Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of Deputy Walsh are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I note the Chairman is ruling virtually all my amendments out of order. Could he tell me which amendments are in order?
The amendments of Deputy Joe Walsh which are in order are Nos. 8 and 10. That is all.
What about amendment No. 7?
That is also out of order.
For what reason?
It involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
It does not. It is simply the division of the same money between two people.
I understand that the amendment seeks to extend the entitlement to adoptive benefit under this Bill.
That is incorrect, Chairman.
We are on section 8 at the moment.
On section 8, I wish to raise a difficulty in which ordinary crewmen find themselves. These workers have a particularly difficult and dangerous job and the last few months highlighted the difficulty they have. Trawlers were tied up for probably around 3 and 4 months of this winter due to inclement weather. The crewmen concerned are, and have been for some time, very anxious to opt for and pay the full stamp, but because of a court case they have been restricted in this area. I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of allowing fishermen who opt to partipate in the optional social insurance scheme to be treated as employees. At present they are regarded as share fishermen and are on contract. If they opt to pay the full amount of stamp they should be entitled to do that. They are treated very harshly at present and very restrictive benefits accrue to them.
The second part of my amendment proposes that where the owner/skipper of a trawler opts to make the full class. A contribution in respect of all his employees including share fishermen, he should be allowed to do so by providing adequate notice to the Minister concerned. That is entirely reasonable. This section of the community has been harshly treated down through the years. They do not want something for nothing. They want to pay the full stamp themselves. The trawler fleet is quite old and fishermen are not able to go out in bad weather. They are on land and are not able to collect benefits. This situation is worth reviewing in some depth.
Section 8 provides that optional contributions payable by share fishermen under the scheme of optional social insurance will not be payable on the first £520 of annual reckonable income; this is a concession to share fishermen in relation to their PRSI obligations. Section 8 (2) provides that this change will come into effect on 6 April 1995. Share fishermen who are liable for payment of self-employment contributions under the optional scheme of social insurance can opt to pay optional contributions at the rate of 5 per cent of reckonable income in the preceding contribution year.
Optional contributions entitle share fishermen to treatment benefit, unemployment benefit for 13 weeks in any year and a maximum of 52 weeks disability benefit in any continuous period of incapacity. The scheme of optional insurance commenced with effect from the contribution year ended 5 April 1994. Some 123 share fishermen opted to pay contributions under the scheme for the 1993/1994 contribution year.
The differences between share fishermen, skippers who own boats and the fishermen who work for them, whether they are to be treated as employees or part owners, paid on the basis of sharing in the catch or getting a weekly wage, are extremely complex and have been complicated by the attitudes of share fishermen to various aspects. Some fishermen want to be treated as employees, some do not. Some want to be treated as self-employed. Some skipper-owners do not want to be treated as employers but as partners.
It is an extremely complicated area and one that I want to look at in more depth, so I am not prepared to give any more commitments as to what precisely I will do in this area. A fundamental review of the basis of insurability of an employee is required in order to deal with categories of workers such as the share fishermen and, for instance, the C45 workers in the construction industry who face problems similar to those faced by share fishermen. I am not either prepared or in a position to make specific commitments other than that I want to sort out as far as I can the complexities of this situation and get it regularised so that people are covered for one thing or the other, either as self-employed or as employees. It will take me some time to sort that out. Hopefully by the time we have come around to the Social Welfare Bill next year we will have some firm proposals.
I join with Deputy Walsh in asking the Minister to have a long look at the whole situation. As I see it fishermen are a different type of employee from employees working on the land in that they have to work in atrocious conditions. Last year in the south of Ireland they did not work for weeks and they had nowhere to turn for monetary compensation of any kind. They must be treated as a different type of employee from the people working in factories and on farms and I am sure the Minister in his own time will have a deeper look at the situation.
I too would like to support Deputy Walsh and the amendment which he sought to have included to the effect that....
where a share fisherman opts to participate in the optional social insurance scheme for people engaged in share fishing, that person shall, without prejudice to the owner/ skipper, be treated as an employee for all purposes of the Principal Act, save as they relate to unemployment benefit. The Minister may by regulations prescribe the period of unemployment benefit in any calendar year.
Deputy Walsh was trying to develop that scheme further and it is something which I know the Minister and the Department have had a great deal of difficulty with because of court cases. The Minister will acknowledge that his hands were tied by High Court cases. That is a reality which he will have to get used to because until he gets High Court judgments he is not in a position to act. Sometimes a decision is not favourable. In this case, the decision was most helpful to the Minister and to the Department who wanted to be of assistance to the share fishermen.
The Department tried to circumvent the first High Court decision and was able to manage it for a time, but then that was challenged and there was another test case. The Minister will have to get used to test cases which sort out the law. This was one of them which left the Minister with his hands tied behind his back.
The Deputy would be better paid.
It was in that situation his predecessor managed to introduce a scheme welcomed by the share fishermen. The problem is they are not covered for occupational injury, for example, and that should be done immediately. On Report Stage the Minister should consider an amendment just to cover occupational injury benefit. The cost of that in a year, as his officials will tell him, might not be estimated at more than £30,000 or so— we are not talking about millions of pounds. It is a question of the number of occupational accidents that occur.
Unfortunately, such accidents occur in the fishing industry and it leaves those concerned relying on assisance and means testing. Fishing is an hazardous occupation dealing with a basic and indigenous resource, and the fishermen brave the elements again and again in dangerous circumstances sometimes without the owner of the boat having insurance to cover them. I have a case in which a share fisherman who was always, in his view, an employee on the boat was left in a position where he has a steel piece inserted in his leg and is only getting £9 per week on a means tested basis because he is living at home. He should have an occupational injury benefit.
I was anxious to provide that when I was Minister and the major parts of the scheme are there. It could be introduced quite expeditiously. I appreciate that invalidity is a bigger issue; but the Minister might consider the issue of occupational injury on Report Stage as the costs would be inconsequential. He could then look at the other elements in it, as I understand he plans to do now. If I was still Minister I would try to make further progress in this area. It needs to be developed further.
The fishermen have been co-operative; it was in negotiation with them that this scheme was brought in on a voluntary basis. There are two elements; improving the scheme and allowing optional A1 contributions where the owner is anxious to do so and make a provision to cover the optional A1 contributions — that was the second part of Deputy Joe Walsh's amendment. They are relevant proposals for people who depend on us to provide for them. Will the Minister consider introducing an occupational injuries scheme now?
The committee agreed to conclude at 7 p.m. It is now 6.55 p.m. We will proceed in accordance with the committee's decision.
I have made the point to the Minister on this section. That element would be a valuable development which could be introduced at very little cost. At this stage we are faced with something of a dilemma as it is approaching 7 p.m. and we have not got through the other sections. Does the Minister intend to refer to Report Stage the amendments which have not been discussed?
I am carrying out the committee's earlier decision to finish at 7 p.m. We will take each section. They should be dealt with one after the other.
I was referring to the amendments; the amendments can be taken on Report Stage.
They must be taken here unless they are withdrawn.
They can be re-entered by notice on Report Stage.
Yes, I believe so.
That is what I asked in the first instance.
Yes, but first they must be withdrawn here.
I give notice that I intend to resubmit those we will not reach on Report Stage.
There is some confusion. Is it agreed now that the remaining amendments will be taken on Report Stage?
Only, if they are withdrawn.
They cannot be re-entered unless they are withdrawn formally by the proposer.
We must go through the Bill section by section, amendment by amendment, and when the amendments arise they must be withdrawn if they are to be re-entered on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, before section 11, but in Part IV, to insert the following new section:
11. — (1) The Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after Chapter 8A (inserted by the Regulations of 1995) of Part II of the following Chapter:
‘CHAPTER 8B
Adoptive Benefit.
41G.—(1) In this Chapter, "adopting parent" has the meaning assigned to it in section 2 (1) of the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995.
(2) Subject to this Act, an adopting parent shall be entitled to adoptive benefit if—
(a) it is certified by the adopting parent's employer that the adopting parent is entitled to adoptive leave under the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995, and
(b) the adopting parent satisfies the contribution conditions in sectin 41H.
(3) Regulations may provide for entitling to adoptive benefit, subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, such class or classes of adopting parents who would be entitled thereto but for the fact that the contribution conditions in section 41H are not satisfied.
(4) Subject to this Chapter, adoptive benefit shall be payable for the period of adoptive leave which the adopting parent is entitled to under section 6, 9 or 42, as the case may be, of the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995:
Provided that, where the beneficiary dies, the benefit shall not be payable for any subsequent day.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a Sunday shall not in any week be treated as a day of entitlement of adoptive benefit and, accordingly, the amount payble by way of such benefit for any other day of a week shall be one-sixth of the appropriate weekly rate, subject to the total amount being paid at any time by virtue of this subsection being rounded up to the nearest 10p where it is a multiple of 5p but not also a multiple of 10p, and being rounded to the nearest 10p where it is not a multiple of 5p or 10p.
(6) Where the employment ceases (whether due to the death of the employer or otherwise) during the period for which adoptive benefit is payable in accordance with subsection (4), the beneficiary shall continue to be treated as is the event which caused the cesser of employment had not occurred.
41H.—(1) the contribution conditions for adoptive benefit are—
(a) (i) that the claimant has qualifying contributions in respect of not less than 39 contribution weeks in the period beginning with the claimant's entry into insurance and ending immediately before the relevant day, and
(ii) that the claimant has qualifying contributions or credited contributions in respect of not less than 39 contribution weeks in the last complete contribution year before the beginning of the benefit year in which the relevant day occurs or in a subsquent complete contribution year before the relevant day, or
(b) that the claimant has qualifying contributions in respect of not less than 39 contribution weeks in the 12 months immediately preceding the relevant day.
(2) In subsection (1), "relevant day" means the first day for which adoptive benefit is claimed.
(3) Regulations may provide for modifications of the contribution conditions set out in subsection (1).
Rate of adoptive benefit.
41I.—(1)Subject to this Act, the weekly rate of adoptive benefit shall be an amount equal to—
(a) 70 per cent, of the reckonable weekly earnings of the person to whom the benefit is payable in the income tax year prescribed for the purposes of this section, or
(b) the amount of disability benefit, including any increases thereof, which the person would otherwise receive if entitled to the said benefit, or
(c) such amount as shall be prescribed.
whichever is the greater.
(2) In this section, "reckonable weekly earnings" means the average amount, calculated in accordance with regulations, of reckonable earnings and such other income as may be prescribed, received in a week up to such limit as may be prescribed.
Disqualification.
41J.—Regulations may provide for disqualifying an adopting parent for receiving adoptive benefit if, during the period for which the benefit is payable, the adopting parent engages in any occupation other than domestic activities in that parent's own household.'.
(2) (a) Section 4 (as amended by section 13 of the Act of 1994) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
(i) the insertion in subsection (4) (a) of ‘41I', before ‘42 (2)', and
(ii) the insertion in subsection (5) of ‘41H (3),' before ‘43 (4)'.
(b) Section 30 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (bb) (inserted by the Regulations of 1995) of the following paragraph:
‘(bbb) adoptive benefit,'.
(3) This section shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by order.".
This amendment is to provide specifically for adoptive benefit in line with the proposals for leave similar to maternity leave for those who have adopted children. As we did not expect the Adoptive Leave Bill to be through the House the original intention was to provide benefit by regulation but we are now substituting a specific section providing for this benefit.
I want to know the reason for my recent amendment being ruled out of order. It does not place any additional charge on the Exchequer. That is one of the amendments I will be——
We are not on that amendment. We are on amendment No. 6.
This is a major amendment. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform said this would not be introduced and the Minister for Social Welfare said earlier he thought it would not be brought in because it added a major section to the Bill and it would not be possible to deal with it in time. I proposed to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform that we would cooperate with putting it through in this Bill.
The position now is that we will not have an opportunity to discuss it and I suggest the Minister withdraw this for Report Stage so that it can be discussed adequately.
I cannot agree to that. Deputies have had adequate time to discuss this last Friday and today, but they choose to waste time.
I resent that comment and the Minister should withdraw it. It is disgraceful for a Minister to lecture a committee on its proceedings. I know he found it hard to take that there was a good deal of discussion on the low increase of 2.5 per cent in unemployment assistance and benefit and that Members were concerned about that. The committee is not here to be lectured by a Minister. We will support this new scheme.
Deputy Walsh tabled an amendment which does not add a charge to the Exchequer but which has been misinterpreted. That matter should be cleared up and the Minister should withhold this amendment until Report Stage so that we may discuss it before it is passed. Is the Minister prepared to do that? If the Government is to guillotine such sections, it must be made clear. We are in favour of the inclusion of this new section, but not this way.
Amendment put and agreed to.