There is an amendment in the name of Senator Duffy on the Order Paper. The amendment, Senator, is out of order. It would in my understanding increase the charge on the State and, therefore, cannot be moved.
Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to submit, Sir, that if the statement that was made on the last occasion by the Minister is accurate, this is not imposing any increased charge: it is merely clarifying the position. I understood that the stand taken by the Minister was that whatever sum would be required to meet these charges would be met by the State. In other words, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the fund will be nothing better and nothing worse because of this. If that is the case, then it cannot impose any charge on the State, because all we are asking for is that if, on examination, a deficit is discovered, the deficit will be made good in the manner suggested here in the amendment. I submit that that is not imposing any new charge on the State whatever.
It seems to me, Senator, that if this amendment were agreed to, and if it became operative, there would be an increase of charge on the State. However, in view of the submission you make, I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on the point before ruling finally.
The position in regard to this Bill is that we wish to treat all serving soldiers of the immediate past and of the future as having been in employment during the period of their service, as from a certain date, the 2nd September, 1939. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that these men will have adequate provision made for them to cover any period of unemployment consequent on their retirement. It is not the intention of the Bill to take from the Unemployment Fund in any respect. This contribution must be regarded as an insurance premium to cover that liability in respect of these men from the start. Any sums that may be necessary, I think, have to be provided in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 2, which reads as follows:
"There shall be paid into the Unemployment Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, by way of employers' and employed persons' contributions, such sums as will, in the opinion of the Minister for Finance, be sufficient to enable discharged members of the Defence Forces to whom this section applies to be treated in the manner provided by sub-section (1) of this section."
That provision absolutely covers the point which Senator Duffy's amendment is intended to cover. There is a guarantee there that whatever sums are necessary will have to be provided by the Minister for Finance to meet the obligations of this Bill. Accordingly, in my opinion, that absolutely covers the point raised by Senator Duffy.
I think that is a different point, from that dealt with by the point of order. Your argument would seem to me to be addressed to the merits.
I take it that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in effect is that my amendment does not impose a new charge?
A difficulty I see is that Senator Duffy's amendment seeks to put in the Bill what the Minister said was his intention, and, therefore, I must assume that it must be so that it does not impose a new charge.
It seems to me now that the point of order is well taken. The amendment may be debated. Senator Duffy.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not meeting the exact case I made. On the last occasion I was endeavouring to make clear what is the attitude the State is taking towards a body of men, perhaps 20,000, with a view to putting them into a position where they may get State unemployment benefit as a right, not as a dole, and not what was called uncovenanted benefits, but an actual claim to benefit under this Act. I was endeavouring to point out to the Minister that it did not appear to be quite clear that provision was being made fully in the Bill to meet the charges that would arise in discharging these benefits. The Minister was quite emphatic that at least so far as the substance of the Bill was concerned, the intention was that moneys will be paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the Minister for Finance to meet these obligations in full.
When I look at this Bill, accepting all the time the Minister's assurance, because I think there is no doubt what the Minister's intention is, it seems to me from sub-section (2) of Section 2 that what was proposed here is that there shall be paid into the Unemployment Fund by way of employers' and persons' contributions, such sums as in the opinion of the Minister for Finance, would be sufficient to provide the benefits contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 2. Now, normally, the Unemployment Fund consists of contributions of employers, contributions of workers and the State contribution. These three groups jointly make up the Unemployment Fund. At times, that fund has been overdrawn. There is a bookkeeping arrangement by which it is clear that when the expenditure from the fund is greater than the receipts that what might be commonly called an overdraft is provided to keep the fund going. That sum has to be found, sooner or later, by the contributions of the State, the employers and the workers, so that the overdraft is paid off or repaid.
I am just anxious that it will be made clear in this Act that the obligation on the Minister for Finance is to keep the fund out of which the soldiers' benefit will be paid in good standing itself without any claim on any other section of the fund. The Minister said in effect that this is the intention. My anxiety is to ensure that the intention is met in the Bill.
In my opinion there are no grounds for Senator Duffy's amendment, adequate provision having been made in the Bill to provide that the necessary funds will be available. The Section I have already quoted, I think, meets the situation fully. The funds are provided as Senator Duffy has pointed out, in the ordinary way for insured persons by a contribution of 10d. from the employer, 9d. from the employee and a contribution of two-sevenths on the part of the State. The intention of the Bill is that similar contributions in respect of each soldier will be made and paid over into this fund and the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be an adequate guarantee that the money must be provided. Seeing that the provision is already made, I am afraid that I cannot accept Senator Duffy's amendment.
What I am interested in is: Are we discussing the Chairman's right to rule on matters of this kind or are we discussing the amendment?
We are discussing the amendment.
If the Senator had been listening he would have heard the Chairman ruling that the amendment was quite in order.
I do not want to insist that my interpretation is a better one than that of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am anxious to ensure that if it is found that the Minister for Finance has been wrong in his amendment, there is some means whereby the deficit can be made good as against the Minister for Finance. Under sub-section (2) the sum which will be paid into the unemployment fund is met by way of employers and workers' contributions which, in the opinion of the Minister for Finance, will be sufficient to meet forthcoming claims. If it is discovered at the end of 12 months or two years that the Minister for Finance was wrong in his assumption that the sum he actually has paid in is insufficient to pay the expenses, what remedy has the Minister for Industry and Commerce as against the Minister for Finance to obtain the sum in deficit?
I think it is extremely unlikely that the Minister for Finance would become a defaulter. Will he not be bound by law to make good these funds to the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the Minister informs him that these sums are necessary? It should not be necessary to say that the Minister for Finance will go into default—nobody in his wildest dreams would suggest that.
You would be surprised.
In an obligation of this kind.
I suggest to Senator Duffy that it is no use in pressing this amendment. He is up against a stone wall. It seems that the fundamental difference between the two is that in one case the Minister for Finance says how much shall be paid. Nobody has questioned that. Under Senator Duffy's amendment the fund or possibly the Minister for Industry and Commerce could take the Minister for Finance possibly to the courts to prove that what he paid in was not an adequate sum. I am inclined to think that there is not an awful lot in it. Theoretically, Senator Duffy is right, but practically, it does not matter and as there is opposition he would be better advised to withdraw.
I do not want to press the amendment in view of the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take all further stages now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil without amendment.