I am grateful for the opportunity of making some representations which arise out of the Fish Sales (Charges) Order which has been passed today and which takes effect from the 20th September. It is only fair that I should begin by saying how much good work has been done by the Ministry of Food to sustain the fishing industry, and how much the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has done to get to know an industry with which she was perhaps not wholly familiar when she took office, and how much she has felt, as I think she has, the hardships undergone by fishermen in earning their livelihood. It is relevant to mention in connection with my representations that it is the Ministry of Food which first took out accounts of how much was made by fishermen, and that those accounts showed what I had always maintained in regard to the fishermen with whom I am familiar, men owning small boats, that their average earnings work out at about £2 15s. a week. I am not talking about large fishing combines or companies which may well make large profits—an entirely different matter—but about the average takings of a fisherman going out in a small boat, 20, 30, 40, even eighty miles away from our shores.

When these Orders were first brought in, it was understood, and it is still understood, that the levy is imposed in order to produce money to run the Control in respect of transport and allocation committees, many of which have functioned with great success and advantage to everyone concerned. So far, on the figures it appears that the amount of money coming in from these levies has about equalled the amount expended on running the Control. In the first place I ask very earnestly that this process should be watched because the fishermen feel that it would be wrong if it were not watched and if the money coming from these levies were to exceed substantially the sum expended on running the Control. One observes under this regulation which we have passed that the levy on white fish has been doubled; it has gone up from fivepence to tenpence a stone. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us, and thereby explain to all concerned, why the levy has been doubled. In that connection it is also right to point out that the control has been taken off mackerel. There we owe a great deal to the Minister. At one time the control was such that the fishermen could get no price for mackerel which would make it worth while their going out for this fish, with the result that the public were not getting any.

There is one other matter I shall mention because I know this process is under constant review. Under the order which has been passed, there is a liability to pay a charge in respect of fish bought for bait. The regulation has been passed and there would have been no chance of dividing the House on it. I should like this reviewed, because in my submission these levies were never meant for fish bait. They were meant to apply to sales where fish was going to the consumer. Only a few days ago I was talking with some fishermen in a little cove named Cadgwith, and they said they had to use gurnards for bait, and as it happened they have none available in their own waters. They asked why they should have this liability, when the levy should only apply to fish sold to be consumed. It would be just the same if a levy were imposed on fishermen buying nets or gear, for this is an impost on an essential implement of the fisherman's trade.