Does this section allow optional contributors who do not qualify because their earnings are below the prescribed amount of £70 per week to receive a reduced rate benefit related to their level of earnings? Is this a provision which exists at the moment in the social welfare code for all contributors or is it a new provision?
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
No, that is part of the system.
There is no change that I could see but is there something in it which I have missed?
No, we are trying to be as helpful as possible in every way.
I was not sure if it extended to the entire code or just to this category of people.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments No. 7 to 10, inclusive, are ruled out of order as they all involve potential charges on the Exchequer.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
I have difficulties with the interpretation of this section, which I previously indicated to the Minister. The fishermen also have difficulties with that and they are worried because of their history of difficulty in proving their entitlement to unemployment assistance in the past and unemployment benefit as it will be now, because of the availability-for-work clause. That difficulty will persist. The wording of this section may not clarify beyond doubt that fishermen may work on nets or on a boat if the boat is tied up and still be eligible for unemployment benefit. I was trying to ask the Minister, by way of amendments which were understandably ruled out of order, to put on the record the fact that fishermen may continue their practice and way of life as heretofore, that is, to mend their nets and do other routine maintenance jobs when not at sea and still maintain their eligibility for unemployment benefit. It is a double negative which causes confusion in the interpretation of the section.
There is not really a problem with it in practice and if the Deputy looks at the end of the section she will see that it states: "but any other work done to the fishing vessel or its nets or gear, shall be disregarded." That is, for example, during tie ups and so on. The condition is not a new one. It was introduced in 1964 when share fishermen first became insured as employees and entitled to unemployment benefit. During the 28 years in which share fishermen were insured as employees, my Department has not been aware of any difficulties in the application of this condition.
We are talking about unemployment benefit here. We could have a long discussion about what happens with unemployment assistance but it is a separate issue. Similar provision should apply but unemployment assistance is means tested. Similar conditions apply elsewhere; it is general in the fishing industry. In the event of difficulty arising, the matter will be resolved by checking with the skipper of the boat. That is what is done.
Is that to see if he is paying the individual concerned while they are on shore? What would they be checking with the skipper for?
To ensure that they are actually tied up and not being paid and then being paid unemployment benefit at the same time. The kind of work is actually specified here. It clearly states that "any other work done to a fishing vessel or its nets or gear, shall be disregarded".
But also states that "For the purposes of subsection 1, work includes any work done to the fishing vessel or its nets or gear by way of repairs or maintenance . . .". In other words anything done to the nets or gear of the boat can be taken into consideration but the Minister's last sentence is "but any other work done to the fishing vessel or its nets or gear, shall be disregarded".
If there is an agreement as part of his terms of employment that——
There are no terms of employment because they are self-employed; they do what they like.
It may be as part of his contract or the arrangement. They do not have difficulty in practice with that now——
The letter of the law, as interpreted by the local social welfare officer, would cause the difficulty. The spirit of the Minister's intentions are fine as is the last sentence. However, when in addressing the term "work", I cannot think of any other work which could be done which would be excluded from the first statement, "work including any repairs to nets or gear. . .". With the best will in the world on the part of the Minister, people could be excluded by the local social welfare officer's interpretation.
It is a difficult area but there are no problems in practice. The only thing I can do is assure Deputies that if difficulties arise we will consider them. We appreciate what has been said and what the practice has been. The problem is that they have no unemployment benefit at present; we are trying to give it back to them. The problem is not the determination by our people whether they should get it.
There has not been a problem because there have been no UB benefit claims. There have been problems when fisherman were doing what is now permissible under section, that is, claiming unemployment assistance while on shore. I know the Minister will tell me they are different but the bottom line in terms of eligibility for UA or UB is availability for work. The interpretation of the social welfare officer on the ground is that a fisherman who is not at sea but mending nets is not available for work and therefore ineligible for UA. There is major concern that this will be the interpretation in terms of eligibility for UB and it is understandable.
I can assure the Deputy that my Department will treat such a person as being available for work. There is no question of that.
Will the social welfare officers be instructed accordingly?
They will of course; there is no difficulty in doing that.
If there was a change of Minister or a change of heart, would that still pertain in future years?
You will still have your committee——
Could we have it recommended or written in?
Could we have it on record?
It is written in, in the sense that——
It is very difficult to define.
It is very difficult to define because it is not a real situation. It cannot just be put down in black and white. That is what the problem has been.
I ask the Minister to look at the last sentence in subsection 2 "but any other works done to the fishing vessel or its nets or gear shall be disregarded." and tell me what type of work could be included seeing as all other works and repairs have earlier been excluded? What is the Minister speaking of in that section?
It is work which he is not obliged to do by custom, practice or agreement. The fishermen do not have a problem with it and I have given Deputies an assurance——
But there has been a serious problem in terms of UA. This is a running sore in ports and harbours around the coastline in terms of establishing eligibility for UA. We are concerned that the same criteria in terms of "availability for work" will now be applied to UB.
The difficulty is very understandable——
It is quite understandable from the social welfare officer's point of view.
I assured Deputies that my Department would look at that and they were very satisfied. Deputy Sheehan was then afraid I might not even be here to do it. The Estimates are being debated at Cabinet and if I do not get there soon, I might not be here to do it.
Would the Minister explain why eligibility for unemployment benefit is limited to 78 days in this case whereas other people who are paying their employment contributions can claim for 15 months?
The Deputy is now talking about the full A1 stamp which the employer pays. I really do not want to say too much about it as those who have been discussing it with us for some time know because this scheme is going to cost money. It is a very good package and the fishermen are very happy with it.
They voiced any difficulties and problems they have. They would like to have the option to pay the full A1 stamp and we are examining that to see how it can be done. This is a good scheme. It means that a fisherman is going to get 13 weeks unemployment benefit in every year. If a fisherman does not have 13 weeks when he is not fishing, he is very happy. He could have a bit more but he is very happy to get 13 weeks in every year.
I do not doubt the bona fides of the Minister on this matter but there are and will be difficulties of interpretation. In the past, the Minister has come in for some criticism about circulars issuing from his Department. Perhaps he would agree to issue a circular to social welfare officers conveying the spirit of the commitment he is giving here.
We said earlier that we would distribute fact sheets and information. I accept that uniform implementation is very important and we will distribute information and guidelines to the deciding officers.
The fishermen have difficulty with the limitation of their entitlement to unemployment benefit to 13 weeks in any one year. In the amendment I tabled I wanted the Minister to extend the cover in any one year for unemployment benefit to 120 days. I would also ask that in any period of three years where a fisherman does not claim entitlement to UB, one year's unused UB could be rolled over.
This may seem an unusual provision but fishing is a most unusual occupation. A boat may be tied up due to bad weather or an engine breakdown and, through no fault of their own, fishermen can find themselves land based and out of work. I want the Minister to allow the yearly entitlement to UB to be on a three-year roll. If a fisherman is tied up for 26 weeks this winter and only five weeks next winter, they could be paid for the entire time they are land based. Their yearly entitlement would be part of a three-year cycle and unused portions could be carried forward if necessary. It is terribly important because it is weather-related and we do not know how many weeks they are going to be tied up.
I understand that. It is a further question of cost in the first instance.
It need not be.
I have to make the point clear that it certainly would be seen as such. We certainly will look at that for Report Stage. I put in the caveat that it would be seen as a cost area. If things went well it would not cost so much. It is a question of rolling over unused days to a subsequent year and will examine it in the context of Report Stage if it is possible. If not we have a second chance to look at it in the main Bill.
Could I ask the Minister's view on extending the weekly cover in any one year from 13 weeks to 20 weeks? It is a most important issue for fishermen.
The one thing Deputy Doyle must learn is to quit when she is ahead.
I want to know the Minister's views. The fishermen specifically put this point to him and I am just their mouthpiece at the moment.
The Deputy is more than that. The other approach would be a reasonable one and we will see if we can implement it.
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.