What is the precise reason for the regional idea—what has the Minister in mind?
Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".
I think I outlined the reasons during the discussion on the Second Reading. It is contemplated that there will be 150,000 persons who will qualify for the receipt of children's allowances. As we propose to pay these allowances over six-monthly periods, upon the basis of family circumstances as ascertained upon a qualifying date, it is obvious that unless we have some division of the country into areas, the whole task of checking families' circumstances and issuing allowance books would arise on two dates in the year. By dividing the country into areas, we split that task into three parts, which permits of the employment of a regular staff. The Senator will appreciate that, if we had not such an arrangement, there would be a very big demand for staff for a limited period and only a small staff would be required during the rest of the year. That would, in the ordinary Civil Service practice, involve the recruitment of a temporary staff, which is an undesirable procedure. It is much better to have a permanent staff that will know the work and that will be fully engaged on that work over the whole year.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3), in page 5, before sub-paragraph (viii), to insert a new sub-paragraph (viii) as follows:—
"(viii) where the child would normally reside with his father, but for reasons of health or convenience, resides with some other person to whom some contribution is being made towards the cost of his maintenance by his father, the father."
This amendment arises out of a matter I mentioned on the Second Reading. I have put down the amendment to deal with one particular case because obviously, if the principle in that amendment is accepted, similar amendments would have to be subsequently included to meet the case of the step-father, the mother and the step-mother.
In sub-section (3) it is set out that residence is, in effect, the test for maintenance, but I am trying to cope with a case that is going to arise, particularly in respect of city children. It is quite a frequent occurrence, where a man has a number of children in the city, that he sends, perhaps for reasons of health or for other reasons—it may be that the mother is dead—a couple of the smaller children to his sister in the country. It may be that one of the children is delicate, and the father might be anxious to send that child to the country to live with relatives. As the Bill stands, if he does that, automatically he loses the allowance. I do not think that it is the Minister's intention to hamper any man who has a large family in the city and who is anxious to send some members of that family to the country for health reasons, or for any other reasons, and prevent him drawing the allowance. It is to cover that type of case that I have introduced the amendment. Of course, it might operate equally well against a particular family getting an allowance in certain circumstances, but I suggest that the balance is very much in favour of the allowance being paid to a family, considering the family as a unit and regardless of the fact that that family may happen, for one reason or another, to reside in two places. There would be, perhaps, a certain amount of administrative difficulty, but it would not be considerable.
I feel that unless the provision I suggest is made, it will act as a deterrent in the case of the poorer people who have large families, and it will prevent them sending their children to the country, when it might be necessary for them to do so on grounds of health or convenience. For that reason, I press the Minister to accept this amendment. If he does not like the wording of it, then I ask him to accept, at least, the principle I have suggested. Before the Minister changed the underlying foundation of sub-section (3) in the other House, he was, I think, mindful of the type of case I mentioned, and was sympathetically inclined towards it.
The Senator does not appreciate that the adoption of any such suggestions as he has put forward would involve a fundamental change in the principles of the Bill. This Bill is based upon one principle—that there be no means test. If there is to be no means test, then there will be no investigation into the circumstances of particular families. The only basis upon which a claim for children's allowances can be made is that the children are resident in a particular household. If the suggestion put forward in this amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to have an examination into the circumstances of particular families. If we depart from the principle of paying the allowances upon the basis of the number of children resident in a household, we must have such an examination.
This is, I think, the first time in this State in which a service of this kind has been established without a means test. Consequently, we must be prepared to contemplate a procedure which has not been found necessary in other cases. In relation to all the other social services, there was an examination of the circumstances of the family and, where there was a means test, an examination of the family means. It was on the basis of the ascertained family circumstances that qualification was determined. In this case, there is no examination of the financial or other circumstances of the family, and the only basis upon which it is possible to determine the qualification for the allowance is the number of children ordinarily resident in the household. We do not provide that they must be the children of the head of the household. They need not be even related to him. If the number of children under 16 years exceeds three, the allowance will be paid to the head of the household in which the children are ordinarily resident.
I do not understand the Minister's reference to the means test. Where does the question of the means test arise under this amendment?
The Senator asks us to pay these allowances to a family even though there may not be residing in the household of that family the requisite number of children. Some of the children of that family may be living elsewhere and there may be a contribution for their maintenance. We do not propose to investigate whether, in respect of any particular household, there is a contribution towards the maintenance of the children in it. It is not unusual for such contributions to be made within families. A man may contribute to a needy sister and vice-versa. If we have not a means test, there can be no other means for determining the qualification of the applicant than the number of children actually resident in the household.
Suppose a man has four children under 16 years; he keeps two at home and sends two to his sister in the country. Will there be any allowance payable to either of them?
No, but take the other case: suppose a man has two children and his sister has two children. He sends his two children to his sister. She is qualified to receive the allowance.
Does not the Minister realise that, in nine cases out of ten, the children are sent to a childless couple?
What we are proposing to do is to increase the income of households in which there are large families. That is the basis of this Bill and, if there is no means test, there can be no other qualification than the number of children in the household.
I understood from the Minister last day that vouchers will be issued for a six-monthly period. If a man sends his children on a three or four months' holiday in the country, will he not still be entitled to use the voucher?
Certainly.
It is only in the case of long residence or permanent residence in the country that the question dealt with in this amendment would arise. In the ordinary case in which a child would be sent on a holiday to the country, the parents would not be deprived of the allowance?
No. If the child normally resides with the father, the father is entitled to claim the allowance.
Take the case of two families—a sister having two children and a brother having two children. Is not the effect that there is one large family——
Not in one household.
A transfer from A to B was referred to here. That does not affect the position. On the strength of what you said regarding large families, the person in the country should be entitled to the allowance.
If the children are normally resident there, he is entitled to it.
What would happen in the case of a family of four children the father and mother of whom separate? Two sons go with the father, and two girls go with the mother. It appears to me that neither father nor mother would be entitled to the allowance.
That is right.
I ask the Minister to note that I used the words "some contribution" deliberately to avoid a means test. In the other sections, the Minister has used the words "wholly maintainable", and so forth. I use the word "some" to cover the case in which even a single penny would be given.
I was not referring to particular cases. This Bill does not provide for any means test. What other test is possible but the number of children residing in the household? That is the principle on which we are going. There can be no other test for determining qualification. If there is to be an examination of the responsibilities of an individual in relation to children living in other households, we shall have a different position. We are proposing to increase the income of the households in which the children normally reside.
An inquiry into relationship is not the same as a means-test inquiry. Would the Minister be prepared to accept the principle of my amendment in relation to a child sent down the country for health reasons?
The child is deemed to be maintained by his father if he normally resides with his father, as set out in sub-section (3) of Section 3. It is the circumstances of the family on the qualifying date that determine the amount of the allowance to be paid. The absence of a child for a number of months, for health or other reasons, does not affect the amount of the allowance to be paid.
If a child were resident for a period of six months in the country for health reasons, he would, I think, still be deemed to be normally resident with his parents.
I think that that is so.
Senator Sweetman desires to cover the case where children are sent permanently away and only return to their parents during holiday periods. I know a case of a family in the country in which there are ten or twelve children, nine of them being under 16. Two of them live with a grandmother, there being no other children in the house. Under this section, these two children will not qualify. If there be ten children under 16 in a family and two of them live with a relative, even next door, these two children will not qualify. The parents must bring them back, perhaps to a badly constructed house, to qualify for the allowance. I am afraid that that will happen in some cases. I do not understand the Minister's argument regarding the means test.
If the parent of these two children resident with the grandmother got the allowance, that would be a departure from the Minister's principle, in that they would not be normally resident with the parent. But I do not see any administrative difficulty in including them if you can prove, as it could easily be proved, that they are the children of these people. I want the House to be clear about this. I think Senator Sweetman confuses the point about the contribution making no difference.
There would necessarily have to be an investigation of family circumstances to deal with a position where John Smith, for instance, claims for four children, but could only produce one, the other three being in the country; and if the person with whom these three are residing also claimed in respect of these children, you would have to have some investigation to ensure that the allowance would not be paid twice. There would then have to be some investigation, and that is what we are anxious to avoid.
Surely the Minister is bolstering up his argument with that case, because there would be no investigation into the circumstances of the family, but only into the existence of the children.
The only case for the payment of allowances to a father with one child at home and three children away is the fact that he is maintaining the three-children away. If he is not maintaining them, there is no case in any event.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, after paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) a child who is temporarily resident in the State shall not for the purpose of this Act be a qualified child.
My amendment is to cover sub-section (3) page 5, because there you have it specifically stated when a child does qualify, but you have only by inference conveyed that certain children do not qualify, and I want to include the specific statement that a child temporarily resident in the State shall not for the purpose of the Act be a qualified child.
I think that the term "ordinarily resident" in the State is sufficient to exclude temporary residence. The Department will have to decide in any particular case whether a child is temporarily or permanently resident, but if the child is only temporarily resident, such as the refugee children who have come over here during the war, they would not be regarded as ordinarily resident and consequently no application would be valid based on these circumstances.
I can understand the Minister's argument, but there is no definition in the Bill of "ordinarily resident".
I think there is.
It is in the sub-section.
The term has a very definite meaning.
In my own case I have three refugee children living, ordinarily resident, with me for the past four or five years, and I have no reason to assume that theirs is only a temporary residence.
I would not like to say that in the case of a child resident for four or five years the allowance would not be payable, but we are anxious to ensure that children coming for holidays and happening to be here on the qualifying date would not be entitled to claim. It will have to be considered under what circumstances a child ceases to be temporarily resident and becomes ordinarily resident. I should say that where children otherwise qualified have been resident here for a number of years we would have to regard them as ordinarily resident.
Why will the Minister not accept the definite statement to clarify the position in the Bill? Here is a definite statement affecting the children who are temporarily resident. The children I have referred to are only temporarily resident even though they have been there for four or five years. What is the objection to making it specific in the Bill that a child is only temporarily resident?
The Senator may feel a certain reluctance to make application in his case, but he does not have to do it. But I can easily conceive other householders with children similarly installed at present where it might be an important matter to get the allowance for the children residing there. If the children could be regarded in these cases as ordinarily resident, there is no question of the relationship of the household—the head of the household is entitled to claim.
Does it not make a difference to the children of non-nationals even? Can children from outside come across for refugee purposes, and does it not make a difference?
No.
Why do you refuse to accept the absolute definitive?
The answer is that Ministers always do.
It seems to be really a matter of the wording. In the Bill it is in the positive form, and the Senator wants it put in the negative form.
The term has been legally construed in the courts.
I think the term already has a definite legal interpretation and is in dozens of Bills.
When I say that Ministers do refuse to accept the absolute definitive I meant that the Minister is taking up an attitude that it is a term which has been construed in the courts over and over again, and he refuses to accept one exception because otherwise he would have to accept others. You must be ordinarily resident, otherwise you might be anything else.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Under pressure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (4) to delete the words in lines 45 and 46 "may, if he thinks fit" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "shall".
I formally move that. I cannot see why the Minister wants to retain a discretion there when a person has died.
When a claimant dies, his claim dies with him. The Senator will easily conceive circumstances under which, on the death of a parent, the family is, in fact, broken up. Many conditions may arise other than that which the Senator has in mind, namely, that the father dies and the mother continues to draw the claim, and it is considered necessary to have a discretion to determine under what circumstances and to whom the allowance will be paid. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that if, in the case of a family, the person who claims the allowance and to whom the allowance is paid, dies, it will not be necessary to wait until the next qualifying date in order that the family should qualify again. It is to give the Minister discretion to pay the allowance during the balance of the payment period, even though there is no one in the family qualified to receive it, because no one is qualified to receive it except the person claiming it.
I entirely agree with the Minister's discretion there, but what I do not quite gather is that if the father was getting the allowance and he dies, for the rest of that payment period somebody should be, as of right, entitled to the allowance.
There may be, in fact, nobody entitled to it. I gave the case where, on the death of a parent, the children are left parentless, and are sent to an orphanage, or in some other way the family is put into a position that it no longer qualifies.
But the whole principle of the Bill is that once a family or a household is qualified on a particular date, that household remains qualified regardless of changes for the next six months.
It is not the household; it is the claimant.
Yes, but the claimant is entitled because of the household.
And if he dies, the claim dies. If, in the normal course, there was no special provision made to meet the death of a claimant, then there would be no allowance payable at all until a new claim was established, and that could not be done until the next qualifying date.
We are taking power, however, to continue the payment if the circumstances of the family remain unaltered. But the circumstances may not remain unaltered. The family may be broken up, the children may go to the grandfather or the grandmother, or two may go to live with some other relative or go to an institution, so that no one would be entitled to claim the allowance. This is to ensure the payment, if the entitlement to the payment still continues, even though there may not be a formal claim.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To delete sub-section (5) and substitute therefor the following sub-section:—
(5) (i) A Justice of the District Court on application to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction by the Minister or by an Investigating Officer appointed pursuant to this Act or by a member of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of inspector or by any relative of the child or children concerned may, if he thinks fit, direct that the children's allowance payable to the person entitled to the same under this Act who—
(a) is in prison;
(b) is detained in a mental home;
(c) is neglecting the child or children; or
(d) is for any other good and sufficient reason an unsuitable person to receive the children's allowance
such allowance shall be paid to such other person as the district justice shall think fit and proper and for such period or periods as the order of the court shall direct or until further order;
(ii) notice of any such application shall be served on the person entitled to such children's allowance, in manner provided for the service of summonses by the rules of the District Court;
(iii) the court at which any such application is heard may, at the discretion of the presiding justice not be deemed an open court, and members of the public may be excluded therefrom.
I am afraid that, as the Bill is drawn, there is very little hope for the success of this amendment. It almost presupposes that the Minister will utilise the services of the court in the administration of the Bill. The Minister has left the courts entirely out of the Bill. The Bill is a very simple one as it stands, but I thought it might be further simplified by the use of an investigating or deciding officer in the area. The qualifications appear to be simple: that a family existed, and that they were of the requisite ages. After that, the Bill appears to be a bit cumbersome—to have an investigating officer, a deciding officer, a tribunal and, finally, the Minister. It struck me, and others also, that that could be simplified by having an investigating officer on the spot, and by submitting the more technical cases to the local district justice. I can see now, however, that that would change the construction of the Bill very much, and I do not think the Minister would be prepared to change the entire construction of the Bill at my behest. This may come up some time in an amending Bill. It appears to be extraordinary to have four deciding bodies where use might be made of the local court. I do not intend to press the amendment, but would like to hear a few words from the Minister.
I am anxious to ensure, in relation to this matter and other aspects of the Bill to which the Senator refers in subsequent amendments, that there should not be dual responsibility. It seems to me that, if we adopted the principle of this amendment, there would be dual responsibility. The purpose of sub-section (5) of Section 3 is not to give the Minister penal powers to punish people who get themselves into trouble, but to enable him to ensure continuity of the payment even when the head of the household or the person who has made the claim may have gone to jail or be in a mental home, or be incapable, or have neglected to maintain the children. If we bring the district justice in here, we will have to ensure that he is fully familiar, not merely with the provisions of the Bill, but with the administrative procedure adopted under it, and that he will, in fact, investigate the family circumstances, the entitlement of the family to the allowance, and so forth.
I do not think that is practicable. I think we would get a system of administration which would prove in the long run to break down. It is much better to have centralised administration. Not merely does it ensure uniformity of interpretation and decisions in all cases, but it also permits all the experience of the operation of the Bill being accumulated, with a view to amendment, if amendment should become necessary. It means that the application of the Act will be precisely the same in one district as another, whereas if we have a local administrator, independent of the Minister, brought into the picture, it could easily happen that a different system would grow up in one district as against another.
Do the lunacy laws conflict with this particular provision?
If a person is certified and his assets are administered by a court official or a committee is appointed, someone else may have charge of the assets. Does that conflict with the provisions here?
The Minister is given full power to decide that the payment be made to another member of the household if the claimant becomes a certified lunatic or otherwise incapable of discharging his functions as head of the household. If it should happen that the household would become disqualified owing to the head going to jail or to an institution and the children going to institutions or relatives, there would be no longer a case for the payment of the allowance. What we are providing here is to give absolute discretion to provide for the continuity of the payment in circumstances where the family remains entitled to payment, even though the actual person to whom the payment was previously directed has ceased to be able to deal with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5 :—
In sub-section (5), line 55, page 5, at the end of the sub-section to add the following words:—
A person shall be deemed to have neglected a child if he fails to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for such child or if being unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging he fails to take steps to procure the same to be provided under any Act for the relief of poverty or if he persistently fails without reasonable excuse to cause such child to attend a national or other suitable school or otherwise to provide for the education of such child.
When this Bill was first introduced, there was one question which agitated the minds of a good many people and on which I was spoken to by social workers and others in favour of this Bill. The point was the very obvious one as to whether, when a family's total budget had been increased by 2/6 or more per week, the destination of those sums might be the betting shop or the public-house. It is intended to increase the family budget as a whole and I understand that the scheme of the Bill is not in any way to earmark the extra allowance as being for the children. However, I think there is the underlying idea that an appreciable portion of the benefit should go to make the children better clothed, better fed and better looked after generally. That line of thought, that nebulous apprehension, did find voice in the Dáil. I have read the Dáil speeches very carefully and I think it was agitating the minds of many people there. This is an attempt to meet it by a suggestion that the 2/6 or more should be paid into the hand of the mother instead of the father. If I may say so, without seeming in any way patronising, I have read very carefully the Minister's reply to that and think he made a most convincing reply. Since then, I have been spoken to again on this subject, and this amendment is an attempt, in a rather roundabout, indirect way, to meet some of the difficulties put up to me in connection with this possibility.
If a father is found to be neglecting his children by not giving them enough food or clothing, or by not seeing that they go to school, there is a general presumption that the money which is being paid to him by way of this weekly increment is not finding its way on to the backs or into the bellies of the children. Therefore, I have attempted to enlarge slightly the definition of neglect—the word "neglect" being already in the section—which will strengthen the hands of the Minister and make people do their duty and look after the children when getting this allowance. This extended definition of "neglect" has been taken partially from the Children's Act, 1908, and partially from the School Attendance Act. It is an attempt to secure, in an indirect way, that, if a father is not doing the right thing by his children, and if that is shown either by their malnutrition, their ill-clothing or the fact that they do not attend school, the threat of the removal of the family allowance from his control to the hand of a person who will apply it in a way more suitable for the child, and will ensure that the child goes to school and gets proper education, may be put into operation. It is a roundabout way, and is only put in as a tentative suggestion for the House to consider, as a way of meeting what a number of people feel is one of the difficulties of the Bill.
I can easily understand the feeling that people have that this sum of money, provided from the community funds for the assistance of families, should be devoted to the improvement of the family circumstances, and that we should take precautions to ensure that it is not devoted to any other purpose. At the same time I want to repeat here advice which I gave in the Dáil: "Try only to kill one bird with one stone." I think we will make a big mistake if we try to bring down a whole flock with it. The law requires a parent to attend to the wants of his children; the law also requires a parent to send his children to school. If these particular statutes are inadequate in operation they can be amended. If there is need for better provision to prevent neglect of children, or to ensure the attendance of children at school, make that better provision in statutes designed for that purpose. I think it would be wrong to attempt to achieve that purpose in a roundabout way through the operation of this Bill, and I think it is wise that we should not distinguish the portion of the family income derived from family allowances from any other portion. If there is need to ensure that the head of the household will devote the whole or a percentage of the family income to the welfare of the children, and if people regard that as wise, let it be done without regard to this particular income.
I doubt very much the wisdom of attempting to strengthen the School Attendance Act through the operation of this measure. The Bill as drafted gives the Minister power, where a parent has neglected his children, to divert payment to some other person. I should say that the Minister ordinarily would be very slow to use that power, unless there was a court conviction or some formal recording of the fact that a parent had neglected the children. If there is such a court conviction formally recorded, then the Minister will have, and should have, power to divert payment to another member of the household. Ordinarily I should say he would not act merely on the complaint of some neighbour, local resident or person familiar with the case. If there is clear evidence of neglect of a family by a parent, then it is under the appropriate statute which deals with such matters that steps should be taken. Measures necessary to remedy the situation can be taken with the power given in Section 5. While I appreciate the purpose the Senator had in mind, which was strongly stressed in the Dáil, as well as many suggestions which came in during the drafting of the Bill, I felt that by far the best course to follow was to make this allowance part of the family income, and to have no more control over this part of the family expenditure than we have over any other part at the moment.
I felt definitely when I was speaking the difficulty that might arise. I was asked to put this amendment before the House, but I feel strongly that the Minister has answered it.
On the question of neglect, if that is proved, I take it that the Minister would take power to make regulations under Section 19.
Certainly. The power is here. A variety of circumstances can arise. I mentioned one in the Dáil which caused considerable trouble to the Department of Supplies where people, when they got ration books, tore them up. It was a form of mental derangement. Under the statute we made provision to give ration books to others who would draw rations for these people. I am quite certain that similar abnormalities will be experienced in the operation of this Bill, but the Minister will have power to adjust the administration in the circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before sub-section (6) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Where a person who is entitled to a children's allowance during a payment period for a region, is convicted under Section 12 of the Children's Act, 1908, in respect of a child by virtue of the maintenance of whom on the qualifying date in relation to such period such person is so entitled, the district justice may, in addition to imposing the penalties provided by that Act, direct that the children's allowance to which such person so convicted is entitled, shall be paid to such person as the said district justice shall think fit.
I am not quite clear of the effect of the Minister's statement on the last amendment. If there is a conviction under the Children's Act and the district justice makes a recommendation that the allowance will be paid to some other person——
That is almost certain.
Is the Minister going to do that?
I think the Minister can do that. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Minister would not exercise that power if there was a conviction.
Charges of neglect under the Children's Act are very often brought or sponsored by inspectors of societies like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They would get an opportunity at such a hearing to put up suitable suggestions about the payment of the allowance.
Most cases that I read about in the courts are of this character, that when an inspector or the society has detected negligence, the parent is brought to court, and by the time he comes to court, the children are in institutions or are provided for. I think that is not unusual. It is generally reported that children when found neglected are removed to institutions where they are properly cared. In such cases there would be nobody entitled to claim the allowance. The title to the allowance would cease. There would be no power in the district justice to direct payment to some other person.
There would be other cases.
While power is taken in a particular form in the Bill, the practice undoubtedly would be that the recommendation of the district justice would be acted upon.
I take it that the Minister agrees with me that it could be, say, the local curate and would not be confined to a relative.
In fact, the children might be taken and cared for by a neighbour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (3), to add at the end of the sub-section the following words: "until the 31st December, 1945, and thereafter shall be one of the district justices assigned to the area in which the claimant resides."
I put down this amendment because I did not quite understand some of the machinery of the Bill and I was anxious to get a little more elucidation. There is an investigation officer in the first place, a deciding officer subsequently and then the referee. It seemed to me that after the deciding officer very few additional cases would get through except on what was tantamount to construction of the Act. While I agree with the Minister's reply on the Second Reading, that it is undesirable to have different interpretations, I think it is unnecessary after the Act has been smoothly established to keep on the panel of referees, and to give additional duties to civil servants, when in fact district justices could deal with the matter without the slightest overburdening of their work. It would seem to me that administration would be as easy and relatively cheaper if the Act so stated.
The Senator will appreciate that to put this duty on district justices carries with it the assumption that district justices will be familiar with the provisions of the Act and all the regulations made under it, and that each district justice will give the same interpretation to the various sections and to the regulations. I think that is unlikely. The procedure will be that the individual who thinks he is entitled to a children's allowance will claim. That claim will come into the headquarters of the Department and will be investigated there. It will be necessary for the claimant to support his claim with certain evidence, such as the birth certificates of his children, which he will be facilitated in obtaining, or some other similar type of certificate as to the family circumstances. In doubtful cases, the claims will be sent to the investigating officers for investigation on the spot. These investigating officers, while they will be appointed under this Act and will hold the warrant of the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Act, will probably in many cases, if not in all cases, be the same individuals who are investigating officers under similar Acts at present.
Old age pensions, for example?
Old age pensions, unemployment assistance and so forth. There is a telescoping of administrative machinery under all these various Acts. On the basis of the investigating officers' report and on the facts of the case as submitted by the claimant himself, there will be a decision that the claimant is or is not entitled to a family allowance, or to a family allowance of so much. If he is dissatisfied with that decision, he will have the right of appeal to this board of referees. I think the board of referees will have to go on continuously because new families will be coming along and making new claims, and even though the interpretation put on the Act will become more generally known, and the administrative machinery made to run more smoothly as time goes on, there will always be appeals and people will not feel satisfied that their claims have been properly decided until there has been a decision upon appeal.
Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, where there are not merely local courts of referees, but also an umpire, it is a fact that claims are still being referred to the umpire, although he deals only with points of law and legal interpretation. To this day, although these Acts have now been in operation for over 20 years—in fact, the first Act of this kind was passed more than 30 years ago—the umpire is still there and cases are being referred to him day after day. One of my functions is to refer to him cases which raise new points on which there has been no previous decision and on which he has to decide, whereas the cases going before the local courts of referees number thousands every week. These courts, however, are concerned with the facts of individual cases, and not with legal interpretation. I think that machinery which is the same as the machinery established for the operation of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, and which has, I think, worked satisfactorily under that Act, is adequate to our purpose. It gives an opportunity of a quick decision on a claim, an opportunity of an easy and inexpensive method of appeal from a decision, if a claimant is dissatisfied. I should be very slow to substitute for it any other system which involved a determination of appeals not by one central authority, but a number of individual authorities established merely on a geographical basis.
Is it the intention that the referee will hold his hearings in public? Would an inspector of a society be entitled to assist a claimant in putting forward his case?
No, I would not say so.
Will he hold the hearing purely on written evidence, or will there be oral evidence? Will it be like a little court or merely a decision on a file? It makes a lot of difference.
In the normal case, it would be based on written evidence. There will be nothing which would preclude the court of referees from securing the personal attendances of witnesses, if the court so desires.
And giving a claimant the opportunity to produce any other witnesses he might want to produce?
We do not prevent his doing that, but, judging by experience in other cases, I should say that the great majority of cases will be determined on written statements furnished by the applicants.
So long as the Minister in his regulations gave power to a claimant to say that he wanted to bring forward certain witnesses and to bring them forward if he wanted to do so, I should be quite satisfied. What I was mainly trying to get at was that the matter would not be dealt with merely by a file passing along, if a man desired otherwise. It could be dealt with here by the Minister or in his regulations.
We give the board of referees full powers to require the production of witnesses, documents and all the evidence they consider necessary.
That is not quite the same thing. I want a claimant to have full power to request the board to do it, which is not quite the same thing.
I do not agree with the amendment because I am reluctant, for various reasons, to see district justices brought into this. I have had some experience of courts of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the difficulty is that many people go before these courts who are not in a position personally to make their case. You get all types of people coming before them, and I have experience also of the Civil Service mentality in its application to the investigation of claims under the Old Age Pensions Act. With all due respect to the civil servants, they approach the matter as civil servants. I leave it at that. The point which Senator Sweetman is making is that it is necessary for many of these people to have someone to assist them in making their case, because, for various reasons, they are not capable of making it for themselves, and there should be some provision whereby, if people are not able to put forward claims on their own behalf, somebody else would be allowed to do it for them. Otherwise, people will feel that they have not got a fair crack of the whip because they may not have known the way to go about it. I appeal to the Minister to make provision that, where necessary, outside assistance could be given to these people in making their claim.
I do not think that the case of the court of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act is quite analogous. In that case, there has been a decision against the applicant, usually on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work, and when he comes before the court of referees, the onus of proof is on him. The court, which is not a court of civil servants but a court selected from a panel of workers' and employers' representatives, decides, knowing that there has already been a decision against him and that he is trying to overcome it by producing new evidence. In the case of the administration of this Act, the persons concerned will be as much obliged to ensure that those who are entitled to get the allowance will get it as to ensure that those who are not entitled to it do not get it.
There is nothing in the Bill which precludes the possibility of a person appearing before the court of referees through his representative. We set up this board; we give them independent power to decide on appeal upon the claims of applicants; and we give them full power to require the attendance of witnesses, if necessary, and to have evidence given on oath. We do not in any way limit their functions, or the scope of the inquiry they make. I said that, in the majority of cases, it will be, in fact, a decision based upon documents, because, in practice, that is the way it will work out; but if an applicant wants to pursue his or her claim through a representative, or to attend personally for the purpose of supporting a claim, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.
The Minister did not quite say the same thing. He said there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that happening, but I should like the Minister to give us an undertaking that the regulations will be so framed as to permit a claimant to do so, if he wishes to do so.
Certainly.
Then I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am not quite clear whether the referees, the investigating officers and the deciding officers will be permanent whole-time civil servants.
Yes.
They will be permanent, pensionable civil servants?
Yes.
In that case, will they have any functions apart from their functions under this measure?
They will. That is the point I was trying to explain. The deciding officers will be officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce exclusively. The investigating officers, those who travel around making investigations, will, it is anticipated, be the same officers who are doing precisely similar work under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Old Age Pensions Act and so forth. They will have powers under each Act. The panel of referees will be serving officers of the Government who will have other functions to perform.
With other work to do?
Yes, with other work to do, obviously.
I do not think the Minister told us how much of the estimated £2,250,000 would go in administration.
It is difficult to say, but I should imagine that it would be something between £100,000 and £150,000. My aim is to keep the cost of administration within 5 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On this section, sir, are we to take it that the Minister's intention is that the investigation officers under this Act shall be in addition to the investigation officers under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, Old Age Pensions Act and similar Acts?
I would not say that, but if additional investigation officers have to be appointed, they will not be additional investigation officers under this Act but under the other Acts as well. It may be necessary, for instance, to reduce the areas covered by the existing officers and to add to the number of officers in other areas, but the intention is that the investigation officers under this Act will also discharge similar functions under the other Acts.
By what machinery will these officers be appointed?
They will be appointed through the normal Civil Service machinery.
So far as temporary officials in the Department of Supplies are concerned, that machinery would seem to include only the nominees of Fianna Fáil clubs throughout the country.
That is not so.
I should be delighted if Senator Hayes could prove that, because I think that exactly the opposite is the case.
There is no use in our denying the fact that for the purpose of getting into the Department of Supplies as a temporary officer——
These will not be temporary officers.
——certain influence is necessary. Now, we have a very swollen Civil Service—particularly swollen with regard to temporary officers, who are not particularly well paid—and we have the Civil Service itself suffering very much, in certain of its branches and, I think, in all its branches, from bad pay. If the Civil Service is to be increased under this Act, one would expect that these new officers would be appointed through the Civil Service Commissioners, after interview, examination, and so forth, and without the intervention of the Minister and Senator Quirke, or even of myself, although, of course, I am a much more desirable person than Senator Quirke when it comes to such a question.
Without admitting the Senator's charge concerning the alleged influence or favouritism on behalf of members of Fianna Fáil clubs throughout the country, I might say that these officers will either be recruited through the ordinary channels, the Civil Service Commissioners, or appointed by promotion through the Department in which they serve, and, accordingly, neither I nor the Senator will have anything to do with the matter.
It is perfectly satisfactory to me if these officers are to be recruited from the existing Civil Service or through promotion. Since the Minister assures me of that, I agree.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move, amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), to add at the end of the sub-section the following proviso:—
"Provided that no information so obtained and no documents so produced shall be used for any purpose other than the investigation of the claim or shall be communicated to any person or persons whatsoever other than those investigating the claim under this Act or shall be evidence in any court other than in the proceedings brought under this Act."
I think that this amendment speaks for itself. Its purpose is to see that no information or documents produced for the purpose of the investigation of claims under this Act shall be used for any other legal purpose under any other Act; in other words, that investigations under this Act will be separate and secret, so far as this Act is concerned.
I do not think that such a proviso is necessary in this Bill. There would be no investigation of a family's means or anything of that kind. In fact, the only information which a claimant will have to produce will be information which, as a matter of fact, would be already available in the public records, and it is merely with a view to facilitating the claimants that we are giving this power to the investigation officers, but the officials could get that information from the public records if they wished to do so and, no doubt, they can go themselves to the public records and test the accuracy of the claims made. Accordingly, I do not think that this proviso is necessary. The only circumstances to be investigated are the ages of the children and whether, in fact, they are ordinarily resident with the claimant; and the other conditions are as set out in the Bill. The Senator will appreciate that that is information which is of small interest to anybody except the claimant, and that it will certainly not be disclosed, because there would be no occasion for its disclosure, but if anybody wanted that information, they could, in fact, get it by application to the public records.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
SECTION 7.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the powers of investigation given under this Bill. I think it is a very important matter. The question has been raised as to whether these allowances should be given to the mother rather than to the father of a family, and I feel very strongly about this. This is going to cost the taxpayers £2,250,000, and that money is to be taken by the State from the pockets of certain people and given to others for the purpose of alleviating want and distress in large families. In that connection, the cost of living was referred to, to some extent, during the last debate. I feel that the State has a moral obligation to see that this money is not misapplied, and I think that there should be imposed on the investigation officers some such duty as the ascertainment of whether the money is being misapplied or not. I think it would be a very good thing to require these officers to see that there was no misapplication of this money, which was given for a particular purpose. It seems to me that, in case there should be any obvious misapplication of the money, it would naturally be a part of the work of these officers to inquire into the circumstances.
I disagree with Senator Mrs. Concannon. My first inclination was in favour of paying the allowance to the mother rather than to the father. That was not because of a desire for political kudos, as was suggested by a Senator here on the Second Reading, who said that that could be the only reason why one should be in favour of paying the allowance to the mother. My ultimate and final reason for agreeing with the Minister to pay the allowance to the father rather than to the mother was that you have, under the Children Act, a provision that the father must maintain his family. Now, whenever the father of a family has been brought up by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, or some such society, under the Children Act, for failing to maintain his family, his excuse generally was that he had not the wherewithal to do it. You are now giving him, under this Bill, at least some of the wherewithal to do it, and I think, therefore, that there is no necessity for any prying by the investigation officers. I think it is Section 12 of the Children Act that Senator Mrs. Concannon has in mind, and if you wish to have that section really effective there should be no necessity for official prying by these investigation officers, as against the general supervision of children that is carried out by such societies as the Welfare Society for Children, and so on.
May I say that since there is no means test applied with regard to this Bill, and the only investigation is as to the number of children resident in a particular house, and their ages, I think that the task which Senator Mrs. Concannon, no doubt from a sound and worthy motive, is suggesting for the investigation officers would be an amazingly large job. The Civil Service would have to increase its staff and work overtime, and anyhow, in the words of the Minister, it would be an impossible job to go into the circumstances of each family, apart altogether from the immense amount of friction that would be caused. To do the thing satisfactorily would involve an immense staff, and even then I do not think it would be done satisfactorily, and would cause an enormous amount of friction as a result of prying into people's private affairs, and so on. I think the idea is a very bad one.
I suggest, in any event, that if it were considered desirable to have such an investigation of family circumstances, it would scarcely be possible for these officers to do the work. These itinerant officers could work only on local gossip, which would be the worst possible source of information. Any supervision would have to be done by people resident in the locality.
I was really concerned with the moral aspect. We are taking a lot of money from certain people and giving it to other people, and I think there is an obligation upon us to ensure as far as we can that the money will be applied to the particular purpose for which it is given. That is the moral aspect of it. I quite agree that it was really a foolish suggestion that the investigation officers could undertake this work. The name misled me, but I do think we should keep this matter in mind and perhaps experience will suggest to us some means by which we could ensure that the money is properly applied. As I say, we are taking this money from certain people and thereby imposing certain hardship upon them and there is a moral obligation upon us to see that it is not misapplied.
Curiously enough, I find myself in sympathy to a considerable extent with Senator Mrs. Concannon's approach to this question. While I agree with Senators on my left that it is outside the work of an investigation officer to give advice as to how this money is to be spent in the family—that would undoubtedly mean prying into the affairs of the home which is very undesirable—I presume Senator Mrs. Concannon had in mind the kind of effort which is made by some other officers of our courts who exercise a certain supervision over parties who do not seem to be able to manage their own affairs. There is this feeling—and there is no use in our shutting our eyes to the fact—that a great many people in this country who seem to be getting a certain amount of money easily from public funds of one kind or another, are not putting that money to proper use. You get that impression in many of our towns and there is no use attempting to disguise it.
One hears it mentioned in connection with people who are getting home assistance. I know I may be told very quickly that they cannot do very much with it, but the truth is that if we examine the incomes of a great many of the poor and how they are spending it, we shall find that they spend it pretty much as they like, and that it could really be put to much better use. That, I think, is a real problem. One sees children going to pictures, and one knows quite well that they have not shoes to their feet nor have they had a decent meal. I think if the money which their parents receive out of public funds were applied properly, they would at least have the price of a decent meal. That problem is universal, and it is the kind of thing present to Senator Mrs. Concannon's mind. It is the kind of thing which is being said by responsible people in our bigger centres of population everywhere. It is a problem which requires attention, and you have to ask yourself the question how much better these people would be, no matter how much money they got out of public funds. That is a real problem which applies to a considerable proportion of our population and it is a thing which we cannot ignore.
I think we cannot discuss it or solve it on Section 6.
The difficulty as far as I see is that there is an attempt to segregate this money from other money which is being put into circulation. If you were foolish enough to think that you could control the spending of this money, and take charge of everybody in the country so as to ensure that none of the money would be spent foolishly, you would have to follow that up by supervising the spending of the money paid to old age pensioners to see that a pensioner did not buy a "half-one" every time he got his pension. In my opinion the suggestion would be completely unworkable.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill".
I should like to ask what type of person it is contemplated will be appointed as a deciding officer under the section?
They will be officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
That is, it implies the appointment of a new staff?
There will be a new staff in the Department of Industry and Commerce certainly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
The following amendment stood in the name of Senator Honan:—
9. To delete sub-section (4).
When I put down this amendment, I did so on the assumption that the law courts might be used for the administration of the Act. Now that I am informed that they are not being so utilised, I do not propose to move the amendment.
Amendment not moved.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (1), lines 10-11, to delete the words "or in case such person is dead, the personal representative of such person".
This is a small point to which I adverted in my Second Reading speech. I am not trying to insist upon it but I should like to hear the Minister's views. If, during the lifetime of a person, there has been fraud or misrepresentation, or perhaps a mistake in connection with the payment of allowances under this Bill, seeing that it is poor people that will be principally concerned, the money will have been spent, and it seems to me that one might let such losses go by the board. The actual annual loss to the State is likely to be small. If a person is dead, I would not pursue the personal representative of that person to recover overpayments.
I respectfully disagree with that view. It is well known that the consciences of people are at their slackest where you are dealing with public funds. I think you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, will agree with me when I say that it was first pointed out by Aristotle that the private conscience is at its lowest where public money is available. I do think that we should not countenance anything which would encourage the idea that a person can make a misrepresentation in order to obtain public moneys and that after he is dead no claim should lie against his personal representatives. I certainly could not support it.
I should be very glad if my friend would give me the exact reference to Aristotle.
In framing the Bill, in. Section 9, we have attempted to limit the power of recovery of moneys overpaid to cases where fraud is established, but I do not think that we should close any avenue of recovery particularly under this Bill in which there is no means test. It is not necessarily poor people who will be involved. We provide for revision of awards. We provide that where the award has to be changed upward by reason of the claimant having established new facts which indicate that he was getting less than the amount to which he was entitled, he will be paid the revised amount as from the date of the application. Where the amount has to be revised downward it is only revised downwards as from the date upon which the decision is given against him unless there has been fraud or misrepresentation, in which case we take power to recover in retrospect. It is felt that in such cases we should have this power to recover as from the date of the original award even though, in some cases, there may be little prospect of benefiting the Exchequer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1) to insert immediately before the words "in case" in line 11, the words "if the same was obtained by any fraudulent misrepresentation".
I do not understand the Minister's references and I must have missed something in the Bill.
Sub-section (4), of Section 9, paragraph (b) (1), which relates to revised awards, covers that.
I agree with the Minister on that, but it does not make any difference where there is a death. What about the overriding power in Section 11 which deals with the repayment of children's allowances overpaid?
There cannot, of course, be a determination of an overpayment until a new award is given. A new award is the formal determination of the fact that there has been overpayment. As regards sub-section (4) of Section 9, paragraph (b) (1), if it is established that an excess payment was made by reason of fraud or misrepresentation, then there is power to recover the overpayment already made. But, in any other case there is no power to recover and the revised award only operates from the date on which a decision is given. The power to recover applies only where it is established that there has been fraud or misrepresentation.
Not necessarily. You may make your award to-day and the man may die to-morrow. At any rate, the point is a small one and it is not worth while pressing it. The Minister's case would be covered if the man died while the matter was under consideration because then the award could be made after.
If there has been no fraud then from the date of the decision the payment is reduced. If there has been fraud, and only where there has been fraud, is there a claim in respect of overpayment no matter when the claimant dies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Under this section, would it be possible for a woman to go into a shop and leave her book of vouchers to buy a coat for her child?
No, she must go to the post office with the vouchers.
Question put and agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 18, amendment No. 12.
We are now very near the hour of adjournment. The amendments to be considered have a certain importance and the House is rather small to deal with them. I move that we adjourn now.
I do not see any reason why we should adjourn now. If the Senator proposes that we continue to sit on until we finish the Committee Stage of the Bill, I will agree with him.
The Minister will have to be here to-morrow in connection with another Bill.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
As there does not appear to be agreement, we will continue the debate on the Bill.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 12:—
At the end of the section to add the words: "except in cases where the Minister is satisfied that payment was not demanded owing to abnormal circumstances."
This addendum has been suggested to me in case of an injustice being done to claimants. I want to forestall the Minister, who may say that if a person does not claim he should not recover, by urging that that is not a sufficient argument against the amendment. It is conceivable that circumstances may arise wherein people with a claim to payment of the allowance were not in a position to claim through forgetfulness, illness or the inaccessibility of the post office. I know quite well that it is not the desire of the Minister that people justly entitled to the allowance should lose it because of abnormal circumstances which prevented them from claiming payment within the prescribed period. I am moving the amendment with the object of trying to overcome that difficulty, and suggesting that, in cases of the kind, payment should be made where the Minister is satisfied that it was not demanded owing to abnormal circumstances. The Minister may say that in this I am straining at a gnat and assuming the impossible: that people, in all cases where money is to be paid, will always make a claim. I suggest that, for one reason or another, it could happen that payment might not be demanded within the prescribed period. In such cases an injustice would be done, and, therefore, knowing the Minister's good sense of justice, I hope that he will look on the amendment favourably.
I will not accuse the Senator of straining at a gnat, but I suggest that he has not adverted sufficiently to the fact that this is a weekly payment. The Bill provides that a person can arrange, permanently or temporarily, for the drawing of the money by some other person nominated by him. We are merely, by this statutory limitation, putting in a safeguard against an undue accumulation of claims. The only circumstances in which it might happen that a person would lose would be where he had decided to accumulate the full three months' weekly claims, intending to cash them all upon the latest date, upon which they could fail through inadvertence to gather them on that date. But, even in that case, he does not lose the three months' claims. He only loses one week because, of course, all the other weeks are still valid in the three-monthly period. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to put in this additional safeguard, especially in view of the fact that this is a weekly payment and that a person can arrange, either permanently or temporarily, for the drawing of the allowance by some other person. The section permits a period sufficiently long to enable an individual who contemplates any possibility of interference with the exercise of his rights to make this other arrangement to use his rights. I do not think we can contemplate that any person would be so forgetful, week after week, that he was entitled to this money, and that this three months' period was operating against him. But, even if he were, he only loses the claims which are three months from the date that he remembers. I think that if I were to accept this amendment we would be making undue provision against the possibility of abnormal circumstances.
The Minister is assuming that at the end of the three months somebody cannot forget that he has gone over the period laid down in the Bill. I ask him to accept the amendment since it does not change the spirit of the section at all.
If a person is so forgetful as not to remember that he is entitled to draw the children's allowance, then all one can say is that he is not in very urgent need of it.
It is well-known that people do forget, even for years, and in such cases an injustice might be done.
I do not think there is any real prospect of an injustice being done at all.
I understand there may now be agreement to sit beyond the usual hour of adjournment at 9 o'clock for the purpose of finishing the Committee Stage of this Bill.
There is no objection to that. Only two amendments remain to be disposed of.
Agreed: To sit later than 9 p.m.
I am anxious to know from the Minister what will be the position of a person who, within the three months, forgets to substantiate his claim to get a new book. Suppose a person is drowned and that the body is not recovered for some considerable time, the book of vouchers may have become invalid. Will the family lose the allowance?
Cases of that kind will be provided for in the regulations. The accidental burning of a book or the destruction of a book through any accident, will be covered, and provision made for the issue of a duplicate. An arrangement of that kind applies in respect to all Government services where documents have to be utilised. We have such an arrangement in relation to ration books in respect of which very substantial claims come in regularly arising out of books being destroyed or lost. In the case of this Bill, if a person can produce evidence that the book was burned or lost, or destroyed through some accidental cause, then arrangements may be made to replace the vouchers.
Arising out of that statement by the Minister, I suggest that the three months should commence, in a case like that, from the date of issue of the new book. It is quite possible that a considerable period will elapse from the period when the matter first comes under the notice of the Department.
That is, in a case where a duplicate book becomes necessary?
Yes. The suggestion is that the period should commence with the issue of the book from the Minister's Department. Let us suppose my book is burned and I put in an application for a new one. Supposing through some mischance—which might happen even in the best regulated departments—the book gets lost and I did not do anything further about it for six weeks. Then I might approach Senator Quirke, let us say, and he would be successful in ensuring that the Department found my letter. All that might take another two months and I would have lost my allowance through no fault of my own. Is it possible that that situation could be met under the regulations?
Yes. The allowance does not become payable until the voucher has been delivered to the individual claiming.
So long as the Minister bears the point in mind when he is framing regulations, I am satisfied.
The income-tax code makes provision for such cases. There are people who forget to enter appeals against assessments and, under the Income Tax Act, the time can be extended if failure to make a claim is due to sickness, absence or other reasonable cause.
This, as a matter of fact, makes provision for an extension of time. We say to the person concerned: "We are paying you so much money, but if for any reason, say through accident, sickness or other cause, you fail to make a claim, you will have three months in which to do it"—that is, three months from the day on which it becomes payable.
Are not the conditions more or less the same as those which apply to old age pensions?
That is right.
I never heard of an old age pensioner being victimised because he failed to draw his pension within three months—and old age pensioners are more likely to be feebleminded than the people who will be drawing this allowance.
There are exceptions in the country and I could give numerous instances where people could not make a claim under three months. There are cases where you will be doing people an indirect injustice.
I think it is a very reasonable period in respect of a weekly payment. The only possible case is one where the person forgets all about it. If he does happen to remember it, he merely has to sign a document and he can appoint someone else to collect.
I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Minister will make a suitable regulation to deal with such a matter.
I have no doubt a period will arrive when we will find it necessary to amend this legislation and perhaps that point could be dealt with, if it is considered essential to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 13:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section (2) as follows:—
(2) Every Order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which such House has sat after the Order is laid before it annulling such Order, such Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such Order.
This amendment was put down because I had some doubts about the Minister's statement on the Second Reading. The power given to him under Section 19 is very wide. I do not object so much to that, because that is common form in the case of a complicated Bill brought in for the first time. It is found in British Acts and in our own Local Government Act of 1925. But the Minister can make amendments by regulation which might be very far-reaching and I feel that, while we are giving him this power, we should retain to ourselves the power to consider any changes he may make. The words of the amendment are taken from the Local Government Act of 1925, and they are common form in a great many Acts. I think the Minister was misinformed when he said that this power exists in other Acts, but that it was not accompanied by a proviso that the regulations or Orders should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and should be capable of being annulled by resolution. We know that occurs in very few Acts and we are aware that resolutions put down, while they may not have been successful, have, in fact, drawn attention to certain flaws and difficulties.
I should think it is most improbable that the power given under this section will ever be used. I think it is doubtful if the power taken under similar sections of other Acts were ever used. I had some reluctance in putting the section in. It was only the possibility that some difficulty would arise which could necessitate the use of the section and which might involve amending legislation and, consequently, a long delay in implementing it, that prompted me to put it in. I can only defend this section on the ground that it is precisely similar in all respects to sections which have appeared in other Acts of this kind, both of this and the British Parliament.
But, with this addition.
No. The British Unemployment Insurance Act, the National Health Insurance Act and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act have not got it.
But the Local Government Act has.
I admit that the Local Government Act, which deals with a number of matters of a similar kind, has got it.
Is the Minister certain that the British Act of 1920 has not got it?
Yes, the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920.
I am awfully sorry, but I still doubt that.
I am satisfied about that. When it was stated by a Deputy in the Dáil that this was a legal innovation which had never before disgraced the statutes of any Parliament I found it necessary to make up a case against him. I had my doubts whether, as far back as 1920, legislation by Order was being observed. I looked up the British Act of 1920, and I satisfied myself that the power then granted was similar to what is here and that overriding provision retaining to the Parliament the power of anulment was not there. I do plead with the Seanad not to insert in this measure an amendment to this section which they did not consider necessary in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and the National Health Insurance Act. I have merely incorporated here what is in other statutes.
The Minister's attitude in this matter reminds me of the old burglar who, having burgled for many years, declared: "Surely they do not expect me to reform now." This is a matter of some importance. The Minister must admit that constitutional usage is opposed to haphazard practice, which cannot be defended. This power to alter the legislation without bringing the alterations before the Legislature—surely that is, in essence, entirely objectionable. If the Minister thinks his alterations are sound and good, he should not be afraid of bringing them before either House and having them discussed and he should be in a position to make his justification for them in public. He seems to be a little bit shy of putting into practice——
I will admit it is hard to make a case against the amendment. The only thing that irritates me—if I may use that word—is that obviously the Minister for Local Government did at some stage make a case which was successful and I wish I had his persuasive powers to argue against this proposal.
I should like to say, with regard to the next amendment, which I have been asked to move, that it would seem to me we are departing very widely from what ought to be constitutional usage. Unless the Minister can say that he anticipates that he will be seriously hampered by having to disclose certain matters to the House when he is about to repeal legislation passed here, he should accept this amendment. In theory his attitude is indefensible.
If the Senator presses the amendment, I am prepared to accept it, but that will be without prejudice to my right strongly to oppose a somewhat similar amendment to Section 20.
I have often expressed my admiration for the Minister's method of argument. It cannot always be fitted into the precise framework of accuracy and facts. His case is that he will make very few alterations. Surely, if the Minister proposes to make very few alterations, there should be no objection to the procedure set out in the amendment. His only difficulty is in respect of the delay until the Dáil meets. That will not be much more than a fortnight. He will have the Bill, as it will be passed to-morrow, except for that particular amendment and the amendment is not of any special moment as regards the operation of the Act. The Minister can go on making preparations for the operation of the Bill as if it had been passed without any amendment.
I am opposed to amendment No. 14; I do not think that it would be fair to the Minister. But I shall wait to hear the case for amendment No. 15. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 13, he should, certainly, not be asked to accept No. 14 as well, because amendment No. 14 would compel him, within 12 months of the passing of this Bill, to bring in amending legislation or otherwise allow whatever changes he makes to go by the board. I think that the Minister should accept amendment No. 13. It will hold up the Bill for only a short time and it will not interfere with the preparations for putting it into operation. As against amendment No. 14, I should support the Minister through thick and thin.
I hope the House will press this amendment. We ought not to drift into the habit of letting this class of legislation pass automatically. The Minister may say that the scope of this Bill is limited, but we might have the same type of provision introduced into a Bill of wider scope. This is a dangerous form of legislation and I think the Minister will be adopting the safer constitutional practice if he accepts the amendment.
Would it satisfy the requirements of the House if I were to agree to lay the Orders on the Table?
We could get the Orders whether the Minister agreed to do that or not. Unless the Minister alters the Bill in a very extraordinary way, he will not have a motion to annul an Order. He knows that as well as I do. His own case is that he will make very few Orders.
The Senator will appreciate that if we could foresee the circumstances which would necessitate the use of this section, we should provide against them in the Bill.
The Minister will agree with me that he has not been unreasonably treated in either House on this Bill. He has, certainly, been treated very reasonably in this House. There is nothing in this amendment or in the behaviour of either House which would indicate that the Minister will be harassed or persecuted if he makes a few Orders under this section.
Very well.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On behalf of Senator O'Sullivan, I move amendment No. 14:—
At the end of sub-section (2) to add the words: "and no Order made pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section shall remain in force for a period longer than one year from the said date of passing.
Having regard to what has been said, I do not propose to press this amendment, but I should like to put before the House the arguments which Senator O'Sullivan desired to have placed before it. Senator O'Sullivan was of opinion that if this power was to be used, as it will, probably, have to be used, in an extensive and experimental way, the Orders made should not remain in force for a period of longer than 12 months; if it were necessary to amend the Act in a substantial way, the amendment ought, eventually, to take its place in an amending Bill. Therefore, he thought it would be proper to put a time limit on the operation or efficacy of the rule or Order made under this section so as to induce the Minister to bring before the House an amending Bill incorporating that Order and, perhaps, several others, so that the issues raised could be discussed in considerable detail. He had in mind that the House is usually slow to move a motion to annual an Order but, when an amending Bill comes before it, its provisions can be threshed out. Senator O'Sullivan was of the opinion that, in the case of a new Bill, it might be of considerable assistance to the Minister to have the amending legislation brought before the House and discussed.
Under this amendment, the framing and passing of the amending legislation would have to be completed within a year. I think that that would impose an impossible obligation on the Minister.
I should be prepared to extend the period to two years.
I think that it would be unreasonable to press this amendment.
As we have provided for the possibility of annulling these Orders, I think that that should be sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 20.
On behalf of Senator O'Sullivan, I move amendment No. 15:—
After sub-section (1) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Every regulation made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after such regulation is laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such regulation.
This amendment involves exactly the same principles as the amendment proposed by Senator Hayes to Section 19. Orders which are made by Ministers under powers given them in an Act, whether they are Orders for the purpose of altering the Act or working out the provisions of the Act, become, in fact, part of the law of the land and are just as operative as if they were contained in the Act itself. In Section 20, the Minister is to move within certain limits whereas, under Section 19, he was at liberty to gambol at large and, perhaps, upset all the sections in the Bill. Even if moving within the limits laid down, I can see no reason why the House should not become officially acquainted with the steps the Minister considers necessary to carry out the powers given him in the Bill. There was, I think, in a well-known song the phrase: "Let this be the motto of my song, that even the very, very good go wrong." As a lawyer, I have seen cases where Orders made under enabling powers were very indifferent Orders and led to a great deal of trouble. Why should the House not be officially entitled to have sight of these Orders? If the House, by its united experience and its power of analysis, can give the Minister assistance in connection with these Orders, why not afford it the opportunity of so doing? I cannot see that the Minister will be embarrassed by this amendment. It will be in accordance with the constitutional practice, that anything which is to become law, and binding on every citizen must be within the power of this House to approve or disapprove.
I should have to resist this amendment very strongly. It is entirely different from the amendment moved to Section 19. We are dealing here with the power of the Minister to prescribe, by regulation, the steps that must be taken by officials and others to carry out the purpose of the Bill. Most of the matters with which these regulations will deal will be purely administrative. They will relate to the form of the voucher, the form on which the person must apply for the allowance, the manner in which the form will have to be sent to the Department, how it will be addressed and all these purely administrative arrangements which may have to be changed from time to time to meet the requirements of the service or the difficulties that emerge, I should undertake to carry out the normal practice in these matters, that is, that these Orders will be made available on the Table of the House to members of the Dáil and Seanad. If we were to insert a provision in the Bill giving the Dáil or Seanad power to annul these Orders, then it would be necessary, in the administration of the Act, to have regard to that power.
Take the question of the form of the voucher. We shall have to print about 150,000 books of vouchers—a very big job. If there was the slightest possibility that a motion would be passed here repealing the regulation which prescribed the form of voucher, we should not be justified in going on with that work. The Comptroller and Auditor-General might refuse to approve of the expenditure of money upon that printing until every risk of a change in the regulations had passed.
All those safeguards which would then become necessary, to protect the accounting officers of the various Departments against the possibility of censure arising out of some motion in the Dáil or Seanad annulling an Order, with all the delays which would arise therefrom, would have to be taken into account in planning the operation of the Bill. I would, therefore, urge that this amendment be not pressed. I undertake that the Orders when made will be available for inspection in the ordinary way. Any questions that arise from them and that appear to have a bearing on policy can be brought forward for discussion here or in the Dáil, but the power of annulment would not be there, unless amending legislation were promoted for that particular purpose. That would permit the fulfilment of the Bill to proceed and modification to be made of the regulations, without delay.
I take it the Orders will be tabled as non-statutory presentations?
Exactly.
And if a motion should be proposed in regard to them, the Minister would take it into serious consideration, though it would not be an annulling motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I appeal to the Minister to include in these regulations some provision whereby, in conjunction with the Finance Act, he could arrange that persons who do not want to claim the allowances will have their income-tax allowance left as it is. It seems an unnecessary duplication in the work, that you have to claim under this Bill and that the appropriate financial adjustment will be made in the income-tax allowances. In dealing with that point on the Second Reading, the Minister said the Revenue Commissioners would be very slow to pass on any information. I entirely agree; but I am not asking him to ask the Revenue Commissioners to pass on information. It is the other way round: I am suggesting that the Minister pass on the information to the Revenue Commissioners that So-and-So had not claimed a children's allowance and, therefore, in making up the assessment for that man, the ordinary £60 allowance would be permitted.
Unless the Department of Industry and Commerce is to be supplied with a list of income-tax payers, we cannot know what information to pass on. We would need a full list of all persons drawing benefit.
I will give a concrete case. Let us take Mr. Jones as a person who pays income-tax and gets the benefit of an allowance for his children. I want the Minister to include a regulation by which Mr. Jones can go to the Department of Industry and Commerce and say. "I have children who come within the provisions of the Children's Allowances Act and I am not going to claim that allowance. I want you to certify to the Department of Finance the fact that I have not claimed it." The exact way that that would be done is another question. I am asking the Minister to put the burden on the possible claimant asking the Department of Industry and Commerce for a certificate, which the claimant would present or which the Minister would pass on direct to the Revenue Commissioners. I think it would eventually save some considerable administrative difficulty and additional work.
I will have the suggestion considered by the Minister for Finance. It would be a matter for the Finance Bill.
I quite agree, but this is the only place I could raise it.
Why not do it the other way round? Obviously, if you are not being allowed the full amount of the income-tax allowance, it would be easy to get a certificate to that effect from the Revenue Commissioners. That certificate could be sent on then to the Department of Industry and Commerce and they would then be in a position to check up on it.
I think the clearest way would be to leave the arrangement as it stands. That would be my view. I know that people within the income-tax paying class do not fancy the prospect of drawing through the Post Office the same as other people. In recognition of the fact that they do not gain under the Bill and are, therefore, entitled to some special consideration, I think we can make arrangements by which the amount would be credited to their banking account or dealt with in some other way convenient to them. In so far as there will be subsequently brought before the Oireachtas proposals to amend the income-tax law, it is when that Bill comes before the House that these particular proposals can be considered; and the Department of Finance, on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners, can put forward, much better than I can, the objections that they would see.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 and Title agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday 27th January, 1944.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 27th January, 1944.