§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
1.24 am§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the economic plight of the Grimsby share fishermen to the attention of the House. They are a section of society who are so little known that hon. Members have asked me all day whether share fishermen, as printed on the Order Paper, is a misprint. It is not. It is a common form of fishing in Grimsby and other parts of the country. I believe that it originated in Denmark and it was common in the small boat inshore industry in earlier days. Now, with the decline of the big boat long-distance fishing industry, it is the predominant form of fishing in Grimsby and much of the rest of the country.
Grimsby has about 600 share fishermen, about 400 of whom are in regular employment on the same net fishing boats that are the basis of Grimsby's fishing fleet. It is a simple system. The boat and its owners take 55 per cent. of the return, on auction, on the fish. In more democratic firms it is 50 per cent. I understand that, in Scotland, the boat's share is normally 50 per cent. The crew at Grimsby take 45 per cent. of the return, after deduction of costs such as food, oil, fuel, rope and sometimes an allowance for the navigator. Those expenses amount to about one quarter of the return on most trips.
One subject of complaint is the fact that the expenses are made higher by the fact that bonded supplies cannot be taken on smaller fishing boats, as used to be the case with trawlers that fished distant water. The system is called settling on the net. That does not mean settling on the fishing net but net as distinct from gross. The 45 per cent. is divided on set lines between the crew.
There is some flexibility. If the skipper wants to attract an especially skilled fisherman, keep someone's services or is desperate to get someone on the boat, he can give that person a slightly larger share. Normally, however, the skipper will get 15 to 17 per cent., the deckie cook will get about 13 per cent. or slightly more, the other deckie will get 13 per cent. and the crew will get 3 per cent. or, in some cases, 4 per cent. Their number can be supplemented by a trainee who gets a basic wage of about £50 plus a proportion, depending on what the crew decide to allocate him, which might amount to between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the catch. In addition, crew members get an allotment that is sent direct to their wives by the firm. It can be perhaps £40 a week, which is sent by messenger or sometimes by registered mail to support the wife and family while the husband is away.
The system was introduced and was popular when fishing was far more prosperous. Since then, we have hit fairly intense competition, a threat to conservation and stocks and the common fisheries policy. There has consequently been a reduction in catches and over fishing. When fishing was good, share fishing was popular. A successful skipper with a successful boat is still popular. In those circumstances, a lot of money can still be made. However, a successful skipper and a successful boat is comparatively, and increasingly, rare. Catching was down last year, and it is down again this year. In Grimsby, it must be down by about 25 per cent. Prices remain obstinately low and will not rise to the levels that are necessary to support the industry. In those circumstances, 853 share fishing is a system of exploitation. In many respects it is rather similar to share cropping in the southern states of the United States. Share fishing has become a system of exploitation and it is a serious economic problem for the fishermen who participate in it. The vessels are often merely breaking even. They are certainly not making the sort of profits that they have to accumulate in the summer months to enable them to survive through into the winter. They are not making the profits that will lead to investment in new vessels. We have an ageing fleet which is just about managing to keep going, but it is not providing the returns to provide benefits for the crews that share fishing should logically provide.
The catches are not big enough because of the various financial difficulties and the crews are returning in debt. Whatever their return on their share of the catch, they have to pay the allotment which has been allocated by the agents to their wives and families while they have been away. If there is not enough made on the catch to pay back the allotment, they finish each trip in debt. That is becoming increasingly the experience of skippers and crews in Grimsby. The debt to the agent accumulates and the agents are in debt to the bank. That is part of the crippling accumulation of debt that is hanging around the neck of the fishing industry.
I shall give the example of Mr. Kai Mathieson. His wife is one of several fishermen's wives who have approached me on the issue. She is the most persistent, efficient and effective in putting the share fisherman's case. She has brought me all her husband's settling sheets for 1983. They are from Tom Sleight (FS) Ltd., when he was on the "Ulla Viola" and the "East Bank", which he was on for most of the year. The returns show—they are available to anyone who wants to see them—that most of the trips that year ended in debt. There was an accumulation of debt of £1,631. The minority of trips which resulted in profit produced £535. The debts were much greater than the profits during that year. Mr. Mathieson finished up over £1,000 in debt as a result of fishing. That happened in 1983, and 1983 was a far better year than 1984 is turning out to be. Mr. Mathieson is on the "Arconia Bay" this year —he is the skipper of a new vessel and is working for a different agency—but this year has been even worse. He returned last week with his first profit. It was an 18-day trip off the Norwegian coast. He made £7,100 on the option with expenses of £2,800. That profit was with seven kit condemned. His share was £350 after tax and stamp. The money had to be used to pay the accumulated debts that have built up when he has not been in profit. His wife has had to shoulder that burden over the months. She has faced the bills that have waited to be paid.
How do these people manage? They manage only because the share fisherman's stamp is a cross between the self-employed stamp and the employee's stamp. They are able to sign on for unemployment benefit for the periods when they are on shore. That is all they get for the housing benefit to which they are entitled. It fluctuates wildly because of the money that they are making or not making. There can be a considerable fluctuation over two or three weeks. It is difficult to calculate housing benefit with any degree of certainty. The unemployment benefit is all that keeps the system going. The sacrifices fall entirely on the wives and families of the shore fishermen.
854 I have been provided by Mrs. Mathieson with her household expenditure for the month of June. It shows that only the allotment from the agent—£40 a week for her — plus her husband's unemployment benefit and the extra that she is able to get occasionally from social security has kept the family going. Indeed, there are weeks in the month in which she has ended up with substantially less income—on 22 June, £5 less than her outgoings.
It is a system in which the whole burden of sacrifice falls on the wives and families. As part of her energetic effort to put the case, Mrs. Mathieson went to the extent of writing to the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, asking people who felt as she did to write in to her. She had an astonishing number of replies. I shall quote from one or two of the letters which give a dramatic indication of the struggle that fishermen's wives have, just to keep going.
Mrs. Elliott reports that her husband, through no fault of his, comes home and lands in debt. She writes:
We have a mortgage of £125 per month, and when unemployed he gets £44 per week. If he is fortunate to make a few good trips then the money has to be laid by for gas and electricity bills, etc. We practically have no social life, maybe if we are lucky one night in a month. We are proud people. But now giving this chance to voice my views. The fishermen are the only ones in the state that are being made fools of'.That is one reply to Mrs. Mathieson's appeal.Mrs. Johnson, wrote to say that she has had two years in debt. After his last trip of 22 days her husband came home £128 in debt. She has to find £23 rent, the money for school dinners and for gas, and has to borrow money from the firm. She adds that they cannot go out, and cannot even buy chocolate for the kids. Her husband has earned £163 so far this year. She wants a divorce. She might not like that to be mentioned, but I am afraid I have mentioned it. That is another examaple of the strains that fishermen's wives have to endure.
Another lady, whose name I will not give, says that her husband was three weeks at sea and ended up £80 in debt; still writing after three weeks for social security and has not received it. He was offered a food voucher.
Another lady writes that "Fishing wants stuffing." Her husband was 16 days at sea and ended up £180 in debt. The husband gets £95 a week. Rent of £25 is being paid from the last trip.
Another lady writes about the family being three years in debt through fishing. The husband has been waiting for some weeks to go to sea. She asks why he should do that, only to accumulate more debt.
That kind of burden is falling on the wives of fishermen, thanks to this system, and it is now becoming difficult to persuade people to go to sea. Why should they go to sea in order to come back with an accumulated burden of debt? It is a story of accumulated debt and increasing struggle, and it is made worse by two other factors.
There is nobody to speak for the men. They can join the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union cannot negotiate for them, because it would be involved in negotiating hundreds of agreements with all the different vessels. They have a Share Fishermen's Association which has managed to get a Save and Prosper pension scheme agreed by the owners, but that is the only improvement in their lot that has taken place over the years. There is nobody to fight for them.
The system favours the powerful, as is shown by what happens to rebates on fuel. They have not been paid now for two years, but when they were paid the rebate on fuel 855 went to the owner of the vessel; it was not taken into account in any recalculation of the men's share, because that had already been paid out to them.
The men go to sea because that is their way of life; they know no other. They want to go to sea. It has a lure and an attraction for them. They are not natural conformists or natural nine-to-five workers. They want to go to sea but they are paying to accept one of the hardest lives and hardest existences in this country. It is a job where the men have little time at home. From my experience of a few days on a seine netter, I found that the men are at work from dawn to dusk continually. The work is physically exhausting. It is also extremely dangerous and becoming more so. The number of total losses of fishing vessels under 40 ft in five-year periods has increased steadily over the years. In the period 1968–1972 there were 29 total losses only of vessels under 40 ft; 1973–1977 there were 41 and 1978–82 there were 68.
The risk factor per 100,000 vessels has shot up. In 1978 it was 0.6 per cent. In 1982 the figure had increased to 4.5 per cent. The deaths per 100,000 employed in the industry as the vessels become older and as investment falters have increased from 114 in 1961 — compared to 40 per 100,000 employed in coal mining, which is supposed to be the toughest industry—to 247 fishermen killed per 100,000 in 1979, the last year for which I have the figures. The figure has more than doubled since 1961. There were 25 miners killed. That figure has almost halved. That is the price of fish and it is increasing. It is the toughest, worst paid, and worst treated job in the United Kingdom. We owe an enormous amount to the fishermen who have to put to sea in such conditions.
I want to suggest to the Minister that there are things that could be done. I shall do so briefly because I know that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) wishes to intervene about the Grimsby Landing Company and the threat of the port closure which is hanging over us.
The only way to keep the industry going and allow it to pay a decent return to its employees is to renew the operating aid which we had for three years and which has now stopped. France is still paying a fuel subsidy. Why can we not pay an operating subsidy which is channelled to the men to help support them? Secondly, we need a proper system of market support and an adequate system of withdrawal prices so that the crew do not come back with a completely inadequate return and end up in debt, or we shall have to establish co-operatives which will give the men some muscle in the market.
Thirdly, we must regulate the employment and structure of share fishing to increase the wage element at the expense of the share-of-the-catch element to give the men a guaranteed income in these increasingly hard times. The Minister should do something for an industry which needs these men and their contribution, but which feels that it is being allowed to drift. The industry is treated as agriculture under the treaty of Rome but does not receive anything like the help and support that agriculture receives.
It is an industry which is vital to this country. The men who serve that industry have had a hard time and a raw deal and it is time that something was done for them.
§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. 856 Mitchell) for allowing me a few moments of the debate. He speaks for many of my constituents who work in Great Grimsby when he draws attention to the plight of the share fishermen.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider another problem which affects not just the share fishermen but the whole fishing community of Grimsby? During the next few weeks, or maybe the next few days, the Grimsby Landing Company will have to make some difficult and momentous decisions which will determine whether there is to be a fishing industry with share fishermen going to sea from the port of Grimsby.
The debts have piled up in the landing company because of the difficulties in trying to strike the correct balance between the costs of the dock labour force and the need to retain sufficient dockers and lumpers to deal with the fish coming into the port. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his offices to liaise closely with the Department of Employment to try to bring together the local employers and the lumpers' representatives to draw attention to the terrible position not just of share fishermen but of the port of Grimsby.
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his stamina, after his performance during the debate on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. Such was his stamina that he was rather carried away, leaving me with little time in which to respond. I shall do my best.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that particular groups of fishermen working on a share basis are in difficulties. I sympathise with them. I certainly wish to minimise the difficulties faced by the fishermen, their wives and their families. I listened carefully to his suggestions, and shall try to touch on his three main points.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that share fishermen are in a privileged position with regard to unemployment benefit, and that is helpful in view of their fluctuating earnings. They are self-employed, and such people do not normally qualify for unemployment benefit. The exception has been made for share fishermen so that although they are self-employed, they may in certain circumstances qualify for benefit. That is one way in which we can help.
I accept all that the hon. Gentleman said about the hardships that those fishermen sometimes face at sea. Much of the hon. Gentleman's statements concerned the point that fishing was not producing the necessary earnings, partly because of the reduction in landings at Grimbsby, especially of cod. It is clear that the share fisherman's position is insecure. His earnings are unpredictable — they will be governed by weather conditions, fluctuations in the market and his success in locating and taking fish. It is true that many of those factors are outside the fisherman's control. It is true also that some meet the problems more successfully than others, as the Gentleman said when talking about successful skippers. At the same time some are facing difficulties, others are prospering. That is true in fishing, as it is in other areas of business. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government cannot be expected to protect people who have elected to venture into any area of self-employment from all the risks inherent in that decision nor, I suspect, from knowing the self-employed 857 and the fishermen, would those concerned expect them to. The Government have a role to play in establishing the general framework in which those people operate. I shall try to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks about low returns, the problems of debts, support for the industry and the special problems of Grimsby in their wider context.
I shall examine two broad areas — first, the framework of Government and community policy within which the industry generally has to work and, secondly, the general economic picture of the industry. We have often talked about the importance of the successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy which creates a broad framework within which the industry can plan for the future. That is what the industry wanted and what it has welcomed.
Positive measures have been taken to conserve stocks. That is important in the case of cod, because a considerable part of the reduction in landings of cod is due, I suspect, to overfishing. Conservation measures,. which mean a lower quota and lower TAC this year, are therefore important for fishermen in the longer term.
A series of structural measures has been agreed and implemented to help the industry bring about those changes that are necessary to achieve a better and more profitable balance between fishing capacity and opportunities. That is important for fishermen in the longer term.
The hon. Gentleman referred to aids for the industry and other member states of the community. It is right to emphasise the generosity of the financial provisions for the restructuring programme. It means money going into the industry. It is right also to point out that we in the United Kingdom were first in all the Community to make the full range of grants available under the European Community's programme to our fishermen. Up to £85 million is available from Community funds and from our Exchequer to finance a range of measures during the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decommissioning grants are available to encourage the removal from the fleet of vessels which are not viable under present conditions. That scheme is linked with a licensing system that seeks to ensure that vessels that are decommissioned with grant are not replaced with new vessels designed to pursue what the industry now knows as "pressure stocks". The value of this measure to the individual concerned is evident, but the benefits will be felt more widely, because this adjustment in the fleet will reduce the number of vessels seeking a share of our quotas. Already, more than £6 million has been paid out under the scheme, and more applications are in the pipeline. Other schemes provide for laying up grants and grants to support exploratory voyages and joint ventures.
That is one part of the adjustment story. The second part is investment in the future, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the building and modernisation of fishing vessels. The largest single allocation from the £85 million that I mentioned—£42 million—is for building and modernisation. This is as it should be, since the viability of the industry over the medium and longer term will depend crucially on maintaining a satisfactory level of investment in vessels.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby will remember that it was recently announced that FEOGA building and modernisation grants totalling nearly £3 million have come 858 to the United Kingdom from the most recent round of grant allocations. Grimsby featured prominently in the list. Indeed, Grimsby vessel owners have received more than £602,000 from Community funds during the past three years out of a total for English vessels of £2,040,000.
The third leg of the adjustment process is to improve the marketing of fish. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was able to announce a grant of just under £8 million towards the cost of launching the SFIA's marketing programme during the next three years. If it succeeds in creating a greater willingness to consume fish in the United Kingdom, it will help prices in the longer term.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned market support. The Community has a market regime for fish within which the Government and the industry must work in relation to third countries and the internal market within the Community. In the internal market fishermen who opt to join producer organisations, set up under the Community market regime, can and are expected to work together to balance supply and demand in their markets. Moreover, they in turn qualify for FEOGA assistance when fish is withdrawn from the market when it fails to reach the official withdrawal price. Some general rules must be met and these cause problems for the producer organisation operating in Grimsby. However, the general point remains valid: there is a market support regime which provides a safety net in the market, and it works successfully for other producer organisations in many parts of the country.
There is a particular problem about the dock labour scheme, which enables me to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). As my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman know, I have taken a close interest in the working of the national dock labour scheme as it affects the fish docks in Grimsby. When I was in Grimsby recently that point was most commonly put to me as causing difficulties for the fishing industry. I have discussed it with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The problem is best tackled locally. I was keen to encourage local people to get together, and I continue to say just that. It is important that all those locally consider the present position to see whether the present practices are most appropriate to present-day conditions and whether there is scope for change to improve the port as a landing place for British and foreign vessels.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment had a meeting recently about the Grimsby Fish Landing Company. This month there is a special scheme for voluntary severance payments for registered dockers and considerable interest has been shown. It is too early to say whether this will make a difference, but it could do so, if it reduced the number of registered dockers.
The provision of support for the industry demonstrates clearly the Government's commitment to doing all that they can to create a climate in which the industry can plan for the future and prosper. Because of all the Government aid, there is no case for repeating the special subsidy paid for operating aid in the special circumstances of 1980 to 1982, which were introduced because the common fisheries policy was not in place, even if such a scheme stood a chance of successfully resisting challenge from the Commission. The French operating subsidy to which the hon. Gentleman referred is currently being challenged by the Commission.
859 Many problems relate to the difficulties with cod this year and last. The total value of landings of fish in Grimsby have been lower so far this year than during the corresponding period last year. It reflects lower total landings and there are many reasons for that. At the same time prices have been firm. The Grimsby average price for all demersal species during the first 25 weeks of the year was 13 per cent. higher than in the same weeks of 1983. Average prices for cod and haddock were up by about 20 per cent.
I could have said much more if I had had more time. Finally, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the third of his suggestions about a different arrangement for allocating the returns for share fishermen, must be taken 860 up with the industry and the fishermen. The Government cannot intervene. The industry and fishermen must agree to new arrangements if they are appropriate.
I hope that I have shown that the Government have created an environment in which the fishing industry can plan for the future with confidence. However, success will come to a port only if all concerned pull together and respond effectively to a developing position and the challenges that they face. This is especially relevant in Grimsby, which has special problems, in which I have taken and will continue to take a close interest.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.