With regard to amendment No. 23, in the name of Deputy MacEntee, the first part of the amendment is out of order as imposing a charge. The second part is in order and therefore will have to be phrased: "That the following words be added to the sub-section."
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1949 — Committee Stage (Resumed).
I formally move amendment No. 23:—
To add at the end of sub-section (3) the following:—
An account shall be kept of the income derived under sub-section (1) of this section and all income shall be paid into and applied for the benefit of the fund.
I should like to hear the Minister on the amendment.
I know the Deputy's difficulty and I will try to help him. With due respect, Sir, I do not know how the amendment can be in order because I do not know whether it is in substitution for anything or an addition to anything.
An addition to the sub-section.
The amendment refers to sub-section (1), but that sub-section does not provide for any income. It provides for payments out. I take it that what the Deputy wants is an account in respect of the income in sub-section (3). An account will be kept of that, so I think the amendment is quite unnecessary. An account will be kept of these moneys. The amendment, as I say, asks that an account be kept of moneys received under a particular sub-section when in fact we do not receive anything under that section.
As the first part of the amendment is out of order, there is not much point in it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 have been dealt with in connection with amendment No. 20.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:—
To delete sub-section (8).
The object of the amendment is to elicit from the Minister the necessity for this sub-section. On that basis, we will make up our minds on whether it will be necessary to proceed with the amendment or not. It is rather strange that the Minister should set out in the Bill that this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, 1949, as if he were anxious to cover up something illegal, something out of order which was done, and which he wants to bring into order and within the realms of legality.
I assure the Deputy that I had no such sinister intent. The general intention was that for a period of five years the Minister could exercise certain powers. This matter, as the Deputy will appreciate, had to be discussed with the Government and the Department of Finance, and we finally came to an agreement by which the period of five years would operate from the date on which we were discussing the matter, which was July last year. Taking July, 1949, and relating it to the termination of the period during which the Minister can exercise his functions, it will be seen that the functions end in July, 1954. That is the only meaning the sub-section has.
Sub-section (1) provides that payments may be made out of the fund in respect of expenditure on the acquisition of land, premises, furniture or equipment, etc. So far as expenses incurred in that connection are concerned, they are trifling — a matter of a visit by officers of the Department to see some equipment being purchased for the Store Street building, and an examination of the equipment to see in what way it could best be adapted, or incidental expenses of that kind. I assure the Deputy that they are trifling, and the only meaning of the date in the sub-section is to complete the period of five years.
It seems a rather cumbersome way of doing it and I do not know that the sub-section is necessary at all. As the section would stand without it, the Minister has certain powers up to July, 1954.
I will look into it to see if it is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
The matter of the acquisition of the Store Street premises has been fully debated and it would probably be futile for me or any other Deputy to appeal to the Minister to change his mind in any respect. However, I think it should be put on record that, apart from all political considerations — and they certainly do not apply to me personally — it is the opinion of members on this side of the House and of people generally throughout the country that the decision to abandon the premises at Store Street as a bus terminus was a mistaken one. I shall refer very briefly to the considerations which prompt me to make that statement. First, there is no denying the necessity for such a terminus not only in Dublin but in other cities in the country. I can say for Cork at least that the premises in existence there for a like purpose are much better than the premises which the people of Dublin and the people who visit Dublin now have at their disposal on Aston's Quay, but that would not be saying much for the premises in Cork. There was a period when the people of Cork and people visiting Cork had to labour under the same hardships as those under which the people in Dublin now have to labour. Córas Iompair Éireann secured better premises and these are being used now, but I insist that even they are not adequate for the purpose of controlling queues, parking buses, and giving travellers the requisite shelter and facilities while awaiting long-distance buses.
Secondly, I have come to know Dublin much better than I did before I became a Deputy and having regard to the location of this particular site, I doubt if a better site could be procured in any other part of the city. From the point of view of convenience. nobody can deny that it is the most convenient site, and, from the point of view of traffic congestion, which is the greatest argument advanced against it, ingress to and egress from this point in relation to all parts, except possibly the south-east can be secured by way of routes which would in no way interfere with the main traffic arteries.
I think I outlined these points in the course of the debate on another Bill and I do not wish to labour them any further, but there is one other point which I think is very relevant to the section. The Store Street building, as it now appears, seems to be far too big for housing the Department of Social Welfare. It appears big enough, if completed in its present design, to house several Departments. There are several floors and I am of the impression that, even including the staff now in Árus Brugha, in D'Olier Street, Lord Edward Street and some of the other smaller sections of the Department, the building as it stands is far too big for the proposed new Department. I would ask the Minister at some stage to give us an idea as to the number of officials he expects will be housed in the Store Street premises. I think the Minister will say that his officials alone could not occupy the entire premises. I may be wrong in that, but that is my impression. If I am right, ample provision could be made for using the bottom portion of the premises as a bus terminus.
As I said at the outset, it is of no use to ask the Minister at this stage to change his mind. The amendments that have been put down to preserve this building as a bus terminus have been defeated by small majorities. The small difference between the number who voted for and the number who voted against the amendments is in itself sufficient justification for the Government to think twice before they come to a final decision in this particular matter and before the building is altered for all time and is rendered unsuitable for the purpose for which it was originally designed.
We have discussed this matter at such length——
I may have been out at the time.
I am not complaining about the Deputy, but I think all the arguments on both sides have been paraded in all their merits. Quite clearly, there are two points of view. I think I made our point of view perfectly clear, namely, that we decided to buy this building because it was going. We might have bought any other building that was going. We decided to buy this building because it was going, because it could be completed within a reasonably short time and because it appeared to us to be capable of housing the entire headquarters staff of the Department of Social Welfare. At present, the Department's staff is scattered all over the city, as Deputies who have any contact with it know. One has to go to one place for children's allowances, to another for old age pensions, to another for widows' and orphans' pensions, to another for unemployment benefit. The offices of the Department are scattered all over the city.
This building has the merit that we believe it will accommodate approximately 1,000 members of the staff. The figure may be below that; it may be above it, but it is in or about that figure. If it does that, as we believe it will, it will accommodate the entire staff of the Department. At this stage we are talking about an incomplete building and the figures, necessarily, are given with some reserve, but I think they are reasonably accurate figures. We hope, therefore, that when we accommodate the entire staff of the Department it will be possible to shed the variety of buildings which are at present occupied by various sections of the Department of Social Welfare. In that event, the offices which we will evacuate will be available for other public purposes or the release of private dwelling houses which have been acquired here and there throughout the city in order to provide accommodation for Government staffs for which there is no official accommodation available, will be permitted.
The Store Street project, from the point of view of the Department of Social Welfare, has the merit that it offers accommodation for the entire staff of the Department in the centre of the city, permitting of easy access. The lower portion of the building can be easily and satisfactorily utilised as a central inquiry office for the transaction of all that type of business for which people visit the Department every day in the week. The fact that there is an extensive office on the ground floor will enable us to establish there a variety of sections where inquirers can get speedy information, where they can be interviewed and where their business can be satisfactorily dealt with.
It is from all these points of view that the building known as Store Street is considered to be a satisfactory one from the standpoint of the Department of Social Welfare. It has the merit also, again from the Department's standpoint, that it permits of the integration of the entire staff in one building, with all the merits of integration, co-ordination, and the fact that people are woven into a common administrative machine, permitting of greater efficiency than is possible where people are compelled to work in separated buildings, with the loss of co-ordination which inevitably results from such a position.
The question of the provision of another bus depot is a matter for Córas Iompair Éireann, certainly not a matter for the Department of Social Welfare and whatever is being done in that respect must stand on its own feet. We desire to purchase this building because of the advantages it affords in the way of providing a central building for the entire staff of the Department and enabling its business to be transacted in a much more satisfactory manner.
All these arguments were put up in favour of the bus station.
Do not tempt me to go back over the road we trod so laboriously yesterday. I will refrain from being tempted by the Deputy to do so. All the merits of this matter have been discussed at considerable length. I think the only wise thing to do is to recognise that there are considerable merits, no matter what has been said on the other side, in having an integrated Department of Social Welfare centrally situated, with staff working in the one building and able to give the more satisfactory type of service which you can give in such circumstances.
Does the Minister think it will be too big, big enough, or too small?
It certainly will not be too big. If I had any fear at all, it would be the other way.
Question put and agreed to
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
There is a matter that I would like to raise on this section. I kept this point for this section because I think it is more relevant here than anywhere else. This Bill provides that the employees—whether they are officers or employees—of the National Health Insurance Society will become civil servants if they so opt. There is no provision made for those who do not opt to become civil servants. It is quite conceivable that an officer or agent of the National Health Insurance Society, say, an agent in the country, might, for various reasons, decide that he did not want to become a civil servant. In the first place, a civil servant has not the same freedom with regard to business as a person outside the service. As far as I know, some agents down the country who are acting for the National Health Insurance Society run a business as well, own a shop or something like that, and if they become civil servants, I do not think they will be allowed to do that. That is the first point. Secondly, some of them were interested in politics, were members of public boards and so on and certainly they will not be allowed to continue. If a person took an appointment from the National Health Insurance Society on the understanding that he would be allowed to go on with his business or continue in politics and if he spent a good many years there and now when he is asked to become a civil servant does not want to become a civil servant, I think there should be some way of giving him compensation. I do not say that the compensation should be as high as if he were forced out. If the Minister brought in a Bill and stated that there would be redundancy and that he would have to eliminate a certain number we would press for very substantial compensation. Where a person opts to go out I do not say it should be so high but there should be some compensation. I was going through the Bill a few times to see if I could frame an amendment and I could not. The easiest way to do it would be if the Minister examines this section again—the section, I would like to point out to the Dáil for those who have not the Bill in front of them, prohibits the committee of management from giving any increases in remuneration between the 1st January last and the time the Minister takes over—and amends the section or puts in a new section to enable the committee of management to give compensation to any officer or employee who resigns. That means that every officer and employee has the option of resigning before the transfer takes place and he would like to know what he is entitled to by way of compensation. I do not want to suggest to the Minister at this stage what the compensation should be, but in all fairness there should be some compensation for officers and employees who for one reason or another are not prepared to become civil servants, but who were quite prepared to carry on as officers or employees of the society.
I am sure Deputy Dr. Ryan realises that he would open a very wide door if we were to make provision to compensate a particular person who would be transferred from the National Health Insurance Society to the Department of Social Welfare.
The generality of part-time agents who represent the society throughout the country have at present a tenure which would permit of the termination of their services on one week's notice. All of them would be taken over to the Department of Social Welfare, and on transfer they will have a tenure at least no worse than what they have at the moment, and probably substantially better. I have already given assurances in this House that the conditions of service of the indoor staff of the Society will not be worsened, and their pension provision will in fact be substantially improved on their assimilation to the Civil Service superannuation code, so that both indoor and outdoor staffs are being transferred to the Department with the assurance that their conditions will not be worsened in any way. I have given that assurance, and I say it most positively. The position of the pensionable staff will be better in future than it is to-day. They are coming into a State Department where their employers will be the entire community functioning through this Parliament, so that they probably will have the most stable kind of employment that it is possible to devise in this country.
Deputy Dr. Ryan says that we should consider paying compensation to those who do not want to come in. I am afraid he will create an "easy street" mentality and that a variety of people for a variety of reasons would say that they did not want to become civil servants, not because they had any objection to become civil servants, but because it would be much more advantageous to them speedily to cultivate that view so that they would get substantial compensation and so that, having safely deposited it in their pockets, they could say "we will get another job elsewhere". The question we must ask ourselves is whether this young State with a population of 3,000,000 people can say to people who are being offered no less salary than they have at present, greater stability in tenure and better pension rights that they are also entitled to compensation if they do not embrace the idea of assimilation into the Civil Service. I think with all respect that we have overdone the compensation aspect in some of our approaches to legislation problems. We have got to ask whether a country with our resources and population can with equanimity face a situation where people 25 or 30 years of age become pensioners and entitled to compensation.
Not pensioners.
Pensioners to the extent that they get substantial lump sum compensation after a relatively short period of service with the society in view of the offer which is being made, namely, no worsening of conditions, no weakening of tenure, a substantial improvement in pensions in many instances, and an opportunity of employment in what will be an expanding Department. I think in these circumstances that it is not reasonable to ask that compensation should be paid to those who for one reason or another do not wish to become civil servants. I think Deputy Dr. Ryan will admit that the plea that a person would not like to be assimilated into the Civil Service could be used as an umbrella to cover any possible devices he wished to resort to so that he could get compensation and look for a job elsewhere. On reflection I think Deputy Dr. Ryan will realise that it would open wide a door which would not be easily shut if there was any let-up in the matter at all.
I did not want to make the point—it was argued at an earlier stage—that anybody could hold that he would be worse off by way of remuneration or superannuation. It is possible that some may argue that, but I am not arguing it for them. My point is that a man may not want to become a civil servant. I could give three cases in my own county. In one case the person concerned has a shop which he cannot continue if he becomes a civil servant—he will probably make it over to his wife.
There is no prohibition on having a shop if he is a civil servant.
I think there is.
He is a part-time officer.
Take the other two: they are two county councillors, one belonging to my Party and the other to the Minister's Party, so I am not arguing altogether for one Party.
They would be a draw.
Those two men must retire from politics or not accept the job. They were men who were interested in politics when they took the posts as agents. If they had not taken that job they might have drifted into something else where they could have remained for the rest of their lives and remained in politics and on the county council. Now they are told at an age when it would be difficult for them to get anything else that they must drop politics or get out of the job. I think that is rather hard. Employees or agents—I think agents more so probably—may object for reasons of that kind, that they would be more restricted in expressing their views than they are as they are employed at the moment. I think that if the Minister were to permit the committee of management—if you like, put in "for some good reason"—to allow persons to retire now giving them reasonable compensation he would be doing what is only fair and just.
I think this problem is not insuperable. We have in the Civil Service a system whereby when female officers wish to retire on marriage they get a certain proportion of their salary for each year of service, as a bonus. If we had a system of that sort, it would definitely discourage the short-term man from going out, the man who just wanted to go out, as the Tánaiste has suggested, in order that he might secure the lump sum compensation, and it would compensate the long-service man who did not want to give up the ordinary civil freedom which he enjoys at the moment. In this case, there would be, in relation to a number of the agents—I do not know any of them as intimately as Deputy Ryan appears to know them— here and there through the country, men who would feel that their individual freedom of action would be too greatly hampered and fettered if they became civil servants, as it would inevitably be if the proposal goes through in its present form. Since they are being transferred from their existing employment to the employment of the State without their consent and not of their own volition, surely there is a case in equity to extend some consideration to them.
I think that when we were nationalising the railways, for instance, there was a provision whereby a man who had been in permanent employment, if he wished to retire when he reached retiring age, was entitled to compensation and certainly there was compensation for redundancy under some of the earlier Railway Acts. We are not contending for the acceptance of a new principle. It is a position which has been recognised by the State in the past, and on the whole has been fairly met. Would it not be possible for the Tánaiste to do as I suggest, to draw up some proposals analogous to those which are already extended in the Civil Service to female officers who wish to retire on marriage? The position here is rather different. We have people who are in a job and who are being brought into the Civil Service, whether they like it or not. Strange as it may appear, there are many people who do not like the Civil Service conditions and whose dream and ambition is not to be a civil servant but to retain a certain independence of occupation which will enable them to utilise their own energies to what they conceive to be their own best advantage in the freest possible way. In those circumstances, as they are being transferred from the service of one employer to the service of another, they have a very strong case in equity and justice for special consideration.
I think the Deputy, and also Deputy Dr. Ryan, will appreciate that, under this Bill, in the whole transaction of taking staff from the National Health Insurance Society and assimilating it into the Department of Social Welfare, I have divested myself of any power to make them redundant and push them out on grounds of redundancy. In Railway Acts to which Deputy MacEntee referred, there was provision whereby a man becoming redundant might be pushed out, whether he liked it or not, on certain terms of compensation. I have always felt that that could work out very harshly and unreasonably in certain classes of employment. If, for instance, a person is following a particular occupation and is told he is redundant at 50 or 55 and that it is proposed to terminate his services and pay him some compensation, it is not easy in these days, or in any other for that matter, here or anywhere else, for such persons who have followed a particular occupation all their lives to find a new job in any capacity at that age. Any Deputy who has experience of listening, from time to time, to heartbreaking stories of men of that age who want to try to get employment knows only too well how difficult it is for a man of that kind to find employment, particularly when he has no skill to sell, since his service has been in another capacity and is that kind of service which is not wanted by everybody. I feel that, no matter what compensation you provide, following the pattern of the compensation which we have already provided in some of these cases, you can unconsciously do considerable hardship in pushing a man of that age out on compensation terms. The compensation is only a fraction, in some cases a relatively small fraction, of the former wages and then they have the problem of trying to rehabilitate themselves in some other class of employment for which they have no particular talent. I am divesting myself of any power to do that for those who are transferred, I am undertaking that no one will lose his job by reason of the transfer, that the salary conditions will be no less, that the wages will be no less, that the pension conditions, where he enjoys pension rights, will, in fact, be better and that he will be transferred to the secure employment of the State. We have to put both sides of the case and I think we have to look at both sides. Deputies will find that the proposals which the House is being asked to endorse frankly recognise that we are dealing with human beings. We are not going to endanger their prospects of employment. Whatever they were in the past, they will be no less stable in the future, and that is a very considerable asset and advantage to the persons concerned.
Deputies Ryan and MacEntee referred to certain restrictions on persons who may be taken over. So far as the agents are concerned, there is no restriction on a man running a shop at the moment, and I do not propose to put any restriction on a man running a shop. Civil servants do run shops, and can have business acquaintance without any transgression of Civil Service rules. The only point left is the political facilities he has at the moment, which he might not have on becoming a civil servant. I am prepared to look at that special matter, to see to what extent it may be possible to meet that situation for a limited class of persons, namely, those who are in that position at the moment. I do not make any promise, but I will look into it, to see what it would be possible to do to meet the point of view of Deputies opposite.
Yes, I must say I do not think the Minister will be able to overcome it in that way, but I suppose we must accept his offer to look into it. There are only two things now in question, but there may be other restrictions. There are people, as Deputy MacEntee says, who do not want to become civil servants, whether there are restrictions or not. I have in mind two men who are county councillors. One of them is a member of the Minister's Party, a fairly young man, the other is an old man going out in any case, I suppose. If he says "I do not want to leave politics" and resigns, I do not know what job he will get as he would be too old to get a job again. I suppose he is nearly as old as the Minister himself—and the Minister would find it hard to get another job.
Tell him to cheer up, that he has a bright future.
It would be very difficult for this man to get another job and he may be forced, therefore, to say: "I shall have to chuck politics if I go into the Civil Service."
I will undertake to look into this matter.
I think it is very hard that that man should be forced into the position of having to give up politics in order to become a civil servant.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Acting-Chairman
Amendment No. 28 in the name of Deputy Lynch is to insert a new section before Section 23. As the amendment and the section deal with cognate subjects I think they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—
The committee of management shall be dissolved on the transfer day.
Sub-section (1) of Section 23 in the Bill as it stands at present provides that:—
"The Minister may, at any time before the transfer day, by Order dissolve the committee of management."
There is then what I can only describe as a rather laborious process under which the Minister may appoint some institution, which he describes as the "nominated person", to act instead of the committee of management in the interregnum after its dissolution and the coming into operation of the new social welfare scheme. There was an earlier amendment to the Bill which laid it down substantially that the transfer of the members of the staff would not take place until such time as the scheme envisaged in the White Paper would come into operation. Now, the Minister made a fair case against that particular amendment. He said that he would want his machinery oiled and ready and all the necessary staffing arrangements made for the new Department, and he wanted the members of the National Health Insurance Society, therefore, incorporated into the Department for some time before the scheme would come into operation. I do not think that argument holds with respect to this amendment. I have heard the committee of management praised very highly during the course of this debate. I think the committee consists of a limited number of persons; they give their services free and their duties have been most satisfactorily performed during the lifetime of the society. I see no reason why the committee should not continue to act during the interregnum. National health insurance will have to be administered, benefits will have to be paid and the staff will have to work in much the same way as they have been working heretofore. It makes very little difference, I think, from the point of view of the efficiency of the society in the examination of claims and the payments of benefits whether it be a nominated person or the committee of management that acts in the interregnum. I cannot see any difficulty in relation to the administration of the affairs of the society pending the coming into operation of the comprehensive scheme. I would like to hear the Minister on the matter. He may have some good reasons to advance, but certainly I cannot see any reason why this section should be included in the Bill.
Let me explain to the Deputy that my mind is in fact running along the lines of the amendment. I would not normally propose to dissolve the society before the transfer day. This section is not put in deliberately with a view to doing that. It is put in in case some unforeseen or unexpected contingency should arise which would render that step necessary. The Deputy may take my assurance that so long as circumstances continue to be normal the committee will continue in operation until the transfer day.
Could the Minister give me any idea as to what contingency might arise which would necessitate the dissolution of the committee?
If a contingency does not arise, the Deputy and I will then be doing the same thing. I will not lightly dissolve the committee. There would have to be some very substantial reason to make me do anything other than dissolve the committee on the actual day of transfer.
Before we leave this matter, perhaps I might be permitted to draw attention to the startling inconsistency in the policy of the Government in regard to democratic control which this particular section illustrates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government has just come into the House and I gather that in the Department now the knives are already being sharpened to procure the speedy execution of county managers throughout the country on the plea, of course, that this will restore democratic control in local affairs. When we come to the Department of Social Welfare, however, I would like the House to note the rather startling proposals contained in Section 23. First of all, the Minister may at any time before the transfer day dissolve, by Order, the committee of management. He does not have to hold an inquiry. He does not have to find the committee of management guilty of some dereliction of duty. He can just decide that, if a majority happen to have red hair, or black hair, or are bald, he does not like that particular composition of that particular committee and he can, therefore, propose to dissolve them.
A local authority cannot be dissolved unless it signally fails to do its duty. It does not matter in how exemplary a fashion the committee may discharge its functions; it does not matter with what efficiency and economy it discharges the administrative affairs of the society; if the Minister decides he does not like its composition, or any of its members, he may sentence it, without giving any reason whatsoever, to summary dissolution. Proceeding from that, what do we find? Having dissolved the committee of management, the Minister may appoint any person to be a dictator over the affairs of the National Health Insurance Society.
Remember, the whole theory of this Bill is that the National Health Insurance Society, which was originally very democratic in structure and which continued very democratic in structure under the Act of 1933, is now to have the control of its ordinary day-to-day affairs taken out of the capable hands of the committee of management and vested apparently in a nominee of the Minister's. I think there is here the same sort of inconsistency as permeates practically every aspect of Coalition policy. On the one hand, you have the Minister for Local Government, his Parliamentary Secretary and the Labour Party clamouring to do away with the county management system on the plea that they want to restore democratic control in local affairs; and, on the other hand, you have here the Minister coming in with a proposal to empower him to abolish the democratic committee of management of the National Health Insurance Society and substitute therefor his own nominee, his rubber stamp, a person who will act ostensibly in his own name but really in the name of the Minister, who, under this section, proposes to constitute himself a dictator.
On this particular issue, has not the Second Reading of the Bill been an endorsement of the view that the taking over of the society is a necessary preliminary to the implementation of a comprehensive scheme? I suppose the best answer I can make to Deputy MacEntee is to quote for him once more what Deputy Dr. Ryan said about the National Health Insurance Society during the discussion on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare in this House on 23rd June last. At that time Deputy Dr. Ryan went on the record as saying:
"It would be better to have the society in before going on with the comprehensive scheme because it would be easier to start off from the new point then."
Deputy Dr. Ryan, who has given some study to this matter, and who is aware of the volume of work to be done and the necessity for planning in advance, took the view that the integration of the society into the Department was desirable and necessary, and he went on record as saying so. This Bill is a recognition of the very important fact that the integration of the society with the Department is a necessary preliminary towards constructing the machine which will operate the comprehensive scheme. As I have already told Deputies opposite, my normal line would be to allow the committee of the society to function until the society is transferred to the Department. At the moment I do not foresee any contingency which will make it necessary to dissolve the society before the transfer day. If there is any great fuss over the matter, and Deputy Lynch feels any way keenly about it, I shall look into the matter to see if it is necessary to be equipped with powers to take over the society in advance of the transfer day. I do not want to use these powers at all unless something arises that I do not foresee at the moment. Normally my mind would run along allowing the committee of the society to function until the society is transferred to the Department.
It is a reasonable approach on the part of the Minister to reconsider, shall I say, this very objectionable proposal. I rise only to point out that the quotation which he read to the House from Deputy Dr. Ryan's speech has no bearing on this proposal whatsoever. Deputy Dr. Ryan, in that passage, said that in his view it was a good thing to bring the society into the Department. This proposal here is quite different. This proposal has got nothing to do with bringing the society into the Department. Sub-section (1) of the section is as follows:—
"The Minister may, at any time, before the transfer day, by Order, dissolve the committee of management."
That is what we are objecting to. I quite agree that if the National Health Insurance Society is going to be incorporated in the Department of Social Welfare and actually forms part of the Department, it is difficult to see the committee of management discharging its present functions. I am not saying that there would not be a place for some sort of body representing insured persons which would act as a watchdog on their behalf and secure justice for insured persons at the hands of the Minister. That is quite different. I will concede that the committee of management could scarcely operate as a committee of management once the society is transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and becomes part of the Department. That is a logical fact and cannot be denied, but the proposal in Section 23 is far and away different. The proposal is that, even if the society is not absorbed in the Department of Social Welfare, even if the Minister, on reconsideration, decides that he is not going to fix the transfer date, he will have, under the powers he is looking for, power to dissolve the committee of management and entrust the management of the society to a nominee of his own. That is a very different thing and the Minister has already conceded that it is a highly undesirable power to give him. The only justification the Minister has given the House for asking the power is that some contingency may arise which will make it desirable for him to dissolve the committee of management.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is accompanied by an assurance that normally I would not propose to do that.
The point is that once the Bill becomes law there is no control over the Minister's normal or abnormal actions. These powers will have been given to him and he can exercise them, whether there is any change in the existing situation or not or whether he incorporates the society in the Department of Social Welfare or not. Under the section, it will be quite open to the Minister, let me repeat, not to fix the transfer day and, exercising his powers under Section 23, to dissolve the committee of management and appoint his nominee to administer the affairs of the society. I do not think that any member of the House who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill ever visualised such powers being given to the Minister. I think the Minister himself has already recognised that they are extravagant powers to look for. I certainly do welcome his changed approach to this matter, and I hope that if Deputy Lynch withdraws the amendment at this stage, the Minister will be able to come to the House to say, as he has perhaps indicated, that on second thoughts he has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for him to look for these powers at all and that Section 23, or, at least, sub-section (1) will disappear from the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
This appears to me to be a rather unusual section to put in the Bill. As a matter of fact going through the Bill at the beginning I wondered why the Minister did not bring in Section 25 alone and leave the rest of the Bill out, because he can do anything he likes under the section. It appears as the Bill stands that he can modify in any way he needs to modify certain provisions to suit his purpose and make these specific modifications and changes in Orders and regulations under the various Acts. It is a most extraordinary provision. It is so extraordinary in fact and so incomprehensible that I do not feel competent to deal with it. I should like if the Minister could tell us whether there is any particular reason why a section of this kind is necessary.
When the society is transferred to the Department, it will become a branch of the Department and this section will enable the Department to make such adjustments as are necessary in provisions which will have ceased to have any validity or value once the society becomes part of the Department. The intention is to utilise the section only for the purpose of cutting out the dead timber, as it were, of procedures which may in fact be completely inoperative in the new setup. If they have any value they will still remain there but accounting periods and adjustments of that kind regarded as necessary when the society was a separate body, may not be necessary when the society is integrated with the Department. It is only a matter of making whatever necessary adjustments we find necessary from experience.
I think the Minister has power to deal with accounting periods, and so on, under Section 24, so that Section 25 must contemplate some other adjustments. Would the Minister be able to inform us whether he is limited in any way under this section? Can he ignore, for instance, any provision he likes under the National Health Insurance Act, the Widows' Pensions Act, or any of the other Acts in the social welfare code?
No.
Does the section give the Minister power to do anything he likes?
It only gives me power to deal with a matter which would arise out of the dissolution of the society. Therefore, it is merely a matter of making whatever changes are obviously necessary.
That is the sort of provision which Deputy Cowan so strongly objects to.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 29:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This amendment is submitted principally for the purpose of seeking information and because I have an objection to retrospective legislation. The section, as it stands, says that:—
"Section 17 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1947, is hereby amended by the deletion in sub-section (2) of the words `during that financial year' ".
One has to go back a little bit to see what was the provision in Section 17 of the 1947 Act. Under Section 3 of the 1911 Act it was provided that the cost of benefits and the cost of administration were to be payable as to seven-ninths in the case of men and as to three-fourths in the case of women out of contributions, and as to two-ninths in the case of men and one-fourth in the case of women out of moneys provided by Parliament. That was amended by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the 1920 Act by deleting the differentiation in the case of women. Section 17 of the Act of 1947 provided that as from the 1st April, 1947, and for each succeeding financial year, moneys payable out of the Exchequer should be payable in such amounts as the Minister for Finance would decide. The moneys were payable in each financial year as they became due. This section now seeks to provide that the moneys will be payable at any time out of the Exchequer in such sums as the Minister for Finance should decide—in other words, it seems to me, moneys that were due and payable in the financial year 1947-48 or that were not payable. As I say, I am looking for information as to why the words proposed to be deleted should be deleted, and I submit the amendment also because I do not like retrospective legislation.
The purpose of the section is to remedy a flaw which has come to light in the National Health Insurance Act, 1947. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of that Act provided that the annual State grants in respect of national health insurance expenditure should be paid during the relevant financial year. In other words, you had to make the payment during the year and not one hour after the year, although you could never ascertain what the expenditure was until the year had, in fact, passed. Consequently, you could not make the payment during the year, because you did not know the amount that had to be paid until you had calculated the amount of the expenditure and that was not available until after the year had ended. This section proposes to make the payment in relation to the relevant financial year. The payment will be made immediately the amount is ascertained. This section is merely an adjustment of what, in the light of experience, has been discovered to be a flaw, which makes administration difficult.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 30:—
To delete sub-section (2).
The purpose of the amendment is to seek information from the Minister. I actually did look up the statutes for 1914, but I failed to come across the particular statute referred to in this section. Perhaps the Minister would tell me why this section has been put into the Bill.
This is a complicated business, and I hope the Deputy will be able to grasp the significance of the section when I explain the position to him. Under the Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund) Order, Confirmation Act, 1914, a fund was established for the provision of disablement and superannuation allowances for employees of certain Scottish insurance companies, and the companies concerned were excepted from the provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts. The employees affected in Great Britain came within the scope of the British National Insurance Act, 1946, as from the 5th July, 1948, and steps were taken to wind up the fund referred to. These companies have some employees in this country, and the companies have undertaken to protect these employees until they qualify fully for benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts here. In those circumstances, there is no necessity to continue the confirmation Act here.
The purpose of this section, therefore, is to wind up the Scottish Insurance Companies Superannuation Fund) Order, Confirmation Act, 1914, because it now ceases to have any validity here. In fact, it has been wound up as far as the British section is concerned. Only 15 employees are affected here and the offices of the employees have undertaken that their sickness benefits under these Acts will be safeguarded. It is merely a matter of doing in this Bill what would probably necessitate the promotion of a private Bill. The interests of the 15 employees are being adequately safeguarded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 28 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
I want to give notice that, on the Report Stage, it will probably be necessary for me to move an amendment in connection with the next election of certain members of the committee of management of the National Health Insurance Society. The new committee of management will be due to come into office, I think, about August next, but in order to provide for their election, or for the election of some members, you would have to put the election machinery in motion not later than the 15th of next month. If there is a likelihood of the Bill being passed through this House and the Seanad by the 15th of next month, I probably will not need to move any amendment.
But, in case it may be necessary to move an amendment on these lines, the only purpose is to avoid the necessity for holding an election to elect persons who, in fact, will probably never be able to function because of the fact that the society will have been dissolved and transferred to the Department of Social Welfare in the meantime. I would, however, make provision whereby, if the society was not taken over by the date on which the new committee was due to function, we would allow the existing committee to carry on until such time as the transfer takes place. We can discuss the matter on the Report Stage. I merely want to give notice of it. It would not be necessary at all if one could be sure that the Bill would be passed by both Houses before the 15th of next month.
When will the next stage be taken?
Perhaps I could get the Report and Final Stages on next Tuesday or Wednesday.
Will the Minister have the amendments out by Monday?
I will probably have the amendments out by Monday. I take it the main amendment is the one dealing with military service pensions. I propose to meet that by providing that wherever a person loses on transfer to the Department of Social Welfare by abatement of his military service pension he will be paid an allowance of an equivalent amount. I should like to know if we are likely to get the Report and Final Stages next week?
What about the amendment to Section 23 which the Minister promised to look into?
I will undertake to look into that and see whether it is necessary at this stage to ask for the powers in that section, because we have travelled a good deal of the road since the section was first drafted.
If the Minister will put it down for Wednesday, both stages can be taken then.
That will give us time to put down an amendment if the Minister does not meet us.
Ordered: That the Report and Final Stages be taken on Wednesday, 24th May.