In relation to section 4 which deals with widows and orphans, I wonder whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to a case which was mentioned last night in a social column in the Evening Herald concerning an application for a widow's pension. It concerned a lady who was married to a man for some 25 years, who had a number of children by this person she understood to be her lawful husband. It was only on the death of the person in question and when the occasion arose to present the necessary proofs of marriage that it was ascertained that the man in question had been married on a previous occasion and that the second event was a bigamous marriage. It appears that on this account the widow in question is being refused payment of a widow's pension. This person is in dire need, and I wonder would the Minister say whether it is possible under the existing code or whether it would be possible under this Bill to provide that where a person has a bona fide reason to understand that there was a lawful marriage, the State might, in such circumstances, allow the pension to be paid to such person. It does appear to be extremely hard that the unadulterated law should be applied in this case when the facts of the case outside the law are such that the widow in question is certainly deserving of as much support and maintenance from the State as many another widow who might not have been in the marital state for as long as the lady in question.
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1967: Committee and Final Stages.
The Deputy will agree that an extremely exceptional case would hardly justify putting an amendment in the Bill to cover it, and I doubt whether, on examination, it would be wise to provide for bigamously married people.
Is the Minister saying hard cases make bad law?
There are other ways and means of assisting people in that position.
Is the Minister in a position to give some assistance to this lady?
There is home assistance, for one thing.
The Minister will appreciate that home assistance is a very discretionary matter: some local authorities may give it and others may not. The question of the degree of hardship which is required before the giving of home assistance varies from area to area. The Minister is, of course, aware that in relation to married women who are deserted by their husbands, there is provision for the Department, after a period of years in certain circumstances, to accept the death of the husband. Even though it might not be a matter proved in the civil court, the Department will, nevertheless, after a period of years, in certain circumstances, accept that death has taken place and pay a widow's pension accordingly.
There are very few cases where anything other than a certificate would be accepted.
The exceptions are there. What I am pressing upon the Minister is to make a pension available to such a person, if it is possible under the present code, or, if it is not possible, to make the necessary amendment in this Bill so as to ensure that in the exceptional case in which we have this tragic situation of a person who has bona fide believed she was the lawful wife of a man for 25 years and who finds herself refused a pension because of a bigamous marriage. The Minister will agree it is a case which is deserving of help, and I do not think it will open the floodgates.
It is an exceptional case. Rather than contemplate an amendment to this Bill, I shall have a look at the case and if there is anything——
I am pressing this upon the Minister because if I were to put down an amendment providing for a pension, it would be disallowed under the rules of the House on the ground that it would impose a charge on the Exchequer. As a member of the Opposition, I cannot move the amendment, but I am asking the Minister, as a member of the Government, to make the necessary amendment.
(Cavan): I should like to avail of this opportunity to mention the case of a lady who applies for a widow's pension in the belief that her husband is dead. I know that the Department and the Minister do presume, in certain cases, if the evidence is strong enough, that the husband is dead, but I think that in some cases the Minister is too hard to satisfy on that point. I know of one case where a man went to England just before the last war. He has not communicated with his wife since. If he were alive now, he would be well over 70 years of age. Every effort has been made, without success, to trace him in England. Several death certificates relating to a man of his name have been located—he has a name that is fairly common—and in cases like that a more sympathetic interpretation should be put on the regulations, and the pension should be granted. A court of law would be much more easy to satisfy in an application of presumed death than the Department of Social Welfare is in an application for the widow's pension.
I have one case in mind that is a cause of considerable hardship, and I would urge on the Minister that in that case and in cases like it, he should accept long absence as evidence of death, particularly when institutions such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have intervened with a view to tracing the man and have not succeeded, and particularly in view of the fact that he was living in England during the Second World War when many people were killed. I think the Minister applies much too rigid an interpretation.
It is correct that we are very rigid in these cases but I do not think that the limited experience of the Department when they did decide to be liberal proved very successful. It might be on record that a pension was paid in a case where the husband later turned up.
He would not object.
Could the Minister give us an indication of the number of persons at present in receipt of unemployment benefit and the number in receipt of unemployment assistance? Could he also say how many people annually transfer from unemployment benefit to unemployment assistance? Could he confirm that we are right in believing that this extension of the period of unemployment benefit will provide considerable relief to the Redundancy Fund envisaged under another Bill at present before the House because I think that under that Bill, account has been taken of money from public sources or insurance funds which will be paid to a person who is redundant? Would the effect of this, by giving people a higher rate of income through unemployment benefit, provide relief?
I do not think the Deputy is right in that—no.
But the Minister is aware that the change, which is welcome, is saving money for the State because the new stamp is so devised that the employer and the insured person will have to pay for the additional benefit and in fact it is going to the Insurance Fund? I think the Minister's figure was £300,000 as given in his opening speech. That money is being transferred to the Insurance Fund and therefore it is saving the Exchequer that sum.
We have stated that openly in the House. But Deputy Ryan is dealing with a different matter.
No. He said the State was also going to save money on redundancy. I do not think any of us will live long enough to see the redundancy provisions in operation according to the way they are going through the House. Today at Question Time there was reference to the number of people unemployed. I am sure the Minister will agree that the number of people on unemployment benefit is affected by the number of people who have drawn their full entitlement and because quite a number are in the position that they have to go on unemployment assistance, the dole. It is one of the things for which the Government must take responsibility and they should not brag about it as the Parliamentary Secretary did earlier today.
No. First, Deputy Ryan's question is in regard to savings to the Redundancy Fund arising out of the extension of the period from 106 to 312 days. I do not anticipate any saving here. We are making provision in this Bill to ensure that any payments under social welfare schemes where a means test is involved will not take into consideration redundancy payments. It is only right to assume that the same will apply in regard to redundancy payments.
I do not think it is but I may be wrong.
There would be no point in our making this provision if they took account of it. Both are payable side by side. In regard to what Deputy Tully said, we have practically admitted that many people going on to extended periods on the social insurance side will represent a saving on the social assistance side. It is difficult to estimate the number but there will definitely be a number.
Presumably, in calculating the saving to the Unemployment Assistance Fund an estimate must have been made of the number of people concerned. I wonder would the Minister indicate the number of persons at present?
Twenty thousand ordinary applicants and 12,000 small-holders would be the approximate number at present.
On assistance?
Yes.
I have notified Deputy Ryan that his amendment No. 1 is out of order.
Yes; you said it might result in a charge on public funds. Of course, that does not relate to the merits of the amendment.
No, it has nothing to do with the merits.
It is simply a matter of the rules of order of the House which prevent members of the Opposition proposing any amendments or resolutions which might lead to a charge on public funds, but I think it desirable that we should once again emphasise that we in the Opposition are as powerless as a man in the street to propose any improvements in social welfare. Time and again, and as recently as last night in the excellent article to which I have already referred, members of the Opposition are exhorted to see that full social justice is uniformly applied but we are powerless in this regard.
We sought in the amendment we tabled, and which under the rules of order had to be ruled out because it might have resulted in a charge on public funds, to delete subparagraph b of paragraph (a). We did this because we considered it wrong that the Minister should reserve for himself the power to decide whether or not workers who were affected by a strike were so similar in interests and activities to workers who were on strike that they should be denied unemployment benefit, even though these people did not themselves wilfully participate in the strike in question. We think it is wrong and we have spoken against it for years—the whole system of depriving workers of unemployment benefit if their unemployment is caused by reason of a strike where such a strike is one in which they themselves are not concerned.
After many years of declining to do so, the Minister has now come some distance along the road and has provided in the first paragraph that the withholding of unemployment benefit will not apply to a person who is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work. That is good and in future we shall not have the appalling situation of unemployment benefit being refused to people who innocently find themselves unemployed as a result of a strike which is no direct concern of theirs.
But the Minister can qualify this by ruling that if the person belongs to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at his place of employment, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute, such a person will find himself denied the benefits which the Minister seeks to extend under this section. We think it deplorable that, having come some of the way, the Minister does not go all the way. The amendment has been ruled out on the ground that it might impose a charge on public funds. I think that indicates that there is a need to provide for such people. If there will be a charge on public funds, there is a need to provide for these people's interests. Otherwise, no charge would arise on public funds.
As was mentioned on Second Stage, the Minister, in his original explanatory memorandum, claimed that the improvement being provided for here had the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but he qualified that, no doubt under pressure as a result of its being made clear to him that it did not have the approval of Congress, by saying that he is to discuss the matter further with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, or, rather, that the matter will be kept under review. I think it will want to be kept under active consideration and that as soon as possible, the Minister should go the whole way and provide that unemployment benefit may be paid to all people involved in a strike in which they themselves are not participating. It may well be that the people who are not on strike ought to be paid unemployment benefit, but we should not deny unemployment benefit to people simply because some of their colleagues are on strike.
This is the kind of thing, when crystallised in legislation, which will lead to all kinds of undesirable pressures within the trade union movement, where there will be allegations of all kinds and pressurising by one group or another. That is undesirable and we would prefer the Minister to go the whole way and not provide this roadblock, as it were, on the road to progress. He could have completed the journey here in one clean sweep. We are sorry he has not done so.
I cannot agree with the Deputy on this point. In this particular case one could easily slant things in a way where they would appear to lean either towards the employer or the employee and make it very difficult to have better labour relations established between them.
This is, admittedly, an amelioration of the situation as it existed, but I do not think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with whom the position was discussed before this section was inserted, would agree with the Deputy in his suggestion. I could easily see his suggestion leading to a position which would probably encourage or assist the non-union member or the person who was not loyal to his union. There is a code of loyalty and unanimity amongst workers who are in the same union participating in the same dispute to support each other loyally and wholeheartedly, and to slant legislation so that it would lean towards a section, although only caused by one particular member or faction, would not meet the wishes of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
When I say it is being kept under review, it is an open secret that in discussing this section before it was inserted, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions had taken as a criterion existing legislation in England and Northern Ireland with regard to this same matter, and this is in accord with what is being done there. They would not seem to be wholly satisfied with it there although it is accepted as an amelioration of the position. There is a Royal Commission at present studying what further might be done and I think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions may be interested in what that Commission may come out with as a further guide.
In the light of that, I agreed to keep the matter under review. The Deputy, when he knows these facts, will no doubt fully appreciate the import of the section as it stands.
The position in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been in existence for the greater part of two decades. Is it not high time that we did our own thinking and our own research, instead of perpetually, in relation to every activity of the State, waiting to see what is done across the water? One must pause occasionally and wonder whether we have achieved our freedom at all. The only alteration in our circumstances appears to be, in some respects anyway, that social improvements and social progress come to us secondhand and after considerable and unnecessary delays. This is another example of it. We are waiting to see what John Bull did before we say that it is good enough for Paddy the Irishman. This is the activity of the slave mind, the conduct of a subservient race who will not do anything themselves, who will not be masters of their own destiny but who wait to see what is done by their one-time masters. This is the least of all reasons to justify what the Minister is asking this House to accept on the section.
The Deputy has obviously misunderstood me. I am not taking my cue from anybody. I had this discussion with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I said they have as a criterion legislation in respect of the same thing passed in England recently. If they are guided by some existing changes, that is none of my business. I think it is very useful to let the other fellow do something and see what his shortcomings and his benefits are and then adopt the best in it. When we do anything, we always like to examine what has been done elsewhere. It is not true to say we are slaves. We have done many things not done in other parts of the world before they were done here. I only said that this section is regarded as an improvement on existing legislation. I said it was no secret that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions had used as a criterion what has been done elsewhere and would follow up the report of the Royal Commission sitting at present. I think we were wise to see it tried out.
We know from sad experience that this would not be done unless it was done by John Bull first.
Section 12 provides, if I might quote from the explanatory memorandum:
For the amendment of the Rules for the Calculation of Means for the purposes of non-contributory old age and widows' pensions set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, so that in calculating means for those pensions redundancy payments or payments made to aid unemployed persons changing residence under any statutory scheme administered by the Department of Labour may be disregarded. There is a similar provision in section 13 for a disregard of such payments in the assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes.
This is no doubt the section to which the Minister made earlier reference— to provide that redundancy payments shall not disentitle a person to non-contributory assistance of one kind or another.
Payments under social welfare benefits where there is a means test.
If I may take the principle of section 13, to which we shall come, which is explained in the explanatory memorandum, the same matter was covered in one paragraph. That deals with unemployment assistance and in section 12 we are dealing only with non-contributory pensions. You say in relation to both of these that you will not take into account any redundancy payments received. But again reverting to the Redundancy Payments Bill——
It is an amendment of two separate Acts.
It is an amendment of two Acts; that is in section 12 and here. But I have no doubt at all about it now—again speaking from memory which, of course, is human and maybe frail—the Redundancy Payments Bill provides that with payment of a redundancy payment, certain other incomes are to be taken into account and that they may not exceed more than a certain proportion of the person's normal salary so as to stop him from being better off from redundancy payments or as well off under redundancy payments as he might be if he were working.
It is interesting to see here that the Minister will not take redundancy payments into account but somebody in the Department of Labour will take these things into account under the Redundancy Payments Bill. I suppose there is no need to take it into account twice.
It is correct that there is a limit above which both payments together may not exceed a certain figure. I think we are the people who pay the whole amount; the redundancy people reduce.
That is why I said earlier——
The Deputy implied earlier that both could not be paid together.
This will, in effect, save the Redundancy Fund something though, of course, as Deputy Tully says, we do not know if we will live to see the day when that comes into effect at all.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in the name of Deputy Ryan, have been ruled out of order as they constitute a potential charge on State funds.
As you say, Sir, our amendments have been ruled out of order as they might amount to a charge on State funds. While this shows the majesty of the law and the supremacy of the rules of order of this House and the power of the Chair—to which we all bow—it underlines once again the inability of Members of the Opposition to bring about the social improvements so necessary in this country. We are as powerless as the ordinary man in the street to do it. I would hope that the effect of our amendments being ruled out of order would help to remind people of the fact that we have no power to bring about these changes. The only people who have are members of the Government. They alone have the power to propose resolutions acceptable to the Chair, under our rules of order, and to provide for the necessary amendments of our law.
We regret that the Minister, in section 16, has not taken the step he ought to have taken to provide compensation for all people injured while unemployed and while seeking employment through the agencies of the State. The Minister has provided in this section that:
A person who is unemployed shall, while in attendance at a course of training provided or approved of by An Chomhairle Oiliúna, be deemed for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Act, 1966, to be in insurable (occupational injuries) employment and to be employed by An Chomhairle Oiliúna.
We think that is only correct and proper. This will avoid the predicament of the poor juror who, while assisting the State and carrying out his duties, injured some part of his anatomy or some limb or other and is now in peril that he may not receive any compensation from the State, which he had been endeavouring to assist as a juror, who is now forced to proceed, through the majesty of the courts, to endeavour to get some compensation from a person or persons whose liability is still unascertained.
We think if a dutiful citizen—in accordance with the requirements of the law — is attending at a labour exchange for the purpose of being interviewed for employment and receives injuries while so attending, there ought to be some liability on the part of the State to compensate such a person. Even if there is a hole in the stairs of the labour exchange, even if an employee of the labour exchange sticks out his foot and causes the man to trip over it, even if the State should be negligent, such a person has no right at all, at common law, to receive any compensation in this country, good, bad or indifferent from the State because, at one time in another island, it was considered the King could do no wrong. While the King has long since admitted he could do wrong, while the servants of the King have admitted that wrong can be done, we alone, in the Sovereign Republic of Ireland, still maintain this doctrine that the State can do no wrong, that the King can do not wrong. Therefore, if a man attending at a labour exchange meets with an accident, he receives no compensation from the State, even though the State is negligent, and not only negligent but deliberately intervenes to cause damage to the person. That is very wrong.
I do not think the Minister would endeavour, as a private citizen, to justify that such a situation should continue for yet another day, much less for years. Not only will such a man not receive compensation, at common law, for State negligence but he will not receive either the occupational injuries compensation. If a man is not employed but is attending at an employment exchange—in accordance with his obligations under the law— that is his occupation for the time being. The State requires him, as a condition to receiving any compensation, to attend at the employment exchange. Therefore, we think that while he is discharging that duty, he ought to be covered for accident, if the very rare occasion should arise and cause any injury to him. That is why we endeavoured in our amendments to cater for this very slight extension.
The Minister said earlier, in relation to another amendment we proposed, that it would be a very rare case of hardship. He endeavoured, on that account, to justify not taking the necessary steps to modify the law to prevent such cases. I think we have a clear obligation, where we see such cases of hardship, to bring them to the Minister's attention and to prevail upon him to amend the law to provide for such cases, if not now, at a later stage in the Bill.
Before the Minister replies, I note that the person quoted as receiving training is, for the purposes of this Bill, deemed to be insurable. Are we to understand that such a person is in the same position as a person depositing medical certificates who gets the credit of a stamp on his card for the medical certificates deposited during a period of illness or are we to understand that a person undergoing a training course is obliged to pay an employee's contribution towards the insurance stamp, the balance of which would be paid by An Chomhairle Oiliúna? Because most of us would feel—if the person has been declared redundant and has had to undergo a training course to re-equip himself for employment—while it is eminently desirable he should be deemed to be an insured person, it would be rather a hardship on him if he were expected to contribute an employed person's share of the cost of an insurance stamp.
It is stretching one's imagination very far in relation to the Occupational Injuries Act to expect that it would cover a man's unemployment as being his occupation. While Deputies may try to make a case for covering people in this way, it could not be done under the Occupational Injuries Act. There are hundreds of different offices in which people, employed and unemployed, are exposed to the same risks. If we were to single out the unemployed people who call on the exchange to collect unemployment assistance or benefit, we would have to require the Minister for Labour to pay their weekly contribution the same as we would require An Chomhairle Oiliúna in the case of people undergoing training. There is no analogy at all between the two cases, the case of a person undergoing training and one signing for unemployment benefit. The person being trained or retrained is probably doing so at a time when he could be employed elsewhere at something else or on some pursuit of his own. He may be exposed to risks.
There are so many offices and I do not think we should single out the employment exchanges as any different from the other offices. If this were stretched to cover people in employment exchanges, we would have to extend the provisions of this Bill to cover people in various categories, employed and unemployed, going into public offices and taking whatever risk there might be. I do not think this would be the place at all for that. The Occupational Injuries Act is entirely concerned with people engaged in their particular occupations in life. Extending it to people undergoing training is, perhaps, extending it as far as one could possibly conceive while keeping it within the limits of the original spirit of the Bill. To extend it to unemployed persons calling at exchanges would be entirely outside anything that was thought of when the Bill was brought in. However, one may make a case about the claims that might arise and how they might be met, but I do not think this would be the place for that at all.
I do not think the Minister has met my specific query. If persons under training are, under the terms of the Bill, to be deemed insurable, does that involve the affixing of a social welfare stamp to a card?
Yes.
Very well. If it does, is the person under training responsible for an employee's share of the cost of the stamp or is the stamp only constructively affixed to the card without cost either to the State or to the employee? I do not think a person under training, receiving little remuneration during his training period, should be asked to provide the very substantial sum which accrues weekly.
The employee is not asked to pay any portion.
The State pays for the whole stamp?
Yes.
If we understood it, we possibly would object to it but we cannot. I am sure it is all right.
I have one comment on the Bill. It is a very short one.
The Deputy may not raise it on the Title. He may raise it later.
Is it possible to discuss the Title?
In certain circumstances, yes.
Like the Money Resolution.
I should like to make one comment. Social welfare legislation now contains the arrangement whereby those who receive industrial injuries receive compensation direct from the Department. There must have been a slip-up somewhere because it is found that while normally a person who applies for disability benefit would be paid on the second certificate, it is not unusual to find that when somebody who is injured applies for both disability benefit and workmen's compensation, a series of forms pass backward and forward to the insured person. I had somebody today who, having sent in three certificates and filled an endless number of forms, received a further form this morning for further information, while he, his wife and three children are dependent on what they get from the Department of Social Welfare.
This is only one instance. There are a number of others which I have brought to the notice of the Department and they have been dealt with very quickly. I always sing the praises of the Department of Social Welfare because they deal with these things very quickly but I do not think it should be necessary. There must be a fouling of the line somewhere here because the Department operate very well otherwise. It appears to have got tied up because of the combined operation of the two sections, the disability benefit and the workmen's compensation. I wonder would the Minister have a look at it and find out what is causing it or at least see whether arrangements can be made to have the disability benefit paid on its own, pending the decision on the workmen's compensation. I think that should be easy.
That is usually done.
My own experience is similar to that of Deputy Tully. Some terrible delays arise in these circumstances. It is little compensation to us in Fine Gael to say that we forecast this would happen as soon as the State became involved in occupational injuries.
They are only teething troubles.
Workmen's compensation was usually paid after a solicitor's letter to the employer's insurance company.
Indeed it was not.
I do not think it would matter how many letters were issued from solicitors' offices to the Department. They would still take their wonderful time before they would make their magnificent decision. It is not good enough. Some of these people are forced to look for home assistance. We should not be obliging every person who is unfortunate enough to be injured in an industrial accident to have to look to the local health authority for home assistance. I urge the Minister to see that if this is teething trouble, it is cured quickly and if it is worse, that some steps be taken to improve the situation.
I want to associate myself with what Deputy Ryan and Deputy Tully have said. The Department of Social Welfare may move staidly but I think it right that the public should know that my experience of that Department has been that the sympathy of the establishment lies with the claimant and that very often in dealings with successive Ministers for Social Welfare, I have found that claimants get all the legislation would permit them to get and that sometimes their best friends are those who administer the Act.
However, I want to raise this point which Deputy Ryan has already opened in the amendments which are not in order. We have put provisions in this Bill requiring, in certain circumstances, certain persons, if they are in benefit under this Bill, to attend at certain offices. Surely the Minister agrees that it is anomalous, to say the least, that the State should be exempt from ordinary action at common law for negligence resulting in injuries received by persons who are required by our legislation to attend at certain offices of the State.
I cannot see how that point can be debated on Fifth Stage. On Fifth Stage we are——
Dealing with what is in the Bill.
—dealing with what is in the Bill.
In the Bill we are requiring certain persons to attend at offices for certain purposes. I do not want to press this but surely there is a screaming anomaly in the fact that this principle has been abandoned in Great Britain where the Crown still subsists and is maintained here where the Crown has ceased to subsist. Perhaps the Minister would look at the point raised by Deputy Ryan to see if the resources of common law could not be made available to these people in these circumstances.
The Deputy will admit that we had discussions on the relevant sections and we passed the sections. The Deputy is well aware that this applies to all Departments of State and that it is something that should be taken on a broad basis.
On the point about the expedition or otherwise with which claims are dealt with, I should like to state in defence of those who administer the Act and in defence of myself that the Department deal as expeditiously as possible with these claims. There may be a certain amount of teething troubles but it is not difficult to appreciate that very often the teething troubles may be on the other side. We do not always get clearcut claims.
When the certificates are sent in and no payment is made?
When the case is clear, I can assure the House that there will be no delays. I will undertake to say that if it is necessary to make any further changes to ensure that the payment goes out quickly, this will be done, because the effect of the payment can be nullified if it is not made reasonably expeditiously.