The Cathaoirleach is unable to be present, having had to leave Ireland on business, and he has sent me a letter asking me to take his place. There is just one item on the Orders of the Day, the Message from the Dáil.
THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.—AMENDMENT FURTHER CONSIDERED.
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
The CLERK of the SEANAD
The Message is: "Dáil Eireann disagrees with the amendment of Seanad Eireann to the National Health Insurance Bill."
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
There are, I think, three courses possible to take in this matter. One is that a motion be made that the Seanad insist on this amendment, otherwise a motion that the Seanad do not insist on the amendment, or, it should be possible, within our Standing Orders, to suggest an alternative amendment, provided that alternative amendment was strictly within the same subject matter as the amendment which has been disagreed with by the other House. I received notice from Senator Barrington that he intends to propose to the Seanad the latter course, and he has handed in a proposal that it should be modified, that there should be an alternative amendment. We have not had a case of this kind before, but it seems to me clear that if we were to take a motion that the Seanad agrees, or does not agree, we then could not take an amendment. Therefore, I think it will be a convenient and correct course, as this is the first time that a case of this kind has come before us, that I should take the motion by Senator Barrington, if he can obtain a seconder.
As a matter of privilege or order, I intended to raise a question to-day—but I will not do so as the Chairman is not here—complaining that I had a motion down which I showed to the Chairman at the last meeting, which it was agreed should be deferred to the next meeting, and which, by the Chairman's letter accompanying the notices, that nothing can be brought up to-day, except this particular motion, has been washed out. I do not see any reason why my motion should be washed out, and it ought to have appeared to-day on the Orders of the Day. I also intended to bring up the fact, as a matter of order, that Monday is a very bad day for an important motion of this sort, which everybody is taking a great interest in, and which was passed unanimously. It is to be considered on a day on which a great many people cannot possibly attend.
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
I suggest that that matter might come on on the Adjournment, when we can discuss it. It is not wrong for the Senator to make the point of order now, but we cannot discuss it now.
I think I had better postpone it, in any case, until the Chairman is here, because it had reference to him.
I am afraid, sir, we are all taken rather at a disadvantage, in this matter. Legislation has been thrown at our heads, has been rushed through without giving us a proper opportunity of considering the forms that amendments ought to take. On last Wednesday my train was a few minutes late, and I arrived here a little after time to find that two important Bills had already been disposed of, and that this Bill, which we had been previously informed was not likely to be rushed, was in full swing. Senator Linehan proposed an amendment which I seconded, and at the same time I obtained the leave of the Chairman to propose this offending motion, which has given rise to very much discussion. We had no time to think over it fully, and it was not put into the very best language possible. But that grievances exist there is no possible doubt.
I have had piles of correspondence with the Commissioners on the subject, and in fact I think I may say that hardly a case arises but all sorts of excuses are trumped up to prevent the insured contributor getting the benefit for which he has contracted, and which he is entitled to. I noticed one very peculiar thing in connection with the discussion which has taken place in the Dáil—the report of which, by the way, I only received a few moments ago—and that is that all the discussion which took place there seems to have been prompted in the interests of the Approved Societies, and without regard to the interests of the poor people who are insured. The persons who moved in the matter more or less obviously cast aspersions on the Seanad, and more or less obviously were interested far more in the Approved Societies than they are in the welfare of the people who are supposed to be insured. I say "supposed" because to say that they are really insured, or really getting the benefits for which they have contracted, is obviously not the case.
We discussed this matter very fully on Wednesday last, and the Seanad, with. I think, only two objections, expressed its solemn opinion that some amendment was necessary, and that amendment was embodied in the resolution which appears on the Order Paper. It was subjected to a certain amount of criticism. I noticed that the President, whom I am glad to see here, and who raised no objection to the resolution on Wednesday, recommended the Dáil to accept it. He did not say that he was personally in favour of it; he said that if any difficulties arose in connection with the working out of it that he would promise, on behalf of the Government, to introduce special legislation to set these things right. Notwithstanding that, a vast amount of criticism was raised, a number of irrelevant things were said, and a number of things that were by no means complimentary to this Seanad. I noticed that some speakers had to be called to order both by the Ministers and by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. But there is no doubt that a great deal of criticism of this Seanad has been made. We are said to be only a registering body. It is said that we are the tools of the Ministry, that we only register their decisions, that the Dáil has only to send us up Bills, and that we pass them through without amendment. Having carefully considered this question on Wednesday, and having come to the conclusion that the poor people who are insured through the country are not getting justice, and that they require something to enable them to get justice, and having passed a resolution which we thought would to a certain extent carry out those views, we are solemnly called together on Monday to eat those views which were unanimously expressed.
I think the Seanad would be stultifying itself if it took such a course. I do not see what on earth the object of the Seanad would be if at the bidding of a few members of the Dáil they were to eat their own words; if they were to say solemnly to-day that what they did on Wednesday was wrong. I am quite open to the view that the resolution which was proposed was very hastily drafted and might be amended. We said so at the time, and we said if the law officers could see their way to put in any better or more workable shape what the resolution expressed, that would meet our views. On reading some of the criticism, it seems to me that this resolution, which I have drafted again in some haste with the assistance of some of our officers, would probably meet some of the objections: "That the amendment made by the Seanad to the National Health Insurance Bill, 1923, and rejected by the Dáil, be modified as follows: `That where an Approved Society have, in the opinion of the employed contributor evaded their liabilities to him or her with regard to sickness benefit, it shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an order compelling the Society to pay the benefit, and it shall be competent for the District Justice to inflict a penalty in addition to whatever sum he finds to be due not exceeding the amount of the award, and that the regulation be expunged which requires the insured contributor to give notice of any disability within three days of its occurrence.' "
Now, the object of that regulation is this: People fall ill. I have known cases of people having to be removed to hospital, and they were far too sick for the first three days of their disability to attend to any business or give the requisite notice, yet when their claims which are properly vouched for by the authorities of the hospital, by the doctors, and by everybody concerned, are sent to their Society, they are refused any compensation by reason of the fact that they have not given the notice within three days. I think that is a scandal. As regards the necessity for appeal to some legal authority, I see there has been some criticism as to the body that we suggested. Well, I do not care what body it is. Let it be the County Court Judge or anybody; but that appeal is necessary—an appeal to somebody who has power to enforce his decree. I have had cases in which men made certain claims, and their claims were disputed. I have written to the Commissioners, and I must say that from the Commissioners I have always received the greatest courtesy and help, but the Commissioners have told me that they cannot interfere between an insured contributor and his Society, and that they do not like to do so, and have said, "You must go through the form of arbitration." We have gone through the form of arbitration, and we have got the award of the arbitrator in our favour, and, notwithstanding that, the Insured Society has refused to fulfil its obligations. We have written to the Commissioners again, and the Commissioners have replied expressing the pious opinion that the Society ought to pay, but that they do not like to utilise what powers they have. Whether they have any powers or not, I am not sure, but the greatest difficulties have arisen. To ask us now, with all this information before us, to eat our own words and to reverse the decision we solemnly came to on Wednesday at the bidding of a few people in the Dáil is, I think, an outrage.
On a point of order, before the motion is seconded, is it not in contravention of the Standing Orders to introduce new matters, such as that in the last portion of the amendment, regarding the expunging of the provision of three days' notice?
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
It is a matter of some difficulty as to the exact ruling. I only received the amendment when I took the Chair. Without giving it very much consideration, subject to the possible ruling of the Chairman afterwards, my own feeling is that within our Standing Orders the subject-matter is the same, and we would be entitled to return to the other House the amendment dealing with exactly the same subject that has been returned to us. I believe that the reasonable course for us to take is the adjustment or the making of alternative proposals on matters that may from time to time arise. It might be necessary in this case to add the three days' provision or some other provision which obviously would be the same subject, and which at the same time might be technically not an amendment of the exact wording. After a certain amount of consideration, my ruling on the matter is that as long as the subject-matter is the same it would be in order for the Seanad within the Standing Orders to send back the amendment if it thought fit to do so. Before this amendment can be further considered there should be a seconder.
I beg to second the motion. It is substantially the same as what was passed by the Seanad some few days ago. Since then nothing has occurred, to my mind, to alter my opinion as regards the value of that resolution. Senator Barrington has had the chance of reading the reports in the Dáil, which I am sure were very illuminating. I have not had that opportunity, but if I had, the arguments should have been very cogent indeed to induce me to change my opinion of the value of the resolution which the Seanad adopted on that day. I have had, and Senator Barrington has had, possibly more opportunities of gauging the inner workings of the Societies than many others. I am perfectly satisfied that contributors are frequently placed in conditions of great difficulty, and placed in conditions which it is the duty of the Government to rescue them from. I believe that the resolution which we adopted would have that effect.
It has been, I believe, suggested that we are doing nothing. Possibly we are doing nothing. We are sitting like fools, or fine gentlemen, recording the decisions of another House; but, for my part, I have never been a parrot, and I do not intend to be a parrot. I came to the deliberate conclusion that such an amendment was good and wise, and was calculated to be for the good of the community. That being so, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the amendment. Even though the light I have be a faint candle-light, it shall, I hope, be a light which in the future will make for brighter days when all Ireland and both Houses shall be working unitedly together. This House is not a mere parrot, but is what it was intended to be—a great consultative body remedying the defects of, and glorifying, our Constitution.
On the other hand, I have the greatest pleasure in opposing this amendment. I was one of the few people who marred the unanimity of the resolution the other day, and therefore it is not a question now of eating words in my case. I voted against the resolution the other day, but I did not speak against it because Senator O'Farrell said everything I wanted to say. It seemed to me that this was more in the nature of an Adaptation Bill than an Amending Bill, and that to introduce an amendment of this kind was to start on the big work of altering the whole question of National Insurance. Personally I think the amendment is a good one. I thought so then, but I voted against it, and I am against it now, because it seems to me that this is not the right place to make an amendment in the Bill. This is an urgent Bill. It has to go through before a certain date, and it was so urgent that we agreed to take all its stages in one day in spite of the fact that we do not like to do that with any Bill. Another reason why I oppose this amendment, and why I think we ought not to accept it, is that it is a very unimportant point.
Sooner or later, I suppose, between the Seanad and the Dáil there will have to take place a trial of strength. It seems to me that that trial of strength should take place on a point of real importance, and not upon an unimportant matter of this kind. I am also opposing this because people are talking about us as being a registering machine for the Government and so on. Somehow I have not been accused of being very proGovernment, and therefore the accusation comes more easily to me than perhaps to most people.
I think there is a difference between the amendment which is now proposed and the amendment which was adopted. The amendment now proposed certainly introduces new matter, matter for which there is no provision in the Insurance Act, and matter which was regarded, when the Bill was originally introduced, as being a considerable protection not alone to Societies but to society in general. We all know very well the frailties of human nature, and we know that while these exist a person might easily have an indisposition one day in every week and two days in any week, and that benefits may be derived which were certainly not contemplated when this Insurance Act was first introduced. If you over-tax these Approved Societies and draw from them moneys which it was never contemplated they should be asked to disburse you will certainly affect, to some extent, the credit of these various bodies and limit the amount of help they can give to their members. That is as regards the first part of the amendment.
As regards the second part, I never like to hear controversies between the Dáil and the Seanad. I have always deprecated them in the Dáil, and I have never heard them mentioned here. It is not fair to the Government, nor is it fair to the Seanad or the Dáil, to say that this Body is a recording institution for the Government or for the Dáil. We sent one Bill here, an important measure, perhaps the most important that either the Dáil or the Seanad will have to deal with or that the Oireachtas in any of the years that will follow in the life of the next Parliament will have to consider. The Seanad amended that Bill drastically and materially, and it came back from the Seanad an entirely different instrument to what it was when we fashioned it. We accepted their decision, and it cannot be said that we were simply a recording instrument for the opinions of the Seanad. I do not like these speeches from members of one House or the other. I do not say that the necessity will never arise for a trial of strength between one body and the other.
There is certainly room for all, and, while there may be points of difference, acute points of difference, it ought to be for the Government of the day to see how it is possible to produce, in a Bill or Act of Parliament that is passed, the judgments of one House or the other—to modify the views of one House or the other—so that whatever Act is passed, it will have the considered judgment and the considered opinion, as far as is reasonably and humanly possible, of both Houses. This particular Act is an Act in which the Dáil was to be simply a recording instrument for the Government. It would have been the same for any sort of Government, no matter what Government it was that was in power. If the Government were composed of people who are called the most reactionary element in the community or of the other extreme, or even if it were composed of another section that has not yet got into either the Dáil or the Seanad, this Bill would still be the same Bill, because it is simply the sort of Act which discovers something, and, having discovered it, says "This is the way to deal with that."
I hope I am not giving offence to any member of this House in making these remarks; they are not intended as such. We want to get on with the business. I want it to be clearly understood that the peculiar nature of this Bill is that any amendment to the Insurance Act as such in the nature of amendments making it different to what it was when it was first introduced is materially altering something which was never contemplated when we brought together the heads of this Bill, and which has not been the subject of agreement between the persons concerned.
The first point to be made in connection with this Bill is that it is an agreed measure which, by the special directions of the Executive Council and an agreement with the various interests in the Saorstát, was to be non-controversial; that it was merely to provide for the separation between the Saorstát and Great Britain, and to make consequential amendments in the National Health Insurance Act necessitated by this separation. This amendment is controversial, because in a sense it ignores the entire Appeal Procedure of Approved Societies, and would inevitably lead to a great deal of legal proceedings by persons who are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Committees of Management of the Approved Societies.
The second amendment goes further, for it says: "In the opinion of an employed contributor." Well, now, where there are so many employed contributors, what is to happen? There are over 400,000, and I suppose with varying degrees of sanity amongst the 400,000 one can imagine what a vista of legal cases there will have to be faced by the District Courts if the amendment is passed. Because at the moment it is only the opinion of the contributor, and, as I have already stated in the Dáil, I have yet to discover what person there is in this country who does not consider he is suffering from one grievance or another. Now, there was an attempt in the Dáil to amend the Bill. It would have made a material alteration if the amendment had been accepted. We met the point raised, not in accordance with the views of the persons who had put up the amendment, but we met it by dealing with the justice of the case made. That is, a person having left a Society with headquarters in England, and having joined a Society here, being dissatisfied after some time and wishing to change to another Society, we permit that exchange to take place in six months on the payment of a fee of 2s., which is usually charged in these cases to cover the cost of postage, labour, and such other incidental expenses as are inseparable from transfers of this kind.
We are advised that the amendment as passed by the Seanad would not carry out the intention of the proposer, which was intended, apparently to give a direct appeal to the District Justice where, in the opinion of the "employed contributor," the Approved Society had failed to discharge its liability. As the Clause stands, we are advised that there must be (1) an evasion of ascertained liability, and then there must be a direct refusal on the part of the Approved Society to meet its liability. The Society, in other words, must be acting in bad faith, and in order to ascertain whether or not that is the case it must be discovered whether or not they are complying with their own rules.
It ought to follow on that, that before taking the case into Court it should be ascertained whether or not that is the case; whether the ordinary procedure that is laid down has been complied with—that is, the appeal procedure— whether they have gone before the tribunal that is provided for, and whether that tribunal has pronounced upon the point at issue. And then, if the Society has not complied with that decision, it is then open to the person to appeal to the Insurance Commission. A matter that was raised by one legal member of the Dáil was that the District Justices had not got the power to make such an order. I forget what the term was. It was, I think, in the Chancery Court that the order was made, but it is open to doubt as to whether, in strict law, it would be possible for a District Justice to make an order such as is contemplated in the amendment. But leaving that matter aside for the moment, there is no doubt that considerable expense and trouble would inevitably follow if every dissatisfied contributor were to bring his case into the Courts where he was not satisfied that the Approved Society had dealt justly with him.
Now, some care has to be exercised in applying for benefits. A certificate has to be filled by a medical man, and anybody who has experience of the working of a Society will agree that the three days specified, which appeared to be an injustice, are really the only security that the Approved Societies have got if they are not to be imposed upon. The time may come when it may be possible to waive that particular condition precedent to getting any of these benefits, but at the moment and for years to come some particular liability must be borne by the contributor in order to evidence his good faith in making claims. There are other cases in which delays take place in applying for arbitration. That is not the fault of the Approved Societies. I want to make it quite clear that I have no interest whatever in the Approved Society any more than in the employed contributor. I have known a case in which there were abuses on both sides many years ago, considerable abuses, both from the employed contributor and from the Society. Some Societies have a better name than others. I suppose that is also the case with human beings; some have better names than others.
Section 67 of the National Insurance Act of 1911 lays down the procedure to be adopted in the case of disputes between Approved Societies and insured persons. It is based upon the practice of the old friendly societies, and it is, so at least I am informed cheap and expeditious. It lays down that every dispute between the Approved Society or branch of it and an insured person who is a member of such Society or branch shall be decided in accordance with the rules of the Society with an appeal from such decision to the Insurance Commissioners. The Section also gives power to the Insurance Commission to make regulations with regard to the procedure to be adopted on such appeals or disputes. I have a short description of the procedure here. The claimant for benefit must within three days, unless prevented by unavoidable causes serve notice on the Society of his illness, and must either within three days or within a week lodge a certificate of incapacity. In practice, the application and a certificate are sent in together and are on one form.
The second step is the consideration by the Committee of Management or Sub-Committee of it of the application for benefit. The Committee then has to be satisfied upon the several points. One is that the member of the Society is not suspended from benefit by reason of arrears, or any other cause—such as misconduct; that he has been sufficiently long in Insurance to entitle him to full or reduced benefit; that the incapacity alleged by the member has not been of such a nature as to come within the Workmen's Compensation Act; that the member is incapacitated from work by reason of illness certified by a medical practitioner. Now, if all these points are clear and satisfactory, payment of benefit is ordered for the week, less the first three days, and the benefit will be continued from week to week on the lodgment of weekly medical certificates of incapacity. Now, the question arises as to the action of the Committee of Management. If the Committee of Management refuses payment of benefit on any ground they must communicate that decision forthwith to the particular member who has then a right of appeal for arbitration under the rules of the Society, each Society having its own tribunal. Some have a panel of arbitrators, one of whom is drawn by lot. In other cases each party to the dispute appoints an arbitrator, and they in turn appoint an umpire. A decision having been given, it is open to either party to appeal to the Insurance Commissioners, and they can hear the appeal either by a Referee or sitting as a Commission. The appeal regulations provide that where the Society neglects, or refuses to proceed, to arbitration, the particular member at the expiry of 40 days, appeals direct to the Insurance Commissioners who can thereupon proceed to hear the appeal, notwithstanding the fact that there have been no arbitration proceedings.
If an award is made, and if the society does not carry it out the Courts are open to the aggrieved person, and I understand that during something like eleven years' experience of the working of the Act only one case has gone before the Courts. The Insurance Commissioners have certain very drastic powers. In the event of an Approved Society not carrying out such a decision, they can withdraw what is called the "Approval Regulations," and that is something like being warned off the turf, or being declared a bankrupt, and everybody knows what that means, or, at least, most people do. The regulations also empower the Insurance Commissioners to hold an inquiry where a Society is mismanaged, and, if necessary, to withdraw approval from it.
There are cases which arise, where there are extremely technical points to be decided which necessitate a wide knowledge of the Insurance Acts, and of the regulations made under them. I am informed that the majority of the Societies' officials are competent, that they understand the various points that are raised either by the neglect of an insured person to supply proper information, or by not complaining to the Commissioners in case of neglect by a local agent or Secretary of the Society. The outdoor staff of the Commission attend promptly to all complaints, and a very large number of complaints have been received which are not justified, and which could have been avoided by elementary care on the part of insured persons. The Government is directly interested in this question. An appeal to a Court of Justice in every small dispute that might arise between an Approved Society and its members might possibly result in the Society refusing to pay, following what might be called the line of least resistance, or possibly, paying benefit in all cases, which would be, perhaps, worse. Societies might say to themselves: "It is better not to risk the unpopularity of having a decision against us in the Court, and we will pay all claims that come along." That contemplates a very much larger distribution of money than it is in the power of these Societies out of their present funds to disburse. It will also mean that the State contribution will be relatively larger, the State contribution being two-ninths. It must be remembered that these Societies are re-valued after every five years, and that these revaluations mean a good deal to employed contributors, inasmuch as if a Society is well in funds it is open to them, and they have got opportunities, of paying larger benefits, and, I suppose, more extended benefits, whereas if their funds are limited and their resources are overtaxed there must be a reduction in the benefits.
The figures I gave last day are not exactly correct, and I would like to correct them. The correct figures for the year, 1922, are as follows:—Sickness benefit, £260,000: disablement benefit, £145,000; maternity benefit, £53,000; sanatorium benefit, £35,000. The total benefits paid in that year (1922) were £493,000. The free medical certification came to £51,000, so that the total sum expended for insured persons' benefit in 1922 was £544,200. The estimated total contributions for the year ending 31st March, 1923, were £420,000. The State pays two-ninths of all benefit, and of all the administration expenses of Societies and Insurance Committees. Those grants for 1923 are estimated at £194,690. In addition, the State bears all the expenses of central administration.
I was asked as to the number of insured persons. The number of men is 293,902, and women 129,344, making a total of 423,246. I am also informed that these numbers would be largely increased if the Acts were properly complied with. It is a matter, I think, of very general information that for the last year or two quite a large number of persons and some prominent bodies evaded their liabilities with regard to these particular Acts. Some doubt exists in person's minds, I suppose, sometimes in the minds of employed contributors, other times in the minds of employers, and other times on the part of economists, that the Acts may not be all that we would wish.
But it is very unlikely that they can ever be said to exercise the influence that they ought unless there is a general support for them on the part of both the one order and the other order. It ought to be a matter of pride with people to pay up their contributions whether on one side or the other, because whatever benefits are to be derived, they can only be derived to their fullest extent if there is generous support for the Acts and for their working. We should seek rather to improve than to criticise them.
Some public bodies, unfortunately, in a fit of patriotic excitement, refused to pay up the contributions, and thought it was a meritorious thing for them to do. Most of them are now beginning to see the mistake of that. When I was Minister of Local Government, I pointed out to one County Council that they ran a very grave risk indeed in refusing to pay sums due or to stamp the cards, unless they were prepared to provide corresponding advantages for the persons in their employment. Even where the immediate benefits are extended there are other advantages which will flow and are bound to follow the support of National Health Insurance if it is a sort of nationwide organisation. I would like to qualify anything I have said with regard to that, by saying that I am taking persons' opinions who have followed its working, some of whom are not altogether satisfied with the Acts as they stand, but all of whom, as far as I have been able to judge, are satisfied that whatever advantages are going to be derived from these or any other Acts will only be derived if there is a general acceptation of the principle of insurance. It is open to us in future if we are not satisfied with the Acts to amend or improve them, but I think it ought not to be done piecemeal.
It will be seen that there has been a considerable amount paid out in benefits, and the difference between the receipts and the gross payments is required for three purposes:—(1) To redeem what are known as the reserved values. These values were created in 1912 for all persons coming into insurance so as to enable a flat rate of contribution and benefit to be paid all over the Three Kingdoms. By crediting a reserve value to the Society, a member of forty or fifty years of age was put into the same position as a person of sixteen years of age who came into insurance for the first time. These reserve values were paper guarantees and are being gradually replaced by cash reserves. (2) To lay up a reserve to meet the claims of disablement benefit which may be paid to the insured person until he reaches the age of seventy years, during all of which time no contribution was received from such insured person. (3) To provide for years of exceptional sickness and slackness of work, such as there is at present. I rather doubt that. According to the information in the Press, we have, I think, a better bill of health with regard to employment than they have in other places. However, I am not going to dispute it now.
The Societies are valued every five years, and so much of their surplus funds, if any, as are not required for benefit purposes are expended in additional benefits to the members during the ensuing valuation period. At the first valuation, held a few years ago, a very considerable sum of money was set free and is at present being distributed in additional benefits to the members of Societies who were lucky enough to have such a surplus. Therefore, if there are aggrieved persons they will be consoled by knowing that whatever they are deprived of is going to benefit humanity later on, in giving more benefits to other people. For all these reasons I hope the Seanad will not persist in this amendment. If the Bill be held up now, it will not be possible to effect the separation of Insurance contemplated from the 1st July.
I would like to remind the Seanad that the British Order in Council was made in January, 1923. That is their part of this particular work, and under it the Board which has to be set up to carry out the entire separation, must be appointed before 1st July. If that be not done, all the simplification which the setting up of the Board would entail must be abandoned with the resulting expense and endless trouble of carrying out by direct negotiations between the various countries the details of separation. It must also be remembered that there should be a statutory authority to compel British Societies to hand over the necessary funds to their Irish members and vice versa, to compel Irish societies to hand over to members in England their share of the Irish funds. I do not know if that will exhaust the subject and satisfy Senators, but if I am permitted to remark, it certainly satisfies me that the best course to adopt is to send back the Bill that we accepted as part of the bargain, and facilitate the separation which the Bill provides for and enable us to carry it out before 1st July.
I am very much obliged to the President for the concluding part of his speech, because he has given me an indication of what I have got to do. There is nothing I so detest as not knowing what I am going to do. It is a most unsatisfactory predicament to be in. I came to the Seanad this afternoon not knowing what I was going to do on this Bill. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. The President has given me one reason which, from the practical point of view, is the only reason I need to induce me to urge the Seanad not to insist on the amendment. Apart from the principle and the issue raised by the amendment the President told us that a very important result in the shape of an executive difficulty will be brought about if we insist on our amendment. The President told us also that the purport of this Bill will be absolutely nullified if the Seanad insist on its proposals. The idea of the Bill, as I understand it, is to effect a separation between insurance business in Ireland and England. That has to be done apparently by the 1st July. Obviously, if we insist on our amendment there will not be time to carry out the various proposals in the shape of appointing committees, and so forth, to go into the allocation of these funds, and deal with these matters before 1st July. Therefore, I intend to vote that the Seanad shall not insist on the amendment though I rather like it, and I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of it.
I have had some experience of this Act, and the one thing that struck me, and that made an impression on my mind about the Act was the extraordinarily complicated nature of the subject. It is amazingly complicated, and the curious thing is that if you touch one part of the Act you will have a reaction that you do not expect in some other portion of it. I am not at all sure that if we agree to Senator Barrington's proposal, with which on general principles I rather approve, we would not find that we had considerably increased the expenses of the Act, and may be considerably increased taxation as a result. In so complicated a question as this we have to travel very slowly, and we have to be absolutely certain of what we are doing. I agree that there are people who do not benefit under this Act, and cases have been brought to our notice time and again, particularly in country districts, and more especially concerning domestic servants, who do not derive much benefit from their contributions. We must look upon the principle upon which the Act was founded, and look at the various things the Act has done which were not originally contemplated—for instance, the flat rate and equalising the benefits.
All these things were done by a not too strict attention to the fundamental ideas which we were told underlay the Act in the beginning. That is a mild way of putting it. It is quite conceivable that the Act ought to be amended, and I think in many particulars it might be amended, but at the same time if we are going to have an amending Act it ought to be a general Act. Therefore, it needs careful consideration as to the particular necessities of Ireland, and we should really have an Insurance Act of our own. That Act could not possibly be brought about without very considerable investigation, and without very careful and elaborate consideration. On the whole, I think it would be better not to insist on the amendment, of which I approve generally. If it can be done, I think, the benefits of this Act should come home more quickly and more generally to those who help to finance it. The Act has proved to be more widespread in its operations than was originally contemplated. It gives bigger benefits than was proposed, and of course in such a complicated structure as it has to deal with, all these things have to be dealt with very carefully, indeed.
I want to say one word on the question of rushing legislation through the Seanad. We have been saying from the beginning that we do not want to rush legislation, and did not intend to do so, but that we wished to consider all these questions as carefully and cautiously as we could. We were met with the general situation—it is not now as bad as it was—the state of the country. It is not from want of desire to deal with this question conscientiously, and intelligently, and certainly not through any fear of the consequences or any exaggerated notions of conflicts with our colleagues in the Dáil that we have refrained. We simply faced the situation as we found it, and we were trying to build up a Government and trying to build up an administration, and the circumstances of the country were not particularly hopeful at the time, so that we made a virtue of necessity, and rushed measures through the Seanad for a specific reason.
I have always understood that when we did these things, that we wished and we intended in future to take proper time and proper deliberation in the case of all legislation that came before us. I have not read the discussion on this particular Bill in the Dáil. I have not seen it yet, and I have not, indeed, I am sorry to say, read the discussion that took place in our own chamber. But anyhow, this bandying backwards and forwards of compliments does not really matter very much. I do not believe in squabbling or in fighting unnecessarily. I think life is quite bad enough without going out, taking our coats off, and dragging them along the ground unnecessarily, and I do not attach too much importance to these conflicts between our chamber and the other chamber, and I think we could get on well with a little common sense, and supposing some people pay us compliments that we do not deserve, and we pay the other House compliments that they do not deserve, that is in the day's work, and does not affect the situation seriously.
If we are ever going to have a dispute with the other House—I do not see why we should—it ought to be on some important constitutional question, something that really matters seriously, and not on a question such as this, which, I take leave to say, is one which does not excite very strong feelings, and one on which there is a good deal to be said on both sides. I think Senator Barrington has done extremely well in drawing attention to this matter. I sympathise with the resolution. I would vote for it tomorrow if I thought that by supporting him we would not increase the expenses of the administration of this Act, and possibly increase the taxation on our people. In a matter so complicated as this, I think we ought to go very slowly, and in view of the situation on the 1st of July I believe the Seanad should not insist on this amendment.
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
I should like to point out to the members of the Seanad that we are not discussing speeches made in the other House or prophecies, but Senator Barrington's amendment.
I only rise to say that on the last occasion we opposed this amendment, and we opposed it solely on the grounds that we did not believe it was going to help the insured contributor. I really think myself that the only progress that the amendment afterwards made was due to the fact that we did oppose it, and I believe that was really responsible for the carrying of the amendment. If we had supported it, it would probably have been beaten, and this meeting would not have been necessary. You ruled in the early stages of this matter that the amendment before the Seanad had nothing new in it. We felt ourselves in this very awkward position, that while we opposed the amendment on the last day it strained our consciences. We could agree with the new amendment to-day, because it makes it easy for the members of the societies to get benefits. I myself am an insured contributor, and anything that would make things easy for me I would be prepared to support.
Senator Barrington has suggested to abolish the three days' notice, and that means to my mind that having spent three or four months doing exactly what I liked in the country I could then claim sick benefit for all that period. I do not know if that is the effect he intends the amendment to have, but that is the way it reads to me. I understood the real reason for giving this notice was that it would enable the Society to send their sick visitors to the different people who were down, to advise them, and to enable them to carry out the doctor's orders, so that they would get well. Whether or not you are going to put this amendment to the Seanad in the form in which it is proposed I do not know, but I feel that it leaves the position very clear for us. While we were against the first amendment and were prepared to allow this Bill to go through without any amendment, still there is something put up to us here which is very tempting, and I will be prepared to agree on the lines that Senator Sir T. Esmonde has suggested—that is, that we let the Bill go through without any amendments, but if the latter part of Senator Barrington's amendment is put, we will have to examine our consciences.
I have neither the special knowledge nor the special aptitude to enable me to form a conviction on this subject, but I have a very strong conviction that legislation ought not to be hurried through the Seanad, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Bill after Bill has come up here, and we have been told that we have to legislate on each in a hurry. Very likely it was necessary to do so, but I hope that necessity will very seldom arise. When I came in to-day I was told that there had been a debate on the subject, that the Dáil had thrown out the resolution, and that it had said various things, polite and otherwise, about ourselves. I tried to see a report of the debate. I found that one Senator had it, and he could only spare it long enough for me to read half through one speech. I was told that there were two other copies somewhere. I searched, and could not find these two copies anywhere. I was offered copies of several other debates, but not these two copies.
We are, therefore, in this position; we were talking on a resolution on which the Lower House has expressed what are, doubtless, well-informed opinions, and we know nothing about these opinions. If we decide in favour of our own original resolution, and against the other, we are acting discourteously—a discourtesy we cannot help. I, therefore, suggest that on this subject we are, I think, all unanimous, that we do not want any more legislation hurried through this House if it can possibly be helped.
On the last occasion that we were discussing this measure I agreed to get the Bill through for certain specified reasons which I stated. I estimated, subject to correction, that there were about 20,000 employed contributors, or members of insurance societies, with their headquarters across the water who had to be transferred to societies here, and regulations had to be made to bring them into benefit on the 1st of July. I agreed that the Bill should be put through as speedily as possible in order to give all concerned with the administration of this Insurance Act an opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to deal with these 20,000 people. I stated on that occasion also that I did not think it was in order to amend the main provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, and if it was in order, and we were considering amendments to the main provisions of the Act, certainly I would offer some suggestion of amendments. The first thing I would do would be to move an amendment that medical benefits be applied to the workers in Ireland, as in England, because we, of the working class believe that we in Ireland are deprived of the best feature of the scheme, that is, medical benefits.
I have no sympathy whatever with any Approved Society that tries to get outside its obligations to the unfortunate people who have been sick, to defraud these unfortunate people at the time when they require the assistance of the benefit they are entitled to receive, but I do say that this is not the occasion to make fundamental alterations in the Bill. I said on the last occasion that I had experience of administering this Act. I was Secretary of an Approved Society from the inception of the Act in 1912 to 1917.
On many occasions I helped people who are members of other Societies to get the benefits they were entitled to receive. My conception of the Insurance Act was that it was an Act introduced to enable the people to receive some benefits when they required them most, and the machinery adopted was that approved Societies were formed to allow people who were in touch with the people to administer the Act in the most humane way possible. I always believed that it was the intention under the provisions of the Act that the people administering the Act should do everything in their power to aid and assist insured people to get the benefits to which they were entitled. I think it can be said for the Trades Unions Approved Societies that that was the spirit in which they always tried to administer the Act. I have not read any account of the debates in the other House, and I do not want to refer to them, but I would appeal to Senator Barrington, as I appealed to him on the last day, not to press this. I believe we will have an opportunity at a later stage of considering the whole question of State Insurance, and when we come to consider that whole question, then we will be able to introduce amendments that will improve it. I appealed on the last occasion to let the Bill go through, and the reasons I gave were that it was necessary legislation because of the changed circumstances, and that the present was not the time to introduce fundamental amendments. Senator Barrington has to-day another matter added to the amendment, the question of the three days' wait. I am sure that the elimination of the three waiting days in itself would be in the best interest of the insured persons.
May I rise to a point of order? I have not proposed to eliminate the three waiting days. I have proposed to eliminate the notice which is required to be given within three days.
I accept the correction. I made a mistake. I understood that was the intention of Senator Barrington's proposed amendment, of which I have not a copy. I appeal to the Seanad from the point of view of business, not to press the amendment which was moved on the last day, not that I am not in sympathy with the ideas of Senator Barrington as to that, but I believe this is not an opportune time to bring them forward. I believe we will get the opportunity at a later stage of going into the whole question of State Insurance in Ireland, and then will be the time to propose amendments which may be necessary to improve the Act.
There were some statements made by the President, of which everyone will approve, I think. These were that it was very unwise and very improper for members of one House to be attacking members of another House, and very unwise and improper for members to talk about having a conflict or trial of strength with the other House. I think nothing could be more unwise than that. Some things have been said here to which the Chairman objected, and which may have been by way of reprisal. We all know how objectionable reprisals are, and I think reprisals on these subjects had better be let alone. One of the Senators opposite said that he thought the amendment was passed the last time because his section disapproved of it. I have never heard anything stated in the Seanad that is more unfair than that. I think that anything that has been said by the party opposite has been met by the Seanad with a great deal of consideration, more than usual consideration, for various reasons. I myself have nearly always voted with them, and, as a matter of fact nearly all the members of the Seanad have met any suggestions they made with great respect and consideration. I am sure no member of the Seanad had any such idea in his mind. The President said that the insurance policy could not be carried out unless it had the approval of the country generally. I feel pretty confident that the Insurance Bill as it stands now, whatever it may be otherwise, has not the approval of the great part of the insured. I have never met anybody who did not complain, and I have never met an insured person who did not. I know there is a good deal of feeling on the subject in England. There is general dissatisfaction with it. I shall be very much surprised if it is not abolished before long in England. I think, unless some changes are made which will make this Act more satisfactory, that it will be abolished in this country too. What we have to consider is that there are two parties to this. Certain people are obliged to insure themselves. These people are poor as a rule, people who are in many case indifferently or ill educated, people who have not much initiative, and not much money to go to law, and not much knowledge of the intricacies of all these things by which to fight. On the other hand we have many powerful and rich societies, many of them, unfortunately, political societies, which I think is a wrong thing, because many of these political societies look for the money they get to help them towards their political movement. These are all carefully educated. They have Secretaries who know all about the subject, and they make rules without reference to the servants and other poor people who are insured, merely to suit themselves. These insured people are told when they have an objection that everything is in accordance with the rules made by the insured societies for their own protection. I think that is a very improper thing, and that our business should be to insure that the poor uneducated person who has not much power or money to fight these things should be protected, and not those rich societies well qualified to protect themselves. We are constantly hearing we must protect these societies, but I say we should protect the poor people and not these rich societies. I do not pretend to know a great deal about the matter, or to know half as much as some of the people who have spoken on the subject, but I do know that we must make every effort to protect the poor. We all came here the other day believing that this was not going to come up at all, but it was pressed upon us by members opposite, who are now complaining that it did not go through. I hope it will be a lesson to them and everybody here that any attempt to force measures through too rapidly results in delaying them much longer than otherwise would be the case.
I believe I speak the sentiment of every member of the Seanad when I say it is our desire to help the Government to the fullest extent of our power. If the clause, as framed, is not acceptable I feel certain the Seanad will willingly agree to an alteration which preserves the spirit of the clause. It is simply intended to reform an abuse of power which hurts deserving insured who are handicapped by an impossible condition. I should say that any genuine claim preferred within a reasonable time should be eligible. The insured should be facilitated with plain and simple conditions to assist them in making their claims, with the right of appeal if necessary to some Court of Law, and inexpensively. Up to this the Seanad has passed temporary legislation with a speed justified only by emergency, and perhaps this clause was too hurriedly framed. Its honesty of purpose is clear, and its necessity urgent. A simple alteration of its phrasing will alter a present hide-bound and provocative feature of it, and assuage the acrimonious critics of the Seanad who, we must admit, emerge victoriously, if not distinguishedly, from the unpleasant tempest in a teacup.
There are just a few words I would like to say by way of explanation before the question is put to a vote. First of all, I desire to congratulate the President on his very skilful navigation over all the points of difficulty that were raised. He has avoided all the rocks, and, in steering clear of all the points, has given us a mass of information and figures which, if not intended for the purpose, are rather inclined to confuse the mind than lead to a clear conception of the question at issue.
The only really important point at issue is this: We met here to deal with a Bill that, I might say, was fired at us on Wednesday, and we were asked to put it through all its stages. There was certainly some ground for believing that amendments to the Bill were required and we did the best we could to provide for these amendments. Perhaps our neighbours thought they were not as efficacious as they might have been, but we did the best we could in the time at our disposal. The President certainly went to the other House and proposed that the amendments be adopted, and he was seconded by the Minister for Local Government. They must have thought at the time that this particular amendment was a desirable one, otherwise they would not have proposed it. The President was sitting here on Wednesday last all through our debate, and he certainly left me under the impression that he saw no objection to it, and under these conditions the Seanad came to certain conclusions. My belief is that they came to them for very good reasons. The amendment went down to the other House and was debated there and, for no valid reason that I can see, we are asked to come here on Monday, without any reason whatsoeven being vouchsafed, and to eat every word that we said here on Wednesday; to stand, as it were, in a white sheet and confess our penitance for having done some wrong. The President and the other speakers have carefully avoided that issue altogether.
Senator Sir T. Esmonde told us that he spent the whole of a laborious autumn session in hammering out the original of this Bill in the Imperial Parliament. He did not tell us, what I believe is a fact, that the efforts of the members of the Irish Parliamentary Party were principally directed to prevent the application of this Act to Ireland. I know there was a very strong feeling in Ireland against it. I think a number of very influential and very important bodies opposed it, certainly in the form in which it was passed, and now because we presume here to try and amend that form, and bring it more into consonance with the conditions that exist here, we are asked to eat humble pie, and to say that everything we said on Wednesday is wrong on Monday. I cannot see what the object of a Seanad is, if it has not got some backbone.
Senators are asked from time to time to come here at considerable expense to the country. One of the qualifications of Senators is that they should have some special experience, and why, therefore, should they be asked to put that experience at the service of their country, and having done so, be told a week afterwards that they were wrong for doing it. That is more than I can understand.
That these amendments are absolutely necessary is proved by what Senator Farren has stated. He told us that he was the Secretary of one of these Approved Societies for a number of years, and he made use of a very pregnant expression. He said that while he was a member of that society he helped the members of other societies to get the benefits they were entitled to. That clearly proves, in the first place, that these members were being deprived of something to which they were entitled, and, in the second place, that they needed the help of a friend to get it. In the third place, it proves that Senator Farren carefully helped them so far as the other societies were concerned. Having regard to all these facts, it is as clear to my mind now as it was on last Wednesday that the amendments are necessary, and the Seanad unanimously came to that conclusion. Why the Seanad, which came to certain conclusions on Wednesday, should be asked to say now that what it did then was wrong, is more than I can understand.
An Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of the societies, insurance committees, doctors and employers has been set up, and to meet Senator Barrington I will undertake to have this matter brought before the Insurance Commissioners to see if they can adopt some remedy, or find some means, of disposing of any infirmities that may exist, or remedy any complaints that the Senator has made with regard to this matter. I should like to stress this point, that I certainly had no idea this amendment was going to pass the last day, because it appeared to me to be a matter which was outside the scope of the Bill, and was quite foreign to it. I would just like to say in conclusion, that I was just as convinced then as I am now that the amendment was one which ought not to be pressed.
Perhaps Senator Barrington might accept that.
I think it better to take a poll on the question; but before the question is put may I ask whether the President's proposal means that if the Law Adviser, and the Insurance Commissioners, will advise favourably, then such a clause would be introduced. If so, I am prepared to accept that assurance.
An LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
As a matter of order, the new clause could not possibly be introduced now. We are dealing with this particular Bill, but such a clause might be introduced in another Bill. It would not be in order to discuss it now; we must deal with this Bill as it stands.
Question put and negatived.
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
It is now in order for any Senator to move that the Seanad formally insists upon the amendments sent down to the Dáil.
I move that the Seanad insist upon its amendment. I have listened to the arguments of the President, and he traversed the whole matter in its entirety. This is a Bill of immense complexity, and one that I feel it is very difficult to digest in a few moments; yet, for all that, the difficulties were stated in a fairly clear and reasonable manner by the President, but that does not take, and nothing that has occurred has taken, from my conviction that something is necessary in order to make it easier for insured people to secure their benefits. The President admitted that in the Dáil he had to make one amendment in agreement with a demand of some particular number of the Dáil. I think I am correct in that.
Yes.
If that be so, and if the Seanad was quite convinced, on last Wednesday, that this resolution was important and seeing that there is no inherent difficulty, as suggested by some Senators here, in the Bill as passed in the Dáil—if there is no inherent difficulty in moving a resolution asking to amend the appeal—it is not a drastic amendment, and that being so I feel more strongly than I did before that we are asked to go back upon our work of last Wednesday, and say ditto to the resolution as put to us from the Dáil. If I could be convinced that this resolution, from any argument brought forth here by anybody was not important, if I was not convinced it was even of vital importance, then I should certainly not ask that this resolution should be insisted upon. But I am fully convinced, and shall remain convinced of the need for this resolution, until by some great improvement of the administration of the Act, which, I hope, will arise, because I have no other object in view than for securing to an insured person the hasty discharge of the liability of the society to him—until I see that, I am convinced the amendment is necessary, and that the rejection of it is not to the interest of employed contributors in Ireland. I beg to move that the Seanad insist upon its amendments passed last Wednesday.
I beg to second the motion.
I feel myself impelled to vote against this motion. I am in full sympathy with the sentiments expressed by Senator Bennett, who has consistently taken a manly stand in matters which have come before the Seanad, but I think it will be obvious to anybody who examines this motion, which we are asked to insist upon and all that it involves, that it is an impracticable proposition to make. It supercedes the Commissioners altogether, without even going to the extent of stating that the existing provisions under which appeals shall be made to the Commissioners shall be repealed. You have sections in the principal Act making provision for appeal to the Commissioners, but this resolution, without repealing these at all, says that the appeal shall be to the District Court. That is, quite obviously, a confused and impracticable arrangement. Then in regard to the wording, we find that the District Justice has power to inflict a penalty without specifying the nature of that penalty. It might be the death penalty. From that point of view it is quite vaguely worded, and it is a confused amendment, and one upon which I should be sorry to have to enter into a controversy with anybody if this was the weapon with which I should have to fight. The case as stated by those in opposition to the last amendment is the real case, upon which this should be rejected; and trying to amend it, merely, in this way is simply tinkering with a big question.
The Bill before the Seanad is merely an adaptation of the principal Act, which should only be amended after very mature consideration and due deliberation in both Houses. I am in complete sympathy with what is said regarding the rush of legislation through this House, but I suppose it is inevitable because of the existing circumstances. But it is very unsatisfactory that we have to rush Bills through all their stages and, that very often, we only receive the final copy of the Bill we have to deal with after we have met here. On some occasions such as the last day we only received the final copy when we were leaving. It is a comic arrangement, and cannot be taken seriously until the rush of necessary and inevitable legislation is got over. I hope no Senator will take notice of remarks, amounting in some cases to buffonery, that have been made, and that they will see that it conduces more to the dignity of this House to ignore remarks of that kind which do not certainly represent the view of the other House. I do not agree with Senator Clayton Love that we are here for the sole object of helping the Government, I rather put it that we are here for the sole object of helping the Nation and not as a registering machine for the Government——
I do not think I said that we are here for the special purpose of helping the Government. I said I thought I spoke the sentiments of everybody when I said that we were here to help the Government in every possible way.
I repeat that we are here for the sole object of helping the nation, and not as a registering machine for the Government, simply because we believe that we are entitled to move amendments and to take a stand where we think it is necessary. I think that is really no reason at all why we should insist upon an amendment which is obviously undesirable. For that reason I feel compelled, while in no way prejudicing the privileges of this Seanad, to vote against this motion, and I desire that our attitude in this should not be misunderstood.
I would like to correct an impression which Senator O'Farrell may have given. He says that the penalty might be the death penalty, which would be a very severe one. The amendment provides that the penalty shall be in addition to whatever sum is found to be due, not exceeding the amount of the award. So that there is no risk of the death penalty or of a very severe penalty.
Motion put and declared lost.
AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
It will be necessary to propose an affirmative motion, that the Seanad do not insist on this amendment.
I propose "That the Seanad do not insist on its amendment to the National Health Insurance Bill, 1923." I take the opportunity of pointing out that the fact of that amendment having been passed here originally, proves that there is some legislation necessary to protect ordinary insured people. I know that that necessity exists. At the same time, I do not think that the amendment passed here would meet the case, because the people who usually suffer by not getting benefits are not the type that would rush into court to have grievances redressed. That is the reason I say that this amendment would not make for removing the great grievance which certainly exists.
I beg to second.
Motion put and declared carried.