HC Deb 24 February 2003 vol 400 cc238-9W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid out to how many trawlermen, and how many claims have been(a) rejected and (b) reduced because of breaks in service for each of the main distant water ports, under her compensation scheme for former Icelandic trawlermen. [98478]

Nigel Griffiths

At mid-February 2003, £40.2 million in compensation had been paid to 4,653 former Icelandic water trawlermen. About 2,900 claimants had been assessed as not qualifying for compensation. I regret that there are no figures about how many claims have been rejected and reduced because of gaps in service in each of the main distant water ports. This information could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying the treatment of(a) compulsory periods of service on North Sea fishing boats and (b) periods spent in prison in calculating service for the purposes of her compensation scheme for Icelandic trawlermen; and how (a) and (b) are treated under redundancy legislation. [98479]

Nigel Griffiths

The continuity of service rules under the Government's compensation scheme were extremely generous to claimants. In general, service was regarded as continuous regardless how many gaps a trawlerman had had between voyages on Icelandic water vessels, or how long those gaps had been, or what the reasons for them had been.

The only exception was where, during a gap of longer than 12 weeks, the former trawlerman had done other work—which included, for these purposes, other fishing work on vessels that had never made voyages to Icelandic waters. The rationale for this was that if a former trawlerman had done other work during a lengthy gap between voyages on Icelandic water vessels, it would not have been right to have regarded him as having remained dependent upon the industry during that period.

One consequence of the generosity of this aspect of the scheme rules was that time spent in prison did not break continuity, provided the former trawlerman's most recent work before going into prison had been on an Icelandic water vessel, and that he had resumed work on such a vessel after his release, having done no other work in between.

The continuity of service rules under the statutory redundancy payments scheme are different, and much stricter. In particular, there is a requirement for continuous service with the same employer (or an associated employer), whereas under the compensation scheme there was no such requirement.