The two people concerned are share-fishermen. Prior to 1986 all fishermen were treated as employees under the PAYE and PRSI systems and were thus covered for all social welfare benefits.
In 1986 a High Court judgment ruled in the case of a particular fishing vessel that the skipper and his crew should not be regarded as employer and employees for PAYE purposes. However, fishermen continued to be regarded as employees for PRSI purposes until 1992 when the High Court ruled that share-fishermen should be regarded as self-employed partners. Like other self-employed workers they are required to pay Class S social insurance contributions which are reckoned for entitlement to contributory pensions but not for unemployment or other short term social welfare benefits.
In recognition of the unique position of share-fishermen in regard to social insurance arising out of their exclusion from insurance as employees, my predecessor made provision in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1993, to provide share-fishermen with cover for unemployment, illness and treatment benefit. The new scheme gives share-fishermen the option of paying special additional contributions which give cover for these benefits and 154 share-fishermen availed of that option.
There was confusion in the industry over the matter and some share-fishermen continued to have Class A PRSI contributions paid on their behalf for periods after the 1992 High Court judgment. In the circumstances it was decided, as a transitional arrangement, to allow these contributions to be reckonable for entitlement to unemployment, disability and treatment benefit claims arising in the benefit years 1994 and 1995.
I am afraid it becomes even more confusing. The position of the two share-fishermen concerned was considered in March 1994 when the owners of the boats on which they fished sought formal decisions from my Department on the insurability of these men. Decisions were given, on 5 May 1994 in one case and on 7 June 1994 in the other, that they were deemed to be self-employed and liable to pay social insurance contributions at Class S. Those decisions were not appealed. A refund of Class A contributions was applied for in each case and have been allowed. Their social insurance records were amended.
Both men made claims for unemployment benefit, one on 30 June 1994 and the other on 1 July 1994, which were disallowed on the grounds that they had fewer than 39 reckonable contributions paid in the governing contribution year, which was the tax year 1992-93. Neither of the claimants appealed these decisions. The deciding officer's decision is in line with the 1992 High Court ruling.
In relation to my predecessor's commitment to the Select Committee on Social Affairs, this cannot apply in these cases since a formal decision was given on request and a refund in respect of PRSI contributions was sought and made. In these circumstances nothing can be done to alter the position in the two cases.
