May I raise the point again that when a Bill, even of minor importance, is being submitted should not somebody be here to explain its main purpose on Second Reading?
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a second time."
I do not know if this is the beginning of a general precedent.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is a very good precedent.
This Bill strictly belongs to the expiring laws class. Previously a certain amount of money, 2/6 per insured person under the National Health Insurance Scheme, was voted under the National Health Insurance Vote. In 1924 and 1925, when the Committee inquiring into National Health Insurance was set up, it was thought a scheme might come into operation for the giving of medical benefits, so the practice was discontinued. Instead of going into the matter, what was done in respect of 1924 was that the money for medical certification was found, to some extent, from the society's fund, and to some extent from the unclaimed stamps account. Actually five pence per member was taken from the ordinary administration fund of the society, and a sum of two shillings was taken from the funds that were available for the administration of the insurance committees. Sixpence per head has been allowed for the administration by insurance committees. In actual practice it was found that only 4d. was required and the twopences available in that respect were taken for medical certification. There was a concealed margin between the moneys that were actually available for the administration of the National Health Insurance societies and the amount that was really actually necessary. The amount of weekly contribution was fixed to the nearest halfpenny for the whole year; there was 3d. per head available that was not required and that was not due to the National Health Insurance Commission, and that was taken. That made up a sum of 10d., and the additional moneys then for medical certification were found in the unclaimed stamps fund. In the following year, as a matter of fact, it was found that it was not fair to take from the society the first 5d. we spoke about, and the amount of medical certification was then made up, 3d. from the insurance committee, the 2d. actuarially available from the societies, and moneys from the unclaimed stamps fund. It was subsequently found that the unclaimed stamps fund could not bear the amount of money that was being drawn from it, and whatever money was required in addition to the twopence was made up by a Vote passed under one of the sub-heads of the National Health Insurance Vote in the Dáil. The position for three or four years past has now been that medical certification has been paid for in that particular way. £21,000 was voted under the National Health Insurance Vote in the Dáil, and about £8,000 was available from the societies.
There is a further arrangement. Section 3 enables a thing like this to be done. A person who had paid a certain amount in the year which corresponds to, say, the current insurance year, may have paid less than 26 stamps. Say he has only paid four. The Bill continues to provide that out of the unclaimed stamps account his deficiency is made up to the extent of 26 contributions and he is put into benefit to the extent of half. It was thought that legislation would have been introduced this autumn carrying out, as far as Government policy had been determined on the matter, certain recommendations of the National Health Insurance Report, but for one reason or another it was not possible to have that done. The Bill is in an advanced stage of draftsmanship at the moment, and it is possible this will be the last year an annual Bill like this will have to be passed, because the provision that would have to be made in the Bill will do away with the necessity of the system we have followed in the last three or four years.
I do not wish to discuss the merits of this Bill in detail, but I want to bring before the Minister a point that might be deemed to come within the scope of medical certification. I am thinking of the sons and daughters, boys and girls, the children of insured persons, who are at school. I want to ask the Minister whether it would be practicable for him to make arrangements with the dispensary or other doctors who are drawing moneys from this fund to provide cheap or free certificates in the case of children whose parents are prosecuted for the non-attendance of such children at school. Some cases have been brought to my notice—I am not sure whether it would be possible under this Bill to provide such certificates—in which parents of children are prosecuted, and a claim, for instance, is made by a parent that his child is sick. The child has been attended by a doctor, but the local school authority is not satisfied that the child has been sick. The doctor will not give a certificate without a charge, perhaps, amounting to ten shillings. I wonder would the Minister look into the suggestion that some provision might be made for the few cases that will arise so that poor parents will not be called on to pay such a sum for certificates required by the school authority. The Minister will, perhaps, think that this suggestion is a bit astray, but I think he could find means by which he could fit it into the scheme contained in the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister would say why this Bill has been made retrospective?
Because it was thought that legislation would have been passed during the autumn covering the matters made retrospective. That would have avoided the necessity for introducing this particular Bill. This Bill actually covers a state of affairs that has been existing for some years. Payment has been made from funds placed at the disposal of the National Health Insurance Commissioners in the same way as they have been paid during this year. The Bill is intended to cover the operations for this year.
To legalise things that have been done?
Yes.
Done illegally.
Not illegally.
Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 13th December.