Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(5) For the purpose of this section, the Minister shall, by regulation, provide for a method of assessing the reckonable income of each optional contributor.".
Next April the Bill proposes that share fishermen may opt for this extra contribution to give them limited unemployment benefit cover and 12 months disability benefit cover. However, they will pay the extra percentage of PRSI based on their earnings for the 1993-94 tax year. Therefore, they will need a certificate of their earnings for this year to determine the basis on which they will contribute from April onwards. In many cases, given the confusion about the period after the McLoughlin and Griffith judgments, there is no evidence about what the fishermen have earned or are earning this year, the first year that matters.
In relation to those fishermen who do not have tax returns for this year, my amendment urges the Minister to allow, by regulation if necessary, a method of assessing the reckonable income of contributors who wish to opt for this new scheme from April onwards. In other words, there should be a basis for determining the fishermen's income for this year. They would then pay their percentage of contributions on the assessment of this year's earnings. From then on, they must have full tax returns and certified income.
Given the confusion of the last few years, there could be a problem about including people in the system when they are not certified. I would like the Minister to make a provision to allow as many fishermen as possible to get into this scheme. Many fishermen will be precluded from the scheme because they will not have certified earnings for this year.
We will accept what these fishermen give us in the first instance and then we will look for certification.
For the first year?
Yes.
They might not have a certificate for this year.
They might not be able to get it for last year.
For the 1993-94 tax year they will need certification of their income for that year so as to determine the exact contribution they should be paying next April.
It is a once-off problem.
Is it the 1992-93 year?
Yes.
That is probably even more problematic.
Yes.
For the base year, may we have an assessment situation to include them in the system?
Something is needed to get people on side.
There are many people with larger incomes getting amnesties at present. I am asking for a one year amnesty or assessment.
As far as we are concerned, it is acceptable. However, it does not make any difference whether it is in the Act or the regulations because it does not affect what we are planning to do. It is a question of how we operate it and we will accept what these people put forward.
Self-assessment?
We will see if these fishermen can produce the certificates later.
And if they do not?
We will have accepted it already.
The problem will only last one year while we are trying to get the people into the system. From now on they should keep everything in order.
I understand the point the Deputy is making.
Perhaps it will last for two years. If 1992-93 is the base year to get into the scheme next April, there could also be problems with the 1993-94 year, as we are only now bringing the scheme to these people. It could be a two year problem, but after that it should not exist.
These are separate provisions under Revenue law which will require these people to make their returns. They must send their information to the Revenue Commissioners. They are required to do this independently of us or anything we might do. We will accept their returns for our purpose.
Therefore, the Minister does not want certified income tax returns?
That will happen eventually.
I do not mind eventually, once we receive them for this year and last year on a declaration basis. We can receive the certified income after that.
We get them in on that basis.
Will they then be entitled to the benefits?
Yes.
I want to mention my other amendment. Perhaps Deputy Clohessy would also like to mention his, although I accept the reason it has been ruled out of order as it is a charge on the Exchequer. There is little the Opposition can propose these days which is not a charge on the Exchequer. This point was discussed earlier with Deputy Sheehan under section 3. If I had raised it under section 3, I would have been ruled out of order by the Chairman. It is important to clarify the date from which these optional contributors will qualify for benefit. There is a precedent and a procedure for operating the insurance fund through paying contributions which will eventually accrue benefit. Share fishermen have had to deal with chaos through no fault of their own and two High Court judgments have kicked them around in relation to their entitlements under the tax code and, subsequently, the social welfare code. The judgments confused the issue and the Minister is now trying to resolve that confusion. Notwithstanding the precedent, since this will apply only to less than 2,500 full-time fishermen, I urge the Minister to allow those who start full-time payments from the commencement date in April to be included under unemplyment and disability benefits on January 1 1995.
The Deputy knows this came up accidentally earlier.
It was not accidental.
I said, following discussions we had yesterday with the fishermen, we would consider going back one year and allowing them to pay in for a year. That has cost implications but we will examine it.
Will the Minister allow them pay for the year 1993-94, and allow them enter in January 1995?
We will allow them pay for the year that has passed which will bring them in from 1 January 1995.
Could that logic be extended further back so they could come in next January, in three weeks time?
No it could not. There are cost implications. I have given an undertaking to look at this issue and all that can be done to give the share fishermen cover for unemployment benefit, disability benefit at an earlier date. I appreciate the point made and I will deal with it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
There is concern that share fishermen at the lower end of the income scale could find a contribution of £250 per annum to be more than 5 per cent of their earnings. They would thereby be proportionately at a disadvantage to higher earning share fishermen. I know one must have a minimum income of £70 to be able to opt into this scheme but many share fishermen would be at the lower end of the scale. What are the Minister's thoughts on this issue?
There are two aspects to this. First, the lower the earnings, the bigger the benefit for the individual and the greater the cost will be to the social insurance fund, as the Deputy will appreciate. The contributions will be collected directly by the Department. While we have not yet finalised the administrative procedures for collection it is envisaged that provision will be made to allow payment for contributions by instalment, either quarterly or some other suitable arrangement. That would facilitate the share fishermen. The minimum payment of £250 is just less than £5 a week and there is a considerable amount of cover for that.
Yes, but that will be on top of their 5 per cent contribution.
Yes, the total contribution will be about £9 per week. We pay large amounts in unemployment benefit. It is not that they are oversized but in relation to £5 a week they are high. The same is true of disability benefit. If there are dependants the rates are higher again. In that sense it is attractive from their point of view. We will make arrangements to facilitate payment.
Question put and agreed to.