Vol. 550 No. 2
413 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if, in regard to the recent High Court ruling on insurable status of share fishermen on fishing vessels, it is intended to bring in amending legislation to ensure that fishermen are covered by class A PRSI; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7605/02]
420 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his plans to reform or amend the social welfare code for self-employed fishermen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7746/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 413 and 420 together.
The employment status of share fishermen for social insurance purposes has been considered by the High Court, hearing two appeals on a question of law under section 271 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993, against a determination of the chief appeals officer of the social welfare appeals office. A judgment in this matter was delivered on 2 October last.
The High Court held that share fishermen who offer their services to boat owners and skippers in the manner which is customary in the industry do so as self-employed co-venturers or partners with boat owners or skippers and are not employed under a contract of service.
Accordingly, share fishermen whose circumstances are similar to those of the cases considered by the High Court are insurable under Class S as self-employed persons. However, they may enhance their PRSI cover by availing of an optional scheme of social insurance, Class P, which was introduced in 1994. This scheme gives share fishermen the option, on the payment of an additional contribution, of enhancing their social insurance cover over and above that available to other self-employed persons. Payment of the additional contribution provides limited cover for disability benefit and unemployment benefit as well as full cover for treatment benefits.
Regarding the potential for amending the legislation to bring share fishermen back into Class A, a number of efforts have been made over the years to do this, but on each occasion the legislation has been successfully challenged in the courts. Essentially, the problem is that Class A social insurance is based on there being an employer/employee relationship, with both employer and employee making contributions and the employee being eligible for benefits. In view of the court rulings to date, it is not considered possible to legislate to apply Class A social insurance to cases where an employer-employee relationship does not exist.
