asked the Minister for Social Welfare why share fishermen in the Cashen district, Ballyduff, Tralee, County Kerry, were refused unemployment benefit, in view of the fact that they had the necessary insurance contributions to qualify for payment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kerry Share Fishermen's Unemployment Benefit.
4.
Certain fishermen in the Cashen district were formerly held to be insurable under the Social Welfare Acts at the special rate payable in respect of share fishermen. A question was, however, raised as to whether these men were, in fact, insurable. It was decided by a deciding officer that they were. Following the decisions a demand was made for payment of the necessary contributions liability for which falls on the owner of the boat or bailee. The demand was resisted and proceedings in the district court were instituted. When the case came before the court, the solicitor acting for the defence pleaded that there was no employment within the meaning of the Social Welfare Acts as the fishermen concerned were in effect partners and joint owners of the boat. The District Justice adjourned the case so that the deciding officer might have an opportunity to revise his decision and at the same time give formal decisions in respect of additional share fishermen for whom payment of contributions had been demanded. The deciding officer referred the latter cases to an appeals officer for decision, pending which he deferred further consideration of the first case. The appeals officer after an oral hearing at which all the parties concerned gave evidence decided that the share fishermen were not employed in insurable employment and contributions were not payable in respect of them. In consequence, a number of fishermen from the area have not been entitled to unemployment benefit in recent months.
Is it fair that these men who were told they should stamp their cards should then be told that they are not eligible for unemployment benefit?
They brought their case to the court and it was proved that they were not entitled to stamp a card.
Then would the Parliamentary Secretary consider refunding the contributions they have made?
We shall refund whatever they are legally entitled to.
Is it not a fact that the Parliamentary Secretary brought them into court himself? They did not go into court of their own accord. Is it not also a fact that an official of his Department told them that they should stamp their cards and that the deciding officer, who is also an official of the Department, told them that they should not stamp them?
The share fishermen want to have their cake and to eat it at the same time.
They work very hard for it.
It is very unfair that they should be told first to stamp their cards and then told by another official of the Department that they are not entitled to benefit.
This is not a new case. This matter is constantly before the Department and has been since the Department was set up.
Will they have to stamp cards in the future?
That is a separate question and I suggest that the Deputy put it down for answer.