Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1993

Vol. 436 No. 2

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As a Deputy who represents an area in which fishing is the prime industry the impact of these two judgments has gone very deep. I am delighted that the Minister has done his utmost to redress the situation that has arisen. I will outline some of the matters I would like to be teased out at a later stage. I recognise that the Minister, a former Minister for the Marine, is aware of how difficult it is to be a fisherman. There are problems with quotas, an ageing fleet, reduced white fish stock and an increase in the amount of money needed to keep up repayments on boats. Due to the currency crisis last year many people in the fishing industry discovered that their debts have increased by £10,000, £20,000 and even £100,000.

Fishing is a hazardous occupation and the Minister recognised that in acknowledging the need for disability benefit. There is a fallacy in the House that Killybegs is full of millionaires, there are few in Killybegs and the people about whom I am speaking are certainly not millionaires. Share fishermen earn between £6,000 and £8,000 per year. The Fianna Fáil Party has looked after those people very well and I am glad the Minister has done his utmost to deal with the lack of benefits which has arisen from the Costelloe case. The judgment in that case says: "the proper inference of law to be drawn from them is that a partnership relationship rather than an employer/employee one existed between the defendant and the other members of the crew in this case".

The word "partnership" has other connotations apart from those we are dealing with now in a legislative manner. Will the Minister clarify the position in regard to the word "partnership" in respect of skippers and their crew? Will a fisherman have a claim on a boat when the skipper is selling it? We must address the legalities of the matter. Contracts between skippers and fishermen will have to be exemplary in regard to partnerships. We are talking here about a partnership in an activity and that is very precarious. If a person is a partner and an employer-employee relationship does not exist, who will do the hiring and firing? That problem has had to be addressed on many occasions. For example, on returning from say, two weeks at sea some fishermen tend to go to the pub and stay for most of the night. Such fishermen frequently go to sea again early the next morning under the influence of drink and are a danger to the crew. At present the skipper decides whether such people are entitled to travel with the crew, but in the case of a partnership, will skippers have that authority? Can they hire and fire people? This matter will have serious implications for the safety of fishermen.

At present share fishermen are not entitled to benefits. They are classified as self employed and pay a social insurance stamp. They are classified as share fishermen, they are not a limited company and have paid their stamps in good faith to the Department who accepted their money. What will happen to those people following the enactment of this legislation given that section 4 states the contributions payable will not come into effect until 6 April 1994 and people will not be entitled to payment until 1996? Those people have paid A1 stamps to date, what will happen to their contributions?

Most people ceased payment in 1992.

Some people are still paying those contributions. There is an anomaly between a limited company and a sole trader. People operating limited companies will feel aggrieved that the employer-employee relationship still exists, that they must pay their employees' contributions and are competing with sole traders who will not have to pay them. A self-employed person will pay 7.75 per cent, the controversial 1 per cent income levy plus an extra 5 per cent levy which will enable him or her to benefit from unemployment and disability benefits, but that money will not be paid by skippers. It will be taken out of a person's wages. I accept that a person may get that money back when he or she claims benefit, but it constitutes an added cost for share fishermen who will not receive 5 per cent extra to pay for the contributions. Will the Minister address that matter?

Section 8 refers to entitlement to benefit for 13 weeks in a calendar year. The IFO had consultations with the Minister and officials of his Department and used that as a market. It is not feasible. This year alone boats have been tied up for 26 weeks. In a few years' time a person will be entitled to only 13 weeks' unemployment benefit and for the other 13 weeks he or she will not be entitled to unemployment assistance and will not want to apply for social assistance. Pride will take over, people will do without although they will be in need. Will the Minister consider increasing that 13 week period? If a person is entitled to unemployment benefit they should receive it and the same rules should apply to everybody.

The Bill states that a person is entitled to one year's disability benefit. What will happen if a person is out of work for medical reasons for more than one year? From my reading of the Bill, a person would have to have another set of paid up contributions to be entitled to disability benefit during that period. That is not feasible if a person is out of work due to illness. If a person is sick, he or she is unable to work and make the contributions. In general, the fishing industry is made up of young people because older people are not able to cope with high seas. Accidents occur on fishing boats more frequently than in many other industries. One can be maimed for life in a fishing accident or be out of work for two or three years as a result of an accident at sea. Under present legislation a person out of work due to illness is entitled to disability benefit followed by entitlement to an invalidity pension if off sick on a permanent basis. What will happen following the enactment of this legislation? Will they have to revert to social assistance or disabled person's maintenance allowance? Are we giving the health boards a role for which the Department of Social Welfare should have responsibility? That matter could be teased out on Committee Stage because I have reservations about imposing a yearly limit on entitlement to disability benefit.

In regard to the 13 week limit, many people are employed as share fishermen for two or three months of a year and then get a job in a fish factory paying A1 stamps. What will happen to people who will have paid self-employed or optional contributions and A1 stamps? Will the Department credit such people for periods during which they are not entitled to full unemployment benefit? The imposition of the 13 week limit means that many people will cease to be share fishermen because they rely on their stamps during non-fishing seasons and when the weather is unsuitable for fishing. It is unacceptable that people who earn approximately £6,000 to £8,000 per annum will lose out. It is the traditional share fishermen about whom we need to be concerned. The owners of the huge tankers which bring in catches worth £25 million or £26 million can well afford to look after their employees. I accept the Minister is aware of the predicament of share fishermen, but he should make more provision for them in this legislation. In a few years' time they will have to go on social assistance because they will not be entitled to unemployment assistance and that will have major implications for health boards.

Frequently when legislation is introduced in this House, a number of years elapse before people are entitled to the full benefits it introduces. The position is different in this case in that many of the people involved are already entitled to benefits as they pay A1 stamps. They are happy that they now have an option. However, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing these people to buy contributions and backdate them to 1992 and to enter the system from 1994, because what are they to do in the period up to 1996? Given his ingenuity, the Minister should be able to devise a scheme to allow these people benefit from 1994. We are relying on him to do so, given the problems which have been caused during the past few months and that people feel aggrieved.

There is one other matter I would like the Minister to address. A limited company had a duty, as an employer, to its employees. Will the Minister confirm that this is the position? I do not want us to find ourselves in a situation where a limited company will be unable to pay contributions for its employees and will say to them that it is going to forget about its duty to them that it will pay the S1 stamp — in other words, that they will be regarded as self-employed. I ask the Minister to ensure that this will not happen. Although 90 per cent of owners and skippers want to look after their employees, 10 per cent do not. I do not want them to get away with it. When the judgment was handed down in the case taken by the Revenue Commissioners many owners and skippers were let off the hook. They have offloaded their responsibility to look after their employees. A skipper on a boat is a responsible position and they have a duty to look after their employees. For some it is easy to offload this responsibility. However, others would have liked to continue paying the A1 stamp.

The Minister has been criticised for not taking action to address the matter, but I know well that that is not the case; he introduced an excellent scheme following the 1992 case. It is a pity that we were not in a position to continue that scheme.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. However, I have reservations about the figure of 13 weeks and the payment of disability benefit for 52 weeks. I certainly do not want to see limited companies leaving their employees in a position where they would be regarded as self-employed. Before Committee Stage I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to speak to the KFO again to tease out some of the finer points. This is the only opportunity we will have to deal with these people.

In regard to other aspects of the Bill, I am glad the Minister has taken it upon himself to ensure that employers, particularly those in the building trade, will be put under pressure to keep records of the people they employ. This will be of help to those who have to face unfair competition.

I welcome what the Minister had to say in his speech in relation to PRSI, given the views expressed by the Irish Clothing Manufacturers Federation. There is a need for action and I am sure the Minister will do something in the budget to address the matter.

I hope we will have a good debate on Committee Stage. I still have a number of reservations, but the Minister and his officials want to do their utmost for those people who are not earning as much in the fishing industry as they should. This industry can develop provided it receives support, not only from the Department of the Marine and the European Union but also from the Department of Social Welfare. Unfortunately, share fishermen derive some of their income from social welfare. This has been the position in recent years. They have been unable to earn more than £10,000 a year and therefore have to rely on payments from the Department of Social Welfare. I hope that the Minister will be able to alleviate their fears and ensure that there will be flexibility when it comes to deciding on eligibility in 1996.

I first became aware of the major difficulties facing share fishermen under the social welfare code almost four years ago. It was the storms of December 1989 — fishermen in Kilmore Quay were particularly affected — which underlined the chaos under the social welfare system as it applied to fishermen. Those December storms left dozens of share fishermen and skippers without work for many weeks. Indeed, only a few of these managed with great difficulty to establish their entitlements to unemployment assistance. None was entitled to receive unemployment benefit.

Following the judgment in the McLoughlin case in 1986, in which it was determined that share fishermen were self-employed from the point of view of the Revenue Commissioners, the assumption was that since they were self-employed for tax purposes they were also self-employed for social welfare purposes,. No one would have believed that the State would treat the one person differently under two codes, but that is what transpired. It was not until 1992, when the Department of Social Welfare took a case against Griffiths, that it was determined that share fishermen were self-employed for the purposes of social welfare. I am not sure why the Department of Social Welfare was so obstinate. I would have thought that the judgment in the McLoughlin case would have been sufficient for all Government Departments, because people cannot be treated differently under different codes. In any event it trundled on until 1992 when, as I said, it was determined that share fishermen could not be treated as employers any longer, that they were partners, co-adventurers.

This decision does not rest lightly on the shoulders of many share fishermen. Notwithstanding the judgment handed down, they still do not accept that they are self-employed in the true sense of the word as it applies to shopkeepers, farmers or any other individual who runs his own business. As Deputy Coughlan and others have said, they have no control over when they work, who hires or fires them, or even the wages or salary they receive. Their only asset is their labour which they can sell to the skipper or boat owner, who need not be the same person. How then can we accept and treat them as if they were self-employed?

I would like to put on record the views of the Kilmore Quay share fishermen's action group. They have expressed their views extremely well and it is clear that they are both frustrated and angry. I quote from their submission:

We the share fishermen have always seen ourselves as employees of the fishing industry and we feel that decisions made by the courts, which may have been swayed by a distortion of facts regarding our employment, were very discriminatory indeed against a most vulnerable section of the fishing industry.

The loss of Class A benefits in many cases caused severe hardship for those concerned. Proper information concerning their employment status was not forthcoming, and many people found themselves in a state of "LIMBO" regarding their position.

Many official documents regarding their employment were not forthcoming and in many cases have not yet reached the hands of those concerned, because of indifference on the part of their employers. In short the transition period as regards PRSI for share fishermen took place behind the backs of those concerned. In many cases share fishermen were not aware of their disputed status until years after contributions had ceased to be paid on their behalf by the deceiving tactics of some employers. This is totally unacceptable.

Many share fishermen in Kilmore Quay were unaware of their change of status under the various codes until the tragedies of December 1989 when they could no longer go to work. The letter continues:

We the action group for share fishermen would like to state categorically here and now the IFO do not represent us, or our interests, within the industry. On the contrary they misrepresent us on many issues, without any mandate whatsoever from the share fishermen involved.

We the action group for share fishermen would not see the Department of Social Welfare as a "buffer" between the IFO and share fishermen, but on the contrary would treat this as an opportunity to create a cordial relationship between the Department and ourselves, which would give us access to discuss matters which affect share fishermen within your Department.

I am quoting from a letter to the Minister, so "Department" refers to the Department of Social Welfare. I can only speak for the share fishermen in County Wexford. They do not feel that the IFO represents their interests, but that it represents the case of skippers. They feel the need of a representative organisation for ordinary fishermen. It is over to them on that; and if they want help or assistance I am sure we will all be available. Let me continue with the letter:

The pivotal point of the argument concerning the status of share fishermen as regards PRSI seems to hinge on the Ruling of the High Court as defined by Justice Blayney in the Griffiths case 1992 when he decreed (that because of the nature of remuneration granted to share fishermen, their status as employees was in doubt, and in fact they were partners in the fishing venture, and would be classed as such for insurance purposes).

We the share fishermen would seriously question this ruling in light of the fact that distortion regarding that aspect of our employment, and many more aspects of our employment, may have swayed Judge Blayney in his decision as regards the employment status of share fisherman.

We the action group would not see the pivotal point of the argument regarding the status of the share fishermen as how we receive remuneration, but rather on the issue of who determines the availability of work, who determines the amount of remuneration received for work, in short who determines when they shall work, how they shall work, and how much they will be allowed to earn.

The following points I hope would go a long way in establishing that fact:

The share fisherman does not receive a share of the profits as such, but a payment which is solely determined by the boat owner without any input on the part of the share fisherman, which the owner sees fit as just reward for services requested by him during the course of that venture. This is far removed from a partnership.

Without receipts regarding total earnings and also total expenditure incurred during the transaction, the share fisherman must assume that the payment he receives from the owner concerned must be a wage for services rendered, and should be seen to be just that.

(2) The share fisherman has no input whatsoever into determining what course the venture undertaken by the boat shall take, e.g., the boat owner shall determine without any interference on the part of the share fisherman.

(a) When the boat shall leave to commence the venture.

(b) What time the share fisherman must report for duty.

(c) How short, or how long, a time the venture shall last.

(d) What type of fishing gear is to be used.

(e) What type of fishing is undertaken.

(f) When the share fisherman is relieved from his duties.

(g) What direction the proceeds of that venture shall take as regards sale, etc.

In short, the only input into the venture on the part of the share fisherman is that of his labour which he carries out as requested by the boat owner for which he receives payment. This input is far removed from that which a partner in the venture would hope to enjoy.

(3) The boat owner exercises the right to dismiss

(a) the share fisherman from his place of work.

(b) to refuse entry to the share fisherman to his place of work — as in a "lock out".

(4) The boat owner exercises the right to withdraw remuneration to a share fisherman as soon as labour is withdrawn for whatever the reason, whether it be sickness or otherwise. This is far removed from a partnership where in most cases there would be consultation on the matter.

(5) The security enjoyed by most self-employed or partners in a business as a result of capital assets acquired during the course of their employment, is not enjoyed by share fishermen. In fact, to the contrary the only asset he has at any time is his ability to work. When his ability to work is curtailed, through no fault of his own, income needed to sustain the livelihood and welfare of himself and his family is totally eliminated. When this happens without the cover of social insurance the hardships caused to the family are very disturbing. This is unacceptable in today's society, and is socially unjust.

It is worth putting those words on the record because they express the frustration and annoyance of share fishermen, not just with their lack of insurance cover but with the judgments in the two High Court cases. As matters proceed they may have to look for personal representation in regard to their actual status.

I welcome the Bill, but it will have to be looked at closely on Committee Stage because it does not go far enough, and I will have many other queries. An additional 5 per cent in PRSI out of the wage of the share fisherman will bring to 10 per cent the contribution expected of him if he opts for this extra scheme to give him unemployment benefit and disability benefit cover, 13 weeks is not sufficient cover. Perhaps that could be rolled over a number of years — for example, 39 weeks over three years — because in some winters when there is mild weather and good fishing there might be no need for fishermen to be on shore for 13 weeks; whereas in other winters, such as this one, fishermen have been on shore for 26 or 27 weeks already. Therefore they should be able to roll over any unemployment benefit entitlement they might garner from this legislation.

It is unacceptable that they should have to wait until 1996 to come into benefit. They will not start making this payment until April of next year and will not come into benefit until 1996. In recent years many share fishermen's families have had to depend at Christmas time on the local St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charities. It is necessary to deal with the situation. These are not self-employed people in the accepted sense. I understand the technical reasons for this provision. They will be assessed a year in arrears. The method of payment has yet to be determined. However, it really is necessary that special transitional arrangements be made in the first year to bring share fishermen into benefit immediately, because they are workers in the sense that any other employee is a worker. They have no assets, they have no capital, they have no money left over from last year with which to pay this year until they come into benefit. Exceptional treatment is needed to bring share fishermen into benefit immediately once they start payment.

As amnesties are fashionable it would be only just to allow those who have been outside the social welfare code for the last few years because of the Griffiths and McLoughlin judgments to come into it immediately on the basis of an amnesty whereby there would be no investigation of their back books. Perhaps the Minister would consult with the Minister for Finance on that and avoid prolonging the agony of fishing families.

Skippers who to date have been quite happy to treat their share fishermen as employees and pay the PRSI at the Class A1 rate should make allowance in the wages they pay for the extra PRSI contribution that will now have to come from the share fishermen themselves. Otherwise the skippers will be better off while the fishermen will be worse off. Can the Minister say if skippers will be responsible for any PRSI back money which would be due as a result of the 1992 judgment? What, if anything, does the Department of Social Welfare intend to do about that? Can the Department do anything about it?

In general the Bill solves the problem that has been created. The fisherman have requested the Minister to consider the position in the UK. From April this year share fishermen in the UK had to pay only £7.75 per week for 13 weeks in arrears and this payment guaranteed them full Class A1 benefits. While the Minister has improved the position in relation to unemployment benefit and disability benefit, our share fishermen are not getting full Class A1 benefits. In the interests of competition and peripheral communities — the communities the Cohesion Fund was set up to look after — I ask the Minister to see if he can bring the position here closer to that of the UK. I am sure the Minister can take that extra step to bring the position in relation to our share fishermen into line with that of the UK position and provide them with full Class A1 benefits for a slightly lesser contribution.

The Minister mentioned other issues she would deal with on Committee Stage. I welcome the moves to insure volunteer development workers. Their insurance was overdue.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the guide to the Consolidation Act is circulated to all members of the Oireachtas. It is an idiot guide to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act and will be very useful in explaining different issues.

It is nearly Christmas. Every year there are crises and problems in regard to the social welfare Christmas bonus. Every year some social welfare recipients receive the bonus and others do not. I am particularly concerned about those who have been on social welfare for a long time. They may not have been on unemployment assistance for a long time. In many cases the rate of income they would have received would be lower than employment assistance. Unemployment benefit can be lower than unemployment assistance. In my constituency I know of people in receipt of long term unemployment assistance who when they became ill went on to disability benefit and found they no longer qualified for the Christmas bonus, even though they may have been out of work for a long time.

When people move from one end of the social welfare code to the other their entitlements to Christmas bonus and free fuel should be maintained and I ask the Minister to consider those in that category. I note the principle to which the Minister referred and recognise that there must be control and that recipients only a short time unemployed or in receipt of disability benefit should not be entitled to such benefits. It would be very nice to give those benefits to all recipients. Recipients who have been out of work and are in receipt of unemployment assistance and then have to go on to disability benefit should not lose their Christmas bonus or the entitlement to free fuel. Under the present system they do lose those benefits. I ask the Minister to address this matter this year.

Will the Minister indicate the present position regarding the statutory instrument he introduced in relation to the direct collection of PRSI from share fishermen in November 1989? I presume this Bill supersedes that and will be recalled or annulled or whatever happens to statutory instruments that no longer apply.

It fell.

It collapses. It is ignored henceforth. The position in relation to it should be regularised.

The Minister mentioned special units — for example, the fraud squad in social welfare. There are fraud squads and special units who have no money to do the work they should be doing. The purpose of their establishment is defeated if they are not funded for 12 months of the year.

They are fairly well funded.

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill to the House. It has taken a long time to resolve anomalies of treatment under the social welfare code, particularly in the case of share fishermen. I ask the Minister to consider on Committee Stage the difficulties in relation to the 13 weeks and the 12 months for disability benefit and the date on which the share fishermen will receive benefit if they choose to contribute under the new optional scheme. I ask him to consider also the UK system where our counterpart share fishermen are entitled to full class A1 benefits for a smaller weekly contribution. That anomaly has not been addressed by this Bill. For four years I have pursued this issue through the Seanad, on adjournment debates, special notice questions and Social Welfare Bills. I raised this issue again on this year's Social Welfare Bill and through parliamentary questions on a number of occasions. I am pleased the Minister is addressing this issue and has recognised the quandary and the crisis that has existed during bad weather when fishermen find themselves land-based through no fault of their own.

Let the record show that I am giving my copy of the guide to social welfare to Deputy Doyle.

I will wait until the presentation is over.

Is there one for every one in the audience?

I will give you a copy.

I join with Deputy Doyle and other Members in welcoming this Bill. As spokesman on Social Welfare when in Opposition, I raised this issue many times. I am pleased that the Minister. who promised to address this matter sometime ago, is now doing so under this Bill. This type of legislation should be extended to many other sectors who encounter great difficulty in coming to grips with the complex calculation of social welfare benefits.

During 1992 a number of regulations were introduced following the famous High Court case which I sponsored and which was won on behalf of certain categories of dockers. That gave rise to a certain degree of panic in the Department of Social Welfare and as a result many regulations were introduced in rapid succession. Those regulations were intended to close loopholes and avoid abuses of the social welfare system. In some cases they were necessary. There is no doubt that there was abuse in certain areas in the system. The system was abused by employers who used the subsidy to subsidise themselves rather than their employees. In the past I gave many examples of cases where days, rotas of work and hours of work were virtually manipulated to suit the system of the day. People in many sectors of industry — for example, service industries, the fishing industry and the building industry — were caught up in the blanket of regulations introduced to close loopholes.

Fishermen suffered as a result of the introduction of those regulations and they are frustrated with the system. For example, in Clogherhead, where there are 35 boats, many fishermen unknowingly suffered as a result of those new regulations. Heretofore, unemployment assistance was calculated on the basis of whether a fisherman was working on a particular day. That was the basis of the case fought for dockers in the High Court. They had to prove that they were unemployed on a particular day or for a number of days. Some genius in the Department of Social Welfare came up with the idea that unemployment assistance should be calculated on the basis of a person's earnings for the previous year. This created a difficult situation.

That position was not satisfactory for a fisherman who earned £10,000 or £15,000 in 1992. His earnings were used to his disadvantage in the calculation of his 1993 unemployment assistance. The more the Department tried to regulate the position the more confused it became. Directives were issued from the Department to regional offices and managers but regional managers did not understand the content of those directives.

For that reason I welcome this very positive move in isolating a unique sector. This is not an area where people work at a machine and the only thing that will put them out of work is lack of orders, breakdown on the line or illness. This is an industry whereby people's earnings are based on many factors, particularly the weather. A fisherman never knows from one week to another whether he will be working at his work depends on tidal conditions, boat breakdowns and particularly the weather. He receives no warning and cannot operate a system in the same way as a textile mill or footwear factory. Therefore, this matter needs to be covered by separate legislation and regulation.

I disagree with a number of provisions in the Bill and perhaps the Minister will consider them. The introduction of an optional clause means that people have the right to opt for the scheme if they wish, but that is a dangerous concept. Everybody in the industry should be covered. The result of this provision in the case of a trawler crew will be that some people will be in the scheme and others will not. The trawler owner or skipper will be required to keep records for inspection by the Department of Social Welfare and he will be severely penalised under the Bill for not doing so.

Before the introduction of computers the employer was required to stamp a card for the employee and the employee was entitled to see those cards at any time. The same applied in the case of trade union representatives. With the introduction of computers the system was messed up and the more the system is computerised the worse it gets. In this case it should be obligatory on everybody in the industry to join the scheme. Under the Bill the onus is on trawler owners or captains to keep proper records. However, fishermen in Clogherhead in my constituency and elsewhere on the east coast, due to certain conditions, are required to fish on the west coast and are away from home for weeks on end. These people have very little time to sit in an office keeping records. Therefore, the system should be simplified to provide for easy calculation, record keeping and inspection.

The best way to simplify the system is to forget about percentage payments and provide for just one payment. I do not see why the average share fisherman's earnings could not be calculated and, based on that figure, a premium could be set, payable on a monthly basis to ensure that arrears do not occur. If contributions are paid on a yearly basis, arrears of up to two years may occur and the people involved may find that due to the weather or other circumstances they are unable to work and cannot afford to make the payments. Premiums should be paid monthly, as is the case, for example, in the VHI. People should not have to operate a pre-dated record system whereby they would have to pay an auditor to produce an audited account — I am sure that is the only system the Department would accept; they would not accept a share fisherman's word as to his earnings or those of the crew. Taking into consideration travelling expenses and so on these earnings are always the subject of dispute. The people in this industry will also be forced to keep a more updated tax record because the two systems are closely related, and I do not disagree with that. The introduction of a system of monthly premium payments would dispense with the need to keep extensive records and would also save time for Department inspectors in visiting ports to examine records.

It is proposed that there will be an interim period between the time the Bill comes into force and the time the benefits will apply. I ask the Minister to consider that matter. To simplify the system the ministerial order should be cancelled, in that way the calculation for share fishermen would be dealt with on the same basis as heretofore.

If people do not opt to be covered for unemployment or disability benefit, do they have the option of unemployment assistance when they are unemployed due to weather, breakdown or whatever? That is a very important question. What is the incentive to opt for a scheme which pays benefit for only 14 weeks? Obviously the Department must have calculated the number of weeks a share fisherman is likely to lose in the year. In normal circumstances it would be impossible to make such a calculation or to decide how long a person will be out sick. For example, if a person develops a serious illness and has to go into hospital or a sanitorium and is unable to participate in share fishing for a period of six months, will disability benefit be discontinued after 13 weeks?

Disability benefit applies for 12 months.

Under existing regulations that person would be deemed unavailable for work or incapable of work. Will the Minister clarify that point and confirm whether a person in those circumstances would qualify for unemployment assistance when disability benefit is exhausted? The Minister should take those points into consideration when drawing up the regulations.

The famous High Court case has given rise to major problems for the self-employed. The Bill is a move in the right direction in so far as it deals with a unique category of part-time workers. Other categories include the part-time workers in banks and the security firms which have mushroomed. A Bill to cater for the many categories of part-time workers to which I referred is long overdue. I know from recent statements by the Minister and his Minister of State that such legislation is under consideration.

The issue of share fishermen has become so complicated that this Bill will be very much welcomed by the fishing industry in general. Not only has the Department of Social Welfare become tied up in the calculation of unemployment assistance but community welfare officers, who are trying to work in tandem with the officials of the Department of Social Welfare at local level, are also tied up in calculating unemployment assistance. It appears that the Department's calculations are at variance with the regulations laid down by the Department of Health for community welfare officers.

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the Bill and I look forward to Committee Stage when I will have more detailed points to make on the various sections.

I welcome the introduction of this long overdue Bill. Since the judgment of the High Court on 14 February 1992 fishermen have been in limbo. Their contributions were paid for them by the skippers of the boats on which they worked but for some unknown reason the court judgment exempted the skippers from paying these contributions. That was a retrograde step. We cannot question a High Court judgment, but the Minister should immediately have sought to alleviate this situation instead of allowing it to continue for almost two years. This judgment meant that unemployed fishermen were unable to claim sick benefit or unemployment assistance for almost two years. They were forced to live on whatever frugal savings they made prior to the judgment. Many of these fishermen have been living on the breadline because inclement weather prevented them from fishing.

I am sure the Minister is au fait with the position in the fishing industry. Fishermen cannot be classed as ordinary workers as they rely on the weather for their business. For example, if there is a hurricane or a gale force wind they cannot go to sea and may have to remain in port for as long as five or six weeks during the winter months with no income. It must have been an oversight that the Department of Social Welfare allowed this situation continue for almost two years. The legislation, even at this late stage is welcome.

Numerous parliamentary questions were tabled to the Minister asking what he proposed doing to rectify this problem. The Minister should ensure that fishermen receive benefits from the day they start paying their contributions. I do not think that is too much to ask the Minister. I am sure he listens to any points made and knows the seriousness of this issue. I have no doubt he will rectify this anomaly and give fishermen cover from the day they pay their first contributions. Fishermen, through no fault of their own, have been discriminated against and denied the right to pay their stamps and receive benefits for almost two years.

Will the contributions paid by the fishermen from 6 April be regarded as full class A1 benefits and will the fishermen be eligible to receive all the benefits under this class? Why should Irish fishermen not be given the opportunity to pay their contributions in the same way as fishermen in Great Britain and other countries? Will unemployed fishermen who have paid their contributions be classified as unemployed and registered on the live register? If not, then the legislation will not achieve what it is supposed to achieve. It is of paramount importance that unemployed fishermen are treated in the same way as as other unemployed people.

I know fishermen in Schull, Union Hall and Castletownbere who do not earn one penny for 14 to 16 weeks during the winter. For the past few winters these people have had no income. The new scheme will not be introduced one day too soon for people who have been debarred from receiving social welfare benefits for almost two years. The Minister should introduce a scheme granting these fishermen the benefits they should have received in the past two years.

What is the position in regard to a fisherman who has 15 years' A.1 contributions? Will the Minister give an assurance that the new category of contributions being introduced by the Minister will be combined with the original records of fishermen's contributions and will they be taken into consideration when they retire? Will those contributions be taken into consideration also in regard to benefits that accrue to all unemployed people?

The Bill states that new optional contributions will be payable from 6 April 1994 but that the benefits will not accrue until 1 January 1996. Is it a coincidence that 1 January 1996 is the day the Spaniards and the Portuguese will be allowed access to our 50 mile fishing box, the day the European regulation comes into effect? If the Spaniards and the Portuguese are allowed enter our fishing waters to ravage the 50 mile box at present denied them under previous European agreements, the Minister will be inundated with claims for unemployment assistance and benefits from Irish fishermen. Not only will the Spaniards and the Portuguese destroy our fishing stock, they will take the limpets off the rock and there will be nothing left for our fishermen except unemployment benefits. That will be the position and it is sad that the date for the introduction of benefits under this scheme is the day when the ruination of Irish fisheries will be evidenced in the exploitation by those foreign vessels.

It is not their fault that fishermen have not paid their contributions for the past two years. The Minister should seriously address this problem in the Bill and if he does not we will put down amendments on Committee Stage.

The Minister stated that in the past share fishermen were regarded as employees for social insurance purposes and were insured for the full range of social insurance benefits. He stated that their insurability status changed following certain court decisions. Will the Minister define a partnership between a skipper and a crew member when the skipper employs that crew member? The skipper has a right to sack crewmen at any stage while they are in his employment if they are not suitable. In that case, how can those crewmen be described as share fishermen? How can the Minister describe a deckhand as a shareholder with the skipper of the vessel? It is impossible to do so and in this regard the legislation is fraught with difficulty because it is open to challenge in the European Court that an employee cannot be regarded as being in partnership or a shareholder in the vessel. He is employed as a crewman and the obligation rests with the skipper of the boat, as was the case, up to 14 February 1992, to ensure that the correct contributions were paid for that employee to enable him to benefit under the Social Welfare Acts if he needed to do so.

Where is the employer-employee relationship defined in this Bill? It is ludicrous to describe a fisherman employed by the skipper of a trawler as a shareholder in that vessel. As everybody knows that is not the case. All expenses are deducted from a trawler's turnover, the skipper takes his share and the remainder is divided among the crew members. No one could describe that as a share partnership.

It is evident from the Minister's lengthy contribution on this Bill that many anomalies must be rectified by him before we can give this legislation a smooth passage through the House. Indeed, there is much more to be considered in this legislation and I urge the Minister to listen to the demands of the Irish Fishermen's Association, trawler owners and individual fishermen. There is no legislation with which one cannot find fault and I urge the Minister to ensure that this legislation will copperfasten the benefits of the people who have been denied them for the past two years.

It is evident that those fishermen have been victimised for the past two years. It is very evident that many of them had nothing on which to live while their boats were tied up. It is also very evident that, were it not for the community welfare officers nationwide, many of those people would be on the breadline.

I would urge the Minister to take into account the serious position that arose resulting from that court decision. I would urge him to take into consideration also the fact that many of those fishermen may not be in a position to meet the 10 per cent contribution required of them if they take up that option of the scheme. It is my opinion that the provisions of the scheme are somewhat harsh in that respect. I can see no reason for the Minister not obtaining more legal advice in an endeavour to draft legislation compelling the skipper of a boat to pay contributions on behalf of his employees. I would remind the Minister that one cannot classify a bartender as a bar owner, that one cannot classify a deckhand on a fishing boat as a shareholder in a fishing boat, because he will have had no input in its purchase. Therefore, how can he be classified as a shareholder? I should like these matters clarified by the Minister when replying. Otherwise, the provisions of the Bill will be fraught with danger.

I understand that this is the third Social Welfare Bill this Minister will have introduced in the House this year. Without being patronising in any way, I would say that a mark of all his legislation is that he has attempted as far as he possibly could to protect at all times vulnerable groups in our society, whether they be small or larger minorities, whether they be workers, unemployed people or people who were ill. Of course, that does not surprise me in the slightest because in whatever Ministry he has served the standard of excellence of this Minister has always been high and clearly evident.

I welcome this Bill, which provides protection for share fishermen and arises out of the Griffiths case in 1992, when it was decided that the employer/employee status did not exist in relation to share fishermen.

All of the provisions of this Bill are extremely welcome. Of course, it would be preferable if the Minister could see his way to extending the 13-week rule in relation to unemployment benefit, because a fisherman's job is an extremely difficult one fraught with many dangers. As has been said by previous speakers, there is an almost irrefutable argument for stating that the social protection afforded share fishermen should be the same as that afforded other members of the workforce. Having said that, I strongly encourage the Minister to extend the provisions of the Bill to include occupational injuries benefit to share fishermen. That is something they would welcome enormously and indeed something they deserve.

There is one provision which may not have received much notice in the Minister's introductory remarks but which is nonetheless extremely important. That is the one concerning employers' PRSI contributions. The Minister stated he had met representatives of the Irish Clothing Manufacturers' Federation in regard to the levels of PRSI paid in that industry, indicating that he may well give consideration to reducing those levels. I would welcome any such initiative on the part of the Minister, because there is no point in pretending that the increased level of VAT imposed in the last budget did not cause considerable difficulty within that industry.

I have met several constituents, both from the retail and manufacturing sides, who have informed me that without doubt there has been a downturn in their activities which, in turn, has led to falling levels of employment in the industry. Always it is of enormous importance, in a small, open economy such as ours, that indigenous industry be given every possible break by the Government. Therefore, I am extremely pleased to note that the Minister has met that federation. I sincerely hope that the results of their discussions will be beneficial and fruitful, not merely for those engaged in the clothing industry as employers but also for their employees, in regard to their chances of maintaining employment, and for prospective employees in that industry.

On another level I should like to welcome the Minister's decision to extend to voluntary development workers overseas the right to full rate unemployment and disability benefit on returning to this country. There is no gainsaying the fact that by their work they make an unselfish, outstanding contribution. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has recognised the contribution of that small group as well. We must remember that in the final analysis a country's social welfare laws reflect its civilisation. If small, vulnerable groups are not attended to by a caring Minister for Social Welfare, then society will be the poorer. It has to be said that whenever such vulnerable groups, minorities or others, have encountered difficulties in the social welfare area, the Minister's record has been extremely good in closing off loopholes and eliminating such difficulties as had been encountered.

On a more general level there is urgent need for action to be taken about the length of time taken in having unemployment assistance appeals and all other social welfare appeals heard in the appeals office. Prior to the establishment of the appeal office there had been delay in having appeals processed. Unfortunately, my experience in relation to many of my constituents, ranging across a wide spectrum of social welfare entitlements, has been that appeals simply take too long. Where an appellant may have a sustainable case, such delay causes a severe drain on the resources allocated for supplementary welfare allowance and results in a tremendous amount of anxiety and stress for families and others involved in that they have no certainty about their factual position.

I do not know what precise steps should be taken to enable the appeals process to be dealt with more quickly. The delays in the office cannot be allowed to continue because people are experiencing grave difficulty as a result of the present position. I am not critical of anybody in the appeals office, it is possible they do not have sufficient staff to deal with the appeals. Whatever the cause, staff shortages or resources, I earnestly request the Minister to ensure that the appeals process is expedited in the interests of those who depend on social welfare.

Another area which I would like to mention relates to the free fuel scheme. I have come across people in receipt of minuscule pensions of £6 or £7 from Great Britain or elsewhere and they feel a tremendous amount of resentment and disappointment that if a pension is more than £5 they cannot qualify for the free fuel allowance. That matter should be addressed.

In relation to the tough new regulatory powers to tackle abuses of PRSI and social welfare in certain sectors, including the building and construction industries, no self-respecting public representative would support fraud or abuse of the social welfare or any system. However, when public statements are made in relation to issues such as this it should be pointed out that the problem is minor and that the vast majority of people in receipt of social welfare are receiving the sums concerned legitimately. It is always easy to taint a group who are unfortunate enough to be dependent on the State for their survival by a generalised statement. People should be very careful in relation to such statements. Failure in this respect could do a disservice to those dependent on the welfare system and injure their dignity and pride. However, we must accept there is a problem in relation to abuse and fraud and in this respect the provisions of the Bill will have the desired effect.

In short, the Bill safeguards the rights of a vulnerable group of workers engaged in a very difficult task. Apart from their entitlement to protection under social welfare legislation I am particularly glad the Bill is before the House and will be passed.

Of all the indigenous industries this one has the greatest potential but, sadly, it received the least attention from successive governments. Small piers and harbours throughout the length and breadth of the country built at the behest of imperial powers and which provided a livelihood for small communities along the coastline are now in decay and ruin, which is very sad.

I again welcome the Bill and earnestly request the Minister to carefully consider my proposal in relation to extending the protection for share fishermen, to include their entitlement to occupational injuries benefit.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Bill, it is clear there is a general welcome for it. I agree with other Members that this Minister, in terms of dealing with the whole question of social welfare, is one of the most diligent and caring Ministers that has been involved in the social welfare area. That view is shared not alone by people involved in the various sections of the Department, where morale is very high, dealing with very difficult problems but by people unfortunate enough — I use that term carefully — to be in receipt of social welfare benefits but who would prefer to be working. There is an appreciation that the Minister understands their circumstances and, since assuming office, has used every opportunity to ensure fairness in every respect and that it is seen to be part and parcel of how the whole area of social welfare is organised, how the various funds are distributed and allocated under the various subheads to the recipients.

We are dealing principally with the position of the share fishermen. Because of the Griffiths case in 1992 a serious question mark was raised regarding social insurance benefits. Obviously that situation had to be cleared up. This Bill goes a long way in reassuring people earning their livelihood in very uncertain conditions. They do not know from day to day, week to week or month to month what level of income they will be able to sustain because they cannot predict the result of any day's fishing. In addition the vagaries of the weather mean they may not be able to make a living. Therefore, there must be a realistic fall back position that recognises the contribution these individuals make in terms of working in a recognised profession. While they may not own the craft involved or earn a huge income they are, nevertheless, committed to operating vessels which give them the opportunity to be productive, to have a self worth and to earn a living.

It is right that legislators enact provisions to cater for those who work in a sector of great uncertainty and have no guarantee of a livelihood. The State should be in a position to assist it difficulties arise. Obviously difficulties will arise when a person cannot work because of prevailing conditions and is unable to earn an income and second, when a person is injured or disabled. The State should be in a position to assist the families of persons so affected. I come from a fishing constituency and I know this legislation will be welcomed by many people who earn their livelihood at sea.

One point that intrigues me is how special contributions will be paid. This issue needs to be addressed. Irrespective of the level of income, most people experience difficulties in meeting a bill at the end of the year if they do not get into the habit of making regular contributions over a period. This is not peculiar to persons in any particular walk of life. I am as guilty as anybody else. I prefer to make monthly repayments rather than having to face a bill at the end of the year when I have all sorts of other matters to worry about.

It should be possible for people who want to contribute voluntarily to this scheme to make a minimum monthly contribution. That would encourage more people to join in the first instance and continue in the scheme. More people will wish to join if the payment of contributions is organised on a monthly basis. The minimum contribution of £250 per annum may be a great deal of money for a person to fork out at one time. A person may not be in a position to predict his total income at the beginning of the year could make monthly payments on the basis of the minimum and the balance could be paid as funds permit. The vast majority, if not all, those engaged in share fishing would be likely to get involved in such a scheme. This would put into practice in a more practical way what the Bill is trying to achieve and people could avail of some of the benefits when times are not so good.

The Minister dealt at length with the question of fraud. He referred to the recent public comments about people who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. Those comments were hurtful but perhaps the point which was being put across was that the culture does not encourage people to take up productive employment when opportunities exist at a rate of return the same as the social welfare payment. The culture is that it is simply not worth taking up a job in those circumstances. That is the prevailing atmosphere, rather than that large numbers are abusing the system.

We all know that there are not large groups abusing the system and, indeed, the statistics the Minister outlined are very encouraging. However, it should also be very encouraging for legitimate employers to know that if they stick to their task and are honest in the operation of their business the State will ensure there is a level playing field in which to operate a business and that they can be as profitable as any other legitimate businesses. For far too long companies were operating on the margins with the effect that when employees lost their jobs they found out that their social welfare contributions had not been made. It is of crucial importance that the area be cleaned up.

I had to smile inwardly when I heard Members speak on the clothing industry. It should not have come as a surprise to Members on the Government benches to hear the effect the massive increases in VAT would have on the clothing industry. The Government received a report three months previously outlining how bad things were without any extra burdens being placed on them. Some crocodile tears are being shed because the facts were well spelt out in this House but were not listened to.

In his speech the Minister adverted to employers' PRSI contributions being out of sync with rates in the UK and other areas. He expressed concern at the rate of employers' PRSI which is in excess of 12 per cent. This causes difficulties for employers. I applaud the Minister for saying that because this has been an enormous deterrent to employing people for a number of years. I wonder if I am reading the signals right as I believe the Minister has sounded an optimistic note about what he and his Cabinet colleagues may be about to do in next year's budget. I do not wish to be presumptuous but I hope that what he said today on PRSI will become a reality. I am a member of a number of committees, for example, the Select Committee on Enterprise and Employment, the National Economic and Social Forum, the Committee of Public Accounts — I have lost track of the number of committees that deal with the question of employment — and in all discussions one cannot escape the artificial barriers that exist to creating employment. By that I mean barriers created by Government. All Governments have been party to this, no party in the House has a clean bib. Governments create artificial barriers to employment, such as tax wedges, PRSI increases, increases in employees' and employers' PRSI contributions, VAT increases and the 1 per cent income levy. All these measures are clearly anti-employment taxes. If many of these taxes were removed it would not make a massive change in the unemployment figures but it would change the culture by making employment attractive.

I express the hope that the Deputy will not stray too far from the rather limited measure before the House.

I appreciate the point and I will come back to this again. The Minister understands the points I made.

In dealing with fraud and abuse we must have regard to the fact that £3.7 billion is available in the Department, a substantially greater amount than the tax take from the PAYE sector. People are entitled to the money but is it realistic to pay out money without any return? On the one hand an enormous amount of work remains to be done and on the other thousands of people are unemployed. We must consider value for money from the point of view of the State and potential employees. The provision of employment will have a major knock-on effect in boosting self-esteem, contribution to society and a person's value in society. The culture is wrong and we are all guilty. The way we deal with the culture is not helping to encourage people to become employed. We need quite substantial cultural changes in our perception of the State role and how money made available to the State can be used productively in society. If the money is productive, even if only in a marginal sense, there is more opportunity for all and in the long term we might stem increasing demands on the Department of Social Welfare.

I am happy that the Minister introduced this measure in relation to share fishermen. Will the Minister consider how contributions are to be paid as these payments could be streamlined? I hope this measure will help to sustain people in fishing who would otherwise have had to leave because, without some assistance from the State, they would not have been able to make a legitimate contribution to society. The fishing industry is worthwhile and offers potential for the future.

This is a confined Bill and, consequently, Members may have difficulty in confining their remarks to it.

That applies to the Minister.

I will do my best without promising to adhere strictly to the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. He has shown himself to be an innovative considerate Minister in all the portfolios he has held and his knowledge and grasp of the needs of the poor in society shines through every Bill he brings forward.

The Bill relates essentially to 2,000 share fishermen. The speakers represent constituencies with a strong fishing industry. The fishing industry is unique in that it is located in the villages around the coasts. County Louth has its quota of share fishermen and its slice of the fishing industry in such places as Clogherhead. These areas play a significant role in local economies and in the economies of the greater region. This industry is a national wealth creator, every time a fishing boat lands its catch it adds to the national cake. It is important to recognise the role of fishermen in our economy through the social welfare or the industrial development codes. It is a labour intensive industry and it will remain a labour intensive industry. There will always be the boat owner, the share fishermen and the crew.

Clearly the 1992 High Court decision left share fishermen in a vulnerable position so this legislation is very important and timely. We are talking about people who do not work normal hours. They put to sea early and late and their occupation is very much at the mercy of the weather. Employment in this industry is volatile, unpredictable and dangerous on occasions.

The importance of the fishing industry cannot be overstated. In places such as Clogherhead in south east Louth the fishing industry plays a pivotal role in the local economy. For a long time now the local fishing community have been campaigning for the development of a proper pier facility in the village. It is urgently needed and we all look forward to favourable consideration of this application under the National Development Plan. I am sure that the Department of the Marine is actively considering the case.

Under the operational programme for rural development from 1990 to 1993 there was a special provision for small fishery harbours and Clogherhead was included in it. The grant aid available was on a 50/50 basis and clearly many of the local authorities who effectively would have been expected to match the fund money were not in a position to provide it. I hope that additional grant aid will be available to allow this much needed infrastructural work to proceed as the industry is too important to neglect. It is important to the fishing communities in places like Clogherhead who need proper landing facilities and facilities from which fishing boats can put to sea. It is important that those employed in the fishing industry have peace of mind. Fishermen are similar to the rest of us; they are subject to ill health. Often they are confined to land because of bad weather. It is important that the social welfare code provides for payment of disability benefits to fishermen; and if they are unable to go to work they should be in a position to claim unemployment benefit. Share fishermen pay mortgages, are subject to the normal weekly family financial demands and it is vital that they be in a position to meet those ongoing commitments. The Minister will assist our 2,000 share fishermen by the introduction of this legislation.

As I come from a county where fishing plays an important role in the local economy, I am bound to welcome this legislation. I concur with Deputy Kirk in that this Bill is of interest to all maritime Deputies and will impact greatly on the 2,000 share fishermen affected by it. There has been much confusion and uncertainty in the fishery sector for a number of years, mainly because of two court cases to which some Members already referred. The Revenue Commissioners v. McLoughlin case took place in 1986. In that case the court held that each fishing trip was deemed a separate venture and that for the tax purposes the crew of a boat should be regarded as self-employed. As a result of that judgment the Revenue Commissioners agreed that every boat owner should have the option of remaining a registered employer or of deregistering. To become deregistered permission had to be obtained from the Revenue Commissioners. Some owners opted for that while others remained registered. As a consequence the Department of Social Welfare introduced a new system of collecting PRSI contributions from share fishermen. That was a good scheme and ensured future benefits for such fishermen. It operated from February 1989 until February 1992, when the case of The Department of Social Welfare v. McLoughlin came before the courts. The judgment in that case was practically the same as the 1986 one and consequently, since February 1992 the social welfare system does not provide for share fishermen. When signing on during periods of unemployment or disability they are means-tested for dole assistance and in many cases no assistance is payable as their means are based on the previous year's earnings.

Share fishermen are in a difficult position. Due to the nature of their work, fishermen are subjected to long periods of unemployment and inactivity. For example, they are at the mercy of the weather and during a spell of bad weather their boats are tied up and their families do not have any income. In some cases fishermen may be 100 miles from home when bad weather strikes and they have to pull into foreign ports in the north of Scotland or further afield and remain there until the weather is suitable for sailing and fishing again. During such periods fishermen and their families do not receive any benefit under present legislation.

Fishermen are also subject to the seasonal aspect of fishing. The mackerel season is crucial to the economy of Donegal. Killybegs being one of the main mackrel fishing ports not alone here but also in Europe. The mackerel fishing season starts around now and lasts until the spring time. For the remainder of the year it is non-existent. Also, herring, salmon and other species of fish are available only during certain periods of the year. Fishermen who fish for those species have their boats tied up when they are not in season and under present legislation receive no social welfare benefits during that time. Fishermen are also subject to the market forces of supply and demand. If there is a good supply but no demand, prices will fall. It is a very uncertain and hazardous occupation. There has been much confusion during the past number of years because of those court decisions. Fishermen are subject to the hazards of the high seas and frequently suffer from illness and injuries during which time they are not entitled to disability benefit.

I would welcome any Bill that proposes to rectify and regulate those matters. In saying that I am sure I speak on behalf of the fishing community in Donegal from Burtonport to Greencastle and many other places engaged in fishing activities. Fishermen must support their families, pay mortgages and meet other financial commitments. They are confused and are suffering shortfalls at present because of the anomaly created by those court cases.

Contrary to public perception, fishermen are not millionaires. Most of us will have read the irresponsible articles in some newspaers which highlighted the huge sums of money made by fishermen. Many of my neighbours are fishermen and I would like to put on the record that very few fishermen earn huge sums of money. A few super trawlers operate on our seas, but they must also meet their overheads. However, the fishermen we are discussing here are certainly not millionaires. For many months of the year they receive no income whatsoever either from fishing or from the State. In the past number of years The Skipper, The Marine Times and The Fishing News have run five or six pages advertising boats for sale. There are more boats for sale than people investing in new vessels. That is a concrete indication of the position in the fishing industry at present.

As a result of EC policies and CAP reform fishermen are now restricted to quotas and can no longer engage in unlimited fishing. When they reach their quotas they are required to tie their boat up until such time as they are entitled to go out again. It has been brought to my attention this week that some fishermen are experiencing difficulties in their own fishing grounds, particularly in the Rock-all area. I will not deal with that matter now as this Bill deals primarily with social welfare but I am mindful of the fact that the Minister was held in high standing when he held the position of Minister for the Marine. I am glad that he continues to show an interest in fishermen.

While the Bill will be welcomed by people in my constituency there is annoyance that it was presented almost without warning. Although we have been aware of the difficulty for many years and that it was accentuated following the court case in 1992 there should have been more consultation and discussion with the industry before the Bill was presented. The first indication that this Bill would be introduced was given at the Ard-Fheis about two weeks ago, perhaps the Minister rushed the legislation so that he would have something to announce. However, I am not quibbling with this. The Bill has been introduced and it marks a step forward but, as I said, there should have been more consultation before hand. We only received it a few days ago. Before Committee Stage the Minister should avail of an opportunity to meet the fishermen and those involved in the industry as they may be able to show how the Bill can be amended and improved.

Section 4 states that a person engaged in share fishing shall be entitled to opt to become an insured person under the new scheme subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations. How will an application be made and what conditions will apply? Will every person who regards himself as a share fisherman be eligible and will there be an appeals mechanism? Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter in his reply.

The Bill has a number of other shortcomings. If a participant in the schemes ties up his boat and signs on for unemployment benefit will it be limited to a period of 13 weeks? Given that a boat could be tied up for a number of months due to weather conditions and seasonality can this period be extended? If a person is unfortunate enough to suffer an illness or is involved in an accident and has to sign on for disability benefit will this be limited to a period of one year? The Bill states that contributions will be payable from 6 April 1994. What will happen in the meantime if a person has to sign on for unemployment benefit or disability benefit? If I am reading the Bill correctly people will not be entitled to receive any benefits for another two or three years. As there has been hardship due to the court cases can the Minister say when those who participate in the scheme will be entitled to benefits?

Mar fhocal scoir ba mhaith liom, mar Theachta a thagann ó cheantar a bhfuil an iascaireacht iontach tábhachtach do eacnamaíocht an cheantair, fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Bhí deacrachtaí ag iascairí páirte le cúpla bliain anuas mar nach raibh sé de cheart acu aon liúntas leasa shóisialaigh a fháil. Nuair a théann an Bille seo tríd beidh sé de cheart acu é sin a fháil. Sílim, mar sin féin, go bhfuil géar-ghá le níos mó comhráití idir an tAire agus tionscal na hiascaireachta sula dtéann an Bille níos faide ar aghaidh.

Bíonn deacrachtaí móra ag iascairí mar go mbíonn tréimhsí fada ann nach féidir leo a bheith ag iascaireacht de thairbhe aimsire agus mar sin de. Anois má bhíonn siad tinn nó má bhíonn an tsláinte ag cur isteach orthu beidh liúntas le fáil acu. Sílim go rachaidh an reachtaíocht seo chur socair go mór dóibh agus mar sin cuirim fáilte roimpi.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation and congratulate the Minister for introducing it. It addresses in an effective and positive manner a most unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of the fishing industry. As we are aware, in the past share fishermen were regarded as employees for social insurance purposes and were insured for the full range of social insurance benefits. However, the position changed as a result of a High Court case to which members referred. Following that case share fishermen were no longer regarded as employees. Notwithstanding this some employers continued to cover their employees until 1992 when the Department of Social Welfare took a case against a person in my area for the non-payment of contributions. However, he won his case and this is the case that has given rise to all the problems. As I said, these fishermen are now regarded as self-employed. However, they are left without vital cover during periods of illness and unemployment. This placed an additional burden on them leaving them in a legal limbo.

Let us be in no doubt about the seriousness of this matter; many fishermen were affected. Almost everyone working out of Dunmore East in my constituency, one of the five major fishery ports in the country, is engaged in share fishing. There is a lack of space in this harbour due to the increase in the number and size of fishing boats and trawlers using it. During the past 20 years the number has increased substantially. More importantly, the rate of average displacement has increased threefold.

The problems of these fishermen are compounded during the herring season to which there was a reference earlier, to the extent that if there is a gale, boats may have to travel up river to seek shelter in other harbours. Therefore, there is an urgent need for additional quay side berths to satisfy demand. Furthermore, during the summer months, pleasure craft and yachts from Britain or France en route to the south-west make their first call to the harbour. However, because of the increase in the number of fishing boats using the harbour there is no space available for these craft but local fishermen try to co-operate with them. As a former Minister for the Marine, the Minister is well aware of the position.

Things have become so bad that one can walk from one side of the harbour to the other across the boats. Something must be done to address the problem. Fishing is a tough job at any time of the year and these problems, on top of everything else, do not help. The problem is being addressed in this legislation and the Minister is to be commended on his effective response.

Some of the East Donegal Deputies referred to millionaire fishermen in Donegal. That may be a perception but at least there is such a perception. There is no such perception in my part of the country nor is there in Wexford. Fishermen have problems and we must help them as much as we can. Recently there was talk of categorisation. The Department of the Marine wrote to the fishermen telling them what they were going to do and said they would consult with them afterwards. That should not happen.

The herring season this year is very poor, but when things were good in 1991 the ports were closed down. The uncertain nature of Irish weather leave share fishermen open to periods of unemployment. They have problems also with owners or skippers of vessels. Usually there is a share for each man and corresponding share for the boat owner, and this is after the deduction of expenses. In many cases extra shares are put in for gear etc. That is another uncertainty that the share fishermen have to put up with in addition to the dangers inherent in carrying out their day-to-day work. For all these reasons it is imperative that share fishermen, and their families, be covered for unemployment and disability benefits as soon as possible. This Bill addresses this need.

The difference between unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit may not, at times, be great. Therefore it is possible that fishermen may not take up the option offered in this Bill. They may be fearful of coming into the tax net for the first time. Share fishermen with an income of more than £2,500 a year will have the option of paying special contributions which will entitle them to unemployment and disability benefits. Those who opt for the scheme will pay a contribution of 5 per cent of their reckonable income in the previous income tax year up to the PRSI earnings ceiling and subject to a minimum contribution of £250 a year. Optional contributors will be entitled to disability benefit for a maximum of 52 weeks in any continuous period of illness. I welcome the fact that the payment covers a period of this duration. However, under this system somebody with a particularly low income may end up paying 10 per cent of his income to get cover and that seems excessive.

Will fishermen and boat owners be able to take up the option if the fisherman opts in, will that impose additional duties on the owner of a boat? What if he does not want to opt in? What if he does not want to opt in? Does he have a choice? Will owners pay employers' PRSI to the Department in respect of the money earned by the share fishermen? I have spoken to people at home and the only opposition to this scheme seems to be coming from owners and skippers.

The Bill refers to a contractor. If there is a problem in regard to a boat owner, can the fisherman be deemed to be the contractor even though he is not the owner of a boat? Will the records kept by skippers, owners etc. be matched with the returns coming in for the fishermen, and will that also cause problems?

Not only in regard to social welfare legislation but also taxation the Government has been trying to get more compliance and that is welcome. We have been used to the attitude that anything will do and it may take a little time to convince everybody of the benefits of this scheme.

The fishing industry deserves the Government's full support. The Minister for the Marine has indicated his commitment to our fishing industry. Today, through this legislation, the Minister for Social Welfare has done likewise. I hope this will be an ongoing process and that over the lifetime of the Government we will see many more progressive measures.

This Bill seeks to provide for the introduction of an optional scheme of social insurance for people engaged in share fishing. Under the proposed scheme those whose principal livelihood is derived from share fishing will have the option of paying additional special contributions which will provide insurance for disability benefits. Share fishing means that the profits from a catch, after deduction of expenses, are divided between the fishermen, the skipper and the owner of the boat. In a test case in 1992 it was decided that fishermen are self employed people and are therefore not eligible for social employment benefits when they are out of work. This Bill is an attempt to redress that and from that point of view it is welcome.

There seems to be a perception abroad that fishermen are a well off sector in the port areas where they fish. This is not so in many cases and, from my knowledge of fishing in Galway, it is certainly not the case there. Fishermen may have to remain in port for extended periods. Restrictions on quotas may restrict fishermen fishing at certain times. Unsuitable weather conditions make it dangerous or impossible for fishermen to fish and those conditions may prevail for three to four weeks or longer. They are also restricted by the seasonality of the species they fish. Mackerel fishermen in Galway must fish according to the fishing season of that species and they may be out of work for a long period of time. The threat of pollution in inner bays from the disposal of untreated sewage into the sea is beginning to restrict the work of fishermen, particularly in inland port areas and in the port area of Galway.

An EC directive due to come into force here in 1998 will provide that seaside towns will no longer be able to dispose of their raw sewage into bays without secondary treatment. That directive is welcome. I hope steps are being taken in our coastal areas to ensure that they will be in a position to implement and fulfil the provisions of that directive. A new sewerage scheme has been prepared for Galway and is awaiting funding, but it has not been sanctioned. It is difficult to believe that Galway, a city with a population of 52,000, is today still pumping its raw sewage into the bay. That position cannot continue. Finance must be provided to assist local authorities carry out the necessary work of secondary or tertiary sewage treatment in all seaside areas to avoid pollution of our bays. The position can be neglected only for a certain length of time. The sea cannot cure all our waste disposal problems?

Repayments must be paid on a boat while it is tied up in dock and the crew are out of work during that time. The boat may be tied up in a foreign port and the crew may have to maintain themselves for a considerable period until the weather is suitable for them to go to sea again. Apart from the danger involved in fishing and the unsocial hours associated with it, the fishing industry is mainly a young man's profession. People do not remain fishermen for all their working lives because of the heavy physical requirements and dangers associated with the job.

I welcome the Second Stage debate on the Bill. I would like to have certain matters clarified on Committee Stage. Since the 1992 court case and, indeed prior to that, Fine Gael has advocated the provisions contained in this Bill. I would like to tease out the sections of the Bill on Committee Stage. Section 4 requires clarification. Paragraph 24A (1) states:

A person engaged in share fishing shall, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be entitled to opt or become an insured person (‘optional contributor')...with effect from the contribution year beginning on the 6th day of April 1994...

I will seek clarification of the optional extent of that section of the Bill.

Paragraph 35A (a) of section 7 states:

Notwithstanding section 35, where in any period of interruption of employment a person, having satisfied the contribution conditions contained in section 32 by virtue of having paid optional contributions, has been entitled to disability benefit for 312 days,...

Will disability benefit expire after 312 days in respect of a person who is out of work due to an accident or for some other reason? What effect will the 13 weeks' contribution have in regard to the eligibility of fishermen to claim disability benefit or social employment benefit? It is not appropriate to deal with these matters on Second Stage, but I will raise them on Committee Stage.

Mr. Byrne

I express my unreserved support for the intention and principle contained in the Bill. I live in a coastal area among fishermen and I am aware of their position for the past ten to 12 years. The Minister for Social Welfare is deserving of our congratulations for the thorough and speedy manner in which he has dealt with the issues involved. Arising from two Supreme Court decisions share fishermen lost their long held status as employees. They were left without vital PRSI cover during periods of illness and unemployment. That matter has been referred to on many occasions. We all know of such cases and may be inclined to cite the more serious cases where a fisherman may have been out of work for a period of time. He would have had to put food on the table, meet his mortgage repayments and other normal financial family commitments.

I have always found that fishermen are prepared to work at any time of the day or night and always make a genuine effort to find work. In the 1989 storm the piers in Kilmore Quay, Duncannon and Dunmore East were damaged. Following that storm Kilmore Quay was not functional for a period of six months and that caused great difficulties for fishermen, who were unable to claim the unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. Fishermen are anxious to work at all times in all weathers. When for whatever reason they are unable to fish, they are unable to find jobs onshore because those jobs are mainly in the fish processing industry. There are no jobs in that industry when fish stocks are not available. Kilmore Quay is 15 miles from Wexford town and Duncannon is 20 miles from New Ross. It is difficult for people to travel that distance to seek work. In such cases fishermen are without jobs and money. Many fishermen had to borrow for the period in which they were without funds. Under this Bill share fishermen will again be entitled to unemployment and disability benefit.

A special word of thanks must be paid to the share fishermen in Kilmore Quay, with whom I worked very closely, who have been to the fore in this matter. The persistence of their campaign, together with the enlightened approach of the Minister, has brought this Bill to fruition. This Minister, when Minister for the Marine, visited all the ports in the country and took time off when in Kilmore, Duncannon and Dunmore East to talk to the fishermen about their problems. When he then moved to his new job as Minister for Social Welfare he did not forget those unfortunate people, the lobby for whom is not great. While the fishing industry has substantial priority in Government, nevertheless the number concerned is not sizeable. I thank the Minister for his easy accessibility and understanding and for bringing this Bill to fruition.

I spent a good deal of time discussing this Bill with share fishermen, particularly in Kilmore and Duncannon, and their reaction is one of thanks and is overwhelmingly favourable. However, these people put forward a number of points that could further improve the Bill. Their main concern is that the period of 13 weeks disability cover is not sufficient. For example, in the event of bad weather, engine breakdown, unexpected repair work or, in cases such as that which arose in 1989 when Kilmore Quay was not functional, these people could be out of work for much longer than 13 weeks. This must be taken into account. Like Deputy McCormack, I ask the Minister for clarification on disability payments. I know of a number of people in Kilmore Quay who fell off the pier, had accidents relating to work or became ill and the period of disability payment as provided for in the Bill is not sufficient in cases such as these. I ask the Minister to take on board this aspect. Share fishermen are also concerned that they will have to wait until 1996 before they are eligible for benefit.

Another matter about which these people are concerned is the cost of the premium. A sizeable number of share fishermen may in any given year, earn less than £5,000. I was interested to hear Deputy Kenneally refer to millionaires among fishermen. I know of no millionaires in the fishing feet in County Wexford, and I know them all fairly well. Considering that some of these people earn less than £5,000 the minimum contribution of £250 represents more than 5 per cent of their earnings. Essentially these people are being asked to pay extra premiums for less insurance that they received before the court decision.

As regards the question of whether share fishermen will be entitled to unemployment assistance, as are other people, when the 13 week period of unemployment benefit is exhausted, this matter is not directly addressed in the Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the matter. These people are concerned about liability for levies prior to April 1992. I would ask the Minister what is the position in this regard. As many Members are aware, a number of people in self-employment, not necessarily fishermen, have received very high tax demands from the Revenue Commissioners. Because share fishermen were regarded as self-employed some of these people in my constituency have been asked for substantial sums of money. I cannot understand how these figures are calculated because they certainly are not derived from earnings in fishing. Obviously I do not wish the Minister to comment on the taxation problem because it is not his responsibility but I would like clarification on liability for levies prior to 1992.

I appeal to the Minister to sympathetically consider the points I raised on behalf of share fishermen. I suggest that before the Bill is taken in Committee it might be fruitful if the Minister met again the delegation of fishermen from Kilmore Quay, with whom he has built up a substantial rapport, or indeed fishermen from any part of the country. As I said, this Bill is a fantastic achievement on the Minister's part and by doing what I ask he can make it a little better. Again, I thank the Minister for his prompt action in introducing the Bill and I congratulate him on a job well done.

Tá an Bille seo an-tábhachtach sa dáilcheantar in a bhfuilim, mar tá go leor iascairí ann, agus cuid mhaith acu páirteach. Dá bhrí sin cuirim míle fáilte roimh an mBille.

Ba é an trua cad a tharla sa chás cúirte mar creidim gurb é an réiteach ab fhearr do na hiascairí go n-aireofaí mar fhostaithe lad. Ach nuair a tharla an rud seo, is áthas liom go bhfuil an tAire ag teacht ar aghaidh le scéim do na hiascairí atá i gceist a thabharfaidh sabháilteacht éigin dóibh ó thaobh tinnis agus dífhostaíochta de. Cuideoidh sé leo ar go leor bealach, mar ceann de na fadhbanna atá ann do dhaoine ar nós iascairí ná go bhfuil sé an-deacair orthu, mar shampla, iasachtaí tí a fháil i ngeall ar éiginnteacht an ioncaim atá acu.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on bringing forward this issue. It is often the case that small groups in society are ignored when something happens that adversely affects their position. I have admired for a long time the Minister's ability to understand the social and economic contribution of groups such as share fishermen. One matter that this Bill brings to light is the total change in employment patterns. We are dealing here with a group of people for whom the employer-employee relationship is not the normal one, and increasingly we find that people fit into this pattern.

Up to the time a court decision was made in 1992 share fishermen were considered as employees. However, a High Court decision changed that position and left these people very vulnerable. Under the Bill share fishermen will be entitled to disability benefit and unemployment benefit. I accept that there were numerous difficulties in drawing up this Bill, particularly in striking the right balance between cost and benefit. I recognise that a proper balance had to be struck. It is very important for people with financial commitments — like everyone else, share fishermen have families to support and mortgages to pay — to be guaranteed an income during a season when work is not available. The fishing industry is notoriour for its stop-start nature and for having good and bad years.

One of the major problems facing people employed in seasonal employment is how to meet their commitments to lending institutions when they are laid off. In this respect, I welcome the provision which will guarantee share fishermen who have been paying their contributions an income when they are not working. I also welcome the provision relating to disability benefits. The Minister should clarify the position regarding injury benefits. While the payment of disability benefit for a year will cover many cases, fishing is a high risk industry and fishermen may sustain injuries which will prevent them working for longer than one year. The Minister should ensure that occupational injury benefits cover will be paid on an ongoing basis, with no fixed time limit, even if fishermen have to make a small extra contribution. It would be tragic if a fisherman who, as a result of an accident at work, was incapable of working in the long term received no benefit after one year.

Fishing can be classed as a high risk industry in the sense that very few fishermen work up to the age of 66. Due to the nature of the work, and the need to be physically fit, it is fair to say that very few fishermen work on a full-time basis up to retirement age. Indeed, many fishermen are forced to retire before they reach the official retirement age. This is a problem for the people involved in the fishing industry. The Minister should look at the long term consequences of this early retirement. No provision is made in the Bill for invalidity pensions and older people who may have to retire due to arthritis or some other condition should be guaranteed an income rather than have to depend on disabled persons' maintenance allowance or some other means-tested benefit.

The Bill is a positive response to what is a practical problem and it will open up new possibilities in the insurance field. I accept the difficulties involved in devising a scheme to deal with this problem. I understand the background to the 1992 court case. Perhaps we can discuss this and other difficulties at a later stage. I welcome the Bill.

Creidim féin gur dul chun cinn mór é. Is í an iascaireacht ceann de na tionscail go bhféadfaimis a fhorbairt ar an gcósta. Tá an iascaireacht intíre mar chuid antábhachtach de shaol mhuintir na gcóstaí ar fud na hÉireann agus tá gá le cinnteacht éigin a bheith ann agus go mbeadh sé tarraingteach do dhaoine óga dul ag plé le iascaireacht.

Mura mbeidh córas ceart leasa-shóisialaigh ann do na daoine atá ag plé le cúirsaí iascaireachta beidh sé an-deacair áiteamh ar dhaoine óga páirt a ghlacadh sa tionscal sin. Ceann de na buntáistí móra a bhaineann le tionscal na hiascaireachta ná gur brabach iomlán don stáit é. Is ceann de na tionscail é go bhféadfá a rá go bhfuil idir 90 faoin gcéad agus 100 faoin gcéad de bhrabach ag an eacnamaíocht as mar níl aon chur isteach air ó thaobh iomportála de seachas na báid féin san ábhar atá i gceist. Mar sin tá fíorthábhacht go deo ag baint leis an tionscal seo ó thaobh na heacnamaíochta de. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an tAire, a bhí mar Aire na Mara agus a bhí thar a bheith gníomhach mar Aire na Mara, tar éis díriú ar an gceist seo agus teacht suas le réiteach air.

I thank the Deputies for their extensive contributions and welcome for the Bill. They dealt in depth with its provisions and pinpointed some of the problems involved in devising a proper scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, we were forced into a very difficult position. After the first court decision, regulations were drawn up which ensured cover and benefits for fishermen, particularly share fishermen. That position obtained until the 1992 court case when, despite the best efforts of the Department of Social Welfare, fishermen were snookered, so to speak, and the regulations fell. This left share fishermen in a very difficult position and created problems for the Department of Social Welfare.

This Bill will provide an optional special scheme for share fishermen. It is very dangerous to provide a special scheme for any category of worker because, as many Deputies said, other categories of workers could also ask for special schemes. The provision of special schemes is anathema to the social insurance system. Many Deputies said they would like a smaller number of classes in the system. However, instead of reducing the number of classes from 12 to three, as was suggested, we are increasing the number of classes to 13 for very good reasons — we are doing it to meet particular circumstances.

Deputies sought to redefine the term "share fishermen" and asked what constitutes a crew. We are bound by the High Court decision in this matter. The Department of Social Welfare brought the case to court because an owner was not prepared to pay his employer's contributions and the Department was afraid that if this practice spread no contributions would be paid and share fishermen would be placed in a difficult position. The Department took the case in an effort to remedy the situation.

The Department lost the case.

Unfortunately, it lost the case. We are now faced with the situation described so well by Deputy Doyle. As she has said, she has monitored this issue very closely, as indeed have other Deputies living in coastal areas. I was asked to met the Killybegs fishermen and I would be happy to meet with any groups or organisations between now and Committee Stage. I had extensive discussions with the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and with representatives from Kilmore Quay. They have a deep interest in the subject and have tried also to come up with solutions to the problem. It is from those discussions that I brought forward these proposals.

May I ask the Minister why it is an optional scheme?

We cannot force people to do something that the courts say they are not required to do. That is the problem. They are essentially self-employed people by definition and we cannot force them to be otherwise. It may be possible to find a way to deal with that in the long term, but for the moment we are providing the option for people to participate in the scheme. That can be discussed at greater length on Committee Stage. As Deputies will be aware, if I am in a position to establish a scheme I prefer to get that scheme up and running and then modify it or consider other possibilities at a later stage. To set up such a scheme in the first instance is difficult enough from the financial point of view, but it may be unwise to talk about other possibilities with the scheme for fear of sinking the ship for the ha'p'orth of tar. On the other hand, if we get a basic structure in place people will see that it will not be abused or require too much funding.

A number of those points have been made here today, particularly by Deputy Mary Coughlan, who as a native of Donegal is closely associated with the fishing industry. She made it clear that although there may be a few people around the country in the millionaire class, they would be very much the exception compared with some of the vast fleets that operate here.

The factory ships.

We did not say there were any millionaires in this industry. The papers would lead one to believe there are, but in fact fishermen are scraping the floor in regard to their earnings.

Everybody in Donegal is scraping the floor at this stage. I can see there is a close liaison between the Deputies.

The papers said that, but it is not true.

Deputy Coughlan also raised the question as to what happens the A1 stamps which have already been accrued and whether they will be taken into account in regard to entitlement to benefits. A number of other Deputies raised that point also. I can say that they will be credited, but since a person may be self-employed for a period in between, a gap may develop which may present a problem. In some instances people would have credits in relation to, say, disability or unemployment benefit. However, as I understand it, they would be few in number. Another Deputy asked if those contributions will be taken into account in regard to pension rights and I can say they will.

Deputy Coughlan recognised that the cost involved in this scheme is sufficiently high as far as the individuals are concerned. The problem now is that there is no longer an employer-employee situation. In normal circumstances the employer and the employee both make a contribution, but that is the difficulty with the situation we face now. I can tell the Deputies that this scheme will cost us money; that is the reality. On the other hand, as some Deputies have said, there is the question of solidarity. There are the exceptional circumstances where people have made contributions all along and I recognise that. The fishing industry is a fairly hazardous one but it is also an industry which is in a very special position.

Deputy Coughlan mentioned the fact that boats could be tied up for up to 26 weeks in a year. Indeed, Deputy Doyle said that in some years they could be tied up for 13 weeks while in others it might be 26 weeks and she asked whether we could examine the possibility of a rollover situation where the years could perhaps be combined. I will certainly consider that between now and Committee Stage to see if there is any merit in the proposal.

Deputy Coughlan also asked what would happen following the 12 month period of disability benefit. What would follow that depends on the individual circumstances. Immediately following the cessation of disability benefit the person would be entitled to a supplementary welfare allowance and then the person might qualify again for a further period of disability benefit. However, we can discuss this on Committee Stage. I had intended including that in my contribution today but decided that it was more appropriate to deal with that on Committee Stage.

Deputy Coughlan and several other Deputies raised the question of accidents on board ships. That, of course, raises the question of occupational injury. This is an issue that I will consider, bearing in mind that I am setting up a new scheme that is not in expensive in practice. However, I believe that, where possible, occupational injury benefit should be available in all sectors and we will consider how that might be dealt with at a later stage.

Mention was made of the possibility of my meeting with various groups between now and Committee Stage and Deputy Coughlan referred to the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation. I was actually due to meet that organisation last Monday but because of its European commitments it was unable to keep the appointment. I am scheduled to meet the organisation next Wednesday.

Can representatives of Kilmore Quay join them rather than have two meetings?

I would have no objection to that.

Perhaps the Minister will notify us of the date and time.

That can be worked out at a later stage.

I take it that relevant Oireachtas Members are welcome?

Relevant Oireachtas Members are always welcome. As the Deputy will know, I pay a great deal of attention to what Oireachtas Members say because they usually know what is happening on the ground. That is not necessarily reflected in the media but nevertheless it is a reality. Much of the change that has been brought about in this House over the years has come from the convictions of Oireachtas Members. The change has not always come about as soon as the Members have the conviction because I may not be able to provide funding at that time.

We know the Minister responds.

However, we do pursue those issues fairly actively.

Deputy Coughlan raised the question about people who may also work in a fish factory. In that case one could qualify for benefit under the contributions from the fish factory, which are full A1 contributions, or one could combine the two in order to qualify for such benefit. These could all be combined, which would be beneficial.

Deputy Coughlan asked when one comes into benefit, whether people could pay back contributions to enable them to come into benefit sooner and whether we would examine that position. Certainly we will examine it.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share