Vol. 213 No. 6
asked the Minister for Social Welfare on what dates since 1st July 1963 he has received communications from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions regarding the desirability of urgent action to raise the compulsory insurance limit from £800 to at least £1,200; and if he will state at what dates he replied to these communications, and the content of his replies.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if in view of the fact that (a) on 1st June last he informed the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that any decision with regard to the raising of the £800 compulsory insurance limit would be deferred till the final report of the Select Committee of the Dáil on Health Services had been received and considered, and (b) it appears at present that there is no likelihood of such a final report being produced in the foreseeable future, he will now take steps pending the Final Report of the Select Committee to raise this compulsory insurance limit of £800 which is now both out of date and unrealistic.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
Letters dated 8th July, 1963, 25th March, 1964, 25th May, 1964 and 1st December, 1964, respectively, were received from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to the question of raising the present limit for insurance purposes under the Social Welfare Acts.
In reply to the first letter the Joint Secretary to the Congress was informed on 10th July, 1963, that the matter was receiving attention. Receipt of the second letter was acknowledged on 1st April, 1964, and on 1st June last the Joint Secretary was informed in reply to his letters of 25th March and 25th May, 1964 that it had been decided to defer further consideration of the question of raising the limit until the final report of the Select Committee of the Dáil on the Health Services had been received and considered. Information was also given concerning title to benefit of persons who ceased to be compulsorily insurable as a consequence of the operation of the limit and as to the maintenance of insurance for certain benefits on a voluntary basis.
The last letter, receipt of which was acknowledged on 2nd December, is not concerned solely with the question of raising the limit. A reply to that letter will be issued within the next few days.
It is not proposed to alter the existing limit for insurance purposes pending receipt and consideration of the report of the Select Committee of the Dáil on the Health Services.
Would the Minister give any specific reason why he has decided not to increase the insurance limit until the Select Committee on the Health Services have made their report? Would the Minister say whether or not he has had consultations with the Minister as to when it is likely there will be a report and proposals by him or by the Select Committee? It seems to me it may be a considerable time before the Select Committee will report and certainly before any action may be taken on the report.
The Deputy is aware that the raising of the insurance limit would have implications under the Health Acts. I am not in a position to say when the Select Committee will report.
I do not believe it will have serious implications vis-à-vis the Health Acts. As the Minister has pointed out, it is open to those whose salaries have gone beyond £800 to elect to become voluntary contributors. As voluntary contributors, they are deemed to be members of the middle income group and are, therefore, entitled to the particular services applied to that group.
I am aware of that; but large numbers of those who have gone out of insurance since 1958, because of the operation of the limit, have not become voluntary contributors. The Deputy must be aware that if the limit were raised now, a number of those people would become compulsorily insurable and there would be implications under the Health Acts.
It is a fact, as the Minister has said, that those who cease to be insurable or insured may receive the benefit of the Social Welfare Acts for a period of up to 17 months. Since the application of the last ninth round wage increase, ten months have elapsed. That means there are seven months still left. I do not think even the Minister for Health could assure the Minister for Social Welfare that there will be a report from the Select Committee in that time. Would the Minister for Social Welfare not consider that there may be a considerable number of people who in that period since February have gone out of insurance benefit and are either unemployed or sick?
All these matters have been considered and this is the decision that has been taken.
I think the Minister should reconsider this. We pressed him to increase workmen's compensation and he wants to leave that—whether deliberately or not, I do not know— for quite a long period. I would ask him seriously to consider changing the insurable limit now and not to wait for any report from the Select Committee on the Health Services.
I should like as a member of the Health Committee to query the Minister—I do not know if he has any function in the matter or not—as to why we have not had a meeting of the Health Committee for possibly nine months.
That has nothing to do with me.
That is an exaggeration—gross exaggeration.
Gross exaggeration.
Would the Tánaiste say the last date on which it met?
I do not know but the Deputy is as well aware as I am that, first of all, we had a long adjournment of the Dáil. I am not responsible, I may say.
Why are you poking your nose in?
Since my name has been brought in both by Deputy Corish and Deputy Kyne.
I did not mention you so do not say I brought you in.
He certainly was not brought in on the pencils and he came into it.
It is quite clear that Deputy Flanagan wants to provoke further scenes of disorder.
On a point of order, by virtue of what right does the Tánaiste shove the Minister for Social Welfare aside and proceed to answer supplementary questions addressed to the Minister for Social Welfare?
The same right as any Deputy in the House.
No. A Deputy has a right to ask a supplementary question but, unless this Government are going to break up into chaos altogether, supplementaries asked of one Minister will not be answered by another. I have heard of the Taoiseach doing that. I am making a point of order. By what right does the Tánaiste answer a supplementary question addressed to the Minister for Social Welfare?
That is not so. Deputy Kyne did not ask a supplementary question.
I am on a point of order.
Deputy Kyne intervened and addressed the Chair about a committee of which I happen to be a member.
I have no objection to the Tánaiste answering.
I am sure the Deputy has not.
Deputy Kyne asked what I was going to do about a meeting of this Committee. I have nothing to do with it.
I have often heard of the Tower of Babel. This beats Banagher, never mind Babel.
Deputy Dillon probably does not know that such a committee is sitting.
I think you are all breaking up, slowly but surely.
We have had several supplementary questions on this.
Could I ask the courtesy of the Chair to permit the Tánaiste to answer me? I have no objection in the world.
I understand the Tánaiste has concluded his statement.
I did not hear it.
I want to raise a supplementary question in relation to what the Minister for Social Welfare has said.
There have been several supplementary questions.
Are you not going to allow the Deputy to talk?
I want to ask, through you, what the Minister for Social Welfare thinks. I agree that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions represents the majority of people concerned in this question and, having regard to their representation and their importance, would he not agree to reconsider the representations they previously made in respect of this matter and are making up to the moment? Does he not also agree that giving stereotyped replies to representations is wrong— very wrong?
I agree that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have a legitimate interest in this matter. They have not been getting stereotyped replies. They were told of the decision when the decision was taken and that is not very long ago.
They got six stereotyped replies.
They did because at that time the decision had not been made. Now the decision has been made and they have been informed.
Can the Minister say why the Health Committee are not meeting? Is it waiting for a general election in two years' time?
I have no knowledge of the Committee; no function in connection with it.
Could I ask one final question? May I ask the Minister, with respect, to disregard the connection he seems to think there is between social welfare and the issue of a Report from the Health Committee? I say that with all due respect to the Health Committee. I think this is a decision which the Minister should make irrespective of that report because of the many considerations which are serious as far as a considerable number of people are concerned, persons who may find themselves without sickness benefit when they are sick or without unemployment benefit when they are unemployed.
I am aware of the implications and I am also aware of the fact that a decision which I might take to raise the insurable limit would also affect the position under the Health Act.
I do not think so.
The Health Committee will never sit again.
Would the Minister not initiate discussions with the Congress?
I do not see the seriousness of the connection——
This has passed from the realm of question and answer and is becoming a debate.
It is a good debate, do you agree?
We all know he is a hopeless Minister.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that, in addition to the fact that increasing numbers of employees are being excluded from compulsory insurance owing to wage increases, his Department are narrowing the definitions of manual work and informing employers of such narrow definitions, so that workers such as employees of the licensed trade are being excluded from compulsory insurance through these definitions; and whether, in view of the fact that social insurance of employees earning under £800 and of all manual workers was originally intended to cover the majority of workers, he will now state whether it is Government policy to endeavour to exclude large numbers of workers from compulsory insurance and to confine such insurance and the benefits arising therefrom to a minority of lower paid workers.
I am aware that the remuneration of increasing numbers of non-manual workers is exceeding the present insurance limit of £800. Nevertheless this limit does not exclude the great majority of such workers.
So far as counter-hands, foremen, assistant managers and managers in the licensed trade are concerned, it has been held for many years that for the purposes of social insurance they, in common with comparable employees in other trades, are, in general, employed otherwise than by way of manual labour. I am not aware that there has been any recent narrowing of the interpretation of what constitutes manual labour. Nevertheless, the question whether any change in the existing interpretation of the term is desirable is at present under consideration.
It is open to any person who is in doubt as to his position in relation to social insurance when his rate of remuneration exceeds £800 a year, to apply to my Department for a decision in the matter. If he is not satisfied with the decision, he has a right of appeal to an appeals officer and a further right of appeal to the High Court from the decision of that officer on a question of law.
The answer to the second part of the Deputy's question is in the negative.
The Minister said this matter was under consideration. Could he at this stage expand that statement and say what aspects are being considered?
The definition of the term "manual labour". The present interpretation of it is based on opinions of two different Attorneys General and that interpretation could only be changed as a result of an appeal to the courts. I am considering whether or not I should take steps to define it in a way which would possibly have these people considered as manual workers.
Bearing in mind that this decision will have an effect on a substantial number of people, could the Minister state when he will be in a position to make the decision?
No, I could not say, but I am examining it actively at the moment.
I do not know what the Minister for Social Welfare means by active consideration but surely he should give us an idea as to when these people could expect a decision?
He cannot make the decision.
I do not think it is good enough to say that in respect of all the questions asked of the Minister.
I did not say that in respect of all the questions. I said in respect of the previous question that it had been decided to take no further action in the matter of raising the insurable limit in respect of non-manual employees until such time as the Select Committee on the Health Services had reported.
Over to you.
