Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Dec 1974

Vol. 276 No. 7

Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a means whereby, on the initiative of the appropriate church authority, a particular class of ministers of religion who are engaged on pastoral duties may be brought into the social insurance scheme as employed contributors for the purposes of certain social insurance benefits and pensions. I hope that the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill will help Deputies to understand more readily the provisions of the Bill which are of a somewhat technical nature.

The present position is that all persons in religion whether doing pastoral or other duties are specifically excluded from participation in the social insurance scheme. The reasons for their exclusion are complex but broadly speaking they stem from the fact that they are not employees in the ordinary sense even though some are paid by fixed stipend or salary.

Generally speaking, there was no evidence of dissatisfaction in the past with the exclusion of clergy from the social insurance scheme. In recent years, however, the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland has been pressing for the admission to that scheme of their ministers of religion who are engaged on pastoral duties, and I am now satisfied that the continued exclusion of this class of clergymen, many of whom are married with family responsibilities, can no longer be justified.

Normally the admission of an excluded class of persons to the social insurance scheme is a relatively simple matter. The employment of the class is merely added to the statutory list of insurable employments. It has not, however, been possible to adopt this procedure in relation to the admission to insurance of a particular class of ministers of religion. To do so would create difficulties in view of Article 44.2.3º of the Constitution which reads:

The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

It is proposed, therefore, in the Bill simply to remove the barrier standing in the way of any class of ministers of religion engaged on pastoral duties in respect of whom the appropriate church authority makes representations that they should be insured. This method, which I am advised is free from constitutional infirmity, will leave it open to the relevant authority of any religious denomination to seek to have their ministers of religion brought under the umbrella of social insurance if that is what they wish.

Any class of ministers of religion who may become insured under the provisions of this Bill will be covered for all the usual benefits except unemployment benefit and occupational injuries benefit and an appropriately reduced rate of insurance contribution will accordingly be payable.

I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to Dáil Éireann for favourable consideration.

Mr. Brennan

Will the contributions be compulsory?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Faulkner

I think we may assume from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that this Bill gives the right to all ministers of religion irrespective of denomination, within the limits laid down, to enter into the insurance scheme. On that basis I welcome the Bill which gives the opportunity to ministers of religion to enter the social insurance scheme as employed contributors for the purpose of pension and other benefits.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary with what religious denominations he had discussions and how wide-ranging were the discussions before he decided on the lines of the Bill. I understand my colleague, Deputy Brennan, had some formal and informal discussions on this subject while he was in office. The time is opportune for the introduction of such a measure.

Times have been changing rapidly in Ireland, just as they have throughout the world. During the past 50 years the pace of technological change has been greater than in the previous 1,000 years and this has had an impact on the life-style of everyone in the community, not least on the lives of ministers of religion. Not many years ago when ministers of religion were appointed to take charge of their flocks they remained at their posts for the remainder of their lives. It was taken for granted they would be looked after by their people to the end of their days and any suggestion that they should be included in a State-sponsored security scheme would have been treated as ridiculous by the ministers and their parishioners. The question of retirement simply did not arise and the need for provision for the future caused little concern. Where a minister of religion retired due to ill-health, rightly or wrongly it was assumed he was being looked after by some organisation or individual and that there was no need to worry.

However, times have changed. Vatican Council II has come and gone and with it have come changes in the position of priests with the suggestion, for example, that they should retire at a certain age. This has created problems for some of the clergy, not the least of which are financial problems. In addition, some ministers are obliged to retire on grounds of health and in some cases they have little income. Changing circumstances have created problems for clergy of other denominations. For example, inflation has eroded the value of funds which were utilised to supplement the incomes of clergymen.

It is a fact that ministers of religion work very hard, with no question of a 40, 50 or even a 60-hour week. Therefore, should they wish, they should be entitled to have the right to have their work regarded as insurable employment and to be afforded the protection of the State when they retire or when they are ill. It is a further step forward towards the provision of a comprehensive social security system that will include all workers, including the self-employed.

The Parliamentary Secretary should state what a minister who decides to enter the insurance scheme will be entitled to by way of benefit. There is a considerable amount of clarification necessary in relation to the Bill. Not only does it introduce a new grouping into the social welfare code but it is unusual in the sense that the type of income of many who will be entitled to benefit is somewhat different from what we are accustomed to. In the case of a minister who is paid a stipend resulting from periodic collections from parishioners, who is the employer and who is responsible for payment of the employer's contribution? I note the amount payable by the employed contributor and the employer is £1.02 and £1.46 respectively. I found it difficult to relate this to contributions payable by the classes presently insured.

I should like to thank the officials in the Department who clarified the matter for me by pointing out that as unemployment benefit and occupational injuries were excluded from benefit in this instance the reduction in the contributions because of this reduced the price of the stamp to the level mentioned in the Bill. I can understand the exclusion of unemployment benefit in the case of ministers of religion because it is unlikely they will become unemployed. There could be exceptional circumstances to which consideration might be given but I realise it is difficult to legislate for exceptional circumstances.

I should like to know why occupational injury is excluded. If my memory serves me right it is included for teachers in their insurance benefit. If that is so, what are the grounds for excluding clergy? I am sure that clergy in the course of their ordinary duties are as liable to injury as many other groups covered by the social security scheme. For example, teachers are rarely involved in problems related to occupational injury. It might be interesting to know how many teachers have drawn benefit from the insurance scheme because of occupational injury. I hope this is not a means merely for collecting extra money from teachers. I should like clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary why clergymen are excluded.

Disability benefit is pay-related. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would let me know whether pay-related disability benefit will be payable to ministers of religion who will enter into the insurance scheme as a result of this Bill. If that is so, how will the contributions be collected and from whom will the employer's contribution be collected in the type of case I have already referred to? While I recognise that the health aspect is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, nevertheless because as a rule the health contribution is collected with the social welfare contribution I would be interested to know what the position of ministers of religion would be in relation to health benefits where their income is below £2,500. Do they already pay the £7, soon to be £12, a year and if so are there many of them involved in this scheme? Anyway will those who will be insured under the scheme in this Bill pay a health contribution in the stamp or is that already included in the £1.02 which is at present being charged for the stamp?

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a Social Welfare Bill, however short, is very complex because the Principal Act of 1952 has been amended on so many occasions and that it is essential that the explanatory memorandum should be as extensive as possible. In general I have not had much cause for complaint in relation to the explanatory memoranda from the Department of Social Welfare nor indeed in relation to the courtesy of officials in assisting me in this regard. In this case, however, I would have been glad to have got more information. What the Bill is about is clear enough but when one tries to follow the technical aspects and finds that in a section of the Principal Act there are X subsections and that the new section inserted in the Bill is X+4 and where there do not appear to be any guidelines as to where X+1, X+2 or X+3 subsections were added, it adds quite considerably and unnecessarily to the work of Deputies who are endeavouring to get a full grasp of the detail of the Bill. It is not sufficient for a Deputy to get out the Acts and study them. He must also get out the statutory instruments, some of which may very well have been repealed.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it would be possible to include as a table at the end of each section the original sections as they now read with the amendments, or perhaps the original section with its consolidated amendments might be included in the explanatory memorandum. I am not suggesting that we should be overloaded with detail and I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that whatever changes he makes while the position is somewhat confusing at the moment to be careful not to make it more confusing. At the same time it would be of considerable assistance in relation to Bills of this kind if some consideration could be given to the points I have made.

In section 3 there are paragraphs (bb), (cc), (dd), f, g, and h. These appear to be new. They are not in the Act of 1952. Should these not be referred to in the explanatory memorandum? If they are new it would appear that the side note at the head of section 3 is inadequate.

I welcome the Bill. There are a few further points I would like to raise on Committee Stage.

Mr. Tunney

It is not my intention to make a contribution but rather to elicit some information. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate what is the precise definition of a "minister of religion"? Should the Bill not define that? It may be necessary to indicate too, having regard to what Deputy Faulkner has said about changing times, changing impressions and changing definitions, what exactly is meant by "pastoral work". As I see it, very few ministers might be regarded as not being concerned with pastoral work. The very raison d'être of any religion is pastoral work. Are we going to exclude here somebody who temporarily is engaged in office work connected with that?

At a time when efforts are being made all round to avoid any form of discrimination I would ask what is the position regarding nuns? I suppose one could say that nuns are involved in the ministering of religion. Is it envisaged that regard might be had for their position under this legislation? If not, perhaps the time is now appropriate.

The Bill is welcomed by all but I want to make sure, as far as possible, that the Bill has gone far enough. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of more all-embracing legislation.

Mr. Cluskey

I welcome the way in which the Bill has been met by both Deputy Faulkner and Deputy Tunney. The Bill would not exclude any religious denomination whatever. I was hopeful that I would have this Bill dealt with some time ago but because of the constitutional difficulties there was some delay in bringing it before the House. We wanted to ensure that there would be no discrimination against any religion whatever but the fact is that the only approach that has been made seeking coverage has been by the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland. They have been pressing for some considerable time now to have their ministers of religion covered by the social insurance scheme. I understand they are in a particular difficulty. Roman Catholic clergy for obvious reasons are not at the moment pressing for coverage. I understand the position with regard to Methodist and Presbyterian ministers is that they do their training and some of their initial work either in England or in Northern Ireland and obtain coverage there; they continue to enjoy that coverage even when they are working here since they are regarded as "working overseas"; that is the legal phrase. There is no pressure on them.

Deputies will readily appreciate that the exclusion from coverage of Church of Ireland ministers who do their training and subsequently perform their duties here has been the cause of very considerable hardship to some of these men and their families. They have a declining congregation, the members of which find it very difficult in times of illness or on retirement to look after these men and their families as they would wish to do, the more so when there is no contribution whatsoever coming in from social insurance. I think the step we are taking in this Bill is a very necessary step and a very desirable one.

Deputy Tunney raised the question of nuns. If an approach is made by any religious order of nuns it will be given consideration by the Minister. This Bill ensures that no religious group or denomination will be excluded from consideration.

Mr. Tunney

If I might interrupt, there are the equivalent of nuns attached to most religions. The point is whether this legislation is looking solely at the male. Would it include the female?

Mr. Cluskey

I understand there are some female ministers of religion. My theology is not that good that I could say offhand whether nuns, irrespective of denomination, would come in the category of "minister of religion", but there are female ministers and they would undoubtedly be covered by this Bill.

Mr. Tunney

But not necessarily nuns unless they are regarded as ministers of religion.

Mr. Cluskey

I am not quite sure whether some nuns would be classified as ministers of religion though there are undoubtedly female ministers of various religions. I do not think Roman Catholic nuns are classified as ministers of the Roman Catholic religion, but I am not so sure about other denominations.

Deputy Faulkner raised the point of the very complex nature of what would appear to be a relatively simple Bill and he referred to the amount of research a Deputy has to do in order to unravel the social welfare legislation. I quite agree with the Deputy in this and it might be desirable now to have a look at a comprehensive Social Welfare Bill. We are operating on the 1952 Act and subsequent legislation dealing with social welfare. I fully appreciate the difficulty this presents to Deputies and to members of the public who are engaged in social welfare work. This might be an appropriate time for us to think in terms of a comprehensive Bill embodying all the legislation up to this. The Deputy will appreciate that this will be a major task.

Mr. Faulkner

Would it not be possible in the meantime to give an indication as to where certain information could be obtained?

Mr. Cluskey

I assure the Deputy that any assistance or help he or others may require will be readily forthcoming. The position has been somewhat complicated by a request from Members. I understand the matter went before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I have a note here. There is a great deal in this Bill not really connected with the Bill at all and the note says:

To meet criticisms of earlier Social Welfare Bills by some Deputies and Senators who complained of legislation by reference, the parliamentary draftsman has, where possible, included in the Bill all the existing relevant provisions as amended by the Bill.

On page 3 of the Bill there is a good deal of matter which is not in fact absolutely essential.

Mr. Faulkner

And that, of course, constitutes a problem too since the Bill has no explanatory memorandum setting out exactly what it means.

Mr. Cluskey

This procedure was adopted by the parliamentary draftsman to meet criticisms voiced by Deputies and Senators, but I agree with the Deputy that this has only added to the confusion. That is my personal opinion. I assure the Deputy that any assistance he or any other Member may require with regard to legislation emanating from the Department of Social Welfare will be readily given.

Once more, I thank the Members for the way they have received this measure. It will meet a very real need on the part of those who will benefit from its passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to the remaining Stages. today.