Shetlands, of course, would also have to be protected. I am told that when the Fort William—Mallaig railway line was projected and there was a Committee sitting, under the chairmanship of the grandfather of the present Lochiel, a very old fisherman got up at the meeting and said that completion of that line would be the ruin of the West Coast fishing in Scotland; and what he said, in the sense that he meant it, has amply come to pass. I do urge upon Her Majesty's Government the paramount duty, the duty we all owe to our grandchildren, to do something to preserve the devastated fish-breeding grounds of the British Isles.

3.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Wise for having indicated our attitude, in general, to the principles of this Bill. I had not intended to join in the debate this afternoon, but obviously, from the very clear explanation that the noble Earl Lord Waldegrave has given of the Bill, it falls to your Lordships to consider a little on Second Reading what are the implications behind this holding Bill, very necessary, as I see it, for financial reasons. The situation is, as he so clearly stated, that the Government have had, perforce, in the circumstances, to make Agreements with both Norway and Iceland. I share very much the view with regard to the breeding grounds and the dangers expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, but I think that the immediate proposal contained in the Bill is quite right.

We have to keep our actual components—the ships, organisation, crews and officers—in good heart in these present circumstances. I would ask that at any lime after my experience in the last great war. With the French ships that escaped early, under the direction of General de Gaulle, there were considerable, though not large, numbers of French trawlers which came across with them, and at the Admiralty our tongues were hanging out to get hold of them and to put them into service. We had hundreds of trawlers altogether, but the numbers were still inadequate. We can never repay the debt that we owe to the trawlermen of our country and those who came over from France at that lime. I am delighted, therefore, at the continuation of what has been the policy of successive Governments, to render assistance in the modernisation of the vessels employed on the main types of fishing in which we indulge. I very much approve. On the other hand, I must say that it does raise questions as to how the loan charges really fall upon us in respect of sections of the industry, some of which are pretty prosperous while others are not so prosperous.

The reason for the Bill's having, to keep this holding position, and for possible further extensions of subsidy, is the gradual eating into the old international position regarding territorial waters. That is the real reason behind the Bill. How far does it have to go before we have to consider this as a larger question of foreign policy, and how far will the Government and Parliament have to go in extending aid to this industry, so vastly important to our country, unless we can get some adjustment of the position more in our favour than in the case of these two specific agreements?

At present, anybody can come and fish around our coasts right up to the three-mile limit. And, be it noted, during the nearly nine years I was at the Admiralty I did not fail to observe that in peacetime we had always to keep a fisheries cruiser here and there in order to prevent even the three-mile limit from being broken; and there have been numerous cases in the courts in the past with regard to offences in that connection. Now the Government have been forced to give way on these two important matters in relation to extending the limit to twelve miles, and I believe that if your Lordships examine all the details of the Norwegian Treaty you will find, if you include the waiters in the many fjords in which people used to be able to fish, at least on the edges that a far bigger square milage is now inside the limit than can easily be imagined. That is very important.

In these days there is the enormous development for example, of the Russian trawler fleet. Those vessels regularly fish in our waters right up to the territorial limit. I suppose that, for the time being, the absence of any specific agreement between us and the U.S.S.R. would mean, generally speaking, that we can fish to within say the three mile territorial limit there. I do not know Whether the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary would, on short notice, be sufficiently advised upon that point. Certainly we get reports from various quarters of the world with regard to the operation of Russian trawlers for one purpose or another, and it raises the question with regard to other parts of the world as well. When Her Majesty's Government come to Parliament to ask for money, although it is a matter which it is the concern of another place and not of ourselves to assess and authorise, it raises the question of how far we ought to be considering in general the world position in regard to territorial water limits and how far we should at any rate take all necessary steps to protect our own breeding grounds and to make sure that our own fishing industry, and the needs of our own consuming population, are not further endangered.

My only other point is quite an ordinary one which perhaps the noble Earl can answer. He said that we should need to have this early agreement by Statute for some time because we should not be able to know for a fairly long period exactly what would be involved. But we know from his own speech this afternoon (and I agreed with him) that a very substantial share of the recent catches of fish brought to British ports by British trawlers have been obtained from within the twelve mile limits now imposed, and therefore I should have thought it would not be too difficult to forecast that with those particular areas shut to us the provisions of the holding Bill now before the House will have to be extended into a Statute of some permanence. It is therefore all the more important that the larger and wider question should be examined as soon as possible.

3.9 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and to my noble friend Lord Saltoun for their support of this Bill. I do not think there is much to which I ought to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was quite right in saying that this is a Money Bill, and probably my noble friend Lord Saltoun is also correct (I am not such a skilled constitutional lawyer as he is) in saying that we can take action with such a Bill; although how effective such action would be in practice I should not like to hazard a guess at this moment. The Bill had full discussion in another place, though not entirely, I think, on the merits of the Bill, but rather in connection with other matters engaging that House at the time.

My noble friend Lord Saltoun said Her Majesty's Government must always bear in mind their duty to preserve the breeding grounds around our own coasts, and I would assure the noble Lord that we indeed have that matter very much at heart. These are largely matters of international agreement, as I have said before in this House, and we do not really need any urging on the importance of the problem which is always before us.

The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked if the subsidies are going and will go into the right pockets. The orders for payment of subsidies, which will include the distant water fleet, have not yet been made. But that is a matter that is always very much in mind. It may be that some of the trawler owners are substantial people, but it must be realised that the catching side of the industry is not as profitable as some balance sheets might indicate. The figures given to Lord Fleck's Committee show that very clearly. Profits may be being made in distribution, but not all trawler owners are interested in all sides of the fishing industry, and I think there will evidently be a case for paying subsidy to the distant water fleet when we have considered the Report.

I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for his valuable contribution. He will not, I think, wish me to go into the wider matters. As he said, they are very much Foreign Office matters—territorial waters, and the trends in this matter. It is an undoubted fact that more and more countries are wishing to extend not only territorial waters but fishery limits, and sometimes they are the same and sometimes they are not. I should not like to suggest what may be in the minds of the Russians; I do not know. The noble Viscount would not expect me to answer that. But he asked me a question which I think I can answer in this way. I am advised that about half of the distant water catch, worth about £10 million, has been taken off Iceland in the past, and under the Agreement British vessels have a limited right to fish up to six miles inside Iceland's 12-mile fishing limit, for three years. This means the loss of some very valuable fishing ground, but at this juncture it is really impossible to make any precise estimate in pounds, shillings and pence of the net loss, because it is impossible to assess the extent to which it can be made up elsewhere in other fishing grounds by other methods of fishing. I hope that I have answered the various points that have been raised, and that this Bill will be given a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.