The campaign for a compensation scheme
Jump to
10. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, following the then Government’s agreement in 1976 to recognise a 200 mile fishing limit around Iceland in order to resolve the third dispute with the Icelandic authorities over fishing rights, generally known as the ‘Cod Wars’, almost all remaining distant water trawlermen in the UK were made redundant. The BFA was formed in the early 1980s to campaign for what the distant water trawlermen believed to be fair compensation for the loss of their industry.
11. Due to the nature of the distant water trawlermen’s employment, which required them to move regularly between vessels and operators, they were generally regarded as being employed on a casual basis, endorsed in some cases by officials at the then Employment Department, so that they could not then qualify for statutory redundancy payments. In 1993, following a decision by the Court of Appeal that trawlermen could, in certain circumstances, qualify for redundancy payments, arrangements were introduced whereby DTI made ex gratia payments to distant water trawlermen who could, at the time of their redundancy, have met the qualifying conditions for a statutory redundancy payment but had failed to submit a claim because they had been advised that they would not qualify. The trawlermen believed the ex gratia payments failed to reflect the effects of working practices within the industry because the criterion for statutory redundancy payments was used, which required a minimum of two years’ continuous service with a single employer, when the nature of the trawlermen’s employment required them to move regularly between vessels and operators. The effect of this was that some trawlermen with thirty-five years’ service had received only £450.
12. Following the General Election of 1997, the distant water trawlermen intensified their campaign. In November of that year the then DTI Minister met a delegation of MPs from those ports most affected by the redundancies. At the conclusion of the meeting the Minister said he would work with his MAFF counterpart to ensure a co-ordinated government response. In March 1998 the MPs jointly signed a letter to the DTI Minister which criticised the previous ex gratia scheme as being completely at odds with the fact that the distant water trawlermen worked inside a ‘scheme’ also known as ‘the pool system’.
13. In July 1997 the Member for Hull West and Hessle addressed the House of Commons about his concerns for the distant water fishing industry and described the pool system as operated by the shipowners and the then Employment Department, the objective of which was to ensure that there was an adequate number of qualified trawlermen readily available for all companies participating in the system. For example, when a trawler was tied up, perhaps for a refit, the trawlermen were entitled to unemployment benefit and would remain in the system. However, if the Employment Department decided, in conjunction with a participating company, that it would be appropriate for a trawlerman to cover a vacancy on a trawler that belonged to a different company, irrespective of which waters the trawler fished, the trawlerman was compelled to accept or had his benefit stopped. In March 1998, in a letter written by the port MPs to the then Minister of State at DTI, they described that system as one operated in conjunction with the then Employment Department which required the trawlermen to be available to work for any employer they were directed to. In August 1999 a senior DTI official explained to his colleagues the position of the trawlermen with respect to social security benefits in a discussion about the available options for responding to the BFA campaign. He said the trawlermen were fully entitled to unemployment benefit, but once in receipt of it, they were never regarded as being available for work by the then Employment Department and so were never directed to non-fishing work. It was the normal practice for fishermen to be obliged to sign on at a special benefit office set up by the then Employment Department situated in the Fish Dock, rather than at their local office, for which they had the support and assistance of the trawler owners. Messengers, known as ‘ships runners’, liaised direct with the then Employment Department and would inform them if a man was wanted again. This system was unique as the men were not technically unemployed and could have been paid ‘shore pay’ from their employers instead of benefit.
14. In October 2000, in response to the trawlermen’s campaign, DTI introduced a scheme – the Trawlermen’s Compensation Scheme - to compensate fishermen formerly employed in Icelandic waters who had lost employment following the settlement of the last of the ‘Cod Wars’ in 1976. Under the eligibility criteria for the scheme a claim could be made in respect of the last continuous period of work undertaken by the former Icelandic water trawlerman, provided that period of work lasted for at least two years prior to 1 January 1980 and ended on or after 1 January 1974. The scheme defined a continuous period of work as ‘work as an Icelandic water trawlerman during which there were no relevant breaks between voyages of more than twelve weeks’. A ‘relevant break’ for the purpose of the scheme meant a break of more than twelve weeks during which work, of any duration, other than work as an Icelandic water trawlerman was done. Payment was made on the basis of £1,000 for each year at sea with a maximum entitlement of £20,000.
