Vol. 3 No. 31
The National Health Insurance Bill, about which there is considerable urgency, was considered by the Seanad, and an amendment was passed by the Seanad. Leave is being asked for the consideration of of this amendment to-day. I take it that can be done.
Agreed.
The amendment reads as follows:—
"To add a new Section before Section 20:—`That where an Approved Society have evaded their liabilities to an employed contributor who is entitled to sickness benefit it shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an order compelling the Society to pay the benefit and it shall be competent for the District Justice to inflict a penalty in addition to whatever sum he finds to be due not exceeding amount of the award.' "
I am prepared to leave it to the Dáil either to accept or reject this amendment. I recommend its acceptance inasmuch as if it be not accepted the Bill will go back. The Seanad will not meet for a fortnight, and very little opportunity is afforded the persons affected of transferring to Approved Societies in the Saorstát. If it be found on working that this particular Section interferes materially with it I would undertake to introduce a One Clause Bill, if we are returned here after the elections, to remedy such a state of affairs and to correct any damage that might result. I do not quite understand the amendment. It does not appear to me to be very clear. It might be open to a District Justice not to inflict any penalty at all. It might possibly interfere with the functions of the National Health Insurance Commissioners, who have given satisfaction in the discharge of their duties and who have given information and assistance to any persons who have had to do with the working of this Act. But in order that the Bill, which ought to be passed without delay, is not held up, I would recommend the acceptance of this Clause.
I second that.
One does not like to take the responsibility of risking the non-passing of this Bill in time for the transfer to be effected, and I would like to have the assurance of the President in this matter that it is not possible to get the Seanad to meet before the 1st of July. Reading this amendment it is quite clear that it has no application in its present form to the Bill, and even though it had it ought to be considerably amended to get the effect that the Seanad desire. We are asked to commit ourselves to agreeing with a new Section which we do not understand, which is badly drafted, which is impracticable in working and, generally, is foolish. "Where an Approved Society have evaded their liabilities it shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an order." Who is first to decide that an Approved Society has evaded its liabilities? The Insurance Commissioners. But the Insurance Commissioners already have power to make the Society pay its liabilities. There is no need for the District Justice. I do not think the amendment can have any effect, but it will show the historian that the Oireachtas was foolish in its work. If we could put in the Bill a clause saying that this particular clause has been fathered and mothered and reared by the Seanad, and that the Dáil only agreed to it under duress, then it might be acceptable, but, unfortunately, we cannot do that, because that would be an amendment to the Act. Seriously, I think that if it is possible to ensure that there shall be a further meeting of the Seanad before the 1st of July, we ought to disagree with this amendment.
Not before the 1st of July, as far as I know.
I suppose the power to call them together is not in the hands of the Minister, but possibly influence could be brought to bear to bring a quorum together to re-discuss this new section. It certainly was not discussed thoroughly yesterday. There was a general expression of sympathy with the employed contributor who was not being fairly treated by the Societies, and the passing of this amendment was simply a general expression of sympathy with the person who was badly treated. If the Minister says that it is not reasonably practicable to get the Seanad to meet and that the Section will have no effect, and it will be deleted at the first opportunity by a new Bill, I shall not press the opposition, but I would like to have a further assurance from the Minister.
I cannot extend the undertaking that I have given. First of all I cannot give any undertaking that I will come back. Secondly, I cannot give any undertaking as to an analysis of what this really means, and thirdly, I am not in a position to say that the Seanad will meet again before the 1st of July. I believe not. There was the case put up that certain approved Societies did not treat contributors fairly. I am sure that they would be more than human if they did all their work excellently. There are certain cases, no matter what laws are framed, in which there will be aggrieved parties. Some of these cases may have occurred in certain employments more than in others. In other words, a particular employer may have had a greater number of his employees dissatisfied with the working of the Act, or the payment of the benefits, than others, and possibly that gave rise to it. I do not think the amendment is harmful. It does not limit or interfere with any existing powers. It simply says in a peculiar sort of way that the District Justice is entitled to inflict a penalty in addition to whatever sum be due not exceeding the amount of the award. If it should be found that this particular section interferes with the working of the Act I am sure it would be the business of any succeeding Government to deal with it by an amending Bill in a single Clause. I am not particularly interested in the matter. I think that it might inflict very much greater hardship if the Bill were to be held up. It is open of course to the Seanad to insist on an amendment of that character. It might be better worded, but I think as it is there it is not harmful. It may possibly give a contributor the impression that he has another avenue of approach than the Insurance Commissioners, and it may possibly strengthen the case for particular contributors who may be unjustly treated by societies. Otherwise, I do not see any harm in it, and I would be inclined to accept it.
The last thing I should like to do would be to embarrass anybody in the passing of this Bill, or to do any harm to contributors who have been hardly treated, but I think that we ought to watch the wording of legislation of that character, and the great objection to this amendment in my mind seems to me to come in the middle of the amendment, wherein it is proposed that a District Justice may make an Order compelling the society to pay the benefit. That is a class of jurisdiction that, as I read the recent District Justices Act he does not possess at present.
At present they are administering, more or less, criminal law, and this is an order for the purposes of this Act only—a kind of Chancery jurisdiction by injunction, that possibly needs some change in legislation. As I understand the report of the Judiciary Committee, it was not intended to confer on them any new administration of the law. To put that sort of jurisdiction upon the District Justice by an amendment in a statute of this kind seems to me to be open to very grave objections. If this amendment is accepted at all, it should be accepted only on the terms that the passage down to "benefit" be struck out. It is quite a different thing to say that the District Justice should give some peculiar form of order compelling a society to pay a benefit. How that Order is to be enforced it is rather difficult to understand. I think that the amendment in its present form is dangerous, not so much, possibly, from its being abused in practice, because I do not know that it will ever be put in practice, but as a form of legislation adopted.
I think that this motion is very dangerous. It takes from the Insurance Commissioners their powers and gives the District Justice power to act as a Court of Appeal over the Insurance Commissioners. The insured person has the right, according to this amendment, instead of going to the Appeal Court, which is now the Insurance Commission, to pass over the heads of the men who are practical in insurance work. He has in this amendment the right to select a District Justice as a Court of Appeal instead of the Insurance Commissioners. I do not think that that is intended, and I do not think the amendment ought to pass in its present form. It is wiping out all the powers of the Insurance Commissioners. I put that point to the President and I do not think it is his intention to withdraw the power from the Insurance Commissioners and give the contributor the right to pass over their heads and go to the District Justice for an order.
There is no interference with the powers of the Insurance Commissioners so far as the amendment is concerned.
"It shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an Order." That means that he need not go to the Insurance Commissioners. It means that the insured contributor, if he has a grievance, instead of going to the practical men who deal with such cases and give great consideration to all claims, passes over their heads and goes to the District Justice. That is contained in the amendment, and I think it would lead to dangerous results.
Does the first sentence mean that some authority, presumably the Insurance Commissioners, must decide that the Society has evaded its liabilities?
That is a question of which you would have to give me notice. The amendment is as I got it. I opposed it in the Seanad, but they passed it.
I think nobody is going to dissent from the desire that the employed contributor shall be protected against any mal-administration or fault of any Society of which he is a member, and it may be that the Insurance Commissioners have not safeguarded the interests of members. I do not know whether they have or not, but it is possible, and it may be that the law requires amendment in that respect, but this is not the way to amend it or to protect the employed person. I would draw the Minister's attention to a risk that if many people are deceived in thinking that the District Justice can come to their aid against the society, the State Solicitor and the finances of whoever will be responsible for paying the State Solicitor will be involved, and there may be a considerable drain in fighting these cases before District Justices. I would urge the President to use a good deal of persuasion to get the Seanad to meet again next week to reconsider their attitude on this question.
I am perfectly willing if that is the desire of the Dáil.
The motion is that we agree with this amendment. Is the President withdrawing that motion?
If it is the desire of the Dáil I am willing to withdraw the motion.
I take it, in order that we can come to an agreement, that if I can put up an amendment which effects the intentions of the Seanad with regard to the further protection of the employed contributor I would do so. Or would the Dáil desire that I should not ask them? Personally, I am not satisfied that anything that will be done will improve the position of the contributor. There is another view in the Seanad. I do not want to come here again, and have an amendment, which was not contemplated when we were considering the Bill, subject to criticism.
The position is that we have now no motion. The motion to agree with the amendment has been withdrawn. It is now necessary to have a motion that we do not agree with the Seanad on this amendment. That may be sent back to the Seanad with any message we desire.
I move that the Dáil disagrees with the amendment sent down from the Seanad. I do so on the grounds that it is in its present form impracticable and will not affect the end desired, is not properly inserted in this Bill which deals rather with the machinery and the transfer of machinery, and not with the recasting of the Insurance Act. The object sought for, could perhaps be attained by the introduction in the Seanad of a new Bill amending the Insurance Act, and having for its object this purpose. I am sure there is ability enough in the Seanad to introduce, and discuss thoroughly such a measure. I think that the proposal that has been sent down from the Seanad will spoil the Bill, and may lead to costly litigation upon both employed contributors, and upon the Insurance Fund which will not be justified in the results. I do not think that the aggrieved person who may be an employed contributor would get very much satisfaction from the introduction of this clause in its present form. As it is not practicable to draft amendments securing the end desired at this stage, such as would have proper consideration both here and in the Seanad, the only course to adopt is to move that the proposed new Section be not agreed to, and that the Seanad should be informed—although this is not part of the resolution—of the general feeling that while the end desired should be attained it should not be attained by this method, and that new legislation should be brought in specially directed towards securing this end.
I beg to second the motion of Deputy Johnson. I cannot really understand why the Seanad being part of the machinery, being the pillar of the present Government cannot accommodate itself to the requirements of the State under the special circumstances. Bills are being showered upon us, and amendments have to be sent in without reasonable notice, and those who read the Bills may have time to think, but they certainly have not time to change their minds in carrying on legislation at such excessive speed. I cannot, therefore understand the attitude of the Seanad, or why pressure should not be brought by the Executive Council to compel those very respectable people to return here and consider the question before a definite time. There are also people in the Seanad who feel that eight hours a day is not a sufficiently long day's work.
Deputy Davin knows that has nothing to do with the motion.
I feel at any rate in a case of this kind, especially owing to the reconsidered attitude of the President on the matter, that there is every reason to recall the Seanad and ask them to adopt our point of view, that is that we do not agree with this amendment.
That sort of speech will not conduce much in that direction. The Seanad is absolutely independent of the Executive. I should be sorry to know that a body of that kind would be subject to any of the views of the Executive. It would be a pity if it were at the beck and call of the Executive. I hope it will express its views, independently of any views we may hold.
I did not say it was not entitled to express its opinion but it should be at the convenience of the State to do any legislative work that is necessary.
It has taken Bills from us on very short notice, and in no other case have we had any complaint to make. In this case they felt strongly, and had a desire to express their views.
I would like to deprecate the practice in this Dáil of criticising the other House. It is quite a wrong practice, and should not be resorted to, and in this case it is only fair to point out that we passed this Bill through its third, fourth and fifth Stages on Tuesday. It was passed through all its Stages in the Seanad on Wednesday, and we have this amendment. The motion before us is that the Dáil do not agree with the Seanad in its amendment.
Agreed.
A message will be sent accordingly.
