Vol. 131 No. 14
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 6, Section 1, line 13, to delete "(Insurance)".
The Bill, as originally drafted, was almost completely an insurance Bill. With the additions made on the Committee Stage dealing with old age pensions and unemployment assistance it is no longer entirely an insurance Bill so that the proper title would be Social Welfare Bill.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, Section 2, before the definition of "employed contributor", line 3, to insert the following definition:—
"domestic service" does not include service which is rendered otherwise than in relation to an employer's household and place of residence;
This is a definition of domestic service. There appears to be a considerable amount of trouble over the definition which was in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. The definition in that Act was: "Employment in domestic service except where the employed person is employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain." There have been some rather peculiar anomalies in regard to that. One case which was mentioned was that a charwoman who was in a solicitor's office before 9 a.m. was taken not to be insurable for unemployment benefit; if it were after 9 o'clock she was. Then there are the cases of clubs for catering and so on where domestic people are employed and where it was decided that they were not insurable for unemployment benefit because the place was not run for gain. The new definition, we think, will cover what we have in mind very much better: "‘Domestic service' does not include service which is rendered otherwise than in relation to an employer's household and place of residence". In other words, we want, if possible, to make it really domestic service, that is, service in the house of the employer.
I am glad that the Minister's amendment includes a number of persons who would be excluded otherwise. Does the Minister not consider, however, that some difficulties will arise from the amendment itself? It does not very often occur that a man's place of business is also his private house, but take, for instance, the case of a solicitor in a country town. His offices are very often situated in his house, and if there are domestic servants in the house they will look after the cleaning of the offices as well as the house. I am not trying to raise difficulties for the Minister. I am merely pointing out that difficulty.
Another difficulty I see is that it will tend to create two different types of servants. It may have an unforeseen repercussion. A domestic servant who is employed, say, in a club or in some place which does not come within the exempted category may cease to be employed in that particular employment and take up domestic employment in a house. It may have the effect of splitting up the domestic servants into two different classes. I must say that I do not see the answer to the question. am merely raising it for the Minister's consideration.
I think it is an awful pity that the Minister did not include all the domestic servants. I realise that he must have considered the matter and that there is no use in appealing to him at this stage.
It is an extremely difficult point. I am told the word "household" has a more restricted meaning than the word "house".
What about the domestic staff in a hospital?
They are definitely excluded. They come under the insurance. They are excluded from the exclusion.
Take a doctor who has a residence and, as well, a place where he sees his patients. Is a girl attending to each of those places a domestic?
A doctor who has a place outside his own house?
Yes.
I think it will be determined largely by her principal employment. Deputy MacBride spoke of the country solicitor. A country doctor would be a better example. If a doctor has a maid who answers the door, in addition to doing household jobs, she is principally a domestic. But if her duties were more those of a receptionist then she would not be a domestic.
Another case is the small shopkeeper in the country who has a domestic servant who works in the shop in addition to cleaning up the house. I am afraid this will create an awful lot of difficulties.
I suppose the Court of Referees would determine it.
The insurance officer. Of course, there are many similar cases at the moment—particularly the case of a domestic servant who attends in the shop as well. If she only comes out to relieve her mistress to go to answer the telephone or something like that for five minutes or so she would be regarded as a domestic.
What is the position of girls engaged by vocational education committees to clean the schools, and so forth?
They will not be domestic. Only those girls who are engaged in the household for domestic work will be domestic.
But the girls I have in mind are not paying any contribution to anybody.
They will in future.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 8, Section 2, to insert before sub-section (7), line 36, a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Where a qualified child becomes adopted under any Act providing for the adoption of children (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act), for the purposes of this Act—
(a) the child shall thereafter be treated as if he were the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock and were not the child of any other person and, if he were an orphan immediately before the adoption, as having ceased to be an orphan, and
(b) if there is one adopter only, in any application after the adoption with respect to the child of the definition of "orphan" contained in sub-section (1) of this section, "the parents of whom is dead" shall be substituted in paragraph (a) of that definition for "both of whose parents are dead".
I think there are three or four similar amendments. It has the effect of bringing children adopted under the Adoption Act into the same position, for the purposes of this Act, as if they were legitimate children of the household.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 9, Section 3, to add the following sub-section:—
(5) Regulations (not being regulations of which a draft is required by this Act to be approved of by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made and, if a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it, the regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
I promised on the Committee Stage that I would bring in this amendment to have all the regulations laid on the Table.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 25, Section 40, lines 5 and 6, to delete "amount of the said expenses of the Minister or any other Minister" and substitute "part of the said expenses of the Minister or any other Minister which relates to the scheme of social insurance established by this Act".
This is a drafting amendment which appears to be necessary. I do not think it is a very substantial amendment.
The Minister promised that he would reconsider the matter which was raised on Section 5. I do not see any reference here to dockers and other casual workers.
I promised the Deputy that I would have the matter considered. I said on the Committee Stage that it appeared to me to be a question that could hardly be covered in the ordinary insurance way. It appeared to me to be a problem somewhat like that relating to builders' labourers and which was covered by the Wet Time Act or the Intermittent Employment Act. If the problem of the dockers is as serious as the Deputy says it is—I am not saying that it is not, because I realise that it may be —it is a separate problem that will have to be dealt with by separate legislation.
I support Deputy Hickey. Men are laid off for two days a week all the year round, which means that they have only four days' work per week. They get no benefit, although they are idle for a couple of months a year. On the other hand, a man who is in continuous employment gets benefit if he is laid off for three days.
May we take it from the Minister that, while he feels it is impossible to cover the matter in this Bill, it will be considered with a view to making special provision for those classes of people?
Yes. I think it was mentioned on the Committee Stage. I think Deputy Cowan is aware that negotiations have been going on for a long time between the employers and the employees in the case of dockers, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know whether they have a scheme for decasualising dockers. We must wait for the results.
It is not the same problem. They are dealing with the decasualisation of dockers. This is a different problem altogether. Men who get only a few days' employment per week are unemployed 17 weeks and two days in the year. I submit that they are two different questions.
I admit that.
It will be for the Minister to play his part in this connection irrespective of the matter of decasualisation, which is one for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
We must see first about the matter of decasualisation.
No.
I think that something in the nature of the Wet Time Act should be done for the dockers.
What about the man who falls ill? He will have to be sick three days before he will get any benefit.
I think there has been an improvement and that we cannot do any better than that.
I realise that there may be something to be said for a lapse of three days before benefit is paid. If a man is ill for six days is there any reason why, at the end of the week, he should not get benefit for the six days during which he was out ill?
I have in mind casual workers such as builders' labourers, dockers and carters. Is there any reason why, when such a man is six days ill, he should not be paid six days' rather than three days' benefit?
The Deputy is raising something that is not in the amendment. This is the Report Stage and the section is not being discussed.
We appreciate that. The Minister made promises to consider certain things on the Committee Stage and we are very anxious to know whether or not he will put them into effect. They were merely promises to consider and we would like to know what conclusion he came to.
The answer is that this cannot be done in this part of the Bill. It must be considered otherwise.
I am not referring specifically to this particular one. There were many others.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 27, Section 46, lines 20 and 21, to delete "a claim for benefit has been allowed" and substitute "benefit has been payable."
This is purely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 28, Section 47, to insert before paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:
(a) for enabling a person to whom benefit is payable to nominate another person to receive the benefit on his behalf.
This gives me an opportunity of dealing with a matter raised by Deputy Norton in connection with civil servants. Probably it will also apply to employees of private employers where the employers agree to pay their employees, when they are sick, a certain sum of money less whatever comes from the national health insurance. The point made by Deputy Norton was that the amount of the national health insurance is deducted and may not arrive for many weeks afterwards. The Deputy pleaded that something might be done to pay them the full amount the employer had agreed to give them and that, when the national health insurance came along, it could be adjusted as between employer and employee. We put in this amendment to deal with that matter and to see whether it is going to work or not on further examination. We might be able to agree to let the Post Office, say, which pays, I think, two-thirds of the salary, pay out that two-thirds and notify the Department of Social Welfare afterwards, monthly or quarterly. The Department would then recoup them whatever was due from the Department of Social Welfare. If that is feasible administratively, I do not see why it should not be applied to other employers besides the Post Office. There are many private employers who have much the same type of scheme and they might agree to pay their employees half their salary less national health insurance for the first three or six months. Again, as I say, if there are no administrative snags, which I have not seen so far, there is no reason why the Department could not authorise these employers to pay whatever amount is agreed upon between themselves and the employees, that is, if the Minister approves of the scheme, and then in a monthly or three-monthly period to recoup the employer whatever might be due by way of national health insurance. It does give the power to deal with the point raised by Deputy Norton.
I think it would be a help, too, to devise an arrangement by which it would be possible in the future, both in respect of unestablished Civil Service staffs and, perhaps, staffs in public utilities and employed by outside employers, that whatever sum they receive in the form of sick payment from an employer may be paid by the employer at the time the person is sick, on an assurance from the Department of Social Welfare that whatever was due to the employee, which will have to be deducted from the sick pay in the first instance, will be paid over at a later date. That would remove a hardship. The present position is that if the employee goes sick on Monday he gets two-thirds of his pay at the end of the week less national health, it being assumed by the employer that he has got the national health insurance that week but, in fact, it may be ten days or a fortnight before he receives national health insurance benefit so a deduction is made from portion of his wages on an assumption which is entirely erroneous. It often happens that the employee has gone back to work before he gets the benefit. If an arrangement of this kind were devised and made known and if the Department would take the lead in trying to operate it with employers, it would alleviate considerable difficulty in this matter.
I foresee certain difficulties. Medical certification, for instance, is a slight difficulty. The employee will, of course, usually send a medical certificate to his employer. He does not always do so and the ordinary employer does not insist on the matter of a certificate but we will have to insist on a medical certificate if we work this.
Could it not be done like the Workmen's Compensation Act where the employer pays out each week and gets a refund immediately afterwards?
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 40, to delete Section 75 (1), lines 41 to 52, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(1) Regulations may, with respect to cases in which two or more of the following, that is to say, any benefit, pension, allowance or assistance under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1952, the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1952, the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1952, the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1952, or the Children's Allowances Acts, 1944 to 1946, are payable to a person, provide for adjusting any benefit, pension, allowances or assistance such as aforesaid (including disallowing payment thereof wholly or partly) that may be payable to such person.
For the purposes of this sub-section—
(i) an increase of benefit may be regarded as a separate benefit, and
(ii) any benefit, pension, allowance or assistance payable in respect of a person may be regarded as benefit, pension, allowance or assistance payable to such person.
The case of a person receiving double benefit will be dealt with when the permanent part of this legislation comes into operation on the 1st January next. There was no such provision made to deal with any case between the 1st July and the 31st December and this amendment is put down to cover that.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 42, Section 79, line 32, to delete "at" and substitute "immediately before".
This amendment is preparatory to amendment No. 10.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 43, before Section 81, line 13, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) For the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1952, a person shall be deemed not to have attained the age of 70 years until the commencement of the seventieth anniversary of the day of his birth, and similarly with respect to any other age.
(2) Section 1 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, is hereby repealed.
(3) Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall come into operation on the 2nd day of January, 1953.
There was a difference in social welfare legislation up to this with regard to the day on which a person attained a certain age. In some of the Acts they attained that age on the day before their birthday and in other Acts on the birthday. According to the Old Age Pensions Act, a man reached 70 on the day before his birthday. We are bringing them on to the same basis. It is on the birthday that we will say a person attains a certain age.
Will that affect many people? It retards the payment of the pension by one day.
It postpones it for one day. That is right.
Have we not passed Section 61? The Minister promised to do something about the widows who are knocked off the pension when the children reach the age of 16.
I did.
And you promised to do something in connection with the non-contributory widows' pension and the contributory pension.
I did not promise to alter that because I think in all fairness that if a person contributes to a pension he should get more. Deputy Hickey mentioned the hardship in connection with a woman whose last child reaches the age of 16 before that widow is 48. That woman goes out of insurance and therefore, gets no benefit until she reaches 48. She may come back again after an interval of three or four years. On examination of that case, I found that there were very many difficulties, both financial and administrative. I am not, however, dropping the idea. I am still examining it. If I can see it is possible, both financially and administratively, I hope to deal with it in the Seanad but the matter is taking more time than I anticipated.
If a widow is 48 years of age could she get a pension if she adopted a child?
Yes.
If the Minister finds it difficult to deal with the problem mentioned by Deputy Hickey because of administrative difficulties, he should try to meet the problem by a reduction of the age at which it is possible for a widow to re-qualify.
That is the easiest way administratively but it is the most difficult way to do it financially. In the other case, it is easier financially but more difficult administratively.
When the widow is cut off from the non-contributory pension she has to go to the local assistance officer.
I am not going to drop it, and I will do my best. Unfortunately, it is a difficult thing to get even a fairly good estimate of the cost. As some Deputies opposite may know, there is no use in going to the Minister for Finance unless you can tell him what it will cost, and I have not been able yet to do that.
We reduced the qualifying age and we had no more information than the Minister has now. Of course, you have a different Minister for Finance.
And you had no intention of going on with it.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 43, Section 81, line 16, to delete "this Act had not been passed" and substitute "sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 77 of this Act had not been enacted."
This is purely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 44, Section 85, line 27, to delete "Act had not been passed" and substitute "section had not been enacted."
This is somewhat on a par with the amendment I mentioned previously. We have provided for overlapping from 1st January next, but we have not provided for the period between 1st July and 1st January; this is to cover that period.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 44, Section 85, to insert before sub-section (7), line 28, the following sub-section:—
(7) Regulations may provide for adjusting any sickness or disablement benefit (including disallowing payment thereof wholly or partly) payable to a person who is in receipt of any pension or allowance which is in respect of any disability incurred in the armed forces of the State or of any other State, being a pension in the highest degree or, in the case of an allowance, an allowance in the highest degree or an allowance granted to a person who is undergoing a special course of medical treatment in any institution or receiving training in a technical institution.
This also is a drafting amendment.
I move Amendment No. 14:—
In page 44, Section 85, line 36, to delete "(7)" and substitute "(8)".
This is a consequential amendment?
It is.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 48, Section 97, to add after line 61 the following: a child becoming adopted under any Act providing for the adopting of children (whether passed before or after the commencement of this sub-section) shall thereafter be treated as if he were the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock and were not the child of any other person.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 49, before Section 98, line 8, to insert a new section as follows:
(1) For the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952, a person shall be deemed not to have attained the age of 18 years until the commencement of the eighteenth anniversary of the day of his birth, and similarly with respect to any other age.
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the appointed day.
The point is that a qualified child is defined twice in this.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 50, Section 101, to delete lines 40 to 54.
This is a consequential amendment.
There are a number of amendments dealing with the word "Insurance". I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 52, Section 103, line 4, to delete "(Insurance)".
This is also consequential.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 54, Section 104, line 5, to delete "(Insurance)".
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 55, Section 107, lines 13 and 32, to delete "(Insurance)".
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 55, Section 107, to insert before line 30 a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where a qualified child becomes adopted under any Act providing for the adoption of children (whether passed before or after the commencement of this section), for the purposes of this Act—
(a) the child shall thereafter be treated as if he were the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock and were not the child of any other person and, if he was an orphan immediately before the adoption, as having ceased to be an orphan, and
(b) if there is one adopter only, in any application after the adoption with respect to the child of the definition of "orphan" contained in sub-section (1) of this section, "the parent of whom is dead" shall be substituted in paragraph (a) of that definition for "both of whose parents are dead".
This is consequential on an earlier amendment.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 56, Section 114, line 27, to delete "(Insurance)".
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 56, Section 113, line 44, to delete "(Insurance)".
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 57, Section 117, line 28, to delete "this Act had not been passed" and substitute "Sections 101, 102, 103 and 104 of this Act had not been enacted".
It is a drafting amendment?
The reference should have been to sections of the Act, not to the Act itself.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 57, Section 117, lines 32 to 35, to delete "paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Principal Act (as inserted by Section 103 of this Act) had not come into operation" and substitute "Section 103 of this Act had not been enacted".
This is a similar amendment.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 57, before Section 118, line 36, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) For the purposes of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1952, a person shall be deemed not to have attained the age of 16 years until the commencement of the sixteenth anniversary of the day of his birth and similarly with respect to any other age.
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the 2nd day of January, 1953.
This is the anniversary of the birth again.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 58, Section 120, line 37, to delete "supplementary benefit" and substitute "insurance against intermittent unemployment".
This is a drafting amendment?
Practically. As a matter of fact, it is widening the thing a bit, having in view the provisions of the Wet Time Act.
I wrote to Deputy MacBride in connection with amendment No. 28.
In order to enable this matter to be discussed, I would like, if it is possible to have the Bill recommitted, so as to have this amendment included. I am doing this merely in order to have an opportunity of discussing this matter.
I do not know what the Minister's attitude is in relation to it.
The Minister might agree to recommit the Bill in order to discuss it. It is not a matter you could deal with satisfactorily by having merely one speech in reply.
I am agreeable. I move:—
That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 28.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 59, in Part I of the First Schedule, to add the following new paragraphs:—
8. Employment in a service, industry or vocation in which the employees of such service, industry or vocation are guaranteed by virtue of their contract of employment, security of tenure, payment of wages or salary during absence due to illness for a period not less than six months and payment of pension on reaching retiring age, provided that the employees of such service, industry or vocation, or a majority thereof, apply to be exempted.
9. Members of a trade union catering exclusively for employees who by virtue of their contract of employment are guaranteed security of tenure, payment of wages or salary during absence due to illness for a period not less than six months and payment of pensions on reaching the retiring age provided that such trade union files an application for the exemption of its members.
The amendment is intended to cover the same class of persons, persons who are, by their contract of service, assured tenure of employment, assured sickness pay for a period not exceeding six months and payment of pension on retiring. It is intended to cover a number of different types of persons; for instance, teachers will be covered. The two paragraphs are intended to cover the same difficulty, but I put the two down to enable the Minister to indicate whether he will be in a position to accept either of them.
On the whole, I would favour the second one, which provides that where the members of a trade union—and, of course, the term trade union covers many different types of employees— apply to be exempted, the Act should not apply to the members of that trade union. That might be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the position, because a trade union is a well-defined body with a defined membership and it will make it easier for the Minister to ascertain positively and definitely whether the members of a particular group of employees should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. It will also enable any individual member of a particular class of employees to remain within the provisions of the Bill if he so wishes by ceasing to become a member of the union involved.
I think the matter is one which affects teachers in particular. The majority of them do not want to be included in the provisions of the Bill inasmuch as the benefits they would pay would be completely disproportionate to the advantages they would receive by reason of the fact that they already have security of tenure, are paid during sickness and have a pension scheme of their own. I appeal to the Minister to accept a provision of the nature suggested.
This matter was raised by me on Section 12 of the Bill on the Committee Stage. I raised it then from the standpoint of excluding the classes in regular employment as set out in Part I of the First Schedule. The report of the discussion on Section 12 clearly indicates that the Minister intended to discuss with the Minister for Finance the question of the exclusion of these classes on the ground that, as the Bill stood, he did not think they were appropriate for inclusion. I asked the Minister to have that discussion with the Finance people and let us know what the position was so that the matter could then be reviewed in the light of the Minister's promise, not only to have the matter looked into but to remedy the position. In fact his statement in that debate constitutes an assurance that these classes would be excluded. Would the Minister now say what the position is in that respect?
The intention is to exclude certain classes—civil servants, local authority employees, national and secondary teachers and certain members of the Defence Forces. I shall deal with these classes first. Established civil servants are, of course, covered against unemployment. They are also covered against sickness inasmuch as they are paid during sickness under their conditions of employment. They are, therefore, exempt from the insurance scheme. The same applies to established servants of local authorities and to permanent national and secondary teachers. With regard to unestablished employees, they must be fully covered both in the Civil Service and in the local authority service for the full range of insurance under this Bill; that is for sickness, unemployment, widows' and orphans' pensions and so on. Now that is simple enough as far as we go.
The only point that presents any difficulty is in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions in relation to established civil servants. Unless the Minister for Finance intends to look after that matter himself. I think it will be necessary for established civil servants under £600 a year to come under the Bill for widows and orphans' pensions.
As far as the Army is concerned, the officers will be treated in much the same way as civil servants because they are established in their particular posts. They are covered for sickness and retiring pay. When they do retire they are covered for any unemployment that may arise before they find other work. Private soldiers will have to be covered for insurance because they may be up against unemployment or sickness when they leave the Army. They must also be covered for widows' and orphans' pensions. So far as they are concerned the same arrangement will continue in the future as operated in the past. There is no sickness or unemployment while they are in the Army and they are, therefore, only insured against what may happen when they leave. Because of that there is a lower contribution asked for from members of the Army as compared with the contribution paid by the ordinary employee. What that contribution will be in the future has not yet been decided.
The only other classes mentioned outside of those that I have just enumerated are those working on aircraft and on ships. The arrangement in relation to these classes is that they are insured in whatever country the ships are registered. The crews of any ships that are registered here will come under our scheme.
Two other classes were mentioned —share fishermen and outworkers. I am afraid it will be impossible to insure share fishermen against unemployment because they are their own employers. I take it it would be possible to insure them for sickness and for widows' and orphans' pensions and the contribution would have to be adjusted accordingly to cover those two items. As regards outworkers the same would apply. Up to this out-casualisin workers were, I think, practically exempt, because they were not regraded as employees in the ordinary sense. They were regarded more as contractors. I think they will probably come in under the new Bill, but how far they will come in is a matter that must be decided. Possibly they will come in for sickness and widows' and orphans' pensions. I think that deals with all the exempted classes as visualised by me.
With reference to Deputy MacBride's amendment, I think we are going far enough in the exempted classes as outlined. I did draw attention to a section of the Bill under which I thought it would be possible to approve of a scheme put up by an employer for his own employees, or even by a group of employers in consultation with some trade union, provided that the scheme was satisfactory. The scheme will have to be satisfactory in relation to covering all the items with which we are dealing here. It would not be sufficient to cover sickness for six months, as suggested by Deputy MacBride, because a person who will be insured under this Bill and who has 156 contributions will be covered for the duration of his illness, irrespective of how long it lasts. We would not be satisfied, therefore, with Deputy MacBride's requirement of a scheme where six months' sickness benefit would be guaranteed.
I took six months because it applies in the Civil Service.
It would be very easy to amend. These would also have to be covered for unemployment, maternity and widows' and orphans' pensions. If there is a satisfactory scheme we can deal with it under the appropriate section. I think there is a section under which the Minister has power to approve of a scheme put up by an employer or group of employers. When the scheme is approved the employees will then be exempt from the provisions of this measure. The employer, or group of employers, may, if so desired, pay a certain subvention to the funds of the particular scheme. That is, perhaps, more vague than Deputy MacBride's amendment, but I think it is as well to have it vague until we see the type of schemes that are put up for approval. I do not think we will have any schemes in the immediate future, although I would like to see such schemes. By the time we get down to approval it may possibly be necessary to bring in further legislation because it is very difficult to visualise what exactly the schemes will be. I would ask Deputy MacBride, therefore, to leave things as they are on the assurance that I would like to see schemes of this kind, and if they are put up there will be, agreement as far as I am concerned.
I should like to ascertain the position from what the Minister has just said. Established civil servants will not be included, temporary civil servants and part-time civil servants will be included; inclusion will also extend to what is described as the industrial class?
Yes.
Can I take it that provision will be made at the same time for those who are voluntary contributors to continue in the scheme.
Yes.
Provision will be made to cover those excluded for widows' and orphans' pension purposes?
Yes. One point that gave me a little trouble in that nice clean-cut arrangement of mine was that established civil servants under £600 a year are not covered as far as widows' and orphans' pensions are concerned although otherwise they are all right. We must consider that.
They are covered under £500 a year?
They are not covered by the Minister for Finance.
Whether they are under or over £500?
That is right.
Do I take it, therefore, that the established civil servant who is excluded will nevertheless be covered for widows' and orphans' pension purposes under £600 as at present and that although he is excluded from the Bill when it operates on the 1st July anybody who enters the Civil Service after the 1st July will continue to be covered for widows' and orphans' pension purposes? That is not only desirable but the Minister promised that it would happen. He said so at column 1177 of the report of the Committee Stage. If the Minister likes I will read it but I think that the Minister's mind is quite clear. Take a young postman in Wexford who joins the postal service in October. If he is excluded from the Bill as an established civil servant, as he would be, then he would not come in for widows' and orphans' pension unless you brought him in. It would be desirable that a young postman with a wife and children should be included for widows' and orphans' pension. He is willing to pay contributions and he should be covered. May I take it that he will be definitely covered?
That is my intention anyway. I agree absolutely with that but I have not got agreement with the Minister for Finance on whether we should cover these people for widows' and orphans' pensions. I think, however, that he will agree.
There is no question about those who are in at present or those who pay voluntary contributions but you have to negotiate for the inclusion for widows' and orphans' pension purposes of those whom it is desirable to cover after the Bill becomes operative.
I would like to be clear that the employees of public bodies would be covered as satisfactorily as employees of industrial concerns. Take an employee who enters the public service next year. He is looked upon as a permanent employee. Will he be entitled to benefits under the social welfare scheme for such things as maternity?
Deputy Norton has made it clear regarding civil servants and the same applies to local authorities. They do not want another unemployment scheme because they are permanently employed; they have a satisfactory sickness scheme so the only thing they want is a widows' and orphans' pension scheme. The great majority of civil servants under £600 a year will not welcome a widows' and orphans' pension scheme because nearly all of them are young people who are not thinking of widows.
Will employees of public authorities be entitled to all the benefits in the social welfare scheme? If they get exemption from paying unemployment contributions after the Bill becomes law will they continue to pay widows' and orphans' pension contributions while they are so exempted?
I am assuming that the employees of local authorities have as good a condition—I am almost certain that they have; they have as far as I can find out—as civil servants. With regard to sickness and unemployment they are all right because they are in full employment. We say to them: "You are all right for sickness and unemployment but we want to insure you for widows' and orphans' pension".
Take the younger man entering employment next year. Will he get as good maternity benefits in the employment of the local authority as he would get if he were working for an industrial concern?
There is treatment benefit and maternity benefit which I am not bringing in here because they should come under the health scheme and I expect that a health scheme will be brought in in the near future. If it is not satisfactory as far as these people are concerned we will then see what is to be done.
The reason I am so persistent is that if there is an application by a manager for the exemption of his staff the employee will be paid during an illness of six months but I am thinking of a man who is ill for 12 months or a year and a half. Would the local authority be obliged to pay him the same benefits which he would receive if he were included for benefit in the social welfare scheme?
No, I am not saying to local authorities that they must do such a thing. All I say is that if I find that local authorities have a satisfactory scheme I need not provide another for them.
If they claim exemption they should be paid as least as much as people included in the social welfare scheme.
That is what I would like to have.
National teachers are definitely to be exempted from the scheme?
Yes.
I do not know whether the Minister has considered the position of the temporary civil servant who ceases to be temporary and becomes established.
Any unestablished civil servant is brought into the Bill but when he becomes established he goes out.
And his contributions go, too?
Except the widows' and orphans' pension contribution which, I think, is 1/6.
But the contributions they have paid are gone?
Yes.
I would suggest to the Minister that if any local authority make application for the exemption of their employees it would be very desirable that the Minister or his executive officers should get in contact with the trade union involved so as to make things more clearly understood.
Generally speaking, we will not exempt people unless their employers are giving the terms we want.
The Minister has met the position fairly. I would ask him to consider the general scheme which is suggested in the amendment I put down the details of which, I quite agree, may not be properly set out: where a trade union caters exclusively for a class of persons who have security of tenure in their employment, who have a scheme which grants them an adequate pension on retirement and who are also entitled under the conditions of their employment to receive sickness benefit for an adequate period of time, the Minister should accept the views of the trade union concerned as to whether or not that particular class should be included. I put down six months merely taking the position which exists with regard to civil servants. I think that civil servants are entitled to full pay for six months and then there is an abatement if their illness lasts longer. I will, therefore, withdraw and ask the Minister to consider providing for that position.
Let us take the case of a civil servant or a teacher who has got £501 per annum. The Minister is now going to exempt that person from the scope of this Bill, but he will otherwise be excluded from the provisions of it since his salary ceiling does not exceed £600. In the case, therefore, of a person whose income is £501, that is £1 above the present salary ceiling of £500 but below the new salary ceiling of £600, can that person become a voluntary contributor in the same manner as he can become one if he were a new entrant under this Bill? I am sorry that the matter is so complicated, but I suggest that the question is one that is likely to arise.
My idea about a voluntary contributor is that he is a person who is insured and goes out of insurance for one reason or another. I must say that I only look on a voluntary contributor as a person who volunteers to continue with the insurance that is already there. I am not sure how that would meet the Deputy's case.
Let us not call him a voluntary contributor but a person who desires to be covered for widows' and orphans' pension purposes. Under the section as it stands and the Minister's assurance which he has just given, he would be excluded because he is an established civil servant, but in the case of the other excluded established civil servants, that is those persons under £500 who are now covered, the Minister will cover them in the future for widows' and orphans' pension purposes. What I am anxious to ascertain is will the civil servant, the teacher or the Army officer whose pay is £501 per annum who is not in the present scheme, but who would be in the new scheme were it not for the fact that the Minister is going to exclude him, will he be entitled to coverage for widows' and orphans' pension purposes?
I think he would.
He is under £600 and ought to get coverage. The Minister will, I take it, accept it that these new entrants will have that entitlement and will be covered for widows' and orphans' pension purposes.
I am in favour of it.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 68, Seventh Schedule, line 40, to insert "or pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1949" before "or".
Is this a drafting amendment?
No. It is to meet a matter that was raised by Deputy Cowan on the Committee Stage. It brings military service pensioners into line with those who have disability pensions or special allowances.
I think there will be great satisfaction that the Minister has made that extension.
A similar question was raised when this matter was being debated on the Committee Stage. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the position of the persons who served in the defence forces of other countries for the purposes of old age pensions?
I did.
In other words, has he considered the question of giving them a claim either to all or a portion of the old age pension instead of excluding them, as they are at the moment, simply because they receive a disability pension from another Administration?
I did consider it, but I do not say that I considered it to a final conclusion. Even though at the moment it is not possible to bring them in, that is not to say, by any means, that the door is closed.
I do not believe that the fact that a man served as a soldier in the British, the Canadian or the Australian forces and is in receipt of a pension for what he suffered, should debar him from getting the old age pension now that he is back here in his own country.
Take the case of a man who was in England in 1939 and 1940 and who is now back home. He has an old age pension of 26/- and is now 72 years of age. Will he be entitled to get anything from our old age pension scheme? He is a man who has reared a family in this country. He was in England for, say, ten years and qualified for the old age pension over there. He is now back in his own country, and what I am anxious to know is, will he be entitled to get anything from this country in the way of an old age pension?
There are two points which arise there. The first is, is he qualified with regard to residence? If that is all right, then the other is counted as means.
He can get the pension?
Yes, but there is the question of means.
Do I take it from what the Minister has said in respect of the exclusion of portion of the disability pension received by members of the armed forces of other countries, that he is still going to examine the matter?
Yes.
I think the Minister will probably come across such cases. I have. Take the case of a person who served in the British, the American or Canadian armies in the First World War. He is now approaching the age of 70 years. He has got a disability or a service pension perhaps from the Administration which he served. God knows, he probably earned it hard enough, but because another country gives him a pension for his services, or a pension for wounds which he suffered, we say to him: "We will take that into consideration against you in assessing your means for an old age pension." The only way he could get an old age pension from us is by exempting what the foreign Administration gives him—so much of his disability or service pension. Up to the present that was so even with a member of our own Defence Forces. Now, we are making a change by which we exempt the first £80 of his wound or service pension for the purpose of ascertaining his entitlement to an old age pension. I am merely asking the Minister to travel a little further along the road, as I had intended to do under the previous Social Welfare Bill, and to exclude the sum of £80, if a person is getting £80 from the American, the Canadian or the British Government.
In other words, I am asking that the State here ought not to make a profit out of the fact that these other Administrations have recognised their obligations to Irishmen who served in their forces. I do not think that the cost of doing that can be very much. As a matter of fact, I took the trouble to ascertain the number of persons who are likely to be a claim on our funds here, having regard to their old age pensions. The figures are relatively small. I think they are probably in the Department and can be easily made available to the Minister. As the cost is not much, I think the Minister ought to undertake to meet the problem.
I would like to support that plea. I did support it on the Committee Stage and I was pleased to hear the Minister say here to-day that the door is not closed and that the matter is still open for consideration. Now, undoubtedly, there is a special case to be made for men who served in the First World War, men who went out at the request of the then leaders of the Irish people. Quite a number of them went out and served, and they are now approaching, or perhaps have passed, the 70 years mark. Those people who have come back from the First World War, if they had a service pension they worked here; if they had a small disability or wound pension they worked here. They have reared their families here and they have given service to the country at home since that, which entitles them to an old age pension. That being so, I think there is a very special case to be made for them to the extent of allowing them £80, as we have done with our own forces, as not counting as means for the purposes of the Act. The Minister has met the views of all the members sympathetically and the fact that he states that the door has not been closed indicates, to me anyway, that he sees the force of the argument but that he has some difficulty in dealing with it. I think that once we know that the Minister has that approach to it we could leave it to him between this and the Final Stage in the Seanad to insert an amendment that would make provision for those people for whom we have advocated both on the Committee Stage and on the present stage.
This problem will have to be approached in a certain way. What we have done so far is that we have given certain consideration to members of the Army who fought for independence. We gave them special consideration because we wanted to pay a tribute to those men. When you go beyond that, to men who have fought for other armies—I have nothing against them, of course—such as the British or the Canadian Army, or any other army, we have to consider where we are going to stop. There will be other classes who will come along and say that they deserve consideration, too. I would say that is a big problem as far as I am concerned, if we are going to depart from the Old I.R.A. and consider the whole field, because we can defend the position of giving special privileges to the Old I.R.A. Apart from them, there may be many classes to be considered, and being a very big problem it is not likely to be decided before this Bill goes through the Seanad. As I said before, the door is not closed; I have nothing whatever in the way of prejudice against those people and if they deserve special consideration I will be sympathetic.
What about the particular class of persons to which I referred who have got old age pensions from the British? I have in mind a number of seamen who were training in Ireland and out of Ireland for a number of years. How would you deal with those?
Will the Minister state if he is prepared to place the Connaught Rangers who mutinied in India in a similar category?
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the proportion of Irishmen who fought in the 1914-18 war. Many Irishmen who fought in the war of independence and went across to England are now enjoying the benefits of the English social services. The Irishmen who fought in the world war in 1914-18 are every bit as good Irishmen as we are and the Minister should consider their case.
I still want to make a case for the other classes I mentioned apart from the people who gave military service to other countries. I am talking about industrial workers, especially sailors who were training in Ireland and who are entitled to an old age pension in England. If they come to live in Dublin or Cork are they going to get the old age pension in this country when they reach the age of 70 years?
Every speech that is made shows how difficult it is to deal with it.
The Minister has not given any convincing reasons for not accepting the suggestion which has been made to him in respect of Irishmen who served in foreign defence forces. It is not a difficult problem to meet from the financial point of view. I intended to meet it on the previous Bill and told those who were interested I would meet the problem. There is no administrative difficulty involved. If the Minister wants to mark out the members of the Old I.R.A. for special treatment he can make the exemption higher in their case by allowing £80 exemption to those who served in foreign defence forces and doubling it in respect of those who served in the I.R.A. There is no difficulty from that point of view. There is no real difficulty from a financial point of view.
Your Bill was all good intentions.
Would the Minister allay any suspicions we may have in our minds that this is going to be on a political basis?
Definitely not.
Before the Minister conclues, I would like to say to Deputy McGrath, who constantly boasts about national service records, that there are some of us with as good a record as anybody could have in that connection.
Blow your own horn.
Any time you like we will place it on record.
I would like to raise the question of the reciprocal arrangements in connection with widows who are getting half the pension from the Six Counties and from England and are not getting increases here because they do not live in the State.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
This Bill has got every possible co-operation on this side of the House and even the last day on which the Minister was hoping to get his Committee or Report Stage, it was suggested we would have the Final Stage the day after. Now he wishes to tell us he wants the two stages together. I suggest you get the Final Stage at the first sitting next week.
If we leave it over until next week, we will lose a week in the Seanad.
It can be given to the Seanad next week.
I have been trying to arrange the time-table as finely as possible and unless I get the Seanad on the Second Stage next week it will be almost impossible to have the benefits implemented in time.
The Final Stage could be taken next Tuesday.
In the first part of the session next week, the Final Stage could be taken here, and dealt with in the Seanad later the same day. You cannot beat that for co-operation.
I cannot for the life of me see why, when a Bill has been reported, with the amendments the Minister has finally accepted and when the Bill has reached the Final Stage, which is the decision as to whether or not the Bill will pass, we should defer that in view of the fact that the Bill has received a general welcome from the House.
There has undoubtedly been some criticism of it but there is no issue as to whether it should or should not pass. The only issue now on this stage is that any Deputy who wants to is entitled to talk about it. I feel that Deputy Norton is well able to say anything he has to say about the Bill now.
That is not the issue. The Minister is going to get his Bill for the Seanad next week.
I do not know if we are sitting on Tuesday.
The Minister will get his Bill on the first sitting day next week.
I want to put it to the Chair and to the House that we are very anxious to get this Bill on the Statute Book. The Minister says there is some difficulty about the time-table. The Bill has to be printed again as a result of the amendments that have been accepted. The Seanad wants to get some chance of considering the Bill. Are we being fair to the other House?
The position, a Cheann Comhairle, is this.
Deputy Cowan is not finished.
I have not finished. I want to say that there does not seem to be any reason in the world, now that we have got to this stage, why we should not pass the Bill now. Arrangements have to be made for the taking of the Bill to the Seanad, and it will have to be passed into law by the 1st July so that the people who are entitled to benefit will be able to benefit from that date. I think my request is reasonable.
I feel we should have the Bill, as amended, before us in its printed form before we deal with the Fifth Stage. I support Deputy Norton in saying that the Minister can order the Bill as the first item next Tuesday, or the first sitting day next week. I assure him that there will be no delay about it. I think the Bill will be able to go to the Seanad later on Tuesday, if he wishes, or on Wednesday.
Could the Minister give certain information? Could the Minister divide up the £2,000,000 which, I understand, is provided in the Bill?
I could.
Very roughly, I mean.
The £2,000,000?
Are we dealing with the Fifth Stage now?
I am asking a question. As far as I am concerned, we can have the Fifth Stage if I get an answer to my question.
Who is the authority over there?
The House is the authority.
Who is the authority on that side of the House?
Surely, we are allowed to talk without being barked at?
We could take the Final Stage next Tuesday. We will facilitate the Minister in every way.
Can the Minister give me the figures I asked for?
Would it not be possible to take this Bill at the end of business to-day?
We will try to give it to the Minister.
Could the Minister give the figures roughly now, subject to change?
I have not got the figures with me.
The Minister cannot be coming into this House and saying he has £2,000,000 for a scheme without giving us the division of the money.
I have it in my office.
Subject to every correction, what is the general division?
I have not got it here.
What is the costliest part?
This Bill will cost the Exchequer £8,000,000 more.
I am talking about the £2,000,000 extra. How is that divided?
Old age pensions, children's allowances, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit.
Old age pensions, children's allowances, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. Can you divide up the £2,000,000 extra?
I have got the figures in a file in my office. I will have them on the Fifth Stage this evening.
I want to talk about the deprivation of the subsidies in the Budget. I want to find out if this is the way in which these schemes are being paid for.
The Deputy will not be depending on figures.
I would like to know if the butter subsidy is going to finance one part and if the subsidy from the bread is going to finance another part. Can we set one against the other?
I will have the information on the Fifth Stage.
I would like to have the information for the discussion on the Finance Bill.
Does not Deputy McGilligan know that under this Bill the workers are going to pay their own share?
Let us not discuss the Finance Bill on this Bill.
We are entitled to get information for that Bill.
I am not refusing the Deputy that right at all. The Minister cannot give it and he must pass on.
He must know, vaguely, at least.
The Fifth Stage will be taken this evening.
I stated that you should only order the Fifth Stage provisionally for this evening.
I will add the word "provisionally".
What does this mean? Does it mean that the Fifth Stage will be taken immediately after Questions?
It means the Fifth Stage will be taken after the Second Stage of the Finance Bill.
Let us get this clear. When is the Fifth Stage proposed to be taken?
After the Children's Allowances Bill.
Yes.
