This is a Bill which can best be discussed in Committee. There are a number of points which I want to make. First of all, a scheme of legislation which applies to so many people ought to be drafted in a way that is intelligible to people who want to know their position at any time in relation to benefits, contributions and the like. It is not at all clear from this Bill what is in fact being done. We know in a broad way that the income limit has been raised from £600 to £800 per annum; but, after that, when it comes to the question of how people will fit into the new situation, it is very difficult to find out what precisely their position is. For that reason, I think it might be better to deal on the Committee Stage with a number of the points I want to make.
Here is a particular point which I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. There are quite a number of people who were compulsorily insurable under the 1952 Act and who, with the increases in salaries arising either out of increases in the cost of living—getting increases in their salaries through increases in the cost of living—or because they are on a scale, exceeded the £600 per annum limit and therefore ceased to be compulsorily insurable. Under the Act, they were entitled to become voluntary contributors. They had one year within which to exercise the option to become voluntary contributors and I think in some kinds of cases that year may be extended to 18 months.
The unfortunate position of those people who did not exercise their option is that, had they known about the option which they might have exercised and had they known of the value of membership of the scheme as voluntary contributors, they would have exercised their option and become voluntary contributors. Unfortunately —and I do not blame the Department of Social Welfare for this—many of these people did not know of their right to exercise the option and consequently, if they were to die, their widows and orphans would not be entitled to contributory widows' and orphans' pensions.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should consider what I am about to suggest to him in the context that social welfare insurance, on the scale that we now have it, was not appreciated as widely as it might have been; that people did not know the benefits they were entitled to, particularly in the matter of becoming voluntary contributors, as well as they might between 1952 and the present day. I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary would consider allowing all those people who had the option to become voluntary contributors under the 1952 Act and who did not exercise their option to make that option now by way of some amendment to this Bill. In making that provision, it could be provided that these persons now opting to become voluntary contributors would have to pay back the contributions for which they would have been liable, if they had made the option at the time they should have made it.
As I understand the position, there are only about 1,500 voluntary contributors. I think I came across that figure somewhere in connection with the Report of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Health Insurance. It struck me as an amazingly low figure —1,500 persons. I think it exemplifies the point I make that people were not aware of the right they had to become voluntary contributors and, certainly, if they were so aware, did not appreciate the benefits that would accrue to them through becoming voluntary contributors.
I would go this distance in order to make these people's widows and orphans entitled to a contributory pension. If the Minister thought that, by making these people voluntary contributors, he was also bringing them in under the Health Act, I would be prepared to agree that these people should not be entitled, because they are voluntary contributors, to the benefits under the Health Act, but that they should be entitled to become voluntary contributors under the Act for the purpose of contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. I do not see that there could be any difficulty administratively in making an amendment to this Bill to meet the position of these people.
Under the First Schedule to the Act, Part I, paragraph 3 (a), that is, the schedule which determines the employments that are compulsorily insurable, one of the employments is employment in the Civil Service of the Government. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the situation there, but the Civil Service of the Government does not cover all the persons that are regarded as civil servants. For instance, the employees of the Houses of the Oireachtas are not civil servants of the Government. Neither would the employees of the court who would be under £600, or £800 as it will be under this Bill. Neither are civil servants of the Government.
I am quite certain that these people are being insured at present. I wonder what is the legality of the Minister for Social Welfare in requiring these people to be insured, when they are not liable to be insured under legislation as it stands? I am sure the Minister's Department is well aware of the situation which enables me to state that the people employed in the Civil Service of the Government do not embrace people of the kind I have mentioned. In view of that situation, would it not be proper, particularly if these categories are at present being insured under the heading of employment in the Civil Service of the Government, that the position ought to be rectified? It seems to me to be a case where there ought to be an amendment in order to bring the position into line with the decision of the Supreme Court, which decided the matter, and the more recent legislation, the Civil Service (Regulation) Act and the Civil Service (Commissioners) Act, which sets out and recognises the difference between employment in the Civil Service of the Government and the Civil Service of the State.
