Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1993

Vol. 436 No. 7

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.

In respect of amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister recommittal is necessary as it involves a charge on the Revenue. Recommittal is also necessary in respect of amendment No. 2. I should say, however, that the amendments should be discussed separately and separate decisions should be taken in respect of each amendment as they are not related.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 30, to delete "beginning on the 6th day of April, 1994" and substitute "ending on the 5th day of April, 1994".

The Bill as initiated provided that share fishermen who opt into the new scheme would start paying contributions in the income tax year commencing 6 April 1994. This would enable share fishermen to qualify for unemployment benefit and disability benefit from January 1996. The amendment I am now proposing will enable share fishermen to start paying the new optional contributions in the current income tax year. This means that they will be entitled to receive benefits a year sooner, that is, from January 1995 as compared to January 1996 under the Bill as initiated. This improvement in the proposed new scheme will be welcomed by representatives of the fishing industry with whom I had discussions last week. The issue was also raised by a number of Deputies during the course of the debate on Second Stage in the Dáil.

Despite the cost implications involved I undertook on Committee Stage to examine the possibility of amending the Bill on Report Stage to deal with this issue. I am pleased to be able to put forward this amendment to provide share fishermen with the vital cover for unemployment benefit and disability benefit at the earliest possible date. This meets the wishes of the fishermen and of the Deputies who spoke in the House.

Due to illness last week I was unable to take part in the Committee Stage debate, but the views put forward by speakers on this side support the principle of this amendment, which we welcome as an improvement for share fishermen.

I concur with my colleague in welcoming the Minister's amendment. It goes a long way towards responding to our concerns about fishermen not coming into benefit until January 1996, having started to pay these new optional contributions in April 1994. I had asked the Minister to make a special case and he expressed concern about creating a precedent if he shortened the contribution period before anyone could come into benefit. I had hoped that those who started paying next April 1994 could come into benefit for unemployment benefit and disability benefit in January 1995. The Minister's handling of the matter will allow the option of making back payments from April 1993 to enable share fishermen to qualify for benefit in January 1995.

Did the Minister consider my request last week that we treat the share fishermen somewhat differently? The court judgment decided that they were self-employed or, at the very least, not employees. They are really in a third category which we are now redefining in this class S social welfare code. As they do not fit comfortably into the category of self-employed under the tax and social welfare codes as we now know them, I wonder could we make an exception in the case of the 2,500 fishermen involved and allow them to qualify next January. What consideration did the Minister give to that suggestion?

The scheme is beneficial financially and it costs us money. Bringing it back a further year would mean the State making further financial provision. We have allowed for an extra year which is what the fishermen asked for in the first instance.

On the more general question raised by Deputy Doyle in regard to the fishermen who might want to contribute at the full rate, we are examining the guidelines to see if we can bring forward new guidelines to deal with the question of a contract of service. If we can find a solution it may be possible for the skipper, who by definition is not the employer, to make contributions at the full rate if he wishes to do so. If it is possible, we would be quite happy with that. It will be dealt with in the guidelines as a matter of urgency. We were told by Mr. Joey Murren of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation that a considerable number of the skippers, about 50 per cent, who were previously regarded as employers, would be interested in paying the full employers' rate in any event.

I thank the Minister for looking at this issue. Would that we could deal with it today, but the Minister has explained that we probably cannot incorporate this extension in this Social Welfare Bill. Having considered the matter, could the Minister indicate when we may be able to put in place a new definition of "optional contributor"? In this Bill an optional contributor is only the same fisherman. The Minister is suggesting that the concept of an "optional contributor" could be extended to the skipper. We will be redefining "optional contributor" in the next year's social welfare Bill. However, it is important that we signal what time-scale we have in mind so that there is no gap in contributions in the context of skippers who have been and are still paying the A1 rate because they feel that if they do not cover every eventuality they will lose good men and women — I am sure there are a few share fisherwomen around the country too. Can we legally keep skippers who are at the moment contributing the full A1 rate in the system from availing of full benefits? Can the Minister assure us that such share fishermen will be covered for the full benefits equivalent to the A1 rate, because there is some question that in the aftermath of the Griffith judgement, as January 1994 approaches, the 1993-94 contribution year will not be covered at the full class A1 rate even if contributions are made at that rate? Even though we cannot incorporate it in the Bill, if it is on the record, stated by the Minister, it will assure skippers that they are in order in continuing to pay at the class A1 rate. Perhaps a contract of service is necessary to technically indicate that the fisherman is tied to the skipper and the boat.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position in regard to those paying at the A1 rate in the run up to January 1994.

I want to make it clear that anyone paying the class A1 contribution is covered for the A1 benefits and we have no intention to altering that. It depends very much on the contract of service. Following the passage of this Bill we will look at the guidelines for the contract of service to see if more people can come within those guidelines. On preliminary examination it looks as if that could be done in the case of those who want to opt in. That will be completed in time for the main Bill when we can look at the issue again. If there is any default on that side we will consider what can be done in the main Social Welfare Bill. That should meet the Deputies' concerns.

I join with my colleagues in acknowledging the contribution which the Minister has made by bringing in this amendment. The Minister undertook on Committee Stage last week to contact the people involved. Although he was generous in his praise of the Deputies who raised this matter on behalf of the fishermen, there is a gap in communications to fishermen. Deputies can get information to organisations like the IFO. However, there are other fishermen who are not in the IFO and who will not have access to this information. I ask the Minister, because of this important amendment, to ensure that his Department gives this information directly to fishermen through the regional offices which are in a position to contact share fishermen.

That is a good and relevant point in these circumstances because things have been so complicated. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage. However, I would like to give an assurance in the House that we will prepare comprehensive information and take special care to make sure that people in the areas that matter understand the benefits of this amendment. That point was also made on Committee Stage.

I join with the other speakers in complimenting the Minister for his action in this matter. As Deputy Carey stated, people outside the House would not be aware of the Minister's intentions and it is a good public relations exercise to circularise those involved.

I want to make a case for those who have paid A1 contributions or on whose behalf such contributions have been paid. My colleague, Deputy Sheehan, passed me a letter from a crewman in Castletownbere. There has been great confusion about handling the payment of contributions. Even where skippers wanted to continue paying the class A1 rate, in certain areas along the coast the Department of Social Welfare refused to accept it. The Minister must clarify the position in this regard. The crewman's letter reads:

Quite a few trawlers have always paid A1 contibutions until quite recently and only stopped doing so as in our case because the Department of Social Welfare refused to accept our contributions. I know that trawlers here in Castletownbere still pay A1 contibutions for their crews (I asked crewmen and it was deducted from their last pay cheque). How is that the case.

In some cases the Department of Social Welfare has refused to accept A1 contributions and in other cases skippers have continued to pay A1 contributions. The letter continued:

I have appealed the Department of Social Welfare's decision 11/10/93 and am waiting to be called to an appeals board. Therefore why was I not left on A1 contributions until this matter was resolved, unless of course the Department has already decided against me before my appeal is heard?

The new Bill should not concern fishing vessels who are already or were willing to start paying A1 contributions. It should not be needed at all as crewmen are not or cannot be self-employed.

That is another point the crewman was making. Total confusion exists in relation to the treatment of crewmen and the social welfare code. In the Bill the Minister rationalises much of the confusion, but I fear that skippers who have been paying the class A1 rate may use this Bill to avoid continuing to pay it — and legally they might be correct in doing so. I want the Minister to give me an assurance that those who wish to continue to pay the class A1 rate may do so next year until the Minister advises us as to his considerations on whether a contract of service will resolve the matter.

The Deputy should tell the crewman not to rush his appeal. The matter may be resolved before his appeal is heard. The scope section of the Department determines such appeals. When dealing with cases it asseses if a case involves a contract of service. It follows the current guidelines and decisions that have been handed down. We are providing one scheme but in the operation of that scheme, it may emerge that skippers will have to pay the employer's contribution to satisfy their employees. The question then arose, could we accommodate those people? There are two ways to do this. We can consider the guidelines which would issue to the scope section.

There are complications in regard to how the scheme operates. The matter could be dealt with by a simple approach but if that does not work, the timescale approach may be adopted. However, if that is not workable, the matter can be addressed in next year's Social Welfare Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, lines 31 and 32, to delete "disability benefit or unemployment benefit" and substitute "disability benefit, unemployment benefit or treatment benefit".

The Bill, as initiated, provided that share fishermen who opt for the new scheme will be covered for disability benefit and unemployment benefit. Disability benefit will be payable for up to 12 months in any continuous period of incapacity; unemployment benefit will be payable for up to 13 weeks in each calendar year.

I have been most anxious to provide share fishermen with access to the treatment benefits scheme and I told representatives of the fishing industry that I was examining the possibility of extending the benefits of the new scheme to include treatment benefits. I am pleased to bring forward amendment No. 2 to do this. This is a very important scheme because the benefits are also available to dependent spouses. Following on the resolution last year of the dispute with the Irish Dental Association, the number of spouses receiving benefit has almost doubled. In the period January to October this year, more than 42,000 women working in the home have qualified for treatment benefit.

The provision of treatment benefits to dependent spouses is vitally important. Over 160,000 dependent spouses have availed of treatment benefits since I extended the scheme in 1987. The scheme now covers more than 1.3 million people. Deputies will recognise the value of this scheme and the Minister for Finance accepted the value and importance of this scheme and supports my proposed amendment. This is an important amendment to the scheme which, I am sure, will be welcomed by Deputies on all sides.

It is nice when a Minister listens to requests from Members. I note from the "blacks" of the proceedings on Committee Stage last week that my colleagues, Deputies Doyle and Ahern were loud in their demands for the inclusion of treatment benefit under the Bill. As Deputies said last week, everyone pays lip service to the importance of the women working in the home and the exclusion of treatment benefit for spouses working in the home would have been a major defect in the Bill. Obviously the Minister listened to the points made last week. We welcome the inclusion of the treatment benefits in the Bill.

I thank the Deputy for his remarks. Deputies Doyle, Ahern, Coughlan and O'Keeffe spoke in favour of the inclusion of those benefits and I am pleased it was possible to provide for that in the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his amendment. It is obvious we were pushing an open door in terms of our concerns in this area and his response is welcome. We should also thank the Minister for Finance for accepting a case that could stand alone. As I said last week, the spouses of insured workers, usually wives, have been a forgotten sector for too long in terms of insurance cover under the social welfare code. I welcome the extension not only in this area but generally, and the recognition of the sacrifice most mothers and wives, but particularly mothers, have made to ensure that their husbands and children have always had the dental and optical care the family could afford. Usually the mother went without necessary optical and dental care if the money was not there. The dental records of middle aged women who have had children testify to the neglect of their teeth — and I presume the same is due of their eyesight.

It is testimony to the unselfishness and generosity of Irish women and the wish of all of us to ensure that our children are given first preference. We will sacrifice almost anything to give our children a good start in life. Whether in terms of health, education or whatever, the Irish family puts the child first. It is nice to be able to say to spouses, who in this case are in the main women, that they are not forgotten, that we recognise their contribution to ensuring that their husbands are in a position to provide for them and their families and that we are extending the treatment benefits to them.

This is a very worthwhile provision. It should go without saying that any worker's insurance should cover the spouse in terms of treatment benefits, particularly the spouse who perhaps gives up his or her career and stays at home to do the most important job of rearing the next generation, those who will take over the reins when we have passed through the system. I thank the Minister for acceding to our request that treatment benefits be extended to spouses. I know it is a matter close to his heart. On Second Stage and Committee Stage the Minister indicated his support in this regard and he has followed through with this welcome amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(5) For the purposes of this section, the Minister shall, by regulation, provide for a method of assessing the reckonable income of each optional contributor.".

This is a resubmitted amendment from Committee Stage. I expressed concern last week, particularly about share fishermen and crewmen who have found themselves outside the tax and social welfare code since 1986 and particularly since the Griffith judgment of February 1992.

On the question of extending to share fishermen treatment benefits and unemployment and disability benefit, as that depends on the payment of an extra 5 per cent PRSI based on the previous year's income, the difficulty will be immediately apparent for those who are outside the system and have no certified income for the previous year. Given the Government's support for the amnesty concept, I ask the Minister, in this genuine case where there is no certified income, to allow for the first year of operation of this scheme an assessed or reckonable income on which the extra 5 per cent will be paid.

The Minister will probably recall my concerns expressed last week about this matter. He indicated that the Department of Social Welfare would accept assessed or reckoned income of the individual share fishermen. He can speak only in terms of social welfare. I ask the Minister to provide for uniform application of reckonable income for those outside the tax code to ensure we get people into the system, particularly those who want to pay contributions but are afraid to get into the system as they have had no income for the last year or two.

This is a very complicated matter. The fact that these people were deemed to be outside the PAYE system did not mean they were outside the tax code — they were in the self-employed code. Because of the confusion that exists, some people may have difficulty in establishing the position during that period. On the one hand they would have thought the skipper was keeping the records, but they find that these records are no longer relevant to them. We will certainly be as helpful as possible in resolving the difficulties faced by these people. In most cases they will not be outside the tax code although they are outside the PAYE system. In theory they should go straight into the other system but in practice there could be a hiatus and I will specifically consider that matter.

The Bill provides that optional contributions will be payable by share fishermen on the same income base as that on which self-employment contributions are payable. The income base on which contributions are payable is an essential element of the scheme and should be provided for in the Act itself.

Section 4 of the Bill inserts a new Chapter 4A into the Consolidation Act. Section 24B (1) of the new Chapter provides that people who opt into the scheme will be liable for a contribution of 5 per cent of their reckonable income in the preceding tax year. Reckonable income is defined in section 2 (1) of the Consolidation Act. Section 3 of the Bill extends this definition of reckonable income to include optional contributors. Reckonable income is estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts. It covers income to which schedule D tax applies. Therefore the income base on which the new optional contributions will be payable will be the same as that on which self-employment contributions are payable. This means that it will be relatively easy to establish the income of the share fishermen and therefore the scheme will operate efficiently——

The Minister was more realistic.

In the normal course of events there will be no difficulty in determining the income on which optional contributions will be payable. Contributions will be payable on the basis of the previous year's income. This information will be available to my Department provided self-employment contributions have been paid in respect of that year.

Tax contributions?

Yes. There may be some instances in which the information will not be available, but I assured Deputy Doyle during Committee Stage that my Department will adopt a flexible approach in these circumstances. Where it is not possible to verify the person's income at the time at which contributions are payable we will work on a self-assessment basis. Share fishermen are required to make a return of income to the Revenue Commissioners. The details of income provided by share fishermen can be verified after the event as the information works its way through the system. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment. I believe we will be able to deal in practice with the real issue raised by Deputy Doyle.

I have concerns about the Minister's response which indicates how the officials will implement the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill when enacted. Having had a brief sojourn on the other side as a Minister of State I know enough about how the system works to appreciate that what the Minister came in armed with as distinct from what he added is the thinking of the officials in his Department on this issue. That concerns me because it leaves no room for assessed income where a fisherman is not inside the tax code as self-employed. That is where the Minister and I would have difficulties. The spirit of what he said meets some of my concerns but the letter of the official brief which the Minister put on the record greatly concerns me.

We need a guarantee that share fishermen, like other self-employed persons, will be able to operate on the basis of self-assessment for the last year or two and that they will be able to pay the extra 5 per cent provided for in the Bill, thus qualifying them to be included in the new system and to be eligible for unemployment benefit, disability benefit and the treatment benefits proposed by the Minister.

There will be major difficulties in getting the system up and running if we do not allow for self-assessment by those fishermen who are not up-to-date in terms of their tax contributions. I accept that the Minister can only do so much in this regard — there is a certain line beyond which he cannot go as a member of the Cabinet — but I need an assurance from him in regard to the large numbers of fishermen who are now outside the tax and social welfare codes through no fault of their own, but because of the confusion which has existed since the 1986 judgment in the McLoughlin case and the 1992 judgment in the Griffiths case. Some skippers have been paying the A1 rate for their crews, some fishermen have been let pay what they want and other fishermen are in and out of work and do not know what their income is. Will they be able to get into the optional contribution scheme on the basis of self-assessed income for last year and the year before? If these fishermen want to backdate their contributions to allow them to receive benefit in January 1995 two years' income will have to be taken into account and if they want to receive benefit in January 1996 this year's self-assessment income will have to be taken into account. I ask the Minister for assurances in this regard.

I want to——

We are on Report Stage and it is not possible for the Minister to contribute on this amendment again.

The Ceann Comhairle gave us greater latitude.

I will explain why that was so. The Bill was recommitted in respect of the previous two amendments.

Will the Chair allow the Minister to reply?

It is highly irregular——

I merely want to give the Deputy one assurance, that is, there is no difference between the point made in what I jokingly referred to as the official reply and the point I made in simple terms. Deputy Doyle was talking to Deputy Allen when I made the point that where it is not possible to verify the person's income at the time at which contributions are payable we will work on a self-assessment basis. The point I am making is that where these problems arise we will work on a self-assessment basis. However, it must be remembered that a share fisherman has to be earning £2,500 net per year to be included in the system. I know that point is appreciated. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the latitude he has given me.

To clarify the position, the Bill was recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 but we are now on Report Stage. Is the Deputy withdrawing her amendment?

No, I should like it to be put.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 4 is deemed to be out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Will it involve a charge on the Revenue given that we have accepted amendment No. 1? It would appear that the Revenue has come part of the road and the Minister has changed the date.

The Minister has the power but we do not.

The Bill had to be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1 on that basis.

How will we debate amendment No. 1 on Report Stage? Will that be for another day?

It cannot be discussed at this stage.

Will we have an opportunity of again debating amendment No. 1 on another Report Stage?

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

We now move to amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"6.—Where any optional contributor has paid A1 rate contributions he shall be entitled, subject to eligibility, to all class A1 benefits.".

We dealt with the subject matter of this amendment in the debate on the previous amendments. This amendment proposes that any optional contributor who has paid A1 rate contributions should be entitled, subject to eligibility, to all class A1 benefits. This amendment may preempt what I hope the Minister will do in next year's social welfare Bill, that is, extend the concept of optional contributor to include skippers and or boat owners; in other words, the payer as distinct from the payee.

I feel very strongly that those fishermen who establish a contract of service should have their class A1 contributions paid by their skipper and be fully entitled to class A1 benefits. There should be no break in terms of the contributions paid and the benefits which will accrue to these fishermen, particularly those who up to now have been paying A1 rate contributions, until the matter is resolved by the Minister in next year's Social Welfare Bill.

I appreciate the concern of Deputies Doyle and Allen to ensure that all employment contributions paid by share fishermen who were previously insured as employees are honoured. I repeat my assurance that any benefits to which share fishermen are entitled on the basis of their class A contributions will be paid. The amendment proposed by the Deputies is not necessary as social insurance benefits are paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and people who have paid contributions are entitled to the benefits covered by these contributions. That is the legal position. There is no question of my Department not honouring the contributions paid as to do so would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. If the Deputy has any doubts about this, I would remind her that share fishermen have been receiving benefits since February 1992——

Not all of them.

——on the basis of class A contributions paid prior to the court decision in the Griffiths case. This position will not change and I see no reason why it should. My priority is to ensure that share fishermen have cover for unemployment benefit and disability benefit. I am trying to be as helpful as possible within the constraints arising from the High Court decision. That is why I brought forward the Bill in the first instance.

The legislation already provides that people who have paid class A contributions are entitled to the benefits covered by such contributions. In the circumstances, the amendment is not necessary. The Deputy has more or less said that herself — we discussed how we will proceed in this regard. I reiterate my assurance that those contributions will be honoured.

Can they continue to be paid until the matter is resolved?

Yes. I will begin work immediately on the new guidelines to see if the scheme can be extended and, if not, I will deal with the matter in next year's social welfare Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the names of Deputies Doyle and Allen are deemed to be out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.

Can you explain why amendment No. 7 is deemed to be out of order? If we had fine weather for three years amendment No. 7 would not impose an extra charge on the Revenue. With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there is presumption in what you said. I am not asking for extra unemployment benefit to be paid in any one year; rather, I am asking that there be a roll-over system whereby benefit can be carried over to the following year in any three-year period. Perhaps you might consider your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Amendment No. 7 provides that where unemployment benefit has not been claimed in a specified year the claimant will be entitled to carry over that entitlement to the following year. The effect of this amendment is a potential increase in the number of days for which a person could claim unemployment benefit and, accordingly, represents a charge on the Revenue.

The point is that it is a potential charge. That is the principle on which it would operate.

Virtually everything is a potential charge.

Not necessarily.

Are we in order in talking to this section without moving the amendment?

When we proceed to Fifth Stage the Deputy may contribute.

Would the Minister be in order on Fifth Stage or whenever in indicating his views on the content of this amendment as distinct from me formally moving it? That is all I want to know. I do not wish to quibble with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am merely interested in the Minister's thinking on the substantive issue that is involved in the amendment.

I should add that the rulings in this instance are totally consistent with rulings on previous social welfare Bills.

Could you indicate, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, whether the Minister might be in order to respond?

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

That disposes of the amendments and I intend to proceed to Fifth Stage, in accordance with the Order of the House today.

By way of assistance I will certainly examine the point raised in relation to the Principal Bill. Nothing will be done before then and there will be sufficient time to examine the implications and to consider them in that context.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On this Stage the debate is confined to what is contained in the Bill.

On Final Stage can we contribute on matters that appertain to the issue as distinct from what is actually in the Bill?

If Fifth Stage is agreed the Bill will be sent to the Seanad.

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. Lest he tries to make the point that it was an instant response to the problem, I have to say that the problem has existed for some time, particularly since February 1992 and the Griffiths judgment. The Minister has taken a personal interest in this matter; he was Minister for Social Welfare, then Minister for the Marine and Minister for Social Welfare again and, therefore, of all Cabinet members, he is best qulified to view the problem that has been experienced in terms of insurance cover and share fishermen from both the fishermen's and a social welfare point of view.

The Bill is a good one. There are some parts that have to be tidied up, as we indicated through our amendments. Indeed, the Minister has gone further down the road than he indicated on Second Stage and he has responded to the concerns of our fishermen. I thank him in particular for meeting the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation and the Kilmore Quay and Wexford Fishermen's Organisations and listening to their concerns.

When the Minister is responding will he indicate how we can resolve the difficulties that will arise for share fishermen when their 13 weeks unemployment benefit period expires and they sign on for unemployment assistance as envisaged under the Bill? There has been a major difficulty with even fairly moderately salaried self-employed people in establishing eligibility for unemployment assistance. Unemployment assistance for the self-employed is based on the previous year's certified earnings.

A total of 2,500 of our share fishermen, and their families, are earning between £2,500 and £8,000 per annum. The average income would work out at approximately £6,000 per annum. There is no way that a fisherman can provide for rainy days for the following year on an annual income of £6,000 when he is trying to sign on the dole. Self employed people have met with the greatest of resistance in trying to establish their eligibility for unemployment assistance. Share fishermen now find themselves defined as self employed against their will, as far as they are concerned they are still employees of the skipper and-or boat owner. The judge in the Griffiths case thought otherwise but fishermen feel they were not properly represented at that hearing. They feel that the IFO could not represent two masters and that it gave the skipper's viewpoint rather than that of the deckhands. They believe there was a conflict of interest and that the ordinary share fishermen lost out in that respect. They feel hard done by and will not accept that they are self-employed although technically, within the tax and social welfare codes, as this Bill testifies, they are now considered to be self-employed.

We are talking about 2,500 men, who consider themselves to be employees of the skipper or boat owner. They have no say in when they go to sea, how many days they spend at sea, what type of job they carry out on the boat or the amount of money they can command. All they have to sell is their labour and there is no other category defined as self-employed that has such little control over the job they do or their employment conditions. I put it to the Minister that any other self-employed group would resist strongly having such little say in their terms of employment generally. Technically these people are self-employed but they do not and never considered themselves to be so. Given that their outlook is that of an employee and that they are paid totally at the discretion of the skipper, could the Minister in responding to Fifth Stage indicate how he will extend eligibility for unemployment assistance to share fishermen when their 13 weeks unemployment benefit period expires? This year alone many fishermen have had their boats tied up for more than 26 weeks. We need to know from the Minister how these fishermen can establish their entitlement to unemployment assistance because it is a most important issue.

The Common Fisheries Policy, which will govern the activities of the share fishermen we are debating in this Bill proposes a compulsory tie up period to preserve stocks generally. Will the Minister give an assurance when responding that the 13 weeks unemployment benefit provided for in this Bill will not be used up by a compulsory period during which Europe has dictated that the boats cannot fish? If there is an agreement under the Common Fisheries Policy for compulsory tie up there must be compensation for our fishermen and, at the very least, Europe should carry the cost of extending unemployment benefit for that compulsory period in addition to the 13 weeks that we are providing for in this Bill. We need the Minister's guarantee in regard to this most important issue.

The same would apply if a decommissioning policy was introduced through the Common Fisheries Policy. Decommissioning grants and enticements to reduce the tonnage on our waters generally operate in other countries; we have not had any policy worth talking about here in this area. If decommissioning grants are forced on us by Europe and if skippers are required to take their boats out of the water and avail of the grants, their employees, as they consider themselves to be, will be forced onto the live register and very quickly their 13 weeks unemployment benefit will be used up. If there is a European-piloted decommissioning programme, our share fishermen must be protected and compensated for the effects of that. It should not be put over to the Irish authorities or the Irish Insurance Fund to carry the men. Any time their boats are tied up, are decommissioned or out of the water under the terms of any European policy it must be over and above the 13 weeks provided for in the provisions of this Bill and funded by the Exchequer. Therefore, the compulsory tying up to preserve stocks, and compulsory decommissioning — both of which could be around the corner and are mooted — mean that the 13 weeks unemployment benefit must be over and above anything required of the men in that regard. I feel very strongly about that.

With regard to my amendment on the concept of the family income supplement being extended to these fishermen, who consider themselves to be employees, will the Minister say if next spring we could extend that benefit to a group who, to all intents and purposes are employees but who for some technical reason a judge has held are self-employed for the purposes of the social welfare code? Can the family income supplement be extended to them?

Occupational injuries benefits are not extended under the provisions of this Bill, even under the optional scheme. The Minister did go some of the road with us on the treatment benefits. I welcome the Minister's extension of his original intention in that regard. Could we trespass on the Minister's generosity or, should I say, the Minister for Finance, once more given the high risk in terms of injuries inherent in fishing?

I have to pay for it.

Then, perhaps, we can trespass on the Minister's generosity rather than that of the Minister for Finance and ask him to extend cover for occupational injuries benefits to share fishermen in this Bill, or, at the very least, indicate that he will do so when introducing the next social welfare Bill.

I would appreciate the benefit of the Minister's thinking in response to my request, one we in Fine Gael make, understanding the dilemma in which fishermen have found themselves since 1986. The Minister's views on that might alleviate some of the concerns still obtaining among the fishing community about how the provisions of this Bill, welcome as they perceive them to be, will operate in practice.

Will the Minister also re-examine the United Kingdom system? I know they have a much larger insurance fund, many more contributors, given the size of their population and numbers employed there. If the United Kingdom system of a £7.50 contribution per week, allowing full A1 cover, could be introduced here all the problems of our share fishermen would be resolved.

I thank the Minister for what constitutes a major step forward but he should clarify the points I raised.

Gabhaim buíochas arís leis an Aire mar gheall ar an méid atá déanta aige agus go mór mhór an méid oibre atá déanta ní amháin sa Dáil ach sa choiste fosta.

I should like to compliment the Minister, and his officials, on the work they have undertaken in this Bill and indeed the committee ethos.

The Minister has gone a long way to ensure that share fishermen receive as many benefits as possible under the provisions of this Bill. I should like to thank him for meeting the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, other organisations, and on having listened to their concerns. I realise that the Minister is restrained in many ways from a financial point of view. However, I should like to reiterate the concerns expressed about occupational injuries benefits since fishermen are subject to specific risks, including those causing serious injuries. Perhaps the Minister will consider before the next social welfare Bill introducing occupational injuries benefits for them and address some of the other concerns brought to his attention in relation to those skippers or employers, as they are usually termed, who would have preferred the continuation of the old employer/employee system. An optional system could be examined for those who would like to contribute on behalf of share fishermen.

I would have concerns also with regard to eligibility for unemployment assistance in the coming year and I predict it will cause some problems. Perhaps we could be afforded an opportunity to address that problem which is not peculiar to share fishermen. We should be given an opportunity to discuss that matter in the interval between now and the introduction of the next social welfare Bill. I welcome the Minister's move to allow eligibility in 1995 which will go a long way to allay the fears about when one becomes eligible under the existing scheme.

I look forward also to further deliberations in to PRSI contributions on behalf of those employed in the clothing industry.

The work undertaken in the preparation of this Bill is much appreciated by me, by many organisations and share fishermen, about whom I can speak only of those in County Donegal. In the interval before the introduction of next year's Bill it would be my hope that we would have an opportunity of making a further submission to the Minister and his Department so that other fears could be addressed. I must stress that the work undertaken here in the past week or two has addressed many of the problems pertaining to the outcome of court cases.

I thank the Minister for having listened to us and hope he will give us an opportunity of further discussion on the next social welfare Bill.

I thank Members for their welcome for this Bill and for the amount of work undertaken on its provisions since its introduction. It has been a particularly ularly good, relevant debate, dealing principally with people, examining their needs, ascertaining how our systems can meet their needs and how the provisions of the Bill can meet their needs rather than saying if people do not avail of it, that is tough luck. In that sense the fishermen have had good spokespersons on both sides of the House who have put their case very strongly and understood it very well.

Deputy Doyle asked me to reply to a number of points. First, I should stress that we set out to provide a special scheme for share fishermen. The initial proposal covered unemployment and disability benefit. The date on which it will come into operation has been advanced by a year, that is 1 January 1995, and has been extended to include treatment benefits. In that sense it is quite a good package.

Deputy Doyle also raised the question of eligibility for unemployment benefit. She raised first the matter of the EU common fisheries policy. I should inform the House that the relevant EU regulations will be reviewed as and from 1 January next. The Department of the Marine has circulated a discussion document to the fishing industry on these regulations which provide for the payment of a final cessation premium to skippers whose boats are decommissioned permanently. There are no arrangements for payments to fishermen while their boats are temporarily decommissioned or laid up. I will re-examine this matter when the review of EU arrangements has been completed. In the meantime, following on this debate, I will convey immediately to my colleague, the Minister for the Marine, Members' views.

Deputy Doyle also raised the question of the United Kingdom arrangements. What has to be understood here is that self-employed benefits are wider in the United Kingdom where the special scheme provides unemployment benefit only, there being no need to provide anything else. I mention this not to disagree with the Deputy but to explain what has happened in those circumstances in the United Kingdom. The balance is carried on the self employed generally.

Do they have full class A1 cover?

There are the self employed benefits. The benefits cover a wider range because the self employed cover a wider range. They cover sickness, invalidity, retirement, widows and maternity benefits. Our self employed cover widow's, orphan's, old age and retirement pensions.

The message is that no share fisherwomen should get pregnant.

That is another day's work. The other question the Deputy raised related to unemployment assistance generally. In most cases the income from the previous year is known and, therefore, it would not be so difficult to work out the unemployment assistance. It is easier than previously. I am sensitive to that situation and I accept what Deputies said on Committee Stage as well as on Report and Final Stages. We will look at its operation and see how it can be improved.

Returning to the Bill in general we have provided vital cover in the event of unemployment and illness and also in the event of dental and optical requirements for people engaged in share fishing.

We have also provided tough new regulatory powers to tackle abuse of PRSI and social welfare in certain sectors, including the building and construction industry. I can assure Deputies that we intend to use those powers at the commencement of the New Year because there will be a huge investment in new contracts under the National Plan with the EU moneys becoming available. We want to ensure that those unemployed are given an opportunity to participate and that the scope for fraud and abuse is further reduced.

We have also in this Bill enhanced entitlement to disability and unemployment benefits for volunteer development workers on their return from abroad. That is something which was universally welcomed in the House. I thank Deputies for their support of this measure.

Finally, the Bill consolidates the rights of members of the country's 31,000 occupational pension schemes in relation to selecting trustees to represent their views. That is urgent. It clarifies the position about which there were question marks at worst. We have put the matter right. I did what I promised to do. I published the regulations in July and gave everybody an opportunity to examine them and to see how they would be put into operation.

I thank Members of the House and particularly the Opposition for facilitating me in dealing in a flexible and speedy way with this situation. It is a good example of how the House can be flexible while at the same time dealing with the matters effectively. I do not want to rush anything; I hope to be here for a good while yet. It is particularly important, notwithstanding the new arrangements we make, that as a House we are still capable of being flexible and effective. When that happens it is much easier from the Minister's point of view to deal with what should be the exceptional circumstances which arise from time to time. I know that is the spirit in which the Deputies raised the matters before us and I thank them.

The Bill is an important development which safeguards a particularly vulnerable group of workers and ensures that they have access to social welfare. I thank all Members and commend the Bill to the House.

Can the Minister respond to the question regarding the family income supplement?

The difficulty with the family income supplement is that it applies to people on the full rate. It does not apply to the self-employed. Any of the share fishermen who have A1 contributions will be able to avail of the family income supplement. Skippers, who regard themselves as employers, are paying the full stamp. The guidelines which we are proposing to prepare will deal with that issue for other cases where skippers wish to avail of the scheme. Beyond that we are into the wider issue of the self-employed generally. That is a matter for debate but is one that would have to be considered in the context of the budget and the main Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn