WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1961 (Hansard, 24 July 1961)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)
My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme (copies of which were laid before your Lordships on the 5th July, 1961) be approved. With permission, I will speak to the second Order, the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, at the same time.
These two Orders provide for payment of white fish subsidies for the year beginning 1st August, and herring subsidies for the year beginning the 1st September. Subsidy schemes of this kind have been in force for several years now. The Committee of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry (the Fleck Committee) reported at the end of last year, and the Government are now considering future policy in the light of this Report. A White Paper will be issued before the Recess. The schemes before your Lordships today are a holding measure while decisions are being taken about the Fleck Report.
The two schemes are on the same lines as in previous years, but there is one important addition to the White Fish scheme. For the first time we are providing for subsidies for the distant-water fleet—that is, large vessels of over 140 feet. This subsidy, as your Lordships will remember, was authorised under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1961, because of the agreements with Norway and Iceland, which seriously reduced fishing grounds available to the distant-water fleet. We estimate that owing to the reduction in the Norwegian and Icelandic fishing grounds, the distant-water fleet may catch in future £5½ million worth less of fish in those waters. But there are other waters open to them, though some are more distant and in others fish are not so plentiful. It is unlikely, therefore, that the fleet will be able to replace more than two-thirds of this lost catch. This might leave a net loss of something approaching £2 million's worth of fish. We think it is right to compensate the industry for part of this loss, and are therefore proposing a subsidy amounting in a full year to approximately £1¼ million. This works 827 lout at £17 a day per vessel on the basis of the number of days at sea usually spent by these vessels.
This is one of the reasons why the new subsidy schemes will cost considerably more than before, but it is only one of the reasons. It has also been necessary to provide substantial increases for the inshore fishing fleet, and for certain categories of vessels in the near and middle-water fleets, though the cost of these increases has been partly offset by some reductions. Some of the smaller trawlers, for instance, have been doing quite well, and we have been able to reduce the rates to them. We have also continued the policy of reducing the rates for coal burners and oil burners, so as to encourage the changeover to modern diesel engines.
The net increase for these categories will amount, in total, to about £300,000 in a full year. This means that the total subsidy bill will be about £4¼ million a full year, as against about £2.7 million if the present rates had been continued and no subsidies had been given to the distant-water fleet. Details of the new rates are set out in the Schedule. The inshore fleet—that is, boats under 70 feet—are not eligible for a daily rate of subsidy. These receive a stonage subsidy on the stonage of fish landed. In Article 16 of the Order we are proposing an increase of 4d. a stone on landing from these inshore vessels. The earnings of the inshore fishermen have fallen and prospects are not good, particularly in Scotland, and this quite substantial increase—it is a 40 per cent. increase—is necessary to maintain this important section of the fishing industry. I am glad to say that, except for the subsidies proposed for the middle-water fleet, about which I will say a word in a moment, our proposals are substantially accepted by the industry, though it is only fair to say that they asked for rather more than we are proposing to give.
The position with regard to the middle-water fleet—that is to say, trawlers of 110 ft. to 140 ft. in length, is complicated and there has been some controversy about the rates of subsidy proposed. The industry asked for a much larger subsidy than we propose, mainly on the grounds that fishing off the Faroes recently has been very poor, due, they allege, to the extension of 828 fishery limits there in 1959. But one of the difficulties is that the rates payable must apply to all vessels of the relevant length groups and we could not, therefore, give a large increase to vessels suffering from poor Faroes fishing (even if we thought it justifiable, which we do not) without giving an unwarranted bonus to vessels of the same size fishing elsewhere. The rates we have determined strike, we believe, a reasonable balance between these two considerations.
But I think I should just say this about the Faroese fishing: I do not dispute that since the autumn of last year there has been a substantial fall in the catches made by vessels at the Faroes. But this is not wholly or even mainly, due to the extension of limits at the Faroes which took place over two years ago. Indeed, the total catches at the Faroes went up by 13 per cent. in the year after the new limits came into force. But since then there has been an increase of over 20 per cent. in the days spent fishing by the British fleet off the Faroes and an increase in fishing power as modern vessels have replaced old ones. It is this great increase in fishing, which amounts to over-fishing, that is the main cause of the recent decline in catches per vessel in that area.
Now a word about the Herring Subsidy Scheme. For vessels under 60 ft. prospects are satisfactory and we have therefore decided to make no change in the rates for these vessels. For vessels over 60 ft., the prospects are less encouraging and we have, therefore, decided to increase the rates for these vessels by £2 a day.
My Lords, I hope that these schemes will commend themselves to your Lordships. They give a considerable amount of added assistance to an important section of the community, to assist them to overcome some of the difficulties which are inherent in the risky business of fishing and to help them to face some of the problems which will now arise because of changes over which the industry has had no control. I have assumed that your Lordships would not wish me to go into the details of the various rates for the various classes of vessels. The Orders are complete in themselves, and are, I think easier to read than some of the amending Orders with which we have had to struggle lately, and there are full 829 particulars set out in the Schedule to the White Fish Order and in Article 8 of the Herring Subsidy Order. If any noble Lords have any points about which they are not clear, I shall be pleased to try and answer them. I beg to move.

§ LORD WISE
My Lords, the Minister has given us a full picture of the present state of the fishing industry, and full explanation of the alterations in the subsidies, so far as they apply. I cannot fall out with what he has said, but I think we should pursue the matter just a little further in your Lordships' House before we pass these Orders. I know that these Orders have received comprehensive consideration in another place, but there may be one or two points upon which the Minister may be able to give us further information. I think it is necessary to consider these Orders in your Lordships' House.
Although I expect these Orders may be of a temporary nature, in view of the further consideration which I believe the Government will give to the question of the fishing industry after the White Paper on the Fleck Report has been issued, they are of some importance, as in one case initial subsidies are to be given to one section of the industry which have not been given to that particular section in the past. We may therefore be creating a precedent in regard to these particular vessels, and from these small beginnings the subsidies may have to be increased in a short time. It must, I think, be a prerequisite that those to whom subsidies are to be paid should be in need of them in order to make ends meet. I wish to deal with the question of subsidies generally in the beginning of what I have to say.
It would seem from our discussion last week—noble Lords will remember to which discussion I am referring—and these Orders to-day, that those who "go down to the sea in ships", or who are connected in any way with shipping, are in a poor way financially. It cannot be a matter for complacency on realisation that two of our largest recipients of State aid are those engaged in food production and food procurement. Agricultural 830 subsidies are heavy, and may become even more so, and fishing subsidies are now rising, except in one particular case to which the Minister has referred, and it seems extremely likely that they will have to be increased in a few months' time. Under the present conditions in which some of our fishermen have to toil—I think that is the right word to use—it is small wonder that rewards for arduous endeavours on behalf of consumers leaves some of them, whether they are boat owners, skippers or members of the crew, badly off, or even in financial difficulties when on shore. I have used in this connection the word "some", as naturally in this, as in most industries, there are others who are exceptions to the general rule.
The noble Earl has referred to the difficulties which have arisen in regard to fishing, and the fishermen themselves cannot be held to be entirely responsible for present conditions and lack of future prospects. Admittedly, grounds may have been overfished or immature fish landed, and fish may have moved to new environments, necessitating search on the fishermen's part for these new areas. But restriction has been imposed by national or international agreement or action, and the fishermen are kept out of what were once profitable fishing grounds. In these circumstances, we must agree that some financial help by way of subsidies should be given to keep the fishermen's heads financially above water and their boats at sea. And these subsidies I think will prove helpful. As the Minister has said, they do not entirely make good the estimated losses of income although they go, I believe, about two-thirds of the way in that direction. The catching of salt water fish suitable for our food requirements is so essential that we cannot afford to let our shipping fleets deteriorate, lessen or remain idle.
I should like for a moment, with the Minister's permission, to go back to what he told us a year ago, when Orders of a similar nature were being considered in your Lordships' House. What I have to ask now—this is information of interest; it is nothing contentious or anything of that sort—arises out of his statement then that a total of 600 coal-burning trawlers in 1952 had been reduced by 1960 to 150. I wonder if he could tell us whether this number has now been further 831 reduced, or whether the same 150 are still in commission. Last year there were 330 diesel trawlers and many more, according to the Minister, were on order. Could he tell us what the present position is in regard to those which were on order and whether construction is still going on; bearing in mind the financial stringency generally?
I come now to the question of compensation for the crew. The daily subsidy in regard to long-distance boats is apparently £17 per annum, which I understand is roughly about 4 per cent. of the daily cost incurred by the owners.

EARL WALDEGRAVE
My Lords, £17 per day; the noble Lord, Lord Wise said per annum.

§ LORD WISE
Did I? I am sorry—£17 per day, naturally. This I understand is about 4 per cent. of the daily cost. One-third of that £17—tihat is, £5 13s. 4d.—is apparently handed over to the crew, leaving the owners the balance of £11 6s. 8d. Could the Minister tell us if one-third of the other subsidy of £5 is also handed over to the crew? If that is so, it means £3 6s. 8d. to the owner and £1 13s. 4d. to the crew. Both these sums seem to me to be very small, and I understand that, as in the other subsidies, they do not make up the losses which are incurred by the owners and the crews of those particular boats.
There is also a question I should like to ask in regard to the fishing in the Iceland area. I believe it has been the arrangement that three trips per annum are made to that particular fishing area. Has any further arrangement been made in regard to additional trips by any of our vessels, or is this figure the standing number of trips which can be made? Then last year I mentioned the question of some of the smaller fishing fleets around our coast, and I hope that, when the matter is further considered by the Government in the light of the Fleck Report, it may be possible to give some small subsidies to the shell fishermen and those who fish for shrimps and similar fish. I hope that the Orders will receive the consent of the House to-day, and that when further consideration is given to these matters we may possibly be able to amend them to the betterment of fishing generally.

EARL WALDEGRAVE
My Lords, I am glad that there is support for these Orders. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has asked me one or two questions which I believe I can answer. He asked me whether the rate of reduction in coal-burners is continuing. I am glad to say that it is. For his information there are now only 80 coal-burners left. But this does not really arise under these Orders, which concern operational subsidies. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wise, had in mind the debate in which we were talking about loans and grants for the fishing fleet.
Compensation figures are very complicated for the profit-sharing arrangements for the crew. As your Lordships will see, they are all in the Schedule set out in Article 6 (b) (ii) of the White Fish Order, and one notices in the Schedule that there are two columns; the payment per day at sea, and then, in the second column, the sum referred to in Article 6 (b) (ii); that is the amount which is deemed to be part of the gross proceeds of the catch for the purposes of profit-sharing arrangements. It is not at all an easy subject, this profit-sharing, to discuss across the Floor of the House, and perhaps I might write to the noble Lord if there are any points on which he is not quite clear. I might just say that these arrangements and the actual sums in the column referring to Article 6 (b) (ii) are the same; they are not changed in this Order, and have been in force since 1954.
The noble Lord mentioned a limitation on some ships going to Iceland. Of course, distant-water vessels can go to Iceland or wherever they like without restriction, but there are some categories of vessel which can go to Iceland or the distant waters for only a limited number of voyages because they really come in the middle-water category. Those arrangements are not altered in this series of Orders. Finally, the noble Lord asked a question on shell fish. That subject was considered by the Fleck Committee. Perhaps we had better wait and see what goes into the White Paper and what arises out of that. I hope that that answers the questions for the moment.