The compensation scheme for former Icelandic water trawlermen : eleventh report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

This report from the Committee of Public Accounts follows two other reports into the subject of the compensation for former Icelandic water trawlermen: the June 2007 National Audit Office Report "The Compensation Scheme for Former Icelandic Water Trawlermen (HC 530)", ISBN 9780102945621; and "Put Together in Haste: 'Cod Wars' Trawlermen's Compensation Scheme (HC 313)", ISBN 9780102944471 (both available below).

The Committee took evidence from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (the Department) on administration of the compensation scheme, which was set up to compensate former trawlermen who had lost their jobs when the distant water fishing industry collapsed in the 1970s.At the time of the collapse most trawlermen did not receive compensation.

The Scheme itself ran between October 2000 and October 2002, with some 7,000 claimants and a sum of GBP 42 million having been paid to 4,400 former trawlermen.

Findings in the two earlier reports indicated that the then Department of Trade and Industry had problems in verifying claims for the scheme and that it lacked an understanding of the working practices of the 1970s fishing industry. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found maladministration of the Scheme, especially in delivering it in an effective manner.The conclusions and recommendations include: the Department should learn lessons from this and the previous reports when administering future schemes; it is important for the Department to test the availability of evidence on real cases before launching new compensation schemes; a clear understanding of the industry needs to be in place before setting the terms of any grant schemes; the Department failed to test the impact of the scheme's rules on different types of applicant before the scheme's launch; in 25 of 100 cases, there was insufficient evidence to say whether payments made by the Department accorded with the scheme's rules; and, the Department did not employ proper project planning and risk management.