DEEP SEA FISHING (HUMBER) (Hansard, 10 July 1972)

§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston-upon-Hull, West)

In raising the question of the deep-sea fishing fleet on the Humber, I must begin with pleasure in thanking the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his personal appearance at this early hour of the morning. The right hon. Gentleman also is a Member for a fishing port and no man could be better suited or better equipped to answer any questions I may put. He will not answer all of them, I am sure, but I know that the fault will not be his own.

The right hon. Gentleman, knows, as I do, that there is a shabby myth on BBC television that Hull is a fishing village, but the official figures of the Humberside feasibility study indicate that direct and indirect employment engendered by the commercial port of Hull is about 18,000 and that engendered by the fish dock is about 10,000, including 3,000 in the deep-sea fleet. Hence the Minister will appreciate with me the jeopardy in which we are placed by the possible impact of changed Icelandic fishing limits. Examination of the numbers engaged in ancillary industries such as food processing shows that about 30,000 people gain a living upon or behind the fishing fleet. This is 15 per cent. of the labour force on Humberside.

Ten years ago, as parliamentary candidate, I visited the fish dock for the first time. Even then there was foreboding about the future of deep-sea fishing. I was asked even then, 10 years ago, to consider a conference on this matter. But the Government of the day studied the matter and gave assistance, and since the shocking disasters of 1968 we have had some good years during which much money has been made. Associated Fisheries is making record profits. No White Fish Authority subsidy was paid last year, as I understand it, which means that fleet profits must be over £8 million. The value of British landings is over £80 million.

1367 But two things are consistent in all these years. The size of the fleet has fallen. The total catch has fallen, although the money value is up. In all our ports the nature of the fleet is changing. With Government assistance we have moved into the scrap-and-build era. We now build more modern vessels, stern-fishers, costing over £1 million. They will go much further. They are much safer and much more efficient. But they are freezers, and the cod and haddock they bring back goes immediately to cold storage. The old conventional side-fishers, the so-called wet-fishers whose catch was landed on the quayside for daily auctions, are diminishing.

Skippers tell me that in Hull in the last 11 years about 78 side-fishers have gone out of service. But more will be scrapped if we are barred from Icelandic waters. All this obviously means that fewer fishermen are catching fish, fewer merchants are auctioning wet fish and there are fewer bobbers, or dockers, to unload the fish. So unemployment is with us or coming around.

Ten years ago there were 600 bobbers. There are now 300. Ten years ago there were 300 merchants. There are now 135. I accept inevitable change, but all this will be aggravated or worsened if the Icelandic dispute is not successfully terminated.

If Norway and Denmark do not join the European Economic Community that will have an important bearing. They are having plebiscites in the autumn and if entry to the EEC is turned down it is possible that either Government could follow the Icelandic Government's bad example and extend their limits.

I do not wish to say much about the Icelandic dispute, about which the Minister is fully conversant. I thank the Minister for his recent visit to Hull and for talking to the industry. He was most forthcoming about the danger to all our fleets. We claim, like the Minister whom we support in this, that Iceland is in breach of the existing agreement. But Iceland will not go to the International Court. Talks begin tomorrow in Reykjavik. Can the Minister cast some light on the situation? Are there any developments about the matter of which areas inside the 50-mile limit we are negotiating about? I gather that some areas Iceland 1368 would bar to herself and ourselves, and other areas are for fishing, but I understand that there are other more debatable areas.

There was guarded optimism after the visit last month of two Icelandic Ministers, Mr. Augusts son and Mr.Joseffsson, but today this optimism in Hull sounds like whistling in the teeth of a north-east gale. We are much more sceptical now. Unless given a solution before September, we cannot feel happy about future imployment for our workers, future fish prices for housewives and future incentives inside the industry.

The tables are damning. In the percentage of almost 1 million tons of fish caught on Icelandic banks, Iceland catches about 650,000 tons. We catch over 130,000 tons, and the West Germans catch just under 120,000 tons. There is no doubt that if our vessels were excluded, we should have an aceleration of the scrapping of a large part of the distant water fleet. This would adversely affect cash flow and slow down the building of new freezer vessels. In Hull we have 66 side trawlers. There is a serious possibility that over 50 per cent. would be scrapped. The Icelanders are ordering about 27 new stern-fishers from Japanese yards of between 500 and 1,000 tons, which does not make much sense in view of their arguments that they wish to conserve the fishing stocks inside the 50-mile limit.

The Minister came to Hull last Monday and I compliment him on his visit. But may I ask him why he did not see union leaders—such men as David Shenton of the Transport and General Workers'Union—who went with Jack Jones to Iceland some time ago? I understand that when they came back they were very helpful to the Foreign Office in giving their views about the situation. I do not know whether the Minister saw skippers such as Skipper Tom Nielsen and his guild. If we do fish after 1st September, these men will be exposed to danger. These men need protection and they are the men whose views are useful to the Minister. I suggest that it would have been a good thing if he had seen these men besides seeing the vessel owners of the BTF.

In connection with this matter of protection for our men, I am getting the most woolly answers when I talk to the Foreign Office. I get a succession of 1369 double and treble negatives—such as "We will not think of not defending them in no circumstances". Could the Minister say something about this?

I now turn to the matter of a base for our fishing fleet. The British Transport Docks Board for some months has been holding a sword of Damocles over the future of the commercial docks in West Hull—the William Wright Dock and the Albert Dock. They have twice postponed the closing date. True, these docks have been losing money, but so have all the docks in Hull, both the east side and the western commercial. On 6th July the Hull Daily Mail carried a statement given by the Docks Board, to the effect that Hull fishing vessel owners put forward firm proposals in this matter of using the two western docks, Albert and William Wright, for fish. The Minister may have seen the Hull Daily Mail report, and it is categorical. Therefore, will he say something about the future base here?

We know that the Government have earmarked money, and this, along with the Dock Board's 40 per cent., may provide about £1 million for enhancing and improving the amenities and facilities in order to make this commercial dock into a first-class fishing dock. The people in Hull would like to hear the Minister's views on this matter.

The Minister was good enough to keep me informed about the working party which was set up to deal with this matter. After soundings in the constituency I believe that all the parties concerned—the vessel owners, merchants and unions—think that it would be a good thing to move next door out of the old dilapidated St. Andrew's Dock into this modern dock further towards the mouth of the Hull. Of course, it would be necessary to have increased charges, but I believe the industry could bear those charges, particularly in these boom years. People are making money in fishing these days, and both the owners and the merchants could bear a little more of their share.

May I say in parenthesis that our sister port on the south bank at Grimsby is also having anxiety about the future. Many of our firms interlock in these two ports. There is a danger of a continuing and even accelerating decline in their distant water fleet. We are now building these bigger and more expensive freezers 1370 and factory vessels, and it is suggested that they will be based in Hull. What basis is there for this suggestion? It means that if more fish are landed in Hull there will be more ancillary activities in food processing by such firms as Birds Eye and others, although, of course the Humber bridge will be a new factor here.

The Minister may know already that landing costs are lower in Hull—39p per kit, I understand. Naturally the charges in Hull would increase if we gave the merchants and vessel owners better facilities and amenities in our more modern dock which we hope will be established.

The proposal to move our fleet next door would obviously involve resiting the fish processing plant, packing plant and the like, and it would give us more hygienic conditions, and more efficient landing, handling and auctioning of catches.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about all this, and what would be the extent of the aid which we may be given. Is the idea of £1 million which I mentioned authentic? What are the Minister's powers under the Fisheries Act, 1955? I believe that money may be given under that Act for any works which are needed for the efficient functioning of the harbour.

We believe in Hull, if we get on with it, the opportunity is there to transform these western docks into one of the most modern efficient complexes in Western Europe, standing up to Cuxhaven and any other Continental port in competition with us. But it needs substantial investment, and, of course, we must get the Icelandic dispute out of the way before we start. There may be snags in the project, but so far we have not been able to see any which cannot be overcome.

I turn for a moment to the question of dock labour. My own union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, has a closed shop in the St. Andrews Dock. I take it that these bobbers would move into the new dock along with the vessel owners and merchants. I think that there is a special regulation or order made in about 1942, when the late Ernest Bevin was Minister of Labour, under which the vessel 1371 owners employ the bobbers or dock labour; it is not the usual practice as in the transport docks. So perhaps there is something to be settled there.

Also, if the Docks Board were to carry on what it is now doing, that is, ceasing, or attempting to cease, commercial landings in the Albert Dock, this might lead to some labour difficulty. I hope not. I hope that we can reach a sort of modus vivendi whereby we move our deep sea fleet in and we still continue at the Albert Dock end with commercial cargoes and commercial activities. This has to be considered in relation to our proposed entry into the EEC. If we join the EEC, we shall expect more commercial vessels coming into the West Dock at Hull. This would give us better working conditions in the old dilapidated St. Andrew's Dock.

I shall not take time now on the question of conditions at sea. Holland Martin has firmly laid down the rules for the welfare and safety of the men. I mention merely the need for a mother ship. Most emphatically, the fleet needs a purpose-built vessel similar to what the Continental fleets have, for instance, the Portugese, the Germans, and others. The "Miranda" is a converted vessel. It is a first-class job, but it is not a purpose-built ship. Such a ship might cost £2½ million or £3 million. But is it not worth it, when one considers the Arctic working conditions, the intense cold, the long weeks of darkness? Is it not worth while for the sake of safety? It is a matter of national concern, and I suggest that the cost of the new vessel should be borne on the national purse, particularly since the State has in the last 10 years given about £75 million to £80 million in aid to the industry.

To sum up, I again emphasise the need for protection for our men if they fish after 1st September inside the proposed 50 miles limit. I also emphasise the need to get the dispute settled. If we do not and our boats have to leave those waters, it will mean a loss of perhaps up to £20 million for the balance of payments. The price of fish will rise for the housewife and the near water fleet will be severely damaged. I cannot visualise those vessels coming back and fishing in the North Sea. If they do, there will be over-fishing there. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for the spirit and manner in which he raised the subject of this short debate. If I cannot answer all the questions he put to me I shall write to him about any I miss, but I hope to cover most of them. He stressed quite rightly the importance of the fishing industry to Hull and to the Humber generally and I endorse all his remarks in that respect. I am fully aware of its importance, not just from the point of view of the number of fishermen employed in Hull but also of the numbers employed as bobbers or as merchants or lorry drivers, or in the processing industry, and all those connected with supplying the fleet.

I know that both they and their families, highly dependent upon the fishing industry as they are, are anxious about the negotiations now proceeding in Iceland. Before referring to Iceland, I would point out that 1970–71 was a good year for the fishing industry. I think that 1971–72 has also proved extremely good and the prospects for this year would be very good also were it not for the problems of Iceland which are hanging over the industry at the moment.

In the composition of the fleet there are now 30 freezers operating in the two ports—24 at Hull and six at Grimsby. Of the vessels building or likely to be started and intended for the Humber, there are some 12 freezers but only one fresher. They are all intended for Hull, so there is a prospect of a considerable addition to the Hull fleet. Of the number of the wet fishers at Hull, which the hon. Gentleman estimated at 66, and which I understand is 69, three quarters are pre-1960. That shows that the wet fishers are not being replaced but more and more freezers are coming in.

On the Icelandic situation, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is at the moment in Iceland with my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the next round of talks is to begin tomorrow. I sincerely hope that they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The hon. Gentleman did right to point out that we need to maintain our rights off Iceland 1373 for two reasons. The first is the importance of these grounds in themselves. Up to half our distant water catch comes from Icelandic waters and the hon. Gentleman has already stressed the importance of that catch to his port.

Moreover, a dangerous precedent would be set if we did not reach a satisfactory agreement. We fish across most of the North Atlantic and off the coasts of many nations. Some of those nations have ambitions for wider limits, and all of them want some means of preventing over-fishing by vessels diverted from Iceland. If one nation successfully defies international laws, others will feel less strongly bound by them. The fact that we would have access to wider limits set by any EEC countries would be likely to be a poor consolation.

The future of the distant water fishing is of vital importance to us. I am more than grateful for the support which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have given to the Government in our negotiations so far. The points the hon. Gentleman raised, together with the fact that any curtailment by Iceland could have a serious effect in the North Sea and even on our in-shore fishing, have not gone unheeded by myself or the Government. There are no fresh developments yet but the talks begin tomorrow.

The hon. Gentleman is right about his reference to closed areas. I have always said that we should be prepared to accept closed areas on a non-discriminatory basis. We have offered the Icelandic Government special areas for line fishing and fixed gear etc., and this they know all about. The catch from Iceland over the last 10 years has averaged 185,000 tons although it was rather more than that last year. That is the basis on which we are prepared to accept a catch limitation and the basis which I put forward at the talks held in Moscow in December by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention.

When I went to Hull recently—I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my visit—I did not go to see the leaders of the fishing industry at Hull. I went to Hull to see the British Trawlers Federation and the Scottish Trawlers Federation because that was the most convenient place to gather everybody 1374 together at short notice. I did not on that occasion see the union leaders although I thought seriously whether I should do so. At that time my hon. Friend the Minister of State had seen Mr. Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union only a short time before, and, as my time was limited, I thought I should concentrate on the British Trawlers Federation and the Scottish Trawlers Federation on that occasion. Certainly I made it plain in the interviews which I gave that I had the interests of the whole industry, including the skippers and the mates as well as the fishermen, fully at heart in what we were trying to do.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned next the problems of a transfer from the St. Andrew's Dock into the Albert and William Wright Docks. This is a matter which the industry must sort out for itself together with the British Transport Docks Board. It is bound up with the increased grant of 60 per cent. which we have made available for improvement of the ports. No fixed sum has been made available. The hon. Gentleman talked about £1 million perhaps being earmarked. There is no question of a specific amount. We shall look at the proposals for each port as they come forward. The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposals must reach me within a year, and that work must start within 18 months so that we get a move on.

I hope that the industry will agree a satisfactory move with the British Transport Docks Board and that Grimsby will get on quickly and agree what work should be carried out. There is need for a good deal of work to be done at Grimsby for deep sea vessels and for the North Sea seiners. At Hull I hope that there will be a common mind on the question of moving and that, if there are difficulties such as those which the hon. Gentleman envisages, they can be ironed out as quickly as possible.

It is not my job to intervene or to create discussions between the various sections of the industry. It must be in the interests of the whole industry, whether bobbers, merchants or trawler owners, to get together to seek a satisfactory solution to the problems which will arise if there is to be a move from one dock to the other.