---

11.45 pm

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I wish to present a petition in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is in the name of Mr. Rowson and 1,037 other people from my constituency and other parts of the country. There are people who hold strong moral and religious beliefs that stop them taking part in violent activity--that has been recognised in the right of conscientious objection

8 Mar 1999 : Column 145

since 1916--but many of them believe also that they should not be forced by the taxation system directly to fund military action. They want to be able to use their taxes to fund peaceful settlement of international conflicts. I present the petition and offer my support for it.

To lie upon the Table.

11.46 pm

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): I wish to present a petition in exactly the same terms as the previous two petitions. It is on behalf of David Hillman and 473 other signatories. On the day when the Government announced that in future they will link aid to ensuring that disarmament occurs in the third world, the right of conscientious objection should be recognised in this country. Many of the signatories are therefore convinced that their taxation should not be spent on weapons of destruction.

To lie upon the Table.

8 Mar 1999 : Column 146

Trawlermen (Compensation)

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 McIsaac) 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

8 Mar 1999 : Column 147

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.

8 Mar 1999 : Column 148

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.

---