This arises out of a suggestion made by Senator O'Brien yesterday. It can be taken with the amendment to subsection (6) of Section 4. The effect of this amendment is that I cannot raise the ceiling above £600 without getting the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Without this amendment I could do it by regulation.
Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1951—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Government amendment No. 1(a):—
In sub-section (4), page 9, line 19, to delete "sub-section (4) of section 4,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Government amendment No. 1(b):—
In sub-section (6), page 10, line 16, to insert "sub-section (4) or" before "sub-section (5)".
This is the same type of amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 13, to insert before paragraph (b) a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) persons employed in a statutory transport undertaking, or.
This amendment is necessary to deal with the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann. As I mentioned yesterday, the idea we have in dealing with certain classes of the Civil Service and so on is to exempt them from insurance if they are fully covered for all classes of insurance. The case of Córas Iompair Éireann is exceptional in that the clerical staff, numbering about 2,000, is insured for other purposes except widows and orphans and it will be necessary to bring them into the Bill for that purpose.
As the Bill stood, we could deal only in a partial way with those who were in the Civil Service, local authority service or working under a public authority, such as the Electricity Supply Board. It appears that Córas Iompair Éireann does not come under any of these definitions. We want to have a statutory transport undertaking included. I might mention that provision is made for the clerical workers only. The manual workers will come under the full provisions of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (2) of this section makes a differentiation in the case of persons who are 65 years of age and over. I think that in the case of a person of 65 for whom three years' continuous contributions have been made he will be entitled to full benefit.
The Minister made a rather interesting and, I think, a rather important statement in the Dáil, which he made perhaps briefly last night here. I am raising the point now in order to make my own mind clear, and possibly some other people's minds, as regards the exact position. As there is no provision for retirement at 65 in this Bill, the position in regard to that age is important, and it should be clearly understood. I take it from the Minister that any person who is unemployed over the age of 65 will be able, until the age of 70, to obtain unemployment benefit provided he is unemployed, but I am not very clear as to how far that could be rigidly enforced with regard to the two ceilings to be used. For instance, take a case I have in mind of a lady, aged 68, who has been doing clerical work; her health is not such that she would get a medical certificate, but she is certainly not able to do normal work and may possibly lose her position. If she loses her employment, she will be entitled to unemployment benefit for the two years. Supposing she was offered work as a charwoman—I know this is an extreme case—and said she was not able to do it, would that be sufficient reason for refusing her unemployment benefit? I do not want to press the point. I could give other instances, but this is a matter which has been mentioned to me by one or two people, and I think the Minister should be able to clarify the position.
There is one other point for which I do not think there is any remedy. There is no means test as far as unemployment is concerned. If a person has a small income and was unemployed he could still get benefit until the age of 70 but after 70 he would not be entitled to benefit. I presume he would be entitled only to the old age pension. It would be reduced in any case but very considerably more in the case of a means test. These are not criticisms but points that require a little clarification.
First of all, a person is entitled to unemployment benefit if he has had 156 stamps to his credit, but he can draw only for six months. He must then get 13 stamps before he can draw for a further six months. When he reaches 65, he can draw benefit from 65 to 70 without re-qualifying with the 13 stamps——
That is sub-section (2).
——provided, of course, he has fulfilled other conditions—that he is genuinely looking for work but cannot get it. The other point made by the Senator was in regard to the type of work that might be on offer. It must be suitable employment and in practice that means it must be employment analogous to the employment that the person has been following. Clerical workers certainly would not be asked to do any sort of manual work, that is, unless of course she opted to do it but she would not be compelled to do it and threatened with the loss of unemployment benefit if she did not do it. I do not think there need be any fear on that score.
Would that be covered under regulation?
Yes. That is the practice. There is one other point. In all the insurance schemes a means test does not count. A person might quite possibly be in receipt of a very big income and at the same time be working as a bricklayer. If he became unemployed, he would draw unemployment benefit. It is the same with sickness benefit, and so on. When the same person reaches 70, as the Senator says, the means test will count.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."
I would like the Minister to clarify sub-section (2) which seems to give very wide powers, admittedly by regulation. The section limits the benefits of voluntary contributors but provides in special circumstances that they may be granted to them. I would like to have some idea what kind of special circumstances are envisaged. It does seem a pretty wide power. There is another point which arises; it is not exactly in this section, but it is connected with it. It is provided in the Bill that any insured contributor who ceases apparently for any reason, can become a voluntary contributor. Supposing that the only reason that he ceases was that his income had gone over £600, could he still be a voluntary contributor?
We must keep in mind that there are voluntary contributors at the moment and this sub-section is really to safeguard their position. They can, if they so opt, continue as voluntary contributors under this Bill. Were it not for this sub-section, it is feared that in the interim period or for some time after transferring them they might be out of benefit. In fact, of course, a person cannot remain a voluntary contributor for such things as unemployment and sickness, and I should say it would practically apply only to the widows' and orphans' pensions part of the Bill. If a person in the Civil Service goes over the £600 ceiling, he might say that he had contributed for a long time to this widows' and orphans' pensions fund and that he would like to continue because he would not be covered for that particular benefit in the Civil Service. The same would apply in other walks of life, apart from the Civil Service, if the person went over £600 or if a person went out of insurance by taking up employment on his own, but in practice it would apply only to widows' and orphans' pensions.
It is clear that the £600 limit does not apply. I am not objecting; I think it is right.
Yes, he may continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 38 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister explain why, in Section 45, there is no reference to law in paragraph (a) and there is a reference in paragraph (b)? It is not clear why there is a reference in one and not in the other. It looks as though the Minister can appeal to the High Court on matters other than law, while others can appeal to it only on matters of law. There may be a very good reason but it is not clear to me.
The position is that you cannot refer a decision on fact to the High Court.
You can under paragraph (a).
Notwithstanding the drafting I do not think you can.
Under paragraph (b) you cannot.
Surely the "question" is the whole question?
It seemed to me in reading it that there was a mistake in drafting. I have always understood that it was not intended to refer to the High Court any matter except one of law. There is the contradistinction that the Minister could appeal on a matter other than law. It may be that it is thought that, being the Minister, he would never do anything wrong, but I am not prepared to accept that.
This question arose in the Dáil and I had to go into it in detail. The same principle occurs in Section 44. In fact, what I wanted and what the Department wanted was that only decisions on law could be referred to the High Court. That is what the draftsman was asked to cover and that is what the draftsman told us he had covered. I cannot argue the law other than that.
The question of law should be in paragraph (a) as well.
Paragraph (a) refers to the Minister's discretion. When a request is made to the Minister by the chief appeals officer the Minister need not refer to the High Court, but, under paragraph (b), a citizen has the right to refer to the High Court. If what the Minister has in mind applies he will refer only questions of law.
We do limit the ordinary citizen to questions of law if he does appeal.
The Minister should be equally limited.
There is no limitation on the Minister because he can decide anything himself except a question of law.
The Minister will not go to the High Court on a question of fact.
He could ask the High Court to decide whether an employment is insurable employment or, under paragraph (f) of Section 42, who is the employer of an employed contributor. Without being an expert person, I think that the High Court would hate that.
The questions outlined in Section 42 are questions which the Minister would decide himself, questions of fact, and the citizen then, if he thinks he has a grievance, can, on law, only appeal to the High Court.
I think that there is something wrong. Our business is to draw attention to that, and beyond that we have no responsibility. It is quite clear, as far as the ordinary person is concerned, and he would wonder why the Minister is in a different position with regard to appeals. However, I am not pressing it, only raising the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 46 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Question proposed: "That Section 49 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to the appointment of inspectors, the Minister is given power under Section 49 to appoint such and so many persons as he thinks proper. The section gives inspectors very considerable powers. I would like to ask the Minister whether inspectors will be appointed permanent civil servants or temporary civil servants, whether they will be appointed under the terms of the Civil Service Act or whether they will be taken from among existing civil servants. Nothing at all is stated about that. Does it mean the entry into the Civil Service, temporary or permanent, of a number of new persons or is it intended, as sometimes happens, to use the staffs already in existence?
A staff is there already. This refers only to the reappointment of inspectors and adding to their number from time to time. They will be taken from the staff.
The permanent staff?
Yes.
Nobody can enter the staff except under the Civil Service regulations?
They will all be established civil servants.
No new appointments can be made?
From time to time appointments will be made in the same way.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 50 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 60.
Question proposed: "That Section 60 stand part of the Bill."
I think that the Minister gave us some examples yesterday evening of the type of people he contemplates will benefit under this particular section. I wonder could he say a little more about the type of person?
I am rejecting, if you like, retirement allowances. I thought it would be better if I could encourage employers or unions to have their own schemes for retirement allowances. Many of our big employers have schemes for sickness—unemployment does not count in their schemes—and retirement. My idea was that we should encourage these schemes as far as possible.
The same thing might be possible, I thought also, where you have a union which is very well defined. I had in mind printers. A printer can hardly get a job except he is in the union and there is nobody in the union except printers, so there is no passing in and out as there is in a big union. If they had a scheme covering sickness, retirement and, perhaps, widows' and orphans' pensions too, I thought that we might have power to examine that scheme. We could say that we were quite satisfied that their scheme was as good as what we were doing for the various classes. Instead of taking contributions from them and adding a third contribution from the Exchequer we could give them a grant to carry on their own scheme. I said last night that I thought this might be an introduction to vocationalism in insurance.
It would apply not only to unions but to firms?
To firms or unions.
Because quite a number of firms in Dublin and elsewhere have it.
Would such a regulation have to be approved? I do not think so.
It is inconceivable that I could do it to finality. That clause is there only to give me power to negotiate and come to the point of an agreement. There is no doubt that at that stage it would have to come before the Oireachtas for approval.
By Order?
There would have to be a Bill. The reason I left it vague is that it is so hard to know how these things will work. If we have power to negotiate, we will then be able to draft a Bill to cover cases generally.
You draft a general Bill and then make regulations?
Yes.
It is rather important because you might have a perfectly bona fide suspicion that one firm might have taken advantage of the provisions, if they had known about them.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 61, 62 and 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Question proposed: "That Section 64 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that there are considerable reciprocal arrangements in existence at present—with Britain, at any rate?
In some lines.
Are there any with Northern Ireland?
Northern Ireland is included in Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 65 to 83, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 84.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 43, line 22, to insert "or made under" before "sections".
There are a number of amendments similar to this. These words were used in earlier Acts, but, for some reason, were overlooked in drafting this Bill. It is really a drafting point.
It is a rather peculiar term "provisions of or made under".
The draftsman came to the conclusion the words were necessary—to give the necessary freedom, I suppose.
It is a peculiar use of the word "provisions". One generally sees "provisions of" an Act but "provisions made under" is a somewhat peculiar phrase.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 84, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 85 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 101.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In page 49, line 27, to insert "or made under" before "sections".
This is the same type of amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 101, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 102 to 118, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 119.
Government amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 57, line 28, to delete "and 106" and substitute ", 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114 and 117".
This is a saver. Sub-section (1) sets out:—
"No person, who was immediately before the 4th day of July, 1952, entitled to a widow's (contributory), orphan's (contributory), widow's (non-contributory) or orphan's (non-contributory) pension shall, on or after the 4th day of July, 1952, receive less by way of such pension than such person would have received if Sections 103, 104, 105 and 106 of this Act had not been enacted."
This is to apply it to all classes in the same way.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 119, as amended, agreed to.
Section 120 agreed to.
SECTION 121.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In page 57, line 42, to insert "or made under" before "sections".
This is similar to the previous amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 121, as amended, agreed to.
Section 122 agreed to.
SECTION 123.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 58, line 36, to insert "or made under" before "sections".
This also is similar to the previous amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 123, as amended, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
I want to draw the Minister's attention to a point which possibly has not occurred to him. I warn him that it may involve a fairly knotty problem. He might prefer not to comment on it, but I think I ought to raise it. What will be the position under this schedule and the clauses connected with it of clergymen of the various Churches in this country who are paid a salary less than £600 per year? I am sorry to say that there are quite a good many amongst us and there is a knotty problem involved, because, if one turns to Article 44 of the Constitution, one finds that the Minister is debarred, so far as I can see, by Section 3 of Article 44 from excluding clergy in this respect. That section says:—
"The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status."
On the other hand, by sub-section (2) of that Article, he is prevented, so far as I can see, from giving these clergy any benefits under the scheme, because the State guarantees not to endow any religion.
I think there is definitely going to be a problem there and I should like to mention to the Minister that he may receive applications from various denominations as to whether they can benefit under the scheme. I would like to make it quite clear that this has not been suggested to me by any body of that kind. It simply occurs to me unprompted. I wonder would the Minister dare to comment on that point and enlighten us, as I see that there may be some difficulties, constitutional and otherwise, involved here.
The constitutional point has been put to me for the first time. I do not think it could be held that by bringing clergymen under this Bill we are endowing religion. Therefore, we can dismiss the constitutional problem. As regards bringing clergymen under the Bill, the matter has been considered. If the clergyman has a contract of service that is under the £600 limit and if his Church holds that it is a contract of service, then I think he must come in. Some Churches do not hold that and therefore they do not come in.
I thank the Minister very much for his clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Second to Sixth Schedules, inclusive, agreed to.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Seventh Schedule be the Seventh Schedule of the Bill."
This is a Schedule of considerable importance. I do not know whether this represents much change from the present calculation of means, but I rather gather it does; and, if so, I would be glad if the Minister would point out the more important changes with regard to the present practice. In the rules as to the calculation of the means, you have (I), (II) and (III). No. (I) says: "The yearly value of any property belonging to the person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by the person)..." That is reasonably clear, but when you come to (III) you find: "The yearly value of any advantage accruing to the person from the use or enjoyment of property... which is personally used or enjoyed by the person." In other words, (III) seems simply to put in what is excluded in (I). It may be ignorance on my part, but I could not very clearly see the distinction.
At the same time, I would be glad if the Minister would give some idea as to how (III) would be interpreted— would that be the valuation or how do you get at the "yearly value of any advantage"? It seems to me that that is something which it could be extremely difficult to calculate. I knew a case of a lady who was certainly over 65—I did not know her exact age—and the only thing she had got by way of income was a house left to her. It was not in very good condition, but it had a value. She lived in it, and managed to eke out a livelihood. She would probably be described as a person of means because she had a house. This could be interpreted in a harsh way, by taking the yearly value which someone else under certain circumstances may be willing to pay for that house. In certain places some people are willing to pay absurd prices. If it were the yearly valuation it would not be so bad, as that would be the amount on which income-tax would be paid, and it would not be a high sum —though I am not sure that it would not be harsh in certain cases. I wonder why (III) was put in to bring back what was excluded by (I) and, secondly, how do you get at the yearly value of an advantage?
I do not think there is a conflict between the two. Perhaps if I gave some idea of the meaning of Rule (III), it might solve the problem. It would apply to a person who has a farm or a shop, and I suppose nearly every Senator is aware of the way it works out. The officer goes down and takes the income from the farm and the outgoings and eventually arrives at what might be regarded by him as the profit on the farm and that is taken as the person's income. The same thing applies if a person has a small shop that is not bringing in a lot of money. As regards the house mentioned by the Senator, a person might be living in a house that could be let for a fairly decent rent. If for some sentimental reason this old person likes to live on there, the officer would not take the potential letting value of the house. What he would take would be what would be a fair rent to put on her for her occupancy. I think the Senator may take it that that would be fairly small, as he would say that she could live in a room for so much and he would put the house down for that amount. That is Rule (III).
Rule (I) is where "the yearly value of any property ... which is invested ... or which though capable of investment ... is not so invested ..." Then it goes on to take the yearly value of that property. I do not think there is anything in conflict there. I must say that it is very involved when put down on paper, but in practice it is not nearly so involved. I get these files up from time to time. I remember looking through files recently of three farmers more or less in the same neighbourhood and the T.D. concerned found it very difficult to understand why two of them got pensions and the other did not. I must say that, looking at the size of the farm, the stock and so on, there was a good lot to be said for the T.D.'s point of view, but on the other hand when the whole thing was worked out I think the officer was right in his decision. It works in a very simple way. He takes the income from the farm and the outgoings such as rent, rates and wages, foodstuffs, and then he comes to the profit. As a rule, the profit is brought to a very small item in these particular cases.
I had no difficulty in understanding why a shop or farm should definitely be included, but I am not so sure with regard to a private house. Remember that it may apply to widows who may be comparatively young, but in the main it applies to old age pensioners, people who have been left with dwellings in which they reside. It is all very well to say that they could clear out and get somewhere else at the age of 70 and let it to someone at a higher value, but as a matter of ordinary human problems it is extremely difficult for anyone at any age to get out quickly and get a suitable dwelling, while at that age it is practically impossible, apart altogether from the sentimental and other reasons for living there.
I am not going to press this point. In any case, I have not got an amendment down. From the way it is worded, it could be operated very harshly. I can take the Minister's word for it that there is no intention to do that, but it seems to me that it would, should the amount be more than the valuation. Of course, if the Minister says that in many cases it will be less, I have no answer. I do not want to make it the valuation, but in the way it is worded there it could be very much higher. The statement which rather alarmed me was that the officer could take the rent at which the house could be let to someone else. I know under present conditions that it could easily happen that that would be a high rent. I know a place in Dublin where rents are being paid for dwellings which are shamefully high.
The Senator must have misunderstood me. I said we do not take the rent on the basis that the house is let to another person. What we do take is what would be a reasonable rent for the house and, as a rule, it is put down at a very nominal sum. In these regulations it is necessary to have power to deal fairly stringently with certain people who are trying to get away with something, but it is only in that case that they are applied in full.
Is there any substantial change in these regulations as compared with present practice?
No, except that there is a more liberal allowance now.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take the remaining 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.