Annex B: Chronology of main events 2003
Jump to
24/01/03 The referring Member wrote to the Minister of State. He said that the break in service rule was being unreasonably interpreted as not only a break from fishing (apart from being sent to prison) but also as work in the North Sea. Such breaks were more common on the Grimsby side of the Humber because that port had more alternative forms of fishing which men were required to pursue (by the dock office, and the eligibility rules for unemployment benefit, as well as by the owners’ own rules) if no Icelandic trips were available, but also for qualifications such as Mate’s and Skipper’s tickets since some owners, such as Ross, required that those taking tickets should work for a specified time in the North Sea to gain experience before being put back into Icelandic fishing. In Hull, with no alternatives, if someone left fishing that was a clean break and they therefore qualified for compensation. In Grimsby, particularly as the industry ran down, there were alternatives and those were then being wrongly interpreted as breaks in service. Hence compensation payments to Grimsby trawlermen were often less, particularly if they qualified for two years between 1972 and 1979 but were cut off because of a break from long previous service. The result was a perceived injustice which had caused a lot of bad feeling south of the Humber and needed to be put right. The Minister had indicated he would bear the Grimsby complaints in mind in his closing decisions on the scheme and the referring Member thought that he must do so. That meant not treating North Sea work as a break in service.
06/02/03 A policy official emailed a colleague a copy of the referring Member’s letter of 24 January 2003 for information only. The colleague replied that with regard to the Member’s point about breaks in continuity because of fishing in other waters, his letter almost answered his own point. He had stated that in Hull, if a man could not get a distant water trip, he was out of the industry whereas in Grimsby there were several varieties of fishing so if a man could not get work on a distant water vessel he could find other fishing work. He asked was that not exactly what the scheme was designed to do. That is, to compensate men who were forced out of the industry by Iceland’s 200 mile limit but not to compensate (or to compensate to a lesser extent) those who’s work in the industry also included fishing different, if less remunerative, areas. If that was correct, it might more or less explain the difference between the total amounts paid out to Hull and Grimsby trawlermen.
November DTI decided that they would again revise the rules of the scheme so 03 that it was clear that from 26 March 2004 time spent in prison did not count as continuous service with respect to a claim under the compensation scheme.
