Annex B: Chronology of main events 2000
Jump to
2000
02/02/00 The Prime Minister’s Policy Unit wrote to the Secretary of State at DTI and said that while in principle the Prime Minister agreed some compensation should be offered he was concerned about the cost. The Policy Unit understood that the unwillingness of DTI and MAFF to find the money needed to offer compensation was the major reason why progress had not been made. They wondered whether a meeting between the Policy Unit, Treasury, DTI and MAFF would assist with progress.
11/02/00 An official from HM Treasury emailed a colleague concerning the proposals for a compensation scheme. He was concerned about the practicality of paying compensation on a fair and defensible basis after so many years; he had not seen an unequivocal statement from DTI that they thought that could be done. In any event he thought the scheme should be significantly cut back from the proposal floated the previous October which was compensation to everyone who lost their job in the deep-sea trawler industry in the period 1976-86. He preferred to focus much more tightly on the period immediately after the Cod War ended in 1976, for example, 1976-78, so that the cost of the scheme would be more like £10 million rather than £25 million.
14/02/00 Officials at HM Treasury sent a submission to the Chief Secretary. They reinforced their views on the need for a tightly focused scheme and explained that they had discussed the issue of funding a scheme with officials from MAFF and DTI and also with a representative from the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit who had said that the imperative was to have a solution some time that calendar year. They said that it would be sensible to ask DTI to confirm that the practical problems with providing ex gratia payments after so many years could be overcome and recommended that an assurance was sought that a compensation scheme such as the one proposed could be devised and administered fairly, in line with the requirements for public propriety. The submission recognised that the scheme was a charged issue in the former fishing ports but said that the only case for agreeing to a scheme was political. In a briefing paper attached to that submission prepared for the purpose of the Chief Secretary’s meeting with the port MPs on 16 February 2000, officials noted that with regard to the extent of the scheme, the Chief Secretary might like to consider how eligibility might be limited to those who lost their jobs in 1976-77. In terms of defensibility they suggested that the Chief Secretary might ask whether information existed that would allow a scheme to be operated fairly.
28/02/00 A Treasury official wrote to the private secretary to the Secretary of State at DTI. He referred to a meeting that had taken place on 23 February 2000 attended by representatives of the Policy Unit, DTI, MAFF and Treasury and some special advisers. Those attending the meeting had agreed that the practicalities of a compensation scheme should be explored further without reaching any decision. They further agreed that a small team of HM Treasury, DTI and MAFF officials should convene to explore the feasibility of a scheme. The objective was a scoping exercise to determine whether it was possible to design a viable scheme and what that might contain. The group would report to ministers by 28 April 2000. The letter listed those issues that should be considered.
24/03/00 The Minister of State sent a minute to a DTI official that suggested officials met representatives of the BFA to discuss the information they said they could provide in support of compensation claims by former distant water trawlermen.
14/04/00 Officials sent a submission to the Secretary of State in which they said that although a meeting with the BFA could be useful as it might help them to fill gaps in their existing records, they recommended that no such meeting took place until the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues had decided in principle to go ahead with a compensation scheme. The submission also noted that the BFA information related only to Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, while they had to take account of potential claims from other ports involved in distant water trawling, in particular, Lowestoft, Aberdeen and Milford Haven. Officials from DTI, MAFF and the Treasury were then preparing a note responding to questions raised at the 23 February 2000 meeting and one of the issues the note would address was the adequacy of the information available on which to assess claimants’ eligibility. The officials were satisfied that they could provide a positive response on the point. The information offered by the BFA was not therefore required for the purposes of their then scoping exercise. Officials believed that at that stage a meeting with the BFA was bound to raise expectations, even if they made it clear there was no commitment on the part of the Government to go ahead with a scheme and the meeting was merely to ascertain what information the BFA could provide. Nevertheless, any information the BFA could provide would be helpful as it would help officials to fill in gaps in their own existing records.
09/05/00 DTI officials sent a submission to the Secretary of State attached to which was a paper designed to respond to the scoping questions posed by the Treasury following the meeting on 23 February 2000. The paper said that the collapse of the distant water fishing industry was generally recognised to have occurred between 1974 – when the second of the ‘Cod Wars’ ended – and 1979. Statistics showed that trips by British vessels to Icelandic waters ceased after 1976 – when the third and last of the ‘Cod Wars’ ended – and those to other distant waters significantly declined. The paper gave three options for limiting scheme eligibility. The scheme could be open to those who left the industry between 1974 and 1979 (option 1), which would fully satisfy the former trawlermen and those campaigning on their behalf but may bring within the scheme’s coverage some who left the industry for reasons unrelated to the settlement of the ‘Cod Wars’. The scheme could cover the years between 1976 and 1979 (option 2) which would exclude all those who left the industry before the last of the ‘Cod Wars’ ended, but would still cover virtually all those who did so after that point. If the scheme were to cover the years between 1976 and 1977 (option 3), that would be more sharply focused, but would be likely to be criticised as unfairly excluding some who genuinely lost their jobs due to the ‘Cod Wars’ although not in the immediate aftermath of the final one. The paper noted that in all three cases, payments could be restricted to those former trawlermen who had worked for vessel owners known to have trawled in Icelandic waters – although in practice most vessel owners were likely to have had interests in most distant water fishing operations. A further eligibility condition that could be reasonably imposed, regardless which of the three options was taken, would be a requirement for two years’ continuous service within the industry (disregarding short between-voyage breaks) but not necessarily with the same employer. That could be justified on the basis that a claimant should be able to demonstrate a certain degree of commitment to the industry in order to be eligible for compensation; and the former trawlermen’s representatives had indicated that they would be content with such a condition. Proof of eligibility could be obtained from copies of the relevant fishing records and/or from National Insurance contribution records available from the then DSS.
The paper accompanying the submission made the point that the DTI spending review bid did not cover the cost of a scheme. DTI officials, in discussion with their Treasury and MAFF counterparts, had made clear that if DTI was to run the scheme additional funding would be required to meet the cost. If the Secretary of State and his colleagues went ahead with a scheme the issue of its funding would therefore need to be addressed as part of the Spending Review 2000 process. The paper also dealt with a prospective timetable. Under Treasury rules a scheme involving payments of more than £900,000 per annum had to conclude within two years if it was not to be subject to primary legislation. If Ministers went ahead with a compensation scheme officials recommended that claims be admitted during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2002 with no exceptions made for any received after that date. That would allow for all claims to be processed and action completed within the financial years 2001 - 02 and 2002 - 03 and allow time for RPS to recruit required additional staff, for claim forms and other scheme literature to be drawn up and printed, and for publicity arrangements to be put in place before the scheme opened. That was dependent upon RPS receiving a supplementary running cost allocation representing a proportion of the £250,000 estimated administrative costs. The intention to run a scheme could be announced in the summer if Ministers wished to do so.
24/05/00 In a submission to the Chief Secretary a Treasury official noted that the report of officials from MAFF, DTI and HM Treasury proposed that if a scheme went ahead an announcement could be made in the summer with payments under the scheme made from April 2001 onwards to a cut-off of December 2002. He thought there was a risk of criticism that that timetable was too slow as a summer announcement would create an expectation which would not be satisfied for at least another nine months. There would be further pressure from MPs and trawlermen’s representatives to meet claims on a shorter timescale. DTI had indicated that a reasonable period for paying out on claims would be four months from the announcement which would allow sufficient time for recruiting the team, establishing forms and systems, advertising, and receiving and processing claims. Should the Chief Secretary feel that the timetable should be shortened, as a higher political priority, some applications could be paid from October 2000. As to the three options put forward for a scheme, officials recommended that the Chief Secretary reject option 1 and accept option 3 which would limit the cost to £13 million. Should he wish to open up the compensation scheme to a wider group of trawlermen, they recommended option 2 as the next best alternative. The submission stated that in terms of adequacy of records DTI was confident that payments could be restricted to former trawlermen who worked for vessel owners known to have trawled in Icelandic waters. Proof of eligibility could be obtained from copies of the relevant fishing records and/or National Insurance contribution records from the DSS. Many of those documents were submitted or had been obtained under the previous ex gratia scheme. The key issue would be the rigorous cross-checking of claims to protect against fraud.
22/06/00 The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Secretary of State at DTI. He had seen the report compiled by officials and he was prepared to agree to a compensation scheme. That was on the basis that the assumptions in the report were accepted regarding a requirement of two years’ continuous service in the industry (not necessarily with the same employer); a payment of £1,000 per year of service at sea; payment under the ex gratia arrangements was offset against the claimant’s entitlement under the new scheme; share fishermen were to be included; and payment in full to widows and dependants of deceased trawlermen. He proposed a limit of £10,000 on individual payments. He proposed that the scheme be limited to those who left the industry during 1974-79 but did not provide any reason for selecting that option. In terms of timescale, the Chief Secretary said that they should look to expedite it quickly and an announcement could be made in the summer. In order to meet applications and payments made during 2000-01 he would be prepared to make available access to the reserve, with costs incurred from April 2001 forming part of DTI’s settlement in Spending Review 2000. Given the normal rules on expenditure incurred without specific statutory authority the scale of the scheme (over £900,000 per annum) must be concluded within two years, in order to avoid primary legislation. He therefore proposed that the deadline for admitting claims should be 31 December 2002 as set out in the report.
29/06/00 Officials were asked to comment on a draft submission and take forward the drafting of a more detailed note on the scheme’s eligibility criteria fleshing out the basic criteria then agreed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In commenting upon the submission a senior official commented that he wished to make two announcements; one to be made soon and one when applications can be made. The Secretary of State would no doubt wish the gap to be a minimum. He asked whether they could get into a position where the Secretary of State could invite claims at the party conference and whether they could promise that payments would be made to early applicants by Christmas. He was then advised by the author of the submission that they were sufficiently advanced to enable the Secretary of State to invite claims at the party conference, if he wished to do so, and that payments to early applicants were likely to be made by Christmas, but he should not give a firm promise.
07/07/00 DTI officials met to discuss a paper concerning the proposed compensation scheme that included proposed eligibility criteria. The paper suggested that in order to be eligible for payment under the scheme, a claimant must have either worked at sea as a fisherman for a continuous period of at least two years ending on a date between 1 January 1974 and 31 December 1979, for one or more vessel owners who carried out fishing in Icelandic waters and did not continue or resume working at sea as a fisherman at a later date. An occasional interval of up to one or two months – for example, an interval between voyages or between work for different vessel owners – should not be taken to break continuity for those purposes and should be counted as part of the continuous period. The paper asked whether there was any need to clear the proposals with Ministers or HM Treasury or MAFF, and also asked whether there was any merit in consulting the BFA on eligibility criteria, once an official announcement of the scheme was made. (I have not seen any notes of the meeting on 7 July so do not know the agreed answer to that question.)
July 2000 The Chairman of the Hull BFA sent to DTI officials a list which contained 16 reasons for a break in a trawlerman’s service record. He said that was why the Government’s two year rule in which to qualify for compensation could seriously affect the trawlerman’s sea record and thus his entitlement to compensation. Any gaps in a man’s record caused legitimately by the reasons on the list should be disregarded when the two year rule for qualifying was calculated. Among those reasons were: time off the ship’s log when the ship’s annual survey could last for days or weeks; every four years the Lloyd’s survey would take the ship out of service for weeks; the company asking you to sign off the ship’s log; the ship breaking down; the ship being scrapped; companies loaning men out to other companies; and men on standby under companies instructions. When a ship was lost, survivors would get twelve weeks’ survival pay on shore. He did not say that the list of reasons was exhaustive.
11/07/00 Officials from RPS sent a fax to their colleagues at DTI that contained a list of questions regarding the scheme. One of those questions referred to clarification on the time limits for the occasional interval. On receipt, that question was highlighted and ‘3 /4 months’ written beside it with the ‘4’ crossed through.
18/07/00 In framing a response to the RPS questions DTI officials thought that the scheme should not be restricted to people who were made redundant or became unemployed. Even if they resigned or took jobs elsewhere, that may have been effectively forced on them by the collapse of Icelandic water fishing (and it also removed one further issue for operational staff to consider). Furthermore (on a point of drafting emphasis) they really needed to tell operational staff what they had decided the eligibility criteria were to be rather than making suggestions. They would then simply be following instructions in processing claims. The officials noted that the Secretary of State wanted a firm opening date to be included in the initial announcement and they suggested 1 October 2000.
That same day DTI officials sent a response to the list of questions from RPS. At point 10, under time limits, they said that any gap in service of more than three months, whatever the reason for it, should be taken as breaking continuity for the purposes of the scheme. (The BFA had at one time given them details of the reasons why people might not be at sea and the longest reasonable gap was twelve weeks’ leave for survivors of a sunken vessel.) That condition should be rigorously applied.
20/07/00 DTI officials provided RPS ‘with lines to take’ in the form of questions and answers when dealing with telephone enquiries. One question was ‘what happens if I stopped fishing for a short period?’. The provided answer said that they would discount breaks of up to three months but a period of service with longer breaks than that would not be counted as continuous.
28/07/00 DTI officials discussed arrangements for the official announcement of the scheme. They circulated a draft of a letter, for signature by the relevant Minister, to the port MPs informing them of the decision to establish a scheme. It was decided that an official should speak to the Chairman of the Hull BFA or someone else from the BFA by telephone to inform them of the news. That same day an official recorded the conversation with the Chairman in an email. The official filled him in on the details of the scheme and told him that they would be having a meeting with him shortly to get the help of the BFA with some further detailed matters. They would send him a copy of the press notice. He said that the only distant water trawlers sailed from Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood – certainly not from Milford Haven, although there may have been the odd one from Lowestoft. He did not know about Aberdeen. He said he had been through a list of 2,800 vessels and identified 197 distant water trawlers. He had passed that information to the Member for Hull West and Hessle.
02/08/00 A DTI official emailed the office of the Minister of State and said that the Secretary of State had approved a meeting between officials and the BFA. Although officials had had telephone conversations with the Chairman of the Hull BFA they asked the Minister’s office to make the arrangements.
07/08/00 The legal section in DTI sent a memorandum to policy officials that contained a number of comments and questions in relation to the scheme. One question was whether a break of less than three months from the industry broke continuity. On 8 August a policy official replied and referred to a meeting between the policy and legal sections concerning the scheme that afternoon. The reply said that a break of three months from the industry did break continuity. The BFA had given them 101 reasons why there were breaks in service and none of them was longer than three months. That is why they had opted for that period. The way the fishing industry was run in ports like Hull and Grimsby was that all trawler owners belonged to the same ‘pool’ and the trawlermen could go out on any trawler they wanted. That was why they were never considered in the past to qualify for statutory redundancy payments as they signed on and off each voyage. The official also explained that the limit on individual payments had been set at £20,000 for a full 20 years at sea. That same day a policy official spoke with the Secretary of the Hull BFA and confirmed that a meeting was planned with the BFA where the points they wanted to raise would be discussed with officials.
15/08/00 A policy official notified the office of the Minister of Sate that they had arranged a meeting for 8 September 2000 with the Chairman and the other members of the Hull BFA. The meeting would be a chance to discuss the eligibility criteria and the application form and other concerns the BFA might have.
17/08/00 Policy officials sent the draft scheme document to the legal section for consideration. It included a section concerning appeals against decisions to reject claims which said that any such appeals should, in the first instance, be referred to the Assistant Director ER2 at DTI’s London headquarters. If the appeal was not upheld it would be referred to an independent adjudicator for final decision. They would appreciate a swift response as they were firmly committed to a 2 October 2000 start date for the scheme and there was still quite a lot to be done before then. That same day policy officials sent RPS a family tree of the Hull trawling fleet and sixteen reasons (dated July 2000) why trawlermen might have a break in service of up to three months. They should note it said ‘12 weeks’ on one of them.
18/08/00 The legal section sent a response and attached their redraft of the scheme documentation. The redraft said that a claim could be made in respect of the last continuous period of work of at least two years undertaken by former Icelandic trawlermen provided the continuous period of work ended on a date between 1 January 1974 and 31 December 1979; and work as an Icelandic trawlerman was not resumed after the date on which the continuous period of work ended. The legal section noted that that meant that a trawlerman who worked for more than two years had a break of three months and then worked for less than two years after that would get nothing. They asked whether policy officials were happy with that. Policy officials replied that they were. The legal section’s redraft said that ‘continuous period of work’ meant a period of work as an Icelandic water trawlerman during which there were no breaks between voyages to Icelandic waters (for whatever reason, including but not limited to illness or fishing on vessels outside Icelandic waters) of more than twelve weeks. Breaks of less than twelve weeks, even if in total these add up to more than twelve weeks, counted toward the continuous period of work. The legal section noted that a trawlerman who worked on local vessels for the majority of his time but did an Icelandic trip every three months or so could make a claim. Unless there was some minimum requirement for the amount of time spent on Icelandic trips someone who only occasionally worked on them could benefit. Officials said they were content to live with that. The legal section gathered that mixed service was rare and the policy section may be content to keep it simple and not have such a requirement. Officials confirmed mixed service was rare. They believed mixed service was virtually unknown.
22/08/00 Policy officials were requested to brief the Minister of State the following day on the compensation scheme and a general progress update, together with queries raised by the Chairman of the Hull BFA about qualification conditions.
24/08/00 The office of the Minster of State sent a memo to policy officials. The Minister’s main concern was about qualification for payment for those who had given up distant water fishing but had continued to fish elsewhere. The Minister was happy to agree that the draft note on eligibility and procedure, together with the draft claim form, should be sent to the Chairman and Secretary of the Hull BFA prior to the 8 September meeting. The Minister also suggested that it would be wise to invite representatives from the other ports to come in separately to see policy officials. He suggested it might also be wise to suggest to the Secretary of State that he write to the port MPs indicating that that was the intention of officials. That could be useful given the close links between port MPs and representatives of local fishing communities. The Minister commented that there may well be other problems that emerged in the course of those meetings – he was only concentrating on the one issue. On 24 August policy officials wrote to the BFA representatives for Grimsby and Fleetwood and informed them that as part of the exercise to ensure that people who were eligible to receive payments did so, a meeting had been arranged with BFA officials for 8 September. Officials were working on various matters, including the detailed eligibility terms and the meeting was to discuss various matters to help in that process. The Chairman of the Hull branch would be attending and officials understood from him that he would also cover issues concerning the ports of Grimsby and Fleetwood. If the Grimsby and Fleetwood representatives had any information that they thought policy officials should have relating to the issue, they would be pleased to receive it.
30/08/00 A policy official made a file note of telephone conversations with the BFA representatives for Grimsby and Fleetwood on 29 August 2000. The Grimsby representative was upset that she had not been invited to the meeting and an official had explained that they had not thought she was fit to travel. The representative said she would attend in a wheelchair and two colleagues would accompany her. She made clear there was a poor relationship between the Grimsby and Hull branches of the BFA. The official asked her about Aberdeen and she said she had represented them too in the past. She confirmed that ‘only a few’ were distant water trawlerman. She then said that 1979 was too early for a cut-off date. The representative for Fleetwood also confirmed that the Grimsby and Hull branches did not see eye to eye but she would also attend the meeting with two colleagues from Fleetwood. That same day a policy official sent to the legal section first drafts of the background note and guidance note relating to the overall scheme and eligibility criteria.
31/08/00 The legal section emailed policy officials with their comments on those two documents. They thought it important to spell out exactly what periods could be claimed for so that applicants did not waste time completing the application only to find a three month break made them ineligible. They had therefore expanded the eligibility paragraph. It was still a bit confusing and although policy officials wanted to keep things short they might consider putting in examples to illustrate who may be ineligible to claim. One such example was a former trawlerman who worked in Icelandic waters from 1968-1973, had a break of one year during which he did other work, and then returned to Icelandic water trawling for three years from 1975-1978. He would be eligible for compensation in respect of the period he worked during 1975-1978 which was his last continuous period of at least two years. The revised background note described a continuous period as one in which there were no breaks of longer than twelve weeks. A trawlerman need not have worked for the same employer during the period of his claim. If he had a break of longer than twelve weeks from Icelandic water trawling work (for example, due to illness or fishing outside Icelandic waters), his claim could only relate to Icelandic water trawling done after the end of that break. Breaks of less than twelve weeks, even where they added up to more than twelve weeks in total, counted towards the continuous period. The revised guidance note requested applicants to give details of any breaks in employment and the reasons for them. A break of more than twelve weeks would break the period of continuous service and would reduce their payment.
03/09/00 The Chairman of Hull BFA wrote to a policy official and enclosed an amended list of reasons for breaks in a trawlerman’s service, amended as of 1 September 2000. Included in that list were trawlermen who worked by new vessels during the Fitting Out period; men on ‘walkabout’ due to employers’ petty treatment of the men; and men who worked on shore side for the company whilst waiting for a trawler berth. He also enclosed some suggestions for an agenda. The agenda listed forty-one points. Point 13 concerned breaks in service and referred to the list of reasons amended on 1 September. The Chairman wished to know whether some or all of those breaks would figure in the calculation of payments. If not all then which of the reasons he had provided would not qualify for payment.
04/09/00 Policy officials wrote to the BFA representatives for Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood and explained who would be in attendance at the meeting. The letter said that the eligibility criteria had already been agreed by Ministers. The purpose of the meeting would therefore be to discuss ways of ensuring that former trawlermen eligible for payment got it as quickly as possible. They enclosed a copy of the application form and a definition of the scheme criteria drawn up by DTI’s lawyers. A copy of the guidance notes would be available at the meeting.
08/09/00 A meeting took place between policy officials, officials from RPS and representatives of the BFA. A DTI official made a note of the meeting. Point 7 of that note recorded that the BFA had said that allowing a twelve week gap in employment was not enough. A trawlerman could be waiting for a job after getting a Mate’s ticket and that would extend the gap between voyages. They also explained about ‘walkabout’ – i.e. blacklisting – of some former trawlermen and said that getting a job often depended on the whim of the trawler owners. Trawlers could also be laid up because they had already fished their quota and could not go back to sea until the next one was due. There were a lot of injuries at sea and it was considered that these should be classed as ‘Acts of God’. They suggested that up to six months should be allowed between voyages before continuity was considered broken and also that ‘special circumstances’ might justify an even longer between-voyage gap. They said that radio operators should be included in the scheme. They agreed to provide a definitive list of what they considered to be ‘special circumstances’. A policy official said that DTI would need to consider the question of what evidence might be available to verify what claimants were doing during between-voyage gaps. A policy official ended the meeting by explaining that officials could not themselves agree to change any significant aspect of the scheme rules; the BFA’s points would need to be put to the Secretary of State for consideration and, if necessary, a decision. He agreed to take that forward and let the BFA know the outcome.
That same day there was an exchange of emails between the legal section and policy officials. The legal section thought changes made to the scheme document reflected that morning’s meeting as they meant that the scheme would then include those who worked on ships which may have spent most of their time on trips to other waters, provided they made at least two Icelandic water trips. If they made any Icelandic water trips that meant they must have been distant water vessels. A policy official replied that he intended to put a submission to Ministers the following Monday to ask for decisions on the radio operators point and the point about whether or not they should allow some exceptions to the ‘twelve week rule’ on breaks in continuity and also to ask them (subject to those points) to sign off the documentation.
10/09/00 The Chairman of the Hull BFA wrote to a policy official and said that he felt there was a need for a further meeting prior to 2 October with the three separate branches of the BFA but the meetings should be separate and individual in the light of the disappointments of 8 September meeting. He believed one of the Grimsby BFA representatives had disrupted the meeting. He requested answers to the points on the agenda he had submitted as due to the disruptions it was not possible to discuss relevant matters. The Chairman also wrote to RPS and enclosed a copy for the policy official. In that letter he made clear that because of the disruption the purpose of the meeting became lost. They did not finalise those details that needed to be finalised. There would have to be a further meeting to finalise the definition of Icelandic/distant water trawlerman and the criteria that surrounded that definition. He suggested separate and individual meetings.
11/09/00 A policy official sent a submission to the Secretary of State concerning the scheme. He said that the 8 September meeting had proved very helpful to them despite heated disagreements between BFA members from different port areas. The BFA were concerned at the proposed rule that any between-voyage gap of more than twelve weeks, for whatever reason, should be disregarded as breaking continuity both for the purposes of the two year qualifying period and for the purposes of calculating the amount of payment due. They argued that there should be a list of ‘special exceptions’ (including sickness or injury) which, if supported by documentary evidence, would justify a longer between voyage gap being disregarded. Officials had pointed out that the line had to be drawn somewhere if the continuity conditions were to be meaningful, and that the need to consider special exceptions and supporting evidence (which could be difficult to obtain so long after the event) would increase the complexity of the scheme and the length of time taken by RPS to assess claims. They had invited the BFA to submit urgently a list of special exceptions they thought should be included which they expected to receive later that week. If there was any delay it might not be possible to incorporate any changes in time for the scheme opening date. The submission recommended that on balance longer gaps should be allowed in the case of sickness or injury, where supported by documentary evidence, but that no other exceptions should be made.
13/09/00 The office of the Secretary of State emailed the policy official. They said the Secretary of State had seen his submission and was happy to have special exceptions for those who had journey gaps of more than twelve weeks. He wished the policy official to check that the Minister of State was happy with that proposal.
18/09/00 The office of the Minister of State emailed policy officials about those matters arising from the meeting with the BFA and the submission to the Secretary of State. Regarding gaps of more than twelve weeks, the Minister said that of course illness or injury should not count against the men but there were other circumstances such as ‘walkabout’ where trawlermen were left to kick their heels for longer than twelve weeks before finding a ship. They needed to be flexible, recognising that those with whom they wished to deal were those who left to take other jobs and then returned. They should be identifiable. The Minister wanted to know whether it was true that that rule was not applied to the ex gratia scheme. A policy official replied and said that ‘walkabout’ was one of the issues raised at the meeting with the BFA. The difficulty he saw with allowing breaks of more than twelve weeks for reasons such as that was that it was unlikely that reliable documentary evidence would be available so long after the event to prove the reason for the break. If they looked at it the other way round and said they would disregard all breaks of over twelve weeks except where the reason for the break was that a former trawlerman took a break outside the industry for a time, checking the claims would be much more difficult. National Insurance records would have to be checked and the Benefits Agency asked if they were willing to take that work. It would also increase the costs of the scheme. He was happy to discuss the matter further with the Minister at a meeting scheduled for the following day.
Policy officials met with the Minister of State. The Minister’s outstanding concern was the rule that between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks should be regarded as breaking continuity. He wanted to limit that to between-voyage gaps, in which the former trawlerman took employment outside the distant water fishing industry, so that between-voyage gaps of whatever length would be disregarded if they were for reasons other than that (including but not limited to injury, illness, ‘walkabout’, and training at naval college). The Minister pointed out that in practice the trawlermen would not have had between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks voluntarily, unless it was to work outside the industry, so any such gap could be assumed to be imposed upon them, or at least not be of their own making. He did not define what he meant by working outside the industry so as to clarify, for example, whether work on a distant water vessel in dry dock was work within or outside the industry. The official pointed out that such a rule would make it more difficult to validate claims. The Minister argued that the number of claimants who had between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks, and who could not provide documentary evidence of the reasons for them, would be small. The policy official said he would think about it further. The problem that policy officials saw with what the Minister proposed was that it would put the onus on operational staff to consider potentially many different types of documentary evidence of reasons for between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks. If the exception to the twelve week rule was limited to cases of injury or illness as policy officials had proposed, the onus would then be on the claimant to prove that they were ill or injured during the case in question. However, the Minister clearly had strong feelings on the point. The difficulty, as policy officials saw it, was an operational one rather than one of policy. It was clear that in principle they could make the change the Minister had requested. Subject to any comments from RPS, policy officials suggested that the change be made and they accept that the processing of claims would take a little longer where the issue actually arose.
25/09/00 Policy officials sent RPS revised copies of the scheme document and referred in particular to paragraphs 3.2 and 7.9 of the eligibility criteria and the procedure for making claims as they reflected the changes requested by the Minister of State. Paragraph 3.2 defined a ‘relevant break’ as a break during which work of any duration other than work as an Icelandic water trawlerman was done. Breaks, whether relevant or otherwise, of less than twelve weeks, even if in total they added up to more than twelve weeks, counted towards the continuous period of work. Breaks of longer than twelve weeks that were not relevant breaks might count towards the continuous period provided that, where possible, evidence of the reasons for the breaks was supplied with the claim form and provided that work as an Icelandic water trawlerman was resumed before 31 December 1979.
A policy official emailed the office of the Secretary of State and said that the proposals for the scheme had been discussed with the Minister of State. He had had one concern about the conditions for breaks in continuous service, i.e. the issue of ‘special exceptions’. They had addressed that by amending the scheme documentation to make clear that continuity was regarded as having been broken by any between voyage gap of more than twelve weeks where during that gap the claimant was, for part or all of the time, engaged in work outside the industry. That meant work other than on vessels that trawled in Icelandic waters. Other between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks would all be disregarded on the assumption that they must have been for reasons beyond the former trawlerman’s control. Examples were illness, injury, ‘walkabout’ or training at naval college and that it would be unfair to regard him as having left the industry during that period. The amendment would make it more difficult and time consuming for RPS staff to validate claims where the issue arose, but it would produce a fairer result and would be welcomed by the BFA.
24/10/00 Following a query from the legal section policy officials clarified that the wording of the scheme document meant that a period of work of less than two years after a break would be enough to disqualify the claimant in respect of their earlier service, however long that was, but would not be enough to qualify them for the scheme. Although that was the intention policy officials foresaw problems if they received claims from people who had worked for twenty years, had a break in service, and then did one more voyage before leaving the industry.
16/11/00 The Member for Waveney wrote to the Secretary of State about a constituent who was a former Icelandic water trawlerman. The constituent had applied for compensation under the scheme but had found he was ineligible as he had had a break of six months from Icelandic water work in the period 1974-79. He had remained at sea but as there was no work available in the Icelandic fleet he was forced to take work out of Lowestoft in non-Icelandic waters. He wondered whether there was any flexibility in the scheme that would allow something to be done to help his constituent.
21/11/00 The Secretary of State replied. He said the scheme criteria had been designed to be relatively generous in disregarding breaks in service but where a former trawlerman had more than twelve consecutive weeks doing other work, his livelihood was not regarded as having been dependent upon the Icelandic water industry during that period and his continuity of service was therefore broken. He was sure the Member would understand that there was no discretion under the scheme for aspects of the eligibility criteria to be disregarded in individual cases.
29/11/00 The office of the Minister of State emailed policy officials concerning three constituents of the Minister who had raised queries concerning their eligibility under the scheme. One case concerned a former trawlerman whose daughter had a condition that was not properly diagnosed until she was aged 18, by which time it was far too progressed to treat properly. The former trawlerman had taken breaks from service of more than three months to help treat his daughter who went through several serious operations to try and improve her condition. Policy officials replied the same day and said that the former trawlerman’s breaks in service to look after his daughter should not present a problem in terms of calculating his claim. The breaks should be treated as part of his continuous period of service – as he was not working for another employer outside the industry during those periods.
