Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 13

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925. - NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

I move the Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill, 1925. This Bill proposes to continue for another year the Medical Certification Fund, which was set up under the Act of 1924. It also proposes to pay out of that Fund doctors for services rendered in the way of medical certification; secondly, to pay for the scheme of medical referees set up last February, with the approval of the Minister for Finance; thirdly, it proposes to make provision for second medical opinions given prior to the coming into operation of this scheme of medical referees. Before the Act of last year came into operation, medical certification was a charge on State Funds. In that year it became a charge on insurance funds. The funds were provided in the following way: there was a charge of 10d. per member for each member of the approved societies; 10d. per member from the Deposit Contributors' Fund; 10d. per member from the Military Forces Fund, and a charge of 5d. per member on the Exempt Persons' Fund. The 10d. was made up in the following way: 5d. was derived from the saving on the administration of the societies, which was effected in 1923. Heretofore, the cost of administration of the societies was 4/10. That year it was reduced to ?. The first fivepence was derived in that way. Then there was a saving of 2d. in the administration cost of the Insurance Committees. The actuarial estimate was that the administration of these Committees would cost 6d. per member, whereas in actual practice it worked out at 4d. per member. It was considered equitable to divert this 2d. to the Medical Certification Fund. The remaining twopence was also another windfall. There was a margin left. The cost of benefit was a flat rate; the actuarial estimate for the cost of benefit was at a flat rate and the income was three-pence more than what was actually estimated for.

When this Bill was going through the Dáil last year there was a certain amount of criticism. Societies throughout the country objected to the diversion of this fivepence, which was a saving on the administration charges of the societies. The societies maintained that if there was such a saving it should go to the benefit fund of the societies. It was considered this objection was reasonable, and accordingly an undertaking was given that that fivepence should be only diverted for one year. This year we have decided not to take that fivepence, and accordingly there is only a charge of fivepence on the societies this year. The difference between the actual charge on this Medical Certification Fund and what was derived from the societies was made up in the Stamps Sales Account Naturally this year the charge on that fund will be greater as a result of not getting so much from the societies It is proposed to continue this arrangement only for another year. It is hoped that by the end of that period the Commission sitting to inquire into the whole matter will have brought in a full report and then we can go into it fully.

Question—"That the National Health Insurance Bill, 1925, be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Next Tuesday.

What possibility is there of taking the Committee Stage of this Bill next Tuesday? I think it is rushing matters too much to take the Committee Stage of an important Bill of this description next Tuesday.

There will be practically a week's interval. As to the feasibility of taking the Committee Stage of the Bill on Tuesday, the fact that Bills appear on the Order Paper does not necessarily mean that Deputies, will be so rushed on Tuesday as that it would be necessary to deal with them all.

Amendments to this Bill will have to be put in at least by Friday if they are to be in at all.

There is an interval of almost a week.

Even if there is an interval of almost a week, I object to the Committee Stage of the Bill being taken so quickly.

There should be some better understanding as to the dates on which particular Bills or Estimates or particular business will be taken. I think it is not reasonable to put on the Order Paper a long list of motions, whether it is expected that they will be reached or not. There is too much of a gamble about that. I think the method of fixing dates on the assumption that matters may possibly be reached, is not a right method. We should have a little more precision as to the dates on which certain business would be taken. I agree with Deputy Gorey, not from the point of view of the number of days that will elapse, but from the point of view that you are putting on the Order Paper, by the order of the House, certain business, with the possibility of altering the whole arrangements later. That is not a reasonable way of carrying out business; it rather leads to looseness and carelessness Deputies may be prepared to deal with one matter and they may not know if it will be brought forward on the day named in the Order Paper. I suggest to the Minister that if we fix a date for a particular Bill or Estimate, we should endeavour to consider it on that day if possible; if we cannot reach it on that day, we have to appoint another day for its consideration. We should not carry a long list of Bills and other matters on the Order Paper on the chance that they may come up, and we should not make it a habit of altering our arrangements on the morning of the day on which particular matters are to come up.

This is a very easy matter to complain about and a very easy matter to lay down counsels of perfection in regard to. It is not so simple in practice to act up to those counsels of perfection. The Deputy says that putting down things on the Order Paper on the gamble that they will be reached is absurd. There is a gamble in another way, too. If you put down a limited amount of business on the Order Paper, and by chance, by some purely accidental circumstance, such as, let us say, the absence of certain Deputies, the business goes through more expeditiously than one would expect, and you were then left without any business with which to proceed, you would have no alternative but to adjourn early.

But the Government's object would be then achieved.

Several hours of the day would be wasted. You cannot have hard and fast lines. Some Bills take much longer in their Committee Stage than is expected; other Bills go through quite simply. Certain Bills have been put down for consideration in Committee next Tuesday. We will not know for some days what amendments, if any, there will be in connection with those Bills. It is only when you see the amendments that you can form even an approximate estimate of the time that will be taken up. There is no real, practical alternative to putting things down for Tuesday next and seeing on Tuesday how long they will take. There is no suggestion of a closure in order that all the business that will appear on Tuesday's Order Paper will be concluded that day. It is suggested that it is a practical and a proper thing to put them down; if they are reached, they can be considered, and if they are not reached they can be arranged for the next available day.

Perhaps the Minister would look back on the number of days upon which, by order of the House, on the motion of the Minister, Estimates 5, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 61 have been placed on the Order Paper. If Deputies believed there was any reasonable chance of those Estimates being reached, of course we would have a large attendance and, to that extent, it would be an advantage. But the attendance would only be for voting purposes and it would not be because Deputies would have considered in advance the business to be conducted. If the Minister will note the number of days on which those Estimates appeared successively on the Order Paper he will see the grievances of which I complain.

My original objection was pretty much on the same line. We have a certain number of days in which amendments have to be submitted. It is suggested that the Bill be considered in Committee next Tuesday. Amendments must be in by Friday evening. It is possible we may find the Bill will not be taken on Tuesday. Like to-day, there may be nine or ten items on the Order Paper. This particular Bill may be item No. 8, say. After questions on Tuesday we may hear that it is proposed to take item No. 8. Deputies may find that that is the actual matter that will be dealt with. On the other hand, it might not be taken at all on Tuesday. Business is not being done as it should be. It may be all right from the point of view of those in charge of the Bill. They are aware days beforehand of what is going to happen. Deputies who reach here half an hour or perhaps ten minutes before the Dáil assembles are at a great disadvantage In connection with this Bill, which is of considerable importance, we would like to be able to suggest amendments. We have only from now until Friday to do so. I did not think the Minister intended to go through with this Bill in all it stages before the House rose for the Recess.

I did not think there was any serious opposition to this Bill. It is practically an agreed Bill. It is only a temporary measure and we are awaiting the report of the Commission.

I am aware of that. Because of its temporary nature, perhaps we might not be inclined to press amendments.

That is what I thought.

Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday. June 30th.

Top
Share