WHITE FISH (INSHORE VESSELS) AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1972 (Hansard, 27 July 1972)

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, the announcement made by the Minister of State means, of course, that there is a very substantial cut in the subsidy to the fishing industry. The figure of £300,000, being 20 per cent., represents a reduction of subsidy from £1½ million to £1,200,000, so by any standard this is very substantial indeed. I do not know what negotiations took place before the decision was arrived at, nor what the association or their representatives had to say. The noble Lord omitted to tell us what consultations they had with the industry before the decision was reached and what the industry's repercussions were. I should have thought that when a reduction so substantial as this was going to be made it must have met with considerable opposition. It is true that for many years I have taken part in these debates, and it is equally true that one has about two speeches one delivers over this long number of years, depending on which side of the House one is sitting, so I am going to deliver the one that represents the Opposition side.
What I cannot understand is that this has proved so acceptable. I can remember on occasions when I was proposing cuts—absolutely minimum compared with what the noble Lord is presenting this afternoon—that I met with violent opposition from representatives of the fishing industry, and no greater opponent than the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It did not matter how well the industry was doing, he could prove beyond any shadow of doubt that we had no right to make cuts at all. The Secretary of State for Scotland was a tremendous supporter 1516 of the fishing industry in those days, and he took good care that no cuts in subsidy were made. It may be that the figures are such that the industry is doing fairly well economically. I do not want to say, "I told you so", but the noble Lord will not be unaware that it was in our day (I do not want to claim any personal credit for it except that it was my responsibility) that we reformed the whole basis of subsidy of the fishing industry to give it a stability that it had never had before. However, I did not think we had moved so quickly that in a couple of years we would cut the rate by 20 per cent. It may be that the industry has agreed to it. Personally I have had no protest. All I can think is that the industry apparently alters its opinions, too, whichever Government is in power.
I understand that there is some proposal to cut the advertising subsidy. Is this true? The industry makes a contribution to an advertising scheme—I can never remember whether it is the inshore or deep-water fleet which does this but I raise it in case I may have overlooked it. It may be it is on the deep-water side and not the inshore side. If the noble Lord is saying to us that the scheme will go on as it is except that payments will be reduced by 20 per cent. all I can say is that I hope his optimism is justified. What we have to consider and what the House has to remember is that this industry may be in considerable difficulty very soon, because if Iceland cuts our rights to go into waters up to the extent of 50 miles there is going to be considerable over-fishing in the waters that remain to us. This might well mean a considerable change in the fortunes of the fishing industry, so I would beg the noble Lord not to be too optimistic about it and not to say that the out-turn of one year's accounts entitles him to make this cut of 20 per cent., considering what the repercussions might be on the industry in the near future.
While on this occasion and at this time we might agree to the proposal, I hope he would be able to give us an assurance that should there be a turn in the tide of the fishing industry he will, along with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, take quick steps to put the industry right if this is the position it will then face.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has a wide and flexible vocabulary. I am sure it includes the word "housewife", but that word was not used at any stage of his speech. If this subsidy is to be cut we can naturally assume that the shipowners will require their net earnings after all their operations to be somewhat equivalent to the earnings which they secure to-day. The only way they can do so is by raising the price of their fish. I know all about the auctions, and so on, that are conducted on docksides, but if the people in the industry are to make as much money as they are making to-day, and if the subsidy which contributes to that money is to be cut, then obviously the price of fish on the market to the housewife will go up.
I speak feelingly because I live almost entirely on fish. Every time I say to my wife, "Let us have lemon sole today," she says, "But lemon sole has gone up since last week". If I turn to Scottish salmon it is the same. One of the scandals with which the housewife is harassed to-day is that fish prices are rising week after week. I grieve very much to hear that the subsidy is to be cut for the sake of this amount—I will not call it a miserable sum; £120,000 is not a miserable sum to people like me. If they are going to dislocate the operations of this industry and bring about increased market prices the Government are making a mistake. I would add one postscript to my few remarks. Is the subsidy going to be paid to all the "fish masters" or only to those who undergo a means test as in the Housing Finance Bill?

§ LORD POLWARTH
My Lords, I appreciate those two contributions, both from noble Lords with considerable experience of the subject, one from the production end and the other clearly from the consumption end. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked about consultation. I understand that the associations concerned were consulted in the normal way. I cannot give details of the discussions but I can assure the noble Lord that they have made no criticism to the Government about the extent of the cut. In that connection I should point out that cuts have been made in the past. Out of five schemes introduced by the Administration of 1518 which, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was a member at the time in another place, the subsidy was reduced in 1965, 1966 and 1967 by an overall total of about 30 per cent., although I appreciate that circumstances may then have been different. Therefore, this is nothing new. At that time, however, earnings and profits were much lower in real terms than they are now. In the light of the trend of profits which I gave to your Lordships earlier it would be difficult to justify the taxpayer maintaining this amount of support and we do not feel that a 20 per cent. cut is excessive.
The noble Lord asked for an assurance about the future. Of course we shall watch this. This is an annual event. If circumstances change and the trend appears to be likely to be reversed, I can assure him that we shall look at it speedily in relation to the next year's review. On the question of advertising I understand that this is in the nature of a levy and not a subsidy. It is a White Fish Authority publicity levy which is payable by merchants to the White Fish Authority. The Minister of Agriculture has announced the steps which he will be taking to bring this levy to an end. That is all the information I can give to the noble Lord. It is not connected with the Scheme before us.
We all appreciate the problem posed by Iceland. I do not think this is the time to go into it further. It is still under discussion and may well come under judicial discussion if a solution is not reached before long.