It might be agreed that amendment 23 is covered by the decision on amendment 19.
National Health Insurance Bill, 1933—Committee (Resumed).
SECTION 21.
Amendment 23:—
In sub-section (4), line 45, to delete the word "given" and substitute the words "offered and accepts"; and in line 47 after the word "society" to add the words "but the period of the said temporary employment shall be taken into consideration in calculating such compensation."—(Deputy Norton).
Deputy Norton proposes to delete the words "given" and to substitute "offered and accepts." These we propose to accept.
These are regarded as the most important words in the amendment.
The words "offered and accepts" will be introduced on next stage.
Amendment not moved.
I move amendment 24:—
To delete sub-section (7) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) If any person employed by an approved society shall feel aggrieved by the decision of the unified society on any matter to be determined by it under this Act, or if any dispute or question shall arise between any such person and the unified society on any matter arising under this Act, such person may appeal to a standing arbitrator, to be appointed by the Chief Justice, who shall hear and determine such appeal and whose decisions thereon shall be final. The amount of feel payable to such standing arbitrator on any such appeal shall be fixed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health with the consent of the Minister for Finance and shall be paid by the unified society.
The standing arbitrator shall have power to administer oaths and to award costs at his own discretion and to direct to and by whom and in what manner such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and to measure the amount of such costs and to require security for costs to be given to his satisfaction by any party at any stage of the proceedings before him or them.
The standing arbitrator shall have the like powers of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents as are possessed by the High Court.
The standing arbitrator may at any time correct any clerical mistake or error in any award arising from any accidental slip or omission.
Any sum payable under any award made by the standing arbitrator shall be a simple contract debt recoverable by action at law.
This amendment was put down in the hope of the adoption of a previous amendment. I am not quite sure whether the Minister will take the view that the procedure outlined in this amendment is absolutely necessary. I am sure he will consider the question without prejudice. We put the amendment down on the possibility of the Minister accepting amendment No. 11.
I cannot accept this amendment. The Minister is in all things acting impartially in his Ministerial capacity, but in this case, even as Minister, he has no special interest. This is an outside affair. The parties have their own rights, which are set out in the statute. The Minister would act as fairly between the interests concerned as any outside arbitrator would.
We felt that this amendment would be necessary in consequence of the acceptance of amendment 11. If amendment 11 had been accepted by the Minister, the method of computing compensation might lead to disputes. In that event, we thought it desirable that an amendment of this kind should be introduced. As the majority of the House has turned down amendment 11, I do not propose to press this amendment.
I think the fear arising from this Bill is that there will be a great deal unemployment caused by the unification plan. The Minister would do a great deal to dispel any misgiving in that respect if he could give the House an assurance that the staff of the unified society would be drawn from existing officials. As there is a feeling that a great many of the existing officials will not be employed, the Minister could at this stage set the fears of these people at rest if he could give an assurance that in framing this unification plan the existing officials will, as far as possible, be absorbed.
I take it that if the amendment were not withdrawn——
I have withdrawn the amendment with the permission of the House.
The Deputy has not got the permission of the House yet. If this amendment were not withdrawn, but were incorporated in the Bill, I take it that another question will arise, whether a person who was, in fact, at the time employed, would be referred to the arbitrator. I suggest to the Minister, whether he accepts the amendment or not, that differences might arise between the unified society and the displaced employees of approved societies, which it would be very desirable to have resolved by some independent person. The Minister is, to some extent, an independent person in this matter, but, after all, his expert advisers in the past were very much more detached from the approved societies than they are going to be from the unified society. The unified society being the creature of the Minister, and blood being thicker than water, I feel that there are a number of people who would prefer to have the right of appeal to a person who would be, more or less, in a judicial capacity outside. That becomes all the more urgent if the Minister considers the acceptance of amendment 25 in any form, or of a concession along the lines laid down in amendment 27, where the question will arise as to whether a man has been dispensed with two or three years as a result of unification. I think the principle has been enshrined in many statutes before, that there should be some kind of arbitrator appointed to pass judgment upon these cases. I would be very glad to hear the Minister say that he would consider the matter and, if necessary, amend the Bill on the next stage.
I think the Minister will be impartial in these matters and certainly his judgment, I feel satisfied, is likely to be just as impartial as any arbitrator that could be appointed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 25:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:
Where any person is employed by the unified society in a position which is inferior in status or responsibility to the position occupied by such person in an approved society at the date of transfer, then such person if he is dissatisfied with his employment and the conditions thereof, may, at any time within two years of the date of transfer, by notice in writing to the unified society, resign his position and thereupon he shall be entitled to compensation as if he had not been employed by the unified society.
This amendment suggests a way out of the difficulty for the unified society, if persons are offered employment on terms less favourable than they enjoyed when in the employment of an approved society. The Minister stated last night that he thought two years rather too long. That is an administrative question, and that particular period would be a matter which I would be quite content to leave for settlement to the Minister. I put this to him. Supposing he does not put in the proviso suggested in the amendment, and takes over a man who feels himself under a sense of grievance, on account of the conditions under which he has been taken over, what good is that man going to be to anyone? Would it not be much better to get rid of him, to open a door and let him out? There is no use in taking over a "sorehead." If you take him over he may be a "sorehead" for the first month, but when he settles down to work and finds, all things considered, that he has a fair salary and a good job, which has not turned out as badly as he thought, he might prove to be a very useful official. A few persons taken over under these circumstances will remain discontented, and unless there is a proviso of this kind, there are two alternatives open to the unified society, one being to sack them when they are entitled to nothing, or carry on their backs, for the full time, inefficient and discontented officers. Let us not look at it from the point of view of efficiency at all. From the point of view of the committee it is very necessary that they should have some kind of porthole to put such fellows out through if they proved to be embarrassing passengers. If they have not, then to my mind they are letting themselves in for a lot of trouble. The number of persons who would take advantage of this proviso would be infinitesimal. The vast majority of people who get employment in the unified society will be very glad to get it, and the vast majority of those who do not want employment will be dispensed with and given compensation. Perhaps one per cent. will be taken on reluctantly and will remain for two years. There is a way of getting rid of them. If there is not that way the society is married to them for the rest of their lives.
I am sure the management committee would not like to have on their staff people—even one or two people—who were so discontented that they would be a source of trouble to themselves and their colleagues, and a source of considerable annoyance to the whole machine. As the Bill stands if these people are offered employment and refuse it, then they get no compensation. If they accept employment, and in a year or six months go out then they have kept another person out of that post.
When they go someone else can be appointed.
Yes, but the person who was available for the post six months before, who was already in the employment of an approved society, and who would be glad to get that post, has been turned down or has gone into some other employment. The opportunity of availing of his services, is, perhaps, no longer there. An injustice has been done to that person. If a person goes out after a year, after looking around and securing other employment that he finds is more suitable, or for any reason that may arise, he is still bound to get compensation. I think we would probably do a very grave injustice to other people who might have been employed, and who were not, because this person took up the position to suit his own convenience for whatever period is fixed in the Bill. The injustice that might be done would rule out the amendment.
The Minister has omitted to notice that it is not a question of a person taking a job to suit his own convenience. It is a question of the unified society going to a man and saying: "You have got to take this job or you will get no compensation." The case I envisage is that of a man going to the unified society saying: "I do not want the job, I prefer to go out," to whom the unified society says "you cannot go out. You have either to come in and take this job or get no compensation." It only refers to cases where a man claims to get out, and does not want to come in, but who would like to take the compensation, and to whom the unified society says: "You must come in or get no compensation." So that the case the Minister envisages, of where a fellow took a job and did another man out of it, could not possibly arise, because this man is clamouring to get out. The man may say: "Very well, I will go and see if I can make any hand of it at all." He does not succeed in making any hand of it. It may be only a very small percentage, but they will go on clamouring and they will be a continual nuisance to everybody —to themselves and to the managers of the societies. They will be "grousers." What I am suggesting is a way of divorcing this unfortunate marriage and what I am offering is a bill of divorcement. I am reluctant to advocate companionate marriages, but this is a case in point. It must be remembered that when you take this man in he is there for the rest of his natural days and there is no superannuation scheme to cover it. I suggest that here you have a way out.
I should not like to advocate forced marriage any more than the Deputy likes to advocate companionate marriages. I have in mind that it is possible that the management committee will know that there are certain individuals whom, perhaps, they would like to have, and who are officials of approved societies at present and might be taken over. They would get to know, in the way these things get around, that such a man, though desirable, would rather go out and take his compensation. There is another such man who is equally suitable and who will take the position. My feeling would be to let the man go, unless he was an absolutely indispensable man, and I do not know that there are so many such men to be found. My feeling would be to let him go and take his compensation. There will be a lot of officials left to select from and, certainly, my own notion is that unless a person were absolutely indispensable in the view of the management committee, the individual or the official concerned should not be forced to stay on. While, probably, it would not be right to say that he would be given the option—we could not say that— it will be generally known, as I say, to the management committee what officials are competent and what officials they want. They will know in advance whether these people are in the market, and are willing to come in or whether they will accept compensation and go out. I think it will be got over in 90 per cent. of the cases. We cannot, I suppose, take 100 per cent.
Would the Minister not consider reducing the period say, from two years to one year and accept an amendment on the Report Stage, something along those lines, in order to provide against the possibility of this situation arising? According to the Minister himself, it is improbable that this situation will arise.
As I said last night, I would examine it. I did examine it last night and this morning. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with the officials since, but I will discuss it with those who are more expert in the matter than I am, and will see if any arrangement can be made to meet this point. I doubt it, however.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 26:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Where a person entitled to compensation under this section is offered and accepts employment in the unified society on a salary lower than the salary he was receiving from an approved society at the date of transfer, he shall be entitled to compensation calculated on the value of the loss thus sustained by him.
This amendment deals with the same kind of matter, and has the same subject matter as that of other amendments we have considered—in particular, amendment No. 10. That deals with this sort of case, but in a very strict way. The proposal that I am putting forward in this amendment is a kind of compromise, and I think it is a very fair one and would tend to help matters. From another point of view, I think it is absolutely necessary that we should put in the Bill, in some form or other, a proposal that envisages that kind of case, where an official in one of the old societies is offered a post for which the remuneration is less than what he has been enjoying. If he refuses that post, as I understand the Bill, he will not be entitled to any compensation. Therefore, he is obliged to take this post no matter how badly it will be paid. His situation may be considerably worsened. This amendment suggests that for that worsening of his position he should get compensation. I think that is only fair, and I think it will help the unified society very much to set about working with its new officials. I think, if you do not make some proviso of that kind, you will reduce to a farcical extent the whole position as regards compensation, because it will be open to the new society to offer some ridiculously low remuneration to the official who is taken over, which he could not possibly accept, and which he will have to refuse, and he will get no compensation at all. It might be worked so as to invalidate the whole idea of compensation. I suggest that this is a very reasonable way of meeting this and establishing the genuineness of the whole principle on which this matter of compensation is based.
In view of the attitude adopted last night by the Minister concerning amendments with the same intention, although not in the same language——
Much more hard and fast.
——possibly—I have doubts, unless the Minister is in a more sympathetic frame of mind to-day than he was last night, whether this will be accepted. I would point out that secretaries of approved societies with headquarters in provincial towns —good men, who have proved themselves to be efficient administrators so far as their own area of administration is concerned—might be offered positions, possibly at the same salary, but who, by accepting a position at the same salary and having to go from the provincial town to Dublin, would suffer a loss apart altogether from any possible loss of salary involved. I think that compensation should be payable in such cases. I was speaking to one of these secretaries recently—the secretary of a very successful society, and successful from the point of view of figures which are available for the Minister. If he came to Dublin he would have to sell his house, cut away from family and other associations and come to Dublin with very little chance of getting a house. Possibly, he would have a chance of purchasing a house but he would have practically no chance of getting a house to rent. That man would suffer a loss of income in view of the higher cost of living in Dublin which, I suppose, would be the headquarters of the unified society. I think that in fairness to these people some allowance should be made, because from a financial point of view they would not be able to bear the burden and it would not pay them to cut off their associations and come to Dublin. I think that case should be taken into consideration by the Minister. At any rate, the Minister would be well advised to give sympathetic consideration to this whole matter between this and the Report Stage.
I do not know whether the Deputy will agree that I have already given sympathetic consideration to this whole question of compensation. I do not know whether the Deputy agrees with that or not, but I do maintain that I have given very sympathetic consideration to the whole matter and have gone into it with great thought and sympathy for the officials concerned. As a result of that thought and careful examination that have been given to this aspect of the Bill since the Second Reading Stage compensation has been increased very considerably. The scale of compensation and the cost of it have been increased by nearly 50 per cent. As I said last night when dealing with another amendment on this section, we have encroached so heavily upon the administration fund for compensation purposes that I could not think of dipping any deeper into its resources. I am told by the officials that what we have done already will hamper the administration fund, but we have decided to take the risk of improving compensation all round. In view of the financial propositions that have been put up to me as to the condition of that fund I could not possibly go any further.
Might I point out to the Minister that my proposition will not put a burden on the unified society? It will not burden the society more if it is accepted than if it is not. Let us take a concrete case. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an official was getting £2 a week. The society, if it takes him over, may say "we think you are being paid too much for the work you are doing and we are going to give you 30/- a week." The man says: "I cannot live on 30/- a week and I cannot take up the position on those terms." You reply to him: "You must either do it or go out without compensation." You may think that a very unfair thing to do to a man who has been employed for a long time, but the alternative is for the society to take him over at £2 a week or to treat the man harshly. If they take him over at 30/- a week they will pay him reasonable compensation for the difference. As far as the society is concerned, it comes to the same thing in the end.
As far as the legal aspect of the matter goes, does the Minister think it right that we should pass a Bill which leaves it possible for the whole scheme of compensation to be made nugatory? Suppose that any particular society decides that it will offer a man a perfectly absurd salary because it does not want to take him over and does not want to compensate him, such a thing is quite possible if you do not put in some saving clause such as I suggest. I think it would be wrong for the House to pass a Bill with the knowledge that it could be worked in that grossly unfair way. I do not say that it would be so worked, but it leaves the possibility to do it. I think it would be grossly unfair of the House to do that of its own knowledge: to leave such a loophole for unfair working in a Bill that it sends out as an Act of Parliament.
I desire to support the amendment. I agree that the Minister has tried to meet amendments moved to this particular section in a very sympathetic way. I think it will be admitted by the Minister himself that in this amendment Deputy Thrift is asking not for sympathy but for bare justice. Deputy Davin made a point which I had intended making, and made it, perhaps, better than I could make it with regard to officials coming up from the country who may be selected and given employment by the unified management. Apart altogether from the amount of actual cash they will lose by coming to Dublin, they will suffer other very substantial losses. House rents and the cost of living are higher in Dublin than in country towns. The change will also mean for them the tearing up, so to speak, of the roots of the life that they have been accustomed to live, some of them for 40 or 50 years. Their losses, apart altogether from the question of cash, will be very substantial indeed. Take the case of an official of a local society in the Counties Tipperary, Clare or Cork who is now receiving £320 a year and who is offered £300 a year in the City of Dublin. To start with, he suffers a loss of £20 a year in his salary, but I think it is putting the case moderately to say that his actual loss will amount to about £100 a year. He has to suffer that loss or accept the alternative of getting no compensation. I am satisfied that it is not the intention or desire of the Minister that any employee of a local society should be unfairly treated.
As has been pointed out on many occasions, once a measure leaves this House and becomes an Act of Parliament it is not the intention of the Minister or of the Government that comes into play, but a strict legal interpretation of the law. Deputy Thrift gave a case in which he pointed out that the unified management, if they desire, can deprive a man either of his job or of compensation. That can happen under the Bill as it is now before the House. I would like the Minister and some members of the House to remember this, that if such a thing did happen it would not be the first time it occurred under legislation passed here. If my memory serves me right, cases of the kind did occur under the Electricity Supply Acts.
The Railways Acts.
So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the Minister at that time, like the Minister of to-day, did not believe that advantage would be taken of a loophole in these Acts to penalise employees. It is because of that experience that we are anxious to safeguard those who will be affected by this section. I suggest to the Minister that the acceptance of Deputy Thrift's amendment is not going to place any undue burden on the unified society. It is not going to make all the difference between success and failure of the unified society. If the society can survive all the other obstacles that I see in its way, I have no doubt it will survive this. We are asking for plain justice for these officials. We are not asking for any extra compensation. I think the reason for the section being in the Bill at all is because the Minister does not want to do an injustice. If he wants to carry out the spirit of the Bill and the section, to do justice in a fair way, then I think he should accept the amendment.
Mr. Rice
There is a fundamental argument in favour of the amendment. If the House decides to bring about a reform in the administration of these societies—that such a change is for the benefit of the State and the people— then, while the House has that power it has not the moral right to interfere with a person's means of livelihood without compensating him for it. Deputy Thrift's amendment is designed to meet the case of a person who has a certain amount of remuneration as part of his livelihood. If that is taken away from him for what are really public purposes, then I say the House has not the moral right to carry out any such scheme without compensating him. For that reason, I think the amendment should be accepted.
I do not want to be unreasonable and I do not want that the management committee should have the power even to act unreasonably with regard to an official. I said on an earlier stage that I was quite prepared to put into the Bill, in regard to compensation, that the offer made to an official of an approved society should be a reasonable offer in comparison with the post that such an official held previously. That is not in the Bill so far. As Deputy Thrift and other Deputies have said, as the Bill stands it is possible that the new committee of management could make a ridiculous offer to an official and penalise that official. I would like to have that position safeguarded, but I do not want to safeguard it by putting further expense on the administration fund. I should like to have the position with the revised compensation clause safeguarded so that the management committee must act reasonably and, as far as the finances will allow, justly, towards those persons who are offering to go into the employment of the new organisation. I cannot see my way to accept this amendment because I do believe it will add further considerable expense. Like Deputy Morrissey, I believe it is not what our intentions are, any more than what Deputy Thrift's intentions are—his intentions are good—but it is what is down there in black and white or black and green on the Paper that will count. There might be a considerable number of people who would get compensation for loss of remuneration. If the Deputy is satisfied I shall look into it and see what can be done on Report Stage.
I am obliged for what the Minister has said. I am sure he will approach the matter in a reasonable way. His statement has been quite reasonable and I am sure he will consider the matter with this special point before his mind and that he will get some form of words that will meet the difficulty.
I shall try in any case.
I do not want to overburden the new society but I do want to avoid turning out an Act with this kind of loophole in it. With the leave of the House I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 27:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
The acceptance of employment with the unified society shall not deprive any person of his right to compensation under this section but such right shall be suspended and arise only if his services are dispensed with by reason of the establishment of the unified society, or if he suffers any diminution in salary, wages or emoluments within seven years from date of transfer.
This amendment is to provide for an employee who would be taken over in 1933 or 1934 and disposed of in 1936 as redundant. Suppose you were dealing with the secretary of an approved society, one secretary can never be redundant in any given approved society, but he might be taken over into the unified society in some position and in 1936 the management committee might revise their estimate of the staff necessary to do the work. He might be informed in 1936 that he was redundant and he has then lost his right to compensation. I think the Minister will see there a very real danger. It is quite on the cards that, using their best discretion, the management committee might take over an excessive staff when they start the unified society. I think, in fact, that they probably will have to, in order to make sure they will have an adequate staff. When they get the machine running they will find quite possibly that they have half a dozen men too many. In that event I want them to be free to say to these half a dozen men: "We do not want you; you are redundant and we therefore propose to give you the compensation we would have given you if we had never taken you over and let you go." This cannot arise unless they dismiss these men as redundant.
I could not accept the amendment. First of all, I am satisfied that when an employee is offered a post, he will be offered one which the management committee is satisfied there is need to fill. This will not be exactly a Civil Service post but it will be the nearest thing possible to it, and anybody who knows the Civil Service will admit that though it may be difficult to get into it, it is very difficult to get out of it. A person must commit a very serious offence before he is put out of an organisation of that kind. He must prove himself very incompetent and he will be given many a chance before being discharged. I think it is most unlikely that anybody taken into the service, unless he is guilty of some grave dereliction of duty or proves so incompetent that he cannot possibly be kept, will be deprived of office.
Surely the Minister has missed my point. This is very different to a Civil Service post. Possibly one of the explanations of the excessive national expenditure is that once you get into the Civil Service you never get out of it. Of course in an ordinary business firm, once they have no work for a man they let him go. They do not put him dusting the office stool or smiling through the window. If they have no work for him they let him go. I should say that there is no question here of dealing with a person who is dismissed for bad conduct or for insubordination. There is no question of dealing with a person who is discharged for cause stated. This only deals with people who are discharged because they are redundant, or who are degraded from one grade into a lower grade because they become redundant in the grade in which they were originally. That is all the amendment deals with—the redundant man. What I want to avoid is that the unified society should be carrying on its back as a regular practice half-a-dozen, a dozen or 20 men who are redundant or who are not wanted because, mind you, if you leave one redundant man there in a job that you will have to make for him, when he retires in the ordinary course of business you will be expected to put another man in his place. Because you create the job you will create a vacuum when the man retires, and nature abhors a vacuum. If you have ten, 20 or 30 men in such jobs you will have ten, 20 or 30 vacuums, and they will be filled down the ages at the expense of the administration fund. That is what we have to consider.
There may be a number of persons taken on temporarily. It is quite possible that at the beginning a number of persons from the societies may be taken on temporarily. There is provision for that in the Bill. They will be offered employment, and if they accept they will be kept on as long as is necessary to continue that temporary employment. When discharged they will be entitled to compensation to which they were entitled at the start.
What danger does the Minister see in the amendment?
I think having got in people there is not very great danger that they will not be kept. First of all, the management committee will not overstaff the place, I believe. I am satisfied that the new management committee will, in view of the necessity for caution and for economy, only take on the minimum staff of permanent people and a number of temporary people. The number of temporary people will not be great, but they will be safeguarded by way of compensation. At the end of the period if it is necessary to get rid of them compensation will be available for them.
I should like to ask if, in dealing with this particular section, in the event of the society retaining some men in a temporary capacity and then giving them compensation when they are no longer required, that compensation will be computed on the salaries which they are then receiving, salaries which will show a considerable reduction on the salaries which they were receiving prior to being taken into the temporary employment? Will they be compensated on the reduced stipend or on the amount of the salaries which they received in the original society?
On the original salary.
The Minister, according to his own case, sees no conceivable evil consequences that can flow from this amendment, except to provide for a few exceptional cases, but the Minister cannot say, on the one hand, that his experience is that a redundant official is never dispensed with as a result of the benevolence of the Civil Service; and, on the other hand, that redundant officials never turn up in a Civil Service department. I am suggesting that, under the special circumstances here, the unified society must ensure that they get an adequate staff of expert men in order to get going, and in doing that they will inevitably, or, very probably, may, retain the services of a few men who will not be required when the machine is working smoothly. These men might then either be de-graded or dispensed with or, worst of all, highly paid jobs might be made to hold them until the end of their period of service, but once the highly paid job is made it will stay there, and because we have not made provision to dispose of redundant officials effectively we would involve the administration fund in permanent expense. This plan removes all these objections, and I cannot see how it can give rise to any evil.
Our view is that the man accepting permanent employment in the new organisation is properly provided for, and the compensation given will be for those who lose employment. If a man is offered employment and accepts it he is provided for.
Certainly.
I do not see any necessity then for holding out compensation for people who have accepted permanent posts.
But if you dismiss them later as redundant?
That I think is too unlikely to need to be provided for.
Surely it is highly probable that you will take a man over and find that it is necessary to reduce him from the grade in which he was when first taken over after the administrative machine has got into running order?
They are more likely to go up than down.
I hope that when I quote those words against the Minister in four or five years time he will stand over them. On the Minister's implied undertaking the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.
I move amendment 28:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:
Where for the purpose of administrative convenience or otherwise any approved society shared with its parent society or any other society or body, whether corporate or unincorporate, the services of any person entitled to compensation under this section on such terms and conditions that the person so employed was regularly employed and received remuneration from both the society and from such other employer, then the following provisions shall apply to such person:—
(a) where such person is not given permanent employment in the unified society then, for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation payable to such person, the remuneration and emoluments received by him from the approved society shall, alone, be taken into account;
(b) for the purpose of considering whether such person has been offered permanent employment on terms and conditions not less favourable than the terms and conditions on and under which such person was employed at the date of transfer then the terms and conditions of his employment with both employers shall be taken into consideration and there shall be added to the remuneration and emoluments received by him from the approved society the remuneration and emoluments which he received from such other employer;
(c) where such person is offered and accepts employment in the unified society on terms and conditions less favourable on the whole than the terms and conditions under which such person was employed at the date of transfer, he shall be entitled to compensation calculated on the value of the loss thus sustained by him.
The object of this amendment is to deal with the cases of persons who are part-time officials of an insurance society and part-time officials of the society which created the insurance society. There are cases where the secretary of a trade union is also the secretary of the trade union national health insurance society. Portion of his salary is paid from the insurance society and portion paid from trade union funds. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to ensure that when that person is offered employment in the unified society, the test, for purposes of comparison, shall be his total remuneration in his old post. In other words, if you have a secretary receiving, say, £300 from a trade union society as secretary, half of which is recouped from the insurance section, the amendment would ensure that the person would be provided with a post comparable with his £300 post at the moment or, if it is not possible to offer him employment in the unified society, he should be compensated on the basis of whatever loss he sustains as a result of the merging of his insurance section with the unified society.
I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. We are only concerned with the new national health organisation and with the approved societies that are being unified. We cannot possibly provide for the large number of officials who associate other work with their work for national health insurance. We can only provide compensation for the loss of whatever office a person holds in the approved society, whether he was a whole-time official or whether his work was of such a nature as could be regarded as whole-time. I think we could not be expected to offer officials posts in the unified society comparable to the dual post that the secretary of an organisation such as a trade union body or an official of an insurance organisation would hold. There are such officials who did ordinary life and fire insurance and associated national health insurance with it. There is a good number of officials who do both kinds of work, and I think it would be a burden that we could not stand if we were to compensate these people for work other than national health insurance work or if we were asked to provide posts at the same composite salary. I am certain that we could not do it, and I think it is not fair that we should be asked to do it.
I am not asking that be should be compensated on the basis of remuneration derived from any other employment but insurance work, but where a person who, at the present moment, receives portion of his remuneration from an insurance society and the remainder from some other funds, my suggestion to the Minister is not that he should be compensated for the loss of his insurance employment but that the compensation should be based on such remuneration as he received from the insurance funds. In other words, if a person was receiving £4 a week, £2 of which was received for being a part-time secretary of an insurance society, and if he is absorbed into the new society he should receive compensation for the loss of the £2 a week, because it represents a substantial portion of his income.
If he is secretary, he will get that in any case. Under Section 21 (3), every secretary of such society will get that compensation.
If a man being absorbed by the unified society had proved himself a competent secretary of an approved society, in addition to carrying on what other work he had been engaged in, and if, for the purpose of making a success of the society in which he was engaged he might have employed assistants, would it not be reasonable to expect that he would have an opportunity of securing a position with the high joint salary he had been receiving, seeing that he, perhaps, would have been paying something originally to maintain the standard of the successful society and, by his efficiency in administrative work, would be enabled to look for a post at a £300 or £400 standard? Should that not be taken into consideration if he is being absorbed into the unified society? Why should he be limited to the exact amount which he was receiving from the national health insurance portion of his work? In that way, you may rob yourself of the opportunity of getting suitable men for some of the higher posts. If there are such men, and I believe there are, they should be given consideration for the higher posts in the unified society.
I believe that there are secretaries of approved societies, trade union secretaries and others, who have a salary from the joint funds, who are well worth consideration, and it might be worth while for the unified society to pay that full salary in order to take them into the unified society. I believe there are some, but it will not rest with me to select them; that will be the duty of the committee.
They will have discretion?
Yes, they will have discretion.
The Minister knows the case for which I am endeavouring to cater?
I think I do.
May I take it definitely from the Minister that the provision made for the secretary of the society in sub-section (3) covers the case I have in mind?
Yes, all secretaries of approved societies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I should like to know if there will be a separate discussion on amendment 29, in the name of Deputy Costello.
Both those amendments deal with compensation to persons employed by a "parent society" in a dual capacity. I take it the words in the fifth line of amendment 28 "the services of any person" would cover the "members of the medical and legal profession" specifically mentioned in the penultimate line of amendment 29.
Mr. Rice
I do not think it will cover the first portion of the amendment tabled by Deputy Costello.
I am prepared to hear the Deputy on that point.
Mr. Rice
The first portion of the amendment sets out: "The provisions of this section regarding compensation shall extend to and include any person employed by a parent society or body in connection with the administrative work of an approved society where such administrative work is discharged by such parent society or body..." That contemplates a case where a parent society, by arrangement with an approved society, carries out on a contract basis certain administrative work. Such instances do occur. No doubt the approved society find it the most economical way in some cases of carrying out the work. That portion of the amendment will not be covered by amendment 28. Then you will have the case of a whole-time employee doing national health insurance work under a contract with the parent society, but he is really doing the work of the approved society. Under the section he would not be entitled to compensation because in law he is not an employee of the approved society but of the parent society. In substance and in fact he is doing the work of the approved society and I think such person should not be excluded from compensation.
The second portion of the amendment deals with a clerk employed by any secretary, treasurer or other salaried officer. If a secretary or treasurer, by reason of the multiplicity of duties in the approved society, has to employ a whole-time clerk, that person is as much a person carrying out the work of administration under the National Health Insurance Acts as his principal. I think that person should not be excluded from compensation either. The third portion of the amendment, dealing with a member of the medical or legal profession, is in a somewhat different position. Where a person is employed for an isolated job he is in quite a different position from the person receiving a salary. The giving of a salary contemplates the giving of a considerable portion of time on the part of a professional man to a particular class of work. Such employment does result in his exclusion from a considerable amount of what might be termed his general practice. The legislature has recognised that distinction in this country because it has applied the principles of giving pensionable rights to doctors and solicitors employed, not from job to job, but on a salaried basis, to do a certain specified amount of work in the year. I submit that this amendment is not governed by amendment 28.
I agree to a considerable extent with the Deputy's contention.
I agree that where officials such as are mentioned in this amendment, officials of what the Deputy has described as the parent society, who are whole-time officials and who have given their whole time to the work of national health insurance, can prove that they have given their whole time to such work and are perhaps likely to lose employment in the parent society because of unification, they would be entitled to compensation and we are prepared to bring forward some amendment on the Report Stage that will cover that position. The second point refers to clerks or officials employed by the official in charge. It is provided in the Bill that where those officials pay out of their own salaries for the services of these officers the salary of the official employing the clerk will be reduced for compensation purposes. He will get his compensation, if he is entitled to it, less the amount given to the clerk, and the clerk will be given compensation also. We are quite satisfied that some compensation should be given. Provided they are otherwise qualified for compensation, we think they should get compensation. As regards legal advisers and doctors, the Bill provides only for compensation for people with whole-time posts or people whose services were such that, though they were part-time, the work was still of such a nature that almost whole-time service was given. If there are such officers who have given whole-time service they would come in under the ordinary compensation clauses set out in the Bill, but if they cannot prove whole-time service I do not think there is much hope for them.
Mr. Rice
The position of part-time employees has been raised. Perhaps the Minister will defer his decision in regard to the third portion of Deputy Costello's amendment until the next amendment is dealt with.
I am afraid there is not much hope of the next amendment being accepted.
Mr. Rice
I am always hopeful. I shall withdraw amendment 29 on the Minister undertaking that he will make provision for points one and two, to which I have drawn attention.
Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 30:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Where a part-time employee of an approved society at the date of transfer is not offered employment by the unified society, and is not entitled to compensation under Section 21 of this Act, then provided that he was so employed by such approved society on the 30th day of June, 1932, he shall be entitled to receive a gratuity from the unified society on the basis of one month's remuneration excluding expenses for each completed year of service calculated on his average monthly remuneration for the year 1932.
In Section 21 (3), it is provided that in order to get compensation a part-time employee would have to receive from an insurance society his principal means of livelihood. In other words, if a person were employed as a part-time agent by an insurance society, the bulk of his income would have to come from the society. It must, according to the reading of the section, be his principal means of livelihood in order that he may get compensation. On the Second Reading I pointed to the case of an agent receiving from a private employer £1 a week, and receiving as agent of an insurance society 18/- a week. The 18/- is not his principal means of livelihood, although it is a very substantial portion, but because the 18/- is less than what he gets from another source, that person receives no compensation. I think that is a grossly unfair method of assessment. He is only a part-time agent and his earnings are small, but in the case of such a person the small payment from the insurance society represents a very substantial part of the weekly income. In such a person's domestic budget the small income derived as agent is a very substantial item. To take that means of livelihood away from a man and give him no compensation, all because the State considers it desirable to unify societies, is in my opinion acting towards such people in a very harsh manner. There is very little apparent consideration given to them if they are to comply with the conditions set out by the Minister in sub-section (3) of Section 21.
My amendment seeks to provide very modest compensation for such persons. It seeks to ensure that if a person is not entitled to compensation under sub-section (3) he should nevertheless be entitled to compensation for the loss of his employment, and that the compensation should be calculated on the basis of one month's remuneration for each completed year of service. That, at most, would give these people pretty small compensation. The compensation would be very much less relatively than their weekly earnings from the society would amount to. I hope the Minister is not going to tell the House, in respect of these agents, that because they cannot prove or cannot show that the principal part of their earnings came from the society, they are to get no compensation. If the Minister rejects this amendment that means he is sentencing these people virtually to economic death. Because if you take away from these people the part of their livelihood that they get from an approved society, though that is not the principal part of their livelihood, you impose a severe hardship upon them. These people are poor people, always struggling and always endeavouring to eke out a livelihood. Yet, the legislation which provides for men with fixed salaries in the societies and for members of the professions associated with the societies, gives no consideration at all to people who do not receive the main part of their livelihood from their work in the society.
I cannot accept this amendment for part-time employees. The only part-time employees for whom we can provide compensation are those mentioned in Section 21 of the Bill. The part-time employee of a society who proves to the satisfaction of the provisional committee that his earnings from such society were his principal means of livelihood is being compensated. The funds are not sufficient and that is the reason why I cannot accept the amendment. I am told that there are round about 2,500 agents who would be compensated on the lines suggested by the amendment and that would cost about £30,000 for the whole lot.
For the 2,500?
That is the estimate of the amount that would be required. That is the figure I have got. Even if it was only £20,000, one-third less, or even £10,000 or £5,000 in addition to what we have already put upon the administration fund, I could not accept the amendment. I am sorry that unfortunately I cannot accept it.
I had expected, from what the Vice-President had stated to Deputy Rice on the previous amendment, that he was going to give us some sound reasons as to why he was rejecting the present amendment. He told us that there are, I think, 2,500 temporary or part-time employees covered by this amendment——
Approximately.
He told us that it would cost £30,000, that is, roughly, £12 per man or per woman compensated. I want to put the viewpoint to the House and to the Minister that it is largely due to the work of these part-time employees throughout the country that national health insurance has been able to live and grow and to be kept solvent in this country. The Minister is, or should be, aware of the fact that most of those who would be covered by this amendment are what are called card collectors and card distributors. They collect the old cards and distribute the new cards. But that was not the beginning and end of their work. These men were also the people who secured compliance with the Act, and it was their action perhaps more than any of the old officials employed either directly by the local societies or by the National Health Insurance Commissioners, that secured compliance with the Act, and it was they who did most to prevent malingering. The work which they did was out of all proportion to the remuneration that they got for the collection and distribution of the cards. The Minister said it would cost £30,000. Personally I am sorry, not alone from the point of view of the compensation but from the point of view of the future of the national health insurance service in this country, even as a unified society, to see those men going, because the Minister will find it almost impossible to replace them and almost impossible to get the machinery that will do the work as effectively as these men were doing it.
I happen personally to know a great number of these men. On the Second Reading here I stated that I have been a member of the committee of management of a society for over 15 years and I am in fairly close touch with societies adjacent to my own county. I could give, and I am prepared to give, to the Minister privately the names and the particulars of men, if he requires them, to whom this deprivation of their fees under the existing law of the local society will make all the difference in the world. I can give the Minister the particulars of at least a dozen cases where these men are at present through the fees they earn from local societies just able to live and to support their families. The passage of this Bill will mean that they are driven back below the starvation line. In a few cases that I have in mind these are fairly old men and there is no other employment open to them. They are not capable of taking up other employment even if such were available.
Let me give a typical case. It is the case of a man living in a fairly large town. He is an agent for a fairly large district around the town and that is his area for the distribution of cards. This man is a widower with a fairly large young family. He has a small huckster's shop. Now I submit that it would be utterly impossible for him to prove to the satisfaction of the commission or whomsoever would be the authority under this Bill whether the greater part of his livelihood came from the fees got from the society or from the shop. I am giving that as an illustration. I want the Minister to realise this, and I am sure he does realise it, that these men have been recruiting agents for national health insurance. They were watching the young fellows in their area until they came on to 16 years of age. They watched them from the time they left school at 14 until they went into employment with a farmer. They went to the farmer's house to see that these young fellows were insured and that is how the societies were built up. I am satisfied that the Minister desires to be fair and I suggest in all fairness to the Minister that he will not be doing any injustice in giving those men the compensation which Deputy Norton asks for in this amendment. I am satisfied that if it were possible to have a vote of the insured members and the contributing employers they would agree that these men should get fair compensation. According to the Minister's own statement it would cost £30,000 for 2,500 employees. The funds to the credit of the societies are roughly about three and a half million pounds, I suppose. Surely the Minister will not say that taking £30,000 from that sum to do an act of justice to men, some of whom have given 21 years in helping to build up this social machine, is going to make any difference as to whether the unified society will be a success or not. I do not think it will.
I do not believe we could touch that three millions for these purposes and if we did there would be very little left.
I agree that the Minister cannot. In view of the figures given by the Minister on the Second Reading in trying to justify the introduction of the unification scheme, and having regard to the last actuarial report, and even the Minister's estimate of what the next one will be, does the Minister say that it would be worth £30,000 to national health insurance or to the State to deprive these men of the very modest compensation asked for? It will not cost £30,000, because I am satisfied that if the unified scheme is to work, many of these men, and I hope a great number of them, will have to be retained; or, alternatively, the Minister will have to set up machinery to replace these men all over the country, which will cost ten times £30,000. I speak from a little experience of an average local society, and the Minister knows as well as I do that unless you can secure the maximum compliance, and unless you can cut malingering down to the minimum, no scheme introduced can succeed. I suggest to the Minister that it would pay to compensate these men on a just basis to secure their co-operation. Even as men who are not employed at all, but who know the system and what it means to get the system going, they would probably, even after they left the service, give information and advice to whatever officers may be appointed by the unified management and that would be of much greater value to the State and national health insurance than the £20,000 or £30,000 this will cost.
Deputy Morrissey, in the concluding portion of his speech, made the point I intended to make. The Minister says that if he accepts the amendment it will cost £30,000 to provide for these 2,500 people. I should like to emphasise the point Deputy Morrissey made, that I think it is certain that a large number of these men will have to be assimilated in the new society so that there will be a large proportion of them who will not have to be provided for. It cannot cost the sum that the Minister stated, in view of the possibility nay, the probability, that a great many of these men will have to be assimilated in the new society. I think, therefore, that the Minister might reasonably accept the amendment. It will not, as I say, cost the amount he estimated, but even if it did, I think, as Deputy Morrissey argued, that a great case can be made for it. These are the people who will suffer most from the unification of the societies. We could all give instances of cases, as Deputy Morrissey did, of men who are acting as part-time agents in these societies. I know myself of the case of a man who is incapacitated for any other form of work. He has a very bad foot and can only go round in a cart, but he has done his work very well and to the satisfaction of his society. If he is debarred from this work, I do not know where he is going to get alternative employment. Other Deputies could give similar instances. As I said, it is almost certain that most of these men will have to be assimilated in the new society. The society will have to find men to do this sort of work. Why not, therefore, engage the men who were doing it before? The number that will then be left will not be so great that it is going to cost what the Minister says to provide for them.
I am afraid the figure given by the Minister last night and, possibly, the figure representing the estimated cost to cover the compensation to be paid to these agents on the basis of the amendment really represent the figure which would go to pay compensation to all the agents and all the employees now working for the different societies. If that is so, I do not think it is a fair way of presenting the case against either this amendment or previous amendments asking for the payment of compensation to people who will lose their employment. The Minister says that 2,500 is possibly the maximum number who would come within the terms of the amendment. I suggest that it would not be unfair to say that at least 500 of these will have to be retained if the society is to be a success.
Many more.
I am putting it at the very minimum. On that basis, and on the basis that the average number of years' service of agents has been very low, I do not see how you could possibly arrive at a figure of £30,000. I am informed, and my information comes from people who have some knowledge of the working of approved societies, that the maximum cost of compensating, under the terms of this amendment, those who would have to go, would not exceed half the amount mentioned by the Minister, namely £15,000. The basis of compensation laid down in the amendment is not unknown even in the case of servants of the State who retire. The remuneration of part-time postmen at the expiration of their service is on the basis of one pound for every year of service. I am informed, and I believe it is correct, that unestablished people, like carpenters and labourers in the Board of Works, when they retire get a month's pay for every year of service. Presumably, the same basis applies to other unestablished servants of the State in other Departments. Somebody appears to have frightened the Minister with figures which are not really reliable regarding the cost of compensation to those who would lose their part-time employment as a result of this legislation. Although the previous Government was supposed to be reactionary, they always recognised in passing legislation that when men lost employment or remuneration, either from public companies or the State, compensation on a reasonable scale should be provided under the legislation. Many speeches have been quoted in this House, and I certainly read some of the Minister's own speeches which go to show that the Minister himself, when in opposition, was much more generous in his outlook than he is now. I should like the Minister to look up a speech which he made in this House, supporting an amendment moved by me, making provision for compensation to the secretaries of insurance committees. That amendment was carried by a majority of four, as a result of the Minister's eloquence, and as a result of the support given by the members of the Minister's Party at the time.
I was on the wrong side of the House then.
It would do the Minister no harm if he would give the House an assurance that he would reconsider his attitude on this question, and between now and the date of the Report Stage read up some of his own speeches in connection with the matter I have referred to.
Do not put that penance on me.
I have a copy of part of one of them with me, but I would rather the Minister would read it himself than that I should be forced to read it for him. It will I am sure remind him that he was in a much more generous mood in those days. He was not then worrying so much as to where the money was to come from. He was considering, I suppose, the justification or otherwise of making provision for those who would lose their part-time employment as a result of Government intervention. Perhaps, as I say, the Minister would give an assurance that between this and the Report Stage he would look into the whole matter in the light of his own speeches in the past, and in the light of the speeches made by his Ministerial colleagues on other issues coming up under other Bills and affecting the same principle. I believe we can give the Minister time to look into the question in the light of those matters. If the Minister is going to take up an adverse attitude I think we shall be forced to ask Deputies who walked with him and with us into the Division Lobby in support of similar proposals in, I think, 1929, to give reasons here, or to go in silence into the Lobby and reverse the attitude which they adopted in 1929 on the same issue.
I think I have already said all I can say on this matter. I should like to be more generous if the money were there. If we could lay hands on any of the £3,000,000 that Deputy Morrissey referred to, not alone would those people get compensation but others would get more generous compensation than they have got; but that £3,000,000 cannot be touched. As the Deputy knows, national health insurance and everybody connected with it would suffer materially in benefit if it were. We are restricted for compensation purposes to the administration fund, and expenses under that administration fund have already been exceeded by societies.
How many societies?
I cannot say the number.
Very few.
The administration fund has been exceeded by a considerable sum of money. We have to try to economise to make that good, and economise again in order to pay the compensation we do propose to pay. The administration fund, which is the only fund out of which we can get any money for this purpose, is already going to be depleted to such an extent that it may endanger the successful working of the unified society. That is what I am informed will be the result of the compensation that we have already in this House agreed to give. I am sorry that I cannot go any further.
I think the question of the three million pounds has not been mentioned often enough, because the idea has gone abroad in the country, as a result of the introduction of this Bill and some of the speeches made in the House, that national health insurance is bankrupt. I think the Minister will agree with me that that is not so.
Yes.
I have outside this House taken any opportunity I got of making clear that national health insurance is very far from being bankrupt.
That is so.
With regard to the administration fund. I agree with the Minister that certain societies—I do not think that there are very many; I should like to get the figures—have exceeded the amount which is set aside for administration. Surely if there is any justification whatever for this Bill before the House, for unification and for reducing the number of societies from 65 to 1, it is that there should be a very substantial reduction in the administrative expenses.
But we have got to pay compensation.
I agree, but those who were in favour of and so enthusiastic about unification told us not only during the course of this Bill but for the last four or five years— and particularly the National Health Insurance Commission—that there would be no doubt whatever that the saving would be very great in administration, and that we would be able to pay very generous compensation. The Minister knows as well as I do that the question of unification did not arise within the last twelve months, or within the last two years; it has been going on for years. We know that the National Health Insurance Commission has thought of nothing else except unification for a number of years. Are we now to be told that the saving in administrative expenses is going to be so small and the dividing line is going to be so thin that a matter of £20,000—not £20,000 per year but one sum of roughly £20,000, or, if the Minister likes, £30,000—is going to make all the difference between success and failure to the new society? I am sure it would be very hard to convince even the Minister himself that that is so. Even if it were so the administration fund of the unified society is not for one year or two years. It is for so long as the Act remains on the Statute Book. The Minister, if I may say so with all respect, was arguing in his last speech as if the administration fund was going to last only for one year, and that the year in which compensation was being paid out. The Minister knows as well as I do, and probably much better, that that is not so. I go further and say that, even if it were so, for the sake of £20,000, neither the Minister nor this House would be justified, if I may put it that way, in inflicting an injustice upon men who have done more to build up this service than any other officials connected with it.
There is one point I should like to make, arising out of the remarks of the last speaker, and that is in connection with the number of societies who have dipped into the administration fund beyond what they were entitled to. I think it will be found on analysis that those are societies who did not engage a sufficient number of the sub-agents or part-time agents for whom appeal is being made in this amendment. The real hardship would be that the men who had made a success of their societies and drawn small remuneration are now to be thrown on the scrap heap because a few societies who employed very few of this type of people had got insolvent. I can confidently say that if a plebiscite of the insured people were taken throughout the length and breadth of the country I am sure they would be in favour of giving compensation, irrespective of the cost, to the people who succeeded in building up this insurance industry. The work of those people has been dealt with by the various speakers. They have been espionage agents, compelling people throughout the country who were hostile to the Act to conform to it. The amount of service that they rendered, in that way, in bringing people into insurance will have to be continued on some similar lines if there is to be any hope for the future. The unified society will not be the success that is expected unless agents are employed in it in a similar capacity to those who were employed in the approved societies throughout the country. I hope that Deputy Davin is wrong in his estimate that 500 people will be the number required. I think in the 26 counties 500 would be a very small number. I have experience of those societies, and I have been a member of a committee of management of one society that has been working over 11 counties. You would want to secure a force like the Civic Guard to do the job that these agents have done for national health insurance in the past. And they have got very little thanks for it. The acid test of the Minister's sympathy is to be found in his attitude towards this amendment. He says that it would cost £30,000. That is his computation of the amount that would be involved, but I say, having regard to the nature of the work that these people have done, that is a very meagre amount. The real kernel of this whole case is, does the Minister believe that these people are entitled to compensation? Does he not think they are as much entitled to compensation as the higher officials are? If he believes they are entitled to compensation, and if he believes the insured people are prepared to pay them compensation, even to the extent of reducing the statutory benefits, as I believe, if necessary, people would do, then he ought to pay adequate compensation to those officials who lose their positions.
From the observations of the Minister, I gather that he fully realises the hardship that will be caused to those part-time employees by the provision of the Bill which deprives them of compensation. The only reason he has hardened his heart against the appeal made to him is the fact that there is no money in the administration fund to provide the necessary compensation. But it is to be remembered that this particular hardship, with which everyone sympathises, is brought about by the proposal for unification embodied in this Bill and put forward by the Government and, incidentally, I may say, supported by Deputy Norton and his colleagues. They gave their benediction and their votes to this scheme of unification which has brought about these hardships. I suggest that as it is in connection with the State's action towards approved societies that the hardship is being involved, and because the State itself, by reason of these proposals, is going to make a substantial saving in administration expenses that it would be a generous and a just thing for the State to pay this compensation. If the administration fund is not sufficient to pay compensation to those men who undoubtedly are going to suffer a hardship, then some part of the savings that are to be effected by the State, and which will be recurrent, should be applied in paying people, who are hit so very hard, such compensation as everybody admits they are entitled to.
The Minister, upon this amendment and many others, is relying upon the argument old Mother Hubbard used very effectively to the dog. She told the dog the cupboard was bare and he could get nothing. I think the Minister overdid the point about the administration fund. In 1912 the administration fund was 3/5 per person per annum. It was then fixed by regulation, and it is fixed by regulation to-day. There is no difficulty whatever in increasing the amount. In 1912 it was 3/5. In 1933 it amounted to 4/5 per person per annum, an increase of 30 per cent. between the years 1912 and 1933. When we consider that the volume of the work has more than doubled and the cost of claims has increased and that many regulations have added to the complexity of administration, that postage has increased, and that all other charges have increased, this 30 per cent increase in administration charges this year, as compared with 1912, is very low indeed. There is nothing to prevent the Minister increasing the administration grant by 35 or 40 or 50 per cent. as compared with 1912; and if he did so it would be only reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Minister says that this will cost £30,000. I am rather sceptical as to the amount, but let us assume the figure is correct and that £30,000 is the sum that will be involved in paying compensation to those part-time people. My amendment seeks to have these people compensated and the Minister says it will take this one sum of £30,000. As Deputy Morrissey says, while you will only have one payment of £30,000, the administration fund is going on and will continue under your scheme of national health insurance. We need not even ask the administration fund to bear this £30,000 at all. The method by which the money is to be raised, by way of compensation, is set out in Section 22. There is nothing to prevent that money being borrowed from the Insurance Fund. If the Minister agrees to pay this £30,000 necessary to pay compensation to those people who will lose their livelihood as a result of the passing of this Bill it could be raised in that way. If the Minister is prepared to look into that matter, between now and the Report Stage, we should be ready to withdraw the amendment at this stage in order to enable him to do so.
I have been looking over a list of local agents, mostly in the South of Ireland. I find that they do not get anything like a livelihood, even for one month in the year, out of their part-time service in insurance and, therefore, I do not see any reason for this compensation. I have a list here for one county, where the employment of these people is set out as also their normal occupation, and the amounts they got in 1931-32. In one case the amount is £16 9s. 0d.; in another £8 13s. 3d.; in others, £4, £6, £11 15s. 6d.; £1 9s. 3d., £3 6s. 7d. and so on. On another list I have for a county in Munster the figures are:—£9 13s. 6d. One man is put down as £150 a year, but he is a full time agent and is entitled to compensation. The return gives other figures as £29 13s. 6d; £10 12s. 0d.; £4 11s. 0d.; £8 11s. 0d.; £25; £13. In another county the figures are £1 11s. 8d; £1 5s. 0d.; £10 11s. 0d.; £8 0s. 0d. There is nothing like full-time, or whole-time employment even for a month in most of these examples that I have quoted. There is a representative from the North of Ireland receiving £16 3s. 0d. There are several teachers on this list, one getting £16 3s. 0d. and another £4 11s. 0d. per year. On that basis, I think no case has been made for compensating people who merely got casual employment and pay of that kind. I do say there are some border-line cases. I say that as the result of the speech made by Deputy Norton on Second Reading. He cited the case of a man who had £1 from one source and 18s. from another. There are border-line cases like that. Probably hardship will arise in those cases but you cannot legislate for border-line cases. From what I have said and from the particulars I have just now quoted, it will be seen that the amount of money the vast majority of these agents get from this source is a mere bagatelle in their annual income.
I quite understand the Minister's anxiety to preserve the interests of insured members in the unified society which is to be set up, but I should like to have his view as to the case of a secretary of an approved society earning £40 a year, which represents to all intents and purposes his whole means of livelihood. Would that person be entitled to compensation?
All secretaries of approved societies are to be compensated.
I should like to have that definite.
The Deputy will find that set out in Section 21, which deals with secretaries of approved societies.
Would any difficulty arise owing to the fact that the secretary of an approved society carries out some household duties for which he receives no monetary recompense?
The Deputy evidently has not read the Bill.
I have read it.
The Deputy passed by a very important section—Section 21. Every secretary of an approved society, no matter what else he may do, is entitled to compensation.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kent, William Rice.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Finlay, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 31:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:
Where a person employed by an approved society at the date of transfer was not given employment by the unified society then the period between the said date of transfer and the appointed day shall be taken into account in the calculation of his compensation (if any) as if he had been employed up to the appointed day.
The object of this amendment is to provide equal treatment for all employees of approved societies who are not taken over by the unified society. The Bill provides a period of three years within which the various approved societies must be taken over. It is, of course, obvious that the different approved societies will be taken over at different times. Some of them will be taken over immediately, some later, and some not until the last minute. The result will be that in the case of a society which is taken over immediately, or almost immediately, an employee of that society who does not get employment in the unified society will be deprived of his employment, and consequently the period during which he might have been allowed to stay on, if it was not taken over until some period later, will not count towards compensation. It would appear rather unfair that in the case of one person who is taken over immediately he loses three years' salary and loses three years' towards compensation. The proposal embodied in the amendment is that all employees of approved societies will have their periods reckoned practically from the date of this Bill until the appointed day, so that everyone will have equal treatment and an equal period of time counted towards compensation.
I take it that this amendment would mean compensating some official who would not be taken over for a period of service he did not give. The officials will be compensated for the service they gave from the date of the transfer.
The only point to be raised in support of the amendment is that a person's compensation should not be dependent on the mere chance of his transfer. One person may be taken over immediately after the Bill is passed, but another person may not be taken over for three years. The person not taken over for three years gets these three years added to his service for the purposes of compensation. The man taken over immediately loses the possibility of retaining his employment for the period of three years, and also loses the chance of having the three years reckoned for the purposes of compensation. This is, if you like, only a rough method of dispensing rough justice all round, so that the matter may not be left purely to chance.
I am not accepting the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) All moneys required to meet the costs of compensation under the immediately preceding section shall from time to time be advanced by the Minister out of the National Health Insurance Fund, and every advance shall be repaid by the unified society to the said fund, with interest thereon from the date on which it is made at such rate as the Minister for Finance may determine, in such manner as may be prescribed out of moneys available for the costs of administration.
I move amendment 32:—
In sub-section (1), line 1, to delete the word "costs" and substitute the word "payment."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Any investments held by the Minister on behalf of an approved society whose engagements are transferred under this Act to the unified society shall as from the date of such transfer be held by the Minister for and on behalf of the unified society.
I move amendments 33, 34 and 35:—
To insert before the word "investments," line 16, the words "moneys or".
To insert after the word "Minister," line 16, the words "or the Minister for Finance."
To insert after the word "Minister," line 19, the words "or Minister for Finance (as the case may be)."
Amendments agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
. . . . . .
(d) (ii) thereafter for the benefit of persons who were members of the said society on the 31st day of December, 1933, under a scheme approved by the Minister.
I move amendment 36:—
In page 10, paragraph (d) (ii), line 13, to insert before the word "persons" the word "insured."
It is desired that persons who cease to be insured will have no further claim on the extension of extra benefits.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27, 28 and 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) The Minister may for the purpose of deciding any appeal or dispute submitted to him under Section 67 of the Act of 1911 appoint a person to hear, but not decide, such appeal or dispute.
(2) A person appointed under this section to hear any such appeal or dispute shall have power by notice in writing to summon witnesses and to require production of books and documents, and any person so summoned who fails to attend or refuses to give evidence before such arbitrator, and any person who fails or refuses to produce any book or other document the production of which is so required of him, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(3) A person appointed under this section to hear any such appeal or dispute shall have power to take evidence on oath (which he is hereby authorised to administer) from persons attending as witnesses at such hearing.
(4) Sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act of 1911, and the words "or referee" now contained in sub-section (4) of the said Section 67 are hereby repealed.
I move amendments 37 to 41, inclusive.
37. In sub-section (1), page 10, line 35, to delete the words "a person," and substitute the words "either one person or two or more persons."
38. In sub-section (2) to delete the words "a person," line 37, and substitute the words "the person or persons."
39. In sub-section (2) to delete the words "such arbitrator," line 41, and substitute the words "the person or persons so appointed."
40. In sub-section (3) to delete the words "a person," line 46, and substitute the words "the person or persons."
41. In sub-section (3) to delete the word "he," line 48, and substitute the words "such person or, where two or more persons are so appointed, any one of such persons."
These amendments are necessary in order to provide for the possibility of its becoming necessary to appoint a medical man or other technical adviser to assist.
Amendments 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported, with amendments. Report Stage ordered for Friday, 26th May, 1933.
Might I be permitted to ask when will the Government amendments for the Report Stage be circulated?
I cannot say exactly, but they will be circulated as soon as we can get them out.
They will be circulated a day or two before the Report Stage?
Certainly.