HC Deb 08 March 1999 vol 327 cc146-54

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

11.47 pm
Mr. Alan Johnson (Hull, West and Hessle)

Almost 23 years ago, promises were made in this House to distant water trawlermen who were being made redundant by the Government's agreement with Iceland which ended the so-called cod wars by setting a 200-mile fishing limit around the Icelandic coast. On 28 June 1976, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said: We shall discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might otherwise have received under the redundancy payments Acts. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said later in that debate: We are glad that the Minister acknowledges that, because of the nature of their occupation, fishermen will need some special and additional arrangements beyond what is contained in the redundancy payments Acts". That gave the special scheme cross-party consensus. Later in the debate, the Minister said: On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed. Later, in response to a young MP for Hull, East, called Mr. Prescott, the Minister said: The Government have decided, after discussions with the trade unions and with the employers, that there will be a special redundancy scheme which will be favourable to those fishermen who are not covered by previous legislation."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 27–33.] Promises were made and they were nothing less than the men concerned deserved. They were courageous; they went out in the most difficult conditions, and distant water fishing was the most dangerous of occupations. They worked in Arctic conditions beyond the north cape bank, and the mortality rate was 14 times that for coal mining.

During the second world war, trawlermen, like other fishermen, played a major part in the allied victory, at a high personal cost. Since the debate to which I have referred and, indeed, since the first debate that I secured in this House in 1997, we have learned the extent to which distant water trawlermen were used by the intelligence services during the cold war. Despite such service to their country and their perilous occupation, none of the promises made by the Minister were kept. The men were wrongly classified as casuals—casual war heroes, casual cold war heroes. Men who had spent their working lives at sea were dismissed as being unworthy of any help. They received no retraining, no resettlement, and not a penny of compensation.

Whole communities in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood— I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) want to speak in this debate, and I have given them permission to do so—were made worthless by a Government decision. The Icelandic Government even offered the British Government quotas that were almost equal to that being caught—at that time, British fishermen were catching about 130 million tonnes—which would have kept the industry going, but, as part of the agreement, the British Government refused.

Compensation was paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to trawler owners to decommission their ships. More than £100 million was paid to trawler owners—not one penny of which went to the men. That is very important, because the criteria under which that money was paid was made absolutely clear in a letter on 12 March 1996 from MAFF to another supporter of the campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). MAFF said: Both Labour and Conservative Governments offered compensation to vessel owners to alleviate the position that the industry found itself in through the loss of these fishing grounds following the imposition of the 200 mile limit. The vessel owners, in particular, found themselves with considerable assets that could no longer be used. The trawlermen had considerable assets that could no longer be used, too: their skill, energy and courage.

The MAFF letter went on to say, very interestingly: No restrictions were placed on vessel owners as to the use of any grant monies received, nor was there any requirement to compensate crew members. Millions of pounds were paid to trawler owners, but not a penny was paid in compensation to the trawlermen, despite the promises that were made.

The way in which distant water trawlermen have been treated is nothing short of a national disgrace. Left to fight alone, they formed the British Fishermen's Association, and pursued a series of cases through the courts in the 1980s. Eventually, in 1983, the men won a case in the High Court. The victory established that they were employed staff and never casuals. Even then, the Government's response was entirely inadequate. The special scheme still did not materialise. Instead, the Government argued that their only obligation was to provide the minimal terms of the redundancy Act to those trawlermen who would been "expressly discouraged" from pursuing industrial tribunal cases because they were told that they did not qualify for payment. That had two disastrous consequences.

First, a two-year continuity rule was applied. That is in the national redundancy scheme, and might be okay in factories and many other industries, but it had nothing to do with the way in which the trawlermen worked. They worked in a scheme—it was run by the Department of Employment—but it meant that they had to leave on whatever ship was in port at the time. They had continuity in the scheme, but the way in which their industry worked meant that they could not have continuity otherwise, especially for two years with any one employer. As a result, men who had served at sea for 30 years received a few hundreds pounds.

Secondly, the criteria set by the Government paid nothing to men whom the British Fishermen's Association had supported through the numerous cases that it took and lost during the 1980s. In the final perverse aspect of the Government's decision, they said that those men had not been misdirected because they had pursued industrial tribunal cases. Therefore, they received nothing—not one penny, even from the ex gratia scheme.

The result of the most recent general election provides the opportunity for the party of Government in 1976 belatedly to meet the commitments made at the time. On 5 November 1997, with colleagues and members of the BFA, I met the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). A MAFF official was present at that meeting. We made it clear that we wanted a new scheme. The Minister said that he would raise the matter with colleagues at MAFF.

In the subsequent six or seven months we were heartened by the response. We felt that we were making progress. Indeed, we were given great encouragement by letters from the DTI. One, from May 1998, said: As we both recognise, what the BFA are seeking is actually a new scheme of more general compensation for the loss of employment in their industry"— absolutely right, and similar to what the trawler owners received— rather than a reopening of the old ex-gratia payment arrangements which had a specific and limited purpose, and I am of course continuing to pursue this matter with Elliot Morley at MAFF. MAFF replied: Ian McCartney and I have been reviewing this issue and will be meeting shortly to consider the position. We will then arrange a further meeting with you and other MPs concerned. Even the Prime Minister, in response to a petition, signed by 15,000 people, presented by the BFA in June 1998, wrote to me and said: I understand that Ian McCartney has since been in discussion with Elliot Morley at MAFF and that they intend to invite you and the BFA to another meeting shortly to consider the matter further. That was July 1998. Since then, there has been no activity at all; there has been silence from the Government Departments.

In summary, promises made by MAFF have not been kept. Millions of pounds have been paid to trawler owners as compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds, but not a penny of compensation has been paid to the trawlermen who lost their livelihoods. I believe that, under the previous Government, MAFF paid something like £30 million to Spanish fishermen for the loss of their licences in 1996, but nothing has been paid by MAFF to British trawlermen who lost their livelihoods.

Time is running out for those men. We ask the Minister to ensure that what appears to be a game of pass the parcel between Departments stops. We ask for the promised meeting to be arranged quickly and we ask that that claim be settled, so that distant water trawlermen have some belated justice and dignity after being so appallingly mistreated by successive Governments over the past 23 years.

11.57 pm
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing this important debate and allowing me the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. I also congratulate the British Fishermen's Association on fighting such a long campaign to secure compensation for its members.

I especially single out Peggy Whittacker, who chairs the Fleetwood branch of the BFA. I do so deliberately because today, on international women's day, it is important to remember the role that women had, and still have, in fishing communities such as Fleetwood—wives and mothers, they were left behind for weeks at a time to raise children, look after the home, pay the bills and wait in the hope that their husbands would return safely from one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We are talking about whole communities and about families, not just about the men who went out on the boats.

However, I would not like to underestimate how dangerous the job was. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle outlined the dangers. When I speak to men in Fleetwood who fished the waters around Iceland, they tell me horrific stories of cold, ice, fierce seas and frostbite. Those men and their families deserve compensation for the loss of their jobs and livelihoods.

There is now a chance to rectify the broken promises of the past. While vessel owners received handsome compensation, the men received nothing—no training, no help, no compensation. For a large number of Fleetwood men, the original injustices of the 1970s were made worse by the failings of the previous Government's ex gratia scheme. Many of them were share fishermen. They were employees in every sense of the word. They paid tax and national insurance; they saw themselves as employees. But because of the rules imposed by the 1993 scheme, they found that they could not claim. Most of the men who were distant water trawlermen in Fleetwood could not claim and did not benefit, and even those who did received a paltry amount for the long, long years that they spent on the seas. To make things worse, these men are dying off. Even since September 1998, nine men who would qualify within the scheme supported by the BFA have died. How many more have to die before something is done about this matter?

Time is running out. The trawlermen and their families have been treated as third-class citizens for too long. They are looking to the Government to right the wrongs of the past. Just as I back workers at GCHQ, miners and other groups including trawler owners, I fully back the trawlermen in their cause. I look for a positive response from the Government. If there is a more deserving cause, I would like to know what it is. It is about time that we responded positively.

12.1 am

Shona Mclsaac (Cleethorpes)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate. I thank him for allowing me to contribute to it.

We cannot imagine while we are in the Chamber the hardship that the trawlermen endured at sea. We probably cannot imagine either the pain with which their bodies are racked these days as a result of many years fishing in distant waters. We promised them 20 years ago to compensate them for losing their jobs. We are here tonight to ensure that justice is done at last.

My father was off Iceland in 1976. He was not on the trawlers but serving on HMS Russell to protect the fishing fleet during the cod wars. Even with more than 20 years' service in the Royal Navy behind him, my father was appalled at the conditions in which the trawlermen worked. We have heard a little about that already tonight—for example, the 18-hour days, the temperatures that the men endured and the nature of the job, which made it far more dangerous than mining. In addition to the hardships that they were enduring at sea, there was hardship at home. Their home lives were largely dissipated by a working pattern that meant about three weeks at sea and then only three days at home.

All those years of working in such an environment is taking its toll. The ex-trawlermen who are still with us have ailments such as arthritis, bronchial conditions and heart disease. When people say that the price of fish has been high in human terms, they are certainly not kidding.

My father sailed home on HMS Russell to the security of a job, but the men of our distant water fleet sailed back to redundancy and a bleak future. They were promised compensation but it never came. We have heard that the trawler owners received a tidy packet in compensation but, as ever, the trawlermen, the workers, got nothing.

In August 1996, my right hon. Friend the now Deputy Prime Minister, visiting me in Cleethorpes, told my local newspaper, the Grimsby Evening Telegraph: It's been an absolute scandal. Owners were paid large sums of money to decommission fishing vessels, but none passed on to the trawlermen themselves. My right hon. Friend added: I am an ex-seaman. When there were redundancies in other areas, the seamen were properly compensated. But fishing was not only the hardest of these professions, but has been the worst treated, too. I shall refer to only a few of the many men in my constituency who worked in that hardest of professions, who lost their livelihoods and have now lost their health. They are still waiting, 20 years on. There is William Webb of Thornton crescent in Cleethorpes. He worked in Icelandic waters until the jobs dried up in 1978. He says: There was no chance of getting a job. There were so many men and so few jobs left. Since then he has suffered several strokes. He can hardly walk. He has severe arthritis. Bob Sinclair of Berkeley road in Humberston worked for 30 years until the firms packed up after the cod wars. He has since had both hips replaced. He suffers from osteoarthritis in his spine, hips, knees and ankles.

Finally, Jimmy Gale of Healing says that he feels luckier than some. Two ships that he left temporarily to take Christmas breaks sank, killing many of his colleagues. He describes the job in these terms: It was the last legalised slavery in the country. In a way, it was slavery, and like slaves, the trawlermen were given nothing. They have been cast aside and forgotten. Tonight we want to see justice done. Let us have no more talking. To coin a famous phrase, it is now time to do.

12.5 am

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the courage and perseverance with which he has pursued the matter. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Minister that the Members for the great former distant water fishing ports will not rest until compensation is provided on the lines proposed by the British Fishermen's Association for the trawlermen who lost their jobs when we packed up fishing in Icelandic waters in 1976.

As my hon. Friend said, the trawlermen were promised compensation, retraining, new jobs, and support for the industry. The promises were lavish; none of them was fulfilled. Instead, the men were dumped on the shore, and they did not even get the statutory redundancy money, because they were deemed to be casual workers and therefore entitled to nothing.

That view was proved wrong by Humphrey Forrest of the Humberside Law Centre in the Atkinson Dickenson v. Hellyers case, which showed that the trawlermen were not casual. As a result of that proof, they got minimal redundancy 16 years late, but they got no compensation for the loss of their jobs, their future and their industry. Had it been realised in 1976 when they lost their jobs that they were not in fact casual, they would have got compensation for their jobs at that time, as car workers, steel workers and miners did. The trawlermen would not have had to cash their pathetic pensions just to survive.

Distant water fishing was the only British industry that was run down without any compensation at all for those who worked in it. There was lavish compensation for the owners, running into millions. The owners hit the jackpot, but the fishermen did not even get the lemons to put on the soles, as a result of the death of that industry. It is a scandal for which we can now make only partial reparation, but we should make it by paying them compensation on the terms set out by the British Fishermen's Association. That will pay our debt to those who suffer still from the industrial diseases of fishing— dermatitis, white skin, weeping scabs, arthritis, injuries, loss of limbs and loss of fingers—which were deemed then in fishing to be acts of God, not grounds for compensation.

We can pay our debt to those who lost their pensions because they had to withdraw the money, as they had nothing else to exist on when they lost their jobs. If they did not work again, as many did not, they were not able to accumulate a SERPS pension to comfort them in old age, so they are now relegated to poverty in old age as a result.

By paying compensation, as we must, we can pay our debt to those who worked in Britain's most dangerous industry, where death and injury were their constant companions as they did Britain's business in great and distant waters.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in 20 years of fighting the case, I have heard all the excuses. They do not wash. The men were employed, not casual workers. As such, they had a right to compensation, which we should pay now and fulfil our moral responsibility to them a quarter of a century late. They were treated appallingly. We owe them decent treatment and justice. We must pay them what they are owed.

12.9 am

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing tonight's debate, and on the way in which he and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have argued the case on behalf of the fishermen whom they represent in their constituencies.

The importance of the debate is reflected by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) are present. I am surprised that no Member of the official Opposition is present to listen to this important debate.

I and my colleagues in other Departments responsible for the fishing industry naturally have a great deal of sympathy with the situation of the fishermen who lost their jobs as a result of the loss of fishing opportunities when the United Kingdom was excluded from Icelandic fishing grounds 20 years ago. Indeed, I moved to Hull as a student in 1971, when the fishing fleet was at its peak.

We fully appreciate the extremely arduous conditions that the people concerned had to face in what was then, and still remains, one of the most difficult and demanding ways of earning a living. We are also conscious of the role of the industry in providing a much valued element of the nation's diet and the wider contribution that many seafarers have made to the defence of the nation's interests, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle rightly pointed out.

The role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the events following the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds was in making payments to vessel owners as direct compensation for the loss of fishing opportunities. There is no surviving evidence that any enforceable conditions were attached to those payments. As has been said, owners were free to use that compensation as they chose.

A decommissioning scheme was operated between 1983 and 1986 under which a number of the vessel owners who were affected received payment for decommissioning or for converting their vessels to oil support vessels, but there were certainly no requirements at all on participating owners to make any part of their grant available to the former crews of those vessels. That could certainly be criticised, but it was part of the regulations at the time.

I should also correct my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle: there has been no payment of £30 million to Spanish trawlermen in respect of the loss of fishing opportunities. That matter is still being pursued through the courts and the Government have not conceded any liability at this time.

Considerable time has elapsed since those payments were made and there is no evidence that the legitimate initial recipients acted improperly in any way. However, it is clearly possible to continue to debate the question whether the policy was correct, particularly in the light of the knowledge that we now have about the subsequent evolution of the fishing industry, and the National Audit Office was critical of the later decommissioning scheme and the way that that money was used at that time.

In respect of compensating the crews of the vessels, it was always intended that those payments would be a matter for employment rather than fisheries policy. In his statement to the House on 28 June 1976, Fred Peart, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it quite clear that the question of redundancy payments to the people affected was not a matter for his Department. He said: On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 30.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle has already pointed that out.

Those responsibilities, which formerly lay with the Department of Employment, rest with the Department of Trade and Industry. Thus it is clear that any question of redundancy payments to trawlermen has always been considered as a question of employment policy rather than one for Fisheries Ministers. Consequently, although I and my ministerial colleagues in MAFF stand ready to play our part in responding to the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle and my hon. Friends, the final decision on whether to meet the trawlermen's claims is ultimately one for my ministerial colleagues at the DTI. However, I will convey to them the depth of feeling within the House and that which I know exists in the communities affected. I will also convey the strength of feeling that has been so clearly articulated by those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I might add that I fully share and support those feelings.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.