Private Members' Business. - Unemployment Benefit: Position of Share Fishermen—Motion. – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Wednesday, 2 Mar 1955

Private Members' Business. - Unemployment Benefit: Position of Share Fishermen—Motion.

Mr. Corry

I move:—

Dáil Éireann is of opinion that Article 7 of the Social Welfare (Modifications of Insurance) Regulations, 1953, should be amended so as to allow share fishermen, who are not eligible at present for unemployment benefit under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, to be insured against unemployment at the special rate of 2/6 per week (employer 1/3, employee 1/3) which applies to agricultural workers, instead of their present rate of 2/- per week which excludes them from unemployment benefit under the Act.

This motion is an attempt to remedy not a defect in the Act but in the regulations made by the Department for the administration of the Act. Under the present condition of affairs, ordinary share fishermen in this country have to pay 2/- per week insurance. Under that they are entitled to some social services but they are deprived of unemployment benefit. In plain language, they are placed in the same position as a domestic servant. How you can make a woman out of a fisherman I do not know but it is done in this Act. I have attempted during the past few years, both in respect of the previous Government and this Government, to get that condition of affairs remedied.

I cannot see any just reason for the attitude of the Minister on this particular matter. I have been in pretty close touch with some 200 fishermen in Youghal. They have examined the whole issue from the point of view of the total. Out of all the money they have paid not one of them can get sufficient stamps to qualify because the salmon season is so short. The people in question are salmon fishermen.

The second argument they put up to me is that only one of them succeeded in getting any social benefit although 200 of them are subscribing. The Minister told me that there are some 600 men subscribing altogether in the Twenty-Six Counties. It is an amazing thing that 200 of them are in the town of Youghal.

What I ask is to my mind a very reasonable request. I ask that they now be placed in the same category as the ordinary agricultural labourer. They would be quite satisfied with that. They are satisfied to pay the 2/6 that is essential and which is paid by the agricultural labourers. They are satisfied to pay the extra 6d. on condition that they would be entitled to unemployment benefit. I can see no fair reason to refuse that request. It has not come before this House because this House passed the Act. How this came in was by amendments of regulations by the Department and not by this House. I do not wish to detain the House. This is a very straightforward matter. I can also state that in the proposal I have the support of the salmon fishermen's association throughout the country. Permit me to quote from Irish Fishing and Fish Trades Gazette of the 12th February. They make the very same point I made:—

"The recommendation on Unemployment Insurance of share fishermen is the fruit of a detailed study of this problem made by Mr. Joseph Sweeney, Achill Sound, chairman of An Comhlachas. In a memorandum submitted for the consideration of the Committee, Mr. Sweeney said: ‘That Social Welfare Act, 1952, which embraces all existing Insurance Codes, made full provision for insuring share fishermen against the hazards of unemployment as well as those of sickness, etc. The Administration, however, has excluded them as a class from insurance against unemployment—and that for no apparent reason. The regulation excluding them is entitled, Social Welfare: Modification of Insurance Regulation (S.I. No. 10 of 1953), and its repercussions on share fishermen are rendered particularly grievous by official interpretation of its provisions as well as of those of the Act in relation to share fishermen.

As is well-known, a regulation such as that which excludes these workmen from insurance against what is for them perhaps the most serious risk (that of unemployment) receives but scant attention in the Legislature: it may slip through, almost unknown to interested parties when certain formalities have been complied with.

To instance one only of the many anomalies arising out of the official discrimination against these fishermen I might point to the fact that an unemployed man who attends regularly at an employment exchange obtains weekly stamp impressions on his insurance card which count as valid contributions for unemployment benefit purposes, whereas the weekly stamps affixed to the share fisherman's insurance card in respect of employment are useless for these purposes. In other words, a week's idleness is a better means of qualifying for benefit than a week's work of a share fisherman.

To seek logical reasons for such a situation would be futile, but I fancy that to the official mind two grounds have presented themselves for placing these men in an inferior category to farm labourers, for instance. Ground No. 1 appears to be alleged difficulty in ensuring regular collection of share fishermen's contributions and ground No. 2 an assessment of the farm labourer as a better insurable "risk".

The only comment I would make on the first ground is that official ingenuity as most of us know it should find an easy solution, and I regard the second ground as merely fanciful, as a great many share fishermen also work on the land, and besides there is scarcely more unemployment on the average among share fishermen than among farm labourers.

The following recommendation has been sent forward: We recommend that the regulations made under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, which relate to share fishermen, be amended to bring the position of share fishermen under the Act, into line with agricultural workers. The amendments necessary to bring this about are set out in the note attached to this recommendation.' "

That is the recommendation of the Fishermen's Association in relation to this matter, and that is what I have embodied in this motion before it was taken up by the Fishermen's Association. I think it is only just.

I would be rather surprised should the Minister, who is a Labour Deputy, refuse to give what I call a wellmerited piece of fair-play to the share fishermen of this country. I asked them why they would not refuse to pay anything. I believe that has been tried out in the courts of law since I suggested it to them. They told me if they did that that the labour exchange manager in Youghal would cut them off altogether from everything. They are practically in an impossible position.

I am looking for mere justice as far as these fishermen are concerned. It is a very grave matter for the fishermen and a very grave matter for the wives and children of the 600 fishermen whom the Minister informed me were involved in this.

Mr. Ormonde

I second the motion. I believe that when modifications of the Social Welfare Act of 1952 in regard to certain categories of workers, such as share fishermen, agricultural labourers and others were considered that share fishermen were inadvertently omitted from unemployment benefit. I feel that it only requires to call attention to this matter to have it remedied. Prior to the passage of the 1952 Act, only share fishermen who were employed under a contract of service were insurable under the National Health Insurance and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act.

A very commendable step was taken when all share fishermen were admitted to disability benefit, sickness benefit and widows' and orphans' pension benefit. I, however, considered it a rather serious oversight and an injustice, if you like, that share fishermen were not given the same consideration which was accorded to a somewhat similar body of workers, agricultural labourers, for whom a special effort was made to create equality of benefits with industrial workers without obliging them to pay the same contribution which industrial workers had to pay. Provision was made for a moderate contribution from the farmer and his men of 1/3 per week.

This concession was to all intents and purposes a subsidisation of agriculture and one surely might expect a like consideration for agriculture's allied industry, the fishing industry, the workers in which are certainly as lowly paid and in some cases more lowly paid than agricultural workers and the possibilities of good earnings from their industry are somewhat precarious and limited. The fishing industry is in such a parlous state at the moment that it is in much greater need of subsidisation than agriculture and the workers need every encouragement to pursue a livelihood out of which they get so little by way of remuneration and out of which they get no unemployment benefit. If one endeavours to interpret the official mind in regard to what I term official discrimination against fishermen, one must conclude that the principal reason for their exclusion from unemployment benefit is that they are considered a bad insurable risk. If that is the official mind in this matter, it serves to defeat one of the main purposes of the 1952 Social Welfare Act which embraces all sections of insurance.

I consider this is scandalous, that because of the great risk in regard to certain categories or groups of workers, they should be excluded from insurance against unemployment. If there is no element of risk there is no necessity for insurance. It may be argued that many of these share fishermen have alternative employments or livelihoods, that many of them have small parcels of land to the cultivation of which they apply themselves when not fishing. I readily admit this but it must also be conceded that there are considerably greater numbers of share fishermen who have no alternative work and must idle their time away in the closed seasons endeavouring to eke out a miserable existence on unemployment or home assistance, frittering away the few pounds they have put together to fit them out for the coming season.

I know many such in my constituency. It was a bit of a shock for me to find out that in a fortnight in a recent season the average earnings of these fishermen was only £4—£2 per week— barely enough to keep body and soul together, not to mention putting something away for the rainy day when they are unemployed. It is with those people that I am mainly concerned and I think Deputy Corry has made a very sound case for their admission to benefit at the special rate of 2/6 a week, which applies to agricultural workers. I think he is to be commended for his efforts to remedy this injustice and to secure redress.

Mr. MacBride

It does occur to me that the case made by Deputy Corry and the last speaker is a case that deserves the very careful consideration of the Minister. The livelihood of share fishermen, of inshore fishermen generally, is extremely precarious and I can confirm what the last Deputy said as to the low level of their earnings, particularly in periods of bad weather. It does appear to be a reasonable proposition that they should be placed on at least the same footing as agricultural labourers. It is unfortunate that we do not know what the departmental objection to the proposal is so that it is rather difficult to anticipate it, but I would urge the Minister very strongly—particularly in view of the fact that the number involved is a small number—to agree— not even to accept the motion now but to give it very careful consideration and to give the House an opportunity of discussing it more fully on his Estimate. Possibly the Minister might be in a position to-night to indicate in detail what the objections are so that some method would be found of overcoming them.

I noticed that in the article quoted by Deputy Corry—I think it was Mr. Sweeney of Achill—it was pointed out that one of the Department's objections was the question of collecting the contributions from the share fishermen, but it does seem it should be possible to overcome that difficulty if that is the only one. If there is a will to overcome the difficulty it ought to be possible to bring the fishermen on to at least the same level as the agricultural workers. They certainly require as much assistance to overcome the uncertainty of unemployment as the agricultural workers. It is hard to conceive of any occupation which is more precarious and uncertain than that of the inshore fishermen and to that extent I would urge the Minister to use his imagination and his endeavours to try to find a way whereby they can be brought in and covered for unemployment risks.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

I appreciate the concern of Deputy Corry on this particular question but I do not think it would be fair to suggest—as I think Deputy Ormonde did—that the fact that these were not regarded as being in the same category as agricultural workers was an oversight by the former Minister. There is specific mention of share fishermen in the Act and those who had objections, or who have objections now, had ample opportunity to raise this particular matter then. Also, there is no use in describing the framing of the regulation as something that was done indiscriminately by the officials. One of the good things about that particular regulation that is mentioned is this: it provides that share fishermen would pay a contribution to an amount of 2/-, and if the regulation had not been made share fishermen would have been paying an insurance contribution of 4/8 per week. That was why it was necessary to make that particular regulation, but the Act itself provides that share fishermen are not eligible to receive unemployment benefit.

For the present I shall not say what my mind is on this matter, but I think it is right to say this: I do not want to make a political argument on this or have a political row about it as I do not think it is of that nature, but Deputy Corry did go to the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Dr. Ryan, on three or four occasions, and he refused point blank to change it. I am not saying that is a sound reason why I should maintain the very same attitude, but there is this to it: the former Minister for Social Welfare who introduced the 1952 Act consulted with the Minister for Agriculture who was responsible for fisheries who, in turn, consulted with An Bórd Iascaigh Mhara. After these consultations it was agreed that the contribution should be 2/- per week and that all benefits should be applied to share fishermen with the exception of unemployment benefit.

It is necessary at this stage to mention one of the big reasons why share fishermen were not to have unemployment benefit applied to them. I think it will be agreed that they could be regarded as being self-employed as are farmers, in particular, the small farmers. When we discussed here the Social Welfare Bill of 1951 and the Social Welfare Bill which subsequently became the Act of 1952, I think the House did agree that so far as self-employed persons were concerned, especially small farmers, there would be a great deal of difficulty in their proving unemployment and in the officials of the Department of Social Welfare accepting the proof as well. That is the main reason why share fishermen were excluded from the receipt of unemployment benefit by the Act of 1952.

It is true to say, as I think somebody here mentioned, that the 1952 Act did improve the lot of the share fishermen to a considerable extent and for a relatively small return. Up to 1952 he did not have any benefits and by payment of the contribution of 2/- following the Act of 1952 he is now eligible for unemployment assistance and in the event of his death his widow would be entitled to the widows' pension and his children to the orphans' pension. He is also entitled to disability and sickness benefit, to certain of the health services, dental treatment, and such other things as that. I do not think it is a fair comparison—I do not know whether Deputy Corry meant it jocosely or not—to say that the 1952 Act puts a domestic servant in the same category as a share fisherman. I do not think that is the case. As I said, the difficulty with the share fisherman is that he is, to the utmost extent, a self-employed person.

As far as this particular motion is concerned, I believe that even if I accepted it now, it would not do any good because it calls upon me to amend a regulation to provide that share fishermen would be regarded as agricultural workers are regarded. At the same time, I am not absolutely certain now as to whether or not a change of regulation would do what Deputy Corry wants me to do or whether or not it would be necessary to amend the Act.

If Deputy Corry has examined the Act and paid particular attention to the schedules in the Act which deal with share fishermen, he will have discovered that it is not absolutely certain by which of the two methods the change he wants can be effected. I will not accept the motion because, in the first place, if it can be done this way I do not want to be bound by the change that Deputy Corry suggests. In the second place, there is doubt as to whether or not it can be effected this way.

Since this matter has been raised, I have been in touch with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture who is responsible for fisheries and to some extent for fishermen and I have arranged consultations with him. I have not in my mind yet, nor do I think has he, any solution of this. I want to confess—I do not want to lead Deputy Corry or the House up the garden path—that I do not see at the present time an arrangement that would be an improvement on the present one. However, I think the House should be satisfied with this, that my Department and the Department responsible for fisheries will consult on this matter and if the solution can be found for the improvement of conditions for the share fishermen I will, if it can be done by regulation, have no hesitation in introducing the necessary regulation.

Mr. MacBride

I do not know the association mentioned by Deputy Corry, but if there is an association would the Minister consider consulting them as well?

Mr. Corish

I will talk to anyone if it will help in providing a solution.

Mr. MacBride

If there is such an association, it would be well to get their co-operation.

Mr. Corish

I have no objection to their coming along and discussing the whole position.

Mr. Corry

I had hoped for a different ending to this motion. I can assure the Minister that I endeavoured to find out whether the legislation could be amended by Private Members' Bill or not and it was only when I was informed that it could not that I put down this motion. I promise him that if I can find any method of introducing it through a Private Members' Bill, he will be facing it within a week.

It is all right to talk about these people being self-employed. They are not. There are four of them in a boat, a boat owned by one. Each of them gets his share of the catch, which may be nothing. A census has been taken of the small farmers with whom the Minister has dealt and the census has shown that out of the 600 the Minister assured me were paying this insurance, or at least were being bled for nothing, 150 of them only were self-employed or had any other means except what they got from fishing. That means that of this 600, 450 are dependent solely on fishing for their livelihood. They have to face the end of the season in terror for their families, starvation staring them in the face, and they depend on the home assistance doled out by the home assistance officer.

It is no use for the Minister telling us this, that and the other about the Act. We all know there never was an Act of Parliament brought into this House yet—and I am here 28 years now—that had not to be amended at least ten times in my time, according as flaws were found in it. This is one of the flaws and, to my mind, a very serious flaw, in the Act.

It is a flaw that, to my mind, should be remedied, and could be remedied with any little bit of common sense. There is nothing to prevent the Minister putting those men in the same category as agricultural labourers— nothing that I know of, in any event. All that is needed is a little bit of common sense. They are worse off than any agricultural labourer. If the Minister would only come down to Youghal and see for himself the conditions under which these people live he will realise the state of affairs that exists, and if he went across the border into Waterford he would find the same conditions, and I am sure he has the self-same conditions in his own constituency.

There may be the favoured few who have some little bit of land out of which they can get a livelihood but I must say that I am disappointed at the attitude of the Minister. This is not a political motion. I am not concerned with what Government is in office; I am not concerned with what Party governs. I am concerned with obtaining justice for my constituents. That is what I am here for. I do not give a hang who is over there in the Government Benches. I find 200 of my constituents are paying 2/- a week for nothing. For nothing mark you. These 200 men have got no benefits since this Act was brought in. What are they paying for? Where is the justification in demanding payment unless you are prepared to give something? You are giving nothing to these men. When the ordinary agricultural labourer in this country pays in his 2/6, or his employer pays it for him as is the general run, he is entitled to unemployment benefit. Those poor devils pay in their 2/- every week, or the board has to pay it for them, but when the season ends these men have nothing to get. Frankly I am disappointed. I am very much disappointed, and surely to heavens it should not be beyond the ingenuity of all the Social Welfare gentlemen in the Department to find the remedy for the problem affecting these 450 unfortunate men who are paying in this money for nothing. That is all I have to say.