Government's diesel subsidy for commercial fishermen fuelled a heated debate in the Senate yesterday.

Opposition senators accused Government of discrimination against traditional small fishermen in favour of big operators.

But Government speakers defended the measure as part of their strategy to encourage deep water fishing and efficient working.

Introducing a continuation of the Commercial Fishing (Temporary Fuel Subsidy) Act, which was passed, Sen. Wendell Hollis said the measure was designed to encourage deep water long-line fishing.

Diesel was subsidised because it was safer, more reliable and cheaper, and Government wanted fishermen to switch over from using gasoline.

He said 64 full-time fishermen were eligible for the rebate.

Senate Opposition leader Sen. Alex Scott said the PLP supported the measure with qualifications. He said it was insensitive -- Government could have used education to get fishermen to change fuels.

Some were too hard-pressed to afford to switch "at the drop of hat''. Sen.

Norma Astwood (PLP) asked why fishermen were not given time to allow their gas engines to wear out before being asked to change.

Part-time or even casual fishermen should be encouraged to produce fish, reducing the need for imports, she said.

Sen. Jerome Dill (UBP) asked what harm there was in the measure.

Sen. Ira Phillip (PLP) replied: "The harm is inherent in the limitations of what we consider to be a discriminatory bill.'' Ordinary small fishermen who used gas engines, the "hard core'', had been excluded.

The "little guys'', even if they were inshore fishermen, deserved consideration for a fuel rebate.

Government had "caved in'' to lobbying from big fishermen, mainly recreational operators.

He also called for taxi operators to get a subsidy on fuel. Sen. Joe Johnson (Ind) said the Premier's Commission on Competitiveness should look into the whole question of subsidies, and if they went far enough. The Hon. Pamela Gordon (UBP) said the average fisherman using diesel was more cost-effective, passing on the benefit to the consumer and therefore the taxpayer.

Sen. Hollis said that of the 64 registered fishermen entitled to the subsidy, six or seven had gas engines.

These fishermen tended to operate inshore and were not the intended targets of the subsidy.

It did not make economic sense for a gas-engined boat to go far out to sea, he said.

A total of 37 out of the 64 fishermen had asked for the subsidy to be continued.