§ Motion made, and Question proposed: That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
11.55 pm§ Sir Walter Clegg (North Fylde)I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the problems of the fishing industry in the port of Fleetwood. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for coming to the House at this late hour to reply.
My hon. Friend has already received two delegations from the fishing industry in Fleetwood this year. I thank him for the courtesy and understanding that he has shown. The last time that my hon. Friend received a delegation from the Fleetwood Fisheries Development Committee, he spent two hours listening to the most forceful and lucid case.
The problems are not new to the Minister. It is time that the House and the country were made aware of the crucial situation facing the port of Fleetwood. It is the largest fishing port on the West Coast. It is ideally situated to exploit the prolific fishing grounds that lie to the west, not only in time of peace but in time of war, as the last two great wars showed when vast quantities of fish were landed at Fleetwood to keep the country supplied with food.
Fleetwood is a modern port which has done its best to cope with the loss of Icelandic fishing grounds. When that happened, the interests at the port did not sit on their backsides. They got together to tackle the problem. Local capital and a substantial loan from the Wyre borough council, the local authority, set up new landing arrangements following the collapse of the old system in March 1979. The dock labour force was reduced. The most modern fish-landing machinery in Europe was purchased from Canada and installed in the modernised fish dock.
At the beginning of this year, Fleetwood had reason to be confident of the future. Not only had it a highly efficient port but it had a modern and adaptable middle water fleet. The inshore fleet had increased over five years from 30 vessels to 70 vessels, mostly between 40 ft. and 80 ft. In January the middle 931 water fleet—the most modern in the country—consisted of 14 vessels of 108 ft. to 140 ft. between five years and nine years old, three vessels of 110 ft. and three between 76 ft. and 78 ft. of ultramodern design.
The position is different now. Of the middle water fleet, 10 vessels are laid up, three have been sold and two are to conduct exploratory voyages. Only five of the vessels which we had at the beginning of the year are still fishing, and that is largely because the crews have taken a 5 per cent. cut in wages to keep them at sea.
The inshore fleet is still fishing, but I am told that tie-ups are imminent because, with rising costs, it is hard to make a living. The port is poised on a knife-edge. It is close to collapse despite all the efforts. The collapse would be a tragedy for the port and the country.
What has led to this tragic situation? The reason is not far to seek. It is the collapse of the price for fish at the quayside. The average return per kip in the first few months of this year compared with 1979 is £3 per kip less. The inshore fleet reports that whiting and plaice are bringing the same price or less than they did three years ago, while the middle water fleet tells me that average prices today are almost the same as those realised in 1976. These prices must be viewed against savagely rising costs. Fuel prices have increased by 95 per cent. and the cost of nets, ice and other ancillary items, landing charges, etc., have soared.
The 10-vessel fleet of J. Marr and Sons lost £260,000 between January and March this year and other firms in the middle water sector report very heavy losses. The Fish Transport Company, which carries the fish away from Fleetwood, has shown a fall in profitability of £10,000 and a downturn of 9,100 stone of fish between 1 March and 11 June this year.
A survey of the Marr Hewett and Ward fleet shows that between 1 March and 18 April a loss of £151,000 was incurred against Fleetwood's share of the Government subsidy of £39,000. That subsidy was intended to cover a six-month period.
The inshore fleet is at present unprofitable, and 120 fishermen from the 10 932 ships laid up are out of work. It is estimated that about 2,300 jobs are now at stake. If the fishing side of the port collapsed, it would put at risk the viability of the British Transport Docks Board in Fleetwood.
I have a letter from the manager of the board in which he says:
One general point which might be worth bringing out is the excellent spirit of cooperation between all the fishing interests in Port, and between them and ourselves as Port Authority. This spirit of co-operation is certainly not traditional in the fishing industry and I understand that it has yet to be achieved in other fishing ports. If Fleetwood is in trouble despite this, there must be external reasons.The manager goes on to point to a grim future. In the case of the fish docks, charges have had to be reviewed again from 1 July, only six months after the last review. Charges are being increased from 1 July by about 12 per cent., giving a total increase this year of about 28 per cent. Gross revenue for the port in 1979 was £2.4 million and net profit before tax was £6,000. This profit hides a large deficit on the fish docks and shows why it is essential that the fish docks break even. To achieve that, it is essential that laid-up trawlers are back at sea very soon. The clear implication is that the failure of the fish docks will put the whole operation of the port in peril.This, then, is the critical situation now being faced. Why has the quayside price of fish collapsed? The reason is not far to seek. It is the wholesale dumping in this country of heavily subsidised foreign fish, especially of frozen fish fillets for processing. That has depressed market prices.
There is no way in the present situation in which either the middle water or the inshore fleet can get the return from cod that they would like. Urgent Government action is, therefore, required. There should be a limitation on foreign imports, especially of frozen fish fillets. At the same time, I think that until the crisis is over there should be operating subsidies and further exploratory voyages to keep our trawlers at sea.
In the longer term we require a just solution to the common fisheries policy, and subsequent to that we need help with any further reconstruction of the fleet either from the EEC or from our own Government. After the debate, I shall 933 give my hon. Friend the Minister a long brief from the Fleetwood Fisheries Development Committee, which sets out in full the problems to which I have referred and its suggested solutions.
I turn to another aspect of the crisis which I find especially worrying, namely, the redundancy position of the fishermen thrown out of work through no fault of their own. Because of the method of payment for fishermen, they do not receive the normal redundancy pay of dockers and steel workers. Their skills are of little avail when they are ashore, jobs are difficult to find, and retraining opportunities are few. A settlement of the common fisheries policy should include adequate redundancy pay for fishermen thrown out of their jobs. These men, both in peace and in war, provide the basis of our minesweeping fleets. They deserve justice, and they should get it.
That is the crisis facing Fleetwood, which has done its best to cope with the vast changes in the pattern of fishing. The port has modern facilities and a modern fleet. Time is running out, and help is needed now. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated to me that there are to be crucial talks between the Minister and the fishing industry in the coming week. Unless those talks produce something positive, I am fearful about the future.
It is inconceivable that Britain should be without an effective fishing industry. It is equally inconceivable that the country should be without its greatest port on the Western seaboard. We hate to come here rattling a begging bowl. We are asking for a fair deal for the industry so that it can make its profits out of the market. That is the industry's dearest wish, and we are not being given that chance.
Like every fishing port, Fleetwood is a closely knit community. I went to live there 30 years ago and I have the utmost admiration for the men who make a hazardous living from fishing. It has always been a hazardous and high-risk industry. I cannot but again appeal to the Government to help us to overcome the difficulties that we have tried so very hard to overcome ourselves.
§ 12.8 am
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) on having secured the debate tonight. As he appreciates, I am very well aware of the problems faced by the fishing industry at the present time, not only in Fleetwood but more generally. This subject, about an important industry, affects men's lives—and not only their lives but, as my hon. Friend indicated in his closing remarks, the whole community and all the social ties that go with it. It is right that there should be an opportunity in the House for the subject to be debated in the way in which my hon. Friend has raised it.
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he has raised the matter. As he knows, there is a unity between my hon. Friends representing fishing constituencies and the Government in facing the problems of the industry. There is support for the industry, and the need to see it receive a proper deal, in all the different corners of the House. I acknowledge, as did my hon. Friend, the way in which the representatives from Fleetwood, when they came to see me, raised the matter, and the constructive and reasonable way in which they presented their case. I pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, Mr. Edwin Walker, not only for the way in which he led the delegation but for the leadership that he has provided in Fleetwood.
That is a factor that I take into account in my consideration of the problems that face us at the present time.
I ask my hon. Friend to convey to those he represents at Fleetwood my gratitude for the way in which they have presented their case on the two occasions on which I have met them. Equally, I am in no doubt about the seriousness that my hon. Friend attaches to the problems in the port. If there is an opportunity to help I want to do all I can.
I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the way in which Fleetwood has, by self-help enjoyed a certain recovery over the past year or so. I can understand the frustration and even despair felt there at the resurgence of difficulties. Fleetwood is important both for its deep-sea connections and its inshore industry. There is a good co-operative effort between the two sectors, combining with onshore interests. 935 The problems affecting Fleetwood have afflicted the fishing fleet generally The deep-sea fleet has encountered considerable problems through the lost opportunities resulting from the extension of limits to 200 miles. Those problems had, to some extent, been offset by the relative prosperity of the inshore fleet, at least until recently, when its fortunes took a downturn as well. That has highlighted the stark financial position of the industry.
The prime concern in recent months has been about fish prices. Until the latter part of last year prices were keeping pace with inflation. Fishermen, it is true, were suffering a decline in income in real terms, but at least prices were keeping pace with the increase in costs. There has been a dramatic change since December, however. Costs, particularly fuel costs, have continued to rise. The price of oil affects more than just fuel, however, showing itself also in the cost of gear and much else in the industry. Cost inflation has therefore been running at a higher rate in the fishing industry than in many other industries. In addition, prices, instead of keeping pace with cost inflation, have declined, as I was able to confirm from an examination I undertook in preparation for the debate.
The decline has continued throughout the earlier part of the year, particularly for cod and haddock. In recent weeks, however, prices have firmed up slightly, particularly for saithe, although I lay no great stress on that. I hope that what little improvement there has been will continue. All the fishermen to whom I have spoken do not want to work on subsidies; they want a proper return from the market.
I accept that the risk of collapse seems to be looming fairly large. I am under no illusion about the meaning of that for the fishing industry generally, and for Fleetwood and its community in particular. In his analysis of the position, my hon. Friend is right in saying that imports have been the most important single factor in lowering prices in the fishing industry. There are a number of reasons for that. My hon. Friend mentioned the dumping of fish. That is easier said than it is to substantiate. We have not been able to substantiate that dumping, in the technical sense of the 936 word, has taken place. Neither has the industry.
There is concern that the fishing industries of other countries are in receipt of greater subsidies, resulting in lower prices. But we must be careful, because we, too, give subsidies to our fishing industry. We introduced a temporary six-month £3 million subsidy in April, and the annual subsidy for 1980–81 is just over £23 million.
It is difficult to make comparisons between different countries, and sometimes it is difficult to obtain information about what other countries are doing. Countries such as Germany, which is sometimes held up as an example of a country that is more generous to its fishing industry, do not subsidise their industries to the extent that Britain does. But there is real concern when subsidies are granted in areas that our fishermen feel are particularly helpful in respect of operating costs.
The regional subsidy that the French Government give towards fuel costs is one about which our industry feels very sore. We are trying to bring the question of subsidies up to date, and I shall inform my hon. Friend of the results of the survey that is being conducted by our embassies in Europe. But we must be careful not to over-emphasise the point, because we also give subsidies.
The strength of sterling also affects the fishing industry, and it is probably the biggest single factor affecting the quantity of fish coming into the country at present prices. We are anxious to do what we can to help and, in a limited way, we have already given help in one area. As we announced in May, we negotiated within the Community an adjustment in the reference price for fish, which has the effect of raising the tariffs on imported frozen fish from third countries. We are currently negotiating with the Commission on the restoration to their former level of certain tariffs that were reduced a year ago in order to help our processors, who were having difficulty in obtaining supplies. I hope that by the beginning of July we shall know precisely where we stand.
I have mentioned two areas, but I should like to refer to a third area that indicates our understanding of the position on imports. As my hon. Friend knows, at the recent Fisheries Council meeting 10 days ago in Luxembourg there 937 was some discussion of a deal with Canada. It involved certain opportunities for deep-sea fishing. We would have had our share, although not to such a great extent as others, because we have not traditionally fished the Canadian waters in the way that the German fleet has done.
In return for those opportunities for our deep-sea fleet, we would have had to take increased imports of cod, in particular, from Canada. That is something that we have resisted. In this we have had support from the Danish and Irish Governments. We believed that it was not a good deal. To allow extra imports to come in when we already had a weak market because of the strong pound would not have been sensible, and would not have helped our industry at the present time.
I hope that I have been able to indicate to my hon. Friend that the Government have taken action in those three areas. The aid has been of a somewhat limited nature, but we have shown concern about what can be done. I have tried not to over-emphasise the effect of the action on the economics of the industry or on the catching side. I have not tried to pretend that it has been able to change a difficult position into a good one, but it has contributed to a certain extent.
I viewed with certain concern statements made earlier this week by some of the representatives of our processing industry, criticising the increase in tariffs. I regarded those statements with a certain amount of sorrow, for two reasons. The first is that what we are doing is not so dramatic as to have a great effect on costs or on the availability of supply to our processors. The second is that when, two years ago, the processors were going through a difficult time and the catching industry, generally speaking, was in a very much more prosperous state, the Government of the day rightly took action to help the processing industry. I am a little sad to see that when it sees the position being restored to what it was before the action was taken to help it, the processing industry should react in the way that it has.
The fishing industry is a complete industry, from the catching side, the merchants and the ports to the processors. I am a little unhappy to see this kind of split of interests in our food industry, because it is most important 938 that we should all work together for the future of the industry.
I turn now more specifically to the action that we have taken. As my hon. Friend knows and has freely acknowledged, at the beginning of April we gave £2 million to the fish producers' organisations to help them in the various schemes that they devised. We also gave the industry fl million to help the exploratory voyages. We have financed 63 exploratory voyages, enabling more voyages to be undertaken than would otherwise have been possible.
We have shown quite clearly that we were prepared to act when the industry was in difficulty. We were prepared to devote to it sums of public money at a time when, as my hon. Friend knows, finance to help industry in one way or another was not exactly freely available. It demonstrates our real concern for the industry that we were prepared as a Government to do that.
We freely acknowledge that the position has not improved dramatically in the industry—if, indeed, it has improved at all—since we introduced the aid scheme at the beginning of April. At the beginning of May, individual groups came to see us. As my hon. Friend knows, I met a delegation from Fleetwood. We have shown, therefore, that as a Government we are prepared to reconsider the position. We said at the beginning of May that we would meet the industry in early July. We felt that that was a sensible date—a midway point in the six months' aid scheme. We would then know the position reached in regard to import tariffs. We felt that it was a good time at which to sit down with the industry and assess the position. We have asked the representatives of the industry to produce their figures and we shall be meeting them on 3 July.
At the meeting next week we shall meet the representatives of the industry. We have their submissions about the financial state of the industry. We shall not be able to make immediate decisions. The purpose of the meeting on 3 July—the industry is also clear on this point—is simply to assess the position. My right hon. Friend the Minister and also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other Fisheries Ministers will therefore consider as quickly as possible the case that has 939 been put before us. We shall consider it with our other colleagues and then come back to the industry with our reaction to the case put to us.
My hon. Friend kows what we have already done in regard to tariffs and the temporary aid scheme and what we propose to do about reassessing the position towards the end of next week. In this way we believe that we have demonstrated that as a Government we are concerned to have a proper fishing industry and to deal with the specific problems affecting ports such as Fleetwood.
940 I have not mentioned the common fisheries policy. That is another area of vital importance for the future of the fishing industry, and we hope to be able to deal with it urgently and constructively.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for hall an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.