Redundancy Payments (Fishermen's Claims) (Amendment) (Hansard, 8 February 1983)

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable fishermen employed at sea for not less than seven months in any one year to claim redundancy payments if they are unable to gain employment as fishermen for a period of not less than three months, provided that they cease to be registered at job centres for employment as fishermen; to make this entitlement retrospective for any fishermen who have been employed at sea for not less than four years since 1972; to establish a holding agency for fishermen's and their employers' redundancy contributions; and for connected purposes. Last week we debated the future of the fishing industry and the tragic decline of the deep water fleet, in particular, the Hull fleet, in which over the past decade the number of vessels has dropped from well over 100 to fewer than 10, and the number of men employed as fishermen from well over 10,000 to about 1,000.

This has been tragic for the industry, and tragic for the economy of Hull and other ports with similar tales to tell. It has been overwhelmingly tragic—indeed, a disaster—for individual fishermen and their families, that men who have sailed and worked for years in a dangerous and difficult calling—more dangerous than the pits—and who have paid their taxes and stamps are now made unemployed and walk the stones without the benefit of any redundancy payments.

Last month, Thomas Hamling—one of the last of the deep sea trawling companies in Hull—went bankrupt. The Hull Daily Mail carried the headline: Despair of proud men. It is tragic that they have no prospects". The following Friday evening crew representatives came to my surgery. There were about 40 of them in equal numbers from the Hull constituencies—West, East and Central. They all asked one question: why are there no redundancy payments for us? I had to try to answer that question. I had to tell one man who had put in 35 years continuous sailing for the firm, another who had sailed for 20 years, and many who had sailed for over 10 years that they did not qualify for redundancy payments because they did not have the continuous period of at least two years' service with that company demanded by statute.

To talk in terms of 35 years with one company may seem strange to landsmen. Fishermen sign articles when they join a trawler and sign off when the trip is finished. That is one period of employment. Even if they signed fresh articles the following day, or even the same day on the same ship, or another ship of the same company, or a ship of another company, they would have broken service, according to the statute. Indeed, when it was the custom in the industry for men to work for three voyages and then have one voyage off as a rest period, the trawler owners used to say "Why should we give you rest pay when you can get money on the dole?" Again, the men had broken service and therefore received no redundancy pay.

That is why decasualisation has been the unions' cry for fishermen, that is why it was the centre of a particularly bitter and prolonged strike in Hull a decade ago, why it was central to the argument of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and myself that 906 redundancy payments should be made after the time of the cod war, and why we had a scheme for decasualisation and redundancy payments—and still would have had it had my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) been able to complete the work that he started in 1979. However, all of that went by the board at the election. As a result of the tragedy of Hamling, the fact that we now have a common fisheries policy, and the need to restructure the fleet and compensate the fishermen who will no longer be employed, this matter has been brought very much into the forefront.

My proposals are as follows, and they are supported by many of my hon. Friends, and all members of Transport and General Workers Union who are sponsored Members of the House but who, because of the rules of the House, cannot have their names appended as proposers of the Bill. My first proposal is that within the general redundancy fund those moneys should be identified that have been contributed by full-time fishermen and their employers since the inception of the fund.

Second, to benefit, a fisherman would show that he was employed as a fisherman, other than self-employed, or as a share fisherman with only an interest in the result of the catch, for a period of not less than seven months in any one year. When one adds those seven months to normal weekends, one would accept that, with normal holiday or leave pay, that makes a year's full employment.

Third, proof of that employment would be established by the fishermen's discharge book. Fourth, if such a fisherman failed to obtain employment within a period of three months, or if he wished to leave the industry and was willing that his name should no longer be registered with a jobcentre as seeking employment as a fisherman, he would be entitled to redundancy payments pro rata to his period in the industry.

Finally—and perhaps the most controversial point—I would seek to compensate those victims of the cod war, particularly in the deep sea ports, who gradually lost their livelihood over the decade. Moneys for their compensation lie within the redundancy fund. It would be a small gesture of thanks and natural justice. I would make this payment retrospective to fishermen employed at sea for not less than four years from 1972. That would give a qualifying period before the cod war and immediately afterwards, and, for those no longer employed at sea, for the period of their employment as fishermen, again on the terms that I described earlier. We now have 495 fishermen on the unemployment register in Hull. There is little opportunity of employment for them. They are what is left, together with the few men at sea, of over 10,000 jobs a decade ago in Humberside. Similar jobs have been lost in Fleetwood and Aberdeen.

I urge the House to accept that it is not too late to change the rules for these men. They are few in number but they nevertheless deserve our close attention. This country owes a debt to those men for their courage and dedication. We owe a debt to the memory of many fishermen who lost their lives in the cruel sea, and to those who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, through political decisions made as a result of the 200-mile limit of the cod war, and as a result of the common fisheries policy. The least that this House can do is to show its concern for such men and enable them to get what they have, in fact, paid for—their redundancy payments.