With the onset of the Cod War, the Labour government has once again shown the ease with which they can adopt the policies of the previous Tory administration. Like the Tories their immediate reaction to the attempts of Iceland to defend its fishing grounds has been to send in the frigates. This is, of course, explained away by reference to the unreasonable nature of Iceland’s claim and the need to defend British fishermen. But a quick look at the facts soon shows the hollowness of this argument.
Iceland has a case to make. In this small country with a population of under 250,000, fishing accounts for 80% of its exports. So any threat to this vital industry would have severe economic effects. There is a lot of truth in the arguments about conservation. Excessive fishing in some areas has virtually eliminated the stock there; and because Iceland is convenient for British trawlers its waters are far more extensively fished than other grounds. In 1971, about 300,000 fishing hours were put in there as opposed to 179,440 elsewhere. The effect this is having can be judged by the age of the fish now being caught. In 1965, more than 65% of the catch was aged 10 years or over. Now only 2% exceeds this age, the main catch consisting of 70% spawning cod.
But when you look at who controls the fishing industry in Britain that you see in whose interests the Labour government is really acting. The fishing fleets are dominated by three firms, British United Trawlers, Marrs and Boston Deep Sea Fisheries and Mac Fisheries (Unilevers). In 1971, two firms controlled 45% of the total fleet and four firms 73%. These firms also control a large proportion of the outlets. In 1965, five Grimsby firms, all owned by trawler companies, handled 25% of the catch and in Hull six firms had a 37% control.
Price rings
These firms have used their power not to benefit the consumer but to boost their profits. Price rings are a fact of life in the fishing industry. Firms keep part of their fleet in port when a glut of fish threatens to drive prices down. Fishing is big business and this means big profits must be extracted at the expense of fishing workers and consumers. It is these profits that the Labour government is now defending. Ironically, the tugs that are being used to help defend British fishing fleets at a cost of £59,000 a week are all hired from the main trawler firms.
Socialists have to take a clear position on this dispute. Just as we would support the right of Iceland to exist physically so we should support its right to economic existence. This means opposing the attempts of capitalists in this country to impose their own solution to the question. But the situation cannot rest there. Capitalism cannot provide an answer to the problems of the fishing industry.
As long as fish are a commodity to be bought and sold, then fierce competition and the subsequent over-fishing that this brings will go unchecked. Only a socialist system of planning would provide any real solution. Fish stocks would be subject to international control, caught centrally and distributed to countries in accordance to their needs.
Labour’s present defence of the fishing monopolies’ interests leaves them with two alternatives. Either they back down or by using more force allow fishing to continue at the present rate. In either case both the jobs of the trawlermen and the consumer will suffer. Yet there is an immediate third course. This is to nationalise the big firms without compensation and under workers’ control. Fishing workers would then be able to make agreements directly with workers from other countries as to how much could be fished and where. The wages of workers would be guaranteed and not tied to the size of the catch, so the amount caught would reflect solely the need of consumers.
The interests of the big monopolies and of the workers who are employed in their industries are not the same. In fact, they are completely opposed. The Labour movement must demand that the government ends its support for the bosses. On no account must we allow ourselves to be drawn into supporting their attempts to bolster their profits at the expense of another far weaker nation and in the final analysis, ourselves.
