Deputy Tunney has already asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he could define "minister of religion". I would ask him does "minister of religion" refer here to denominations presently recognised by the Constitution or would it include any new religion which might happen to be in vogue at a particular time?
Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, 1974: Committee and Final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I would say as recognised by the Constitution.
What in each case then would be the appropriate authority? Has he considered this? I know he has had representations only from the Church of Ireland. Has he given consideration to what the appropriate authority would be in the event of other denominations requesting the right to take part in the social service scheme?
Yes, and as the Deputy will probably appreciate, various demoninations have various systems of operating their affairs. In some denominations it is done by a committee of elders, and in some it is done by bishops and parish authorities, and so on. Each case would be examined and the Minister would determine what, in his view, was the appropriate authority.
During the course of my speech I referred to the payment of ministers of religion by stipend which sometimes simply means money collected in periodic parochial collections, and I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he could state in such circumstances who would pay the employer's contribution.
In the case which is being covered immediately, it is the representative body of the Church of Ireland. The Minister would have to examine each case because there is no common pattern as the Deputy knows. After such an examination the Minister will determine who is the employer.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that in the case of the Church of Ireland we have a fairly straightforward situation. It could be quite different in relation to other denominations and, therefore, I would take it that, if he has not already examined the situation in relation to other denominations, he will do so, so that in any particular case where a new class of minister of religion might wish to be accepted there would be no delay in accepting him because of delay in deciding who is his employer.
The Deputy can rest assured that there would not be any undue delay on the part of the Minister in determining who, in his view, was the employer.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that representations from any particular order would be considered.
Any particular denomination.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary not say that if an application were made by a religious order it would be considered?
I cannot recall saying that although I do not deny that I said it.
I may have misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary.
What I meant was any particular religious denomination.
I wish to query clause 8 of section 2 which would appear to exclude certain people and I was going to inquire if this included religious orders as such.
This is a point which needs clarification. One denomination could be bigger than another and consist of many different components and elements. I notice that the explanatory memorandum to section 2 refers to a minister who is a member of a class in respect of which the appropriate authority is acting. That seems to envisage a situation in which there could be an order within a bigger religion the members of which were anxious to be included in this legislation. What would be regarded there as the appropriate authority would be the order authority rather than the supreme church authority. Having regard to what is written in the explanatory memorandum, it is advisable that that should be clarified at this stage.
Is it not the person who employs the minister? For example, in the Presbyterian Church it is the elders who are the minister's employer. Therefore, it is the elders who would be responsible for the stamps.
If the Deputy attempted to define "employer" in relation to some religious denominations, I think he would find himself in considerable difficulty.
That is true and that is why when each case arises, it will be examined and the Minister will determine who, in his opinion, is the responsible employer.
There is one word which leads to ambiguity. The Parliamentary Secretary is talking about the Minister and we are talking about ministers of religion.
The Minister for Social Welfare will determine who is the responsible employer.
Do we take it that if a class of persons are decided upon in relation to this Bill, and if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that they are a class of persons who are insurable, it will be compulsory for all members of that class of persons to enter the insurance scheme?
Yes.
Some ministers of religion are teachers and are already compulsorily insured. Will they come within the ambit of this insurance?
If they are already compulsorily insured, it does not arise.
I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that they are compulsorily insured. The point is that that type of insurance would not be nearly as wide in scope as this insurance.
There will be no change in their position.
During the course of my speech I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what would the position be in relation to pay-related benefits in disability cases.
Pay-related benefit will not apply in these cases. I do not think it would arise in many cases and it is a flat rate contribution that is envisaged.
In relation to disability?
In relation to any coverage.
The point I am making is that unemployment is not covered but disability is covered.
But it is covered on a flat rate contribution.
Only?
Yes.
In that sense, does it not differentiate between the classes of persons being brought within the scope of the Bill and the norm for pay-related benefit cases?
I do not think it would differentiate at all.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain subsection 2 of this section? That subsection states:
...8. Employment other than employment specified in paragraph 12 of Part 1 of this Schedule where the employed person is a person in Holy Orders or other minister of religion or a person living in a religious community as a member thereof.
Does that mean that they are excluded from participation?
Yes, unless they are engaged in pastoral work they are excluded.
I presume the Parliamentary Secretary has researched this to the extent necessary but I should like to point out to him that there is a development where erstwhile monastics and members of Orders are now entering into the field of what is regarded as pastoral work and they may be doing so from their original base. The definition of pastoral work need not necessarily now exclude people who formerly were members of Orders not moving out. Is the Parliamentary Secretary sure that no problems in that regard will arise as between what is required there and his definition of pastoral work.
I do not think any problem will arise. Naturally, if people make representation to be included, any religious denomination, discussions will take place. The question of religious Orders not previously engaged in pastoral work who are now engaged in this work can be discussed between the officials of the Department and those seeking cover. I do not foresee any difficulty in readily being able to reach agreement as to what would constitute pastoral work.
If the Act already excludes that category would the Parliamentary Secretary not feel that that would lead to difficulties?
The Deputy is saying that they are moving out of exclusively being included in that category and are engaging in what could be rightfully described as pastoral work. I do not think any difficulty will arise.
That would not apply to the Order in toto; it would apply in part where there are some members of an Order moving out.
It would not necessarily mean an Order; it would be a denomination. It might exclude some members of, for instance, the Jesuits, but it might include some members of that Order. For example, it might exclude some members of the Franciscan Order but it might include other members of that Order. It depends on what type of work they are engaged in and if it could, by reasonable standards, be regarded as pastoral work.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say why occupational injury was excluded?
The rates and the exclusion are in line with another category of work, part-time share-fishermen and outdoor workers. They fit exactly into that category insofar as this type of worker is also excluded from occupational injuries and unemployment benefit. It did not seem to create any difficulty.
The words "outdoor work" are, obviously, the operative words?
Yes. It is difficult to determine when a man is engaged in his work and when he is engaged in his other pursuits.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
What appear to be new subsections, or part of subsections, have not been explained in the explanatory memorandum. For example, subsection 1 (bb) states:
Persons employed as teachers in comprehensive schools established by the Minister for Education,
I understand what this is about but is this a new subsection?
No.
Have they already been included?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I welcome the Bill particularly because it gives an opportunity to all denominations to participate. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
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, status or belief.
I feel that statement is rather apologetic. I cannot visualise the Parliamentary Secretary introducing a Social Welfare Bill to deal with one particular denomination.
It is not meant to be apologetic. What it was meant to do was to explain why what might be regarded by Deputies to be the normal procedure in dealing with the particular problem and just adding them to the list could not be adopted. It was my desire to have this Bill passed some time ago but Constitutional difficulties arose. These had to be looked at and this delayed the introduction of the Bill. The passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas will ease a real difficulty that has been experienced by these men whose service in our community was not always appreciated. The difficulties involved because of the nature of their work, their dedication and vocation, meant that they could not accumulate enough money to ensure that they or their families would have any degree of comfort in their old age.
I thank the House for the way in which it received the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.