I do not know if this is the section which deals with the qualification for people who were insured previously, who are now past 70 years of age and who may be in receipt of a non-contributory old age pension. As I understand it, the Minister will make regulations specifying the qualifications necessary for this new pension. I hope he will be as liberal as possible. I am sure he appreciates that these people are past 70 and, because of their age, are not very well able to fight their corner or know their entitlement. They would have been insured previously, maybe under the National Health scheme. On behalf of the trade unions, I would ask the Minister to be as liberal as he can in order to allow as many people as possible to qualify for this new benefit.
Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages.
The regulations will be, in my view, liberal. Whether they will be liberal in the opinion of everyone else is another matter. The regulations will impose a very heavy charge on the Exchequer and will be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. I think I can assure the House that they could not be regarded as illiberal.
No. (vi) refers to the amounts payable in respect of domestic servants. In this country, in a great many cases, the wages are very small. The increase in contribution is very large. Hitherto the employee's contribution was 11d.; it will now be 2/6d. The employer's contribution is being raised from 1/7d. to 3/3d. That makes a total contribution of 5/9d. Many young girls will probably not continue the insurance, being probably of marriageable age. It is a big amount to take out of the wage. The Minister might reduce that contribution.
The Minister told us today that the increase in the income arising out of the increase in contributions will be £4 million per annum. I do not know where he got that figure. I went to the trouble of looking up the income of the Social Insurance Fund. In recent years, the income of the Social Insurance Fund has been around £6 million a year and is increasing. When we look at these increased contributions, we find that many of them are fantastically high. Whether it is that domestic servants are now regarded as a kind of super-luxury in this country, or whatever the reason, the increase there is fantastic. It is about 250 per cent.
My comments do not arise from that fantastic increase or the increase in respect of certain types of nurses, which also is about 250 per cent. Generally speaking, of the total number of people subject to social insurance, one-third are women and two-thirds are men. If Senators look at the figures, they will see that, generally speaking, the increase for women in industrial employment is about 100 per cent. and the increase for men is the figure given by Senator Murphy, 63 per cent.
The Minister tells us he will get £4 million a year out of this change. If, according to the figures, there are 650,000 persons—450,000 men and 200,000 women—and if the increase for women is generally well over 100 per cent. and the increase for male workers is 63 per cent., I do not understand where the Department or the Minister got the figure of £4 million. I can well understand the motivating force which might suggest to them to say: "We will take a conservative estimate."
Among his remarks the Minister said he had acted in a very conservative way and that this is the foundation of a new system. Certain other foundations in this city have been laid for a long time. I do not notice the Minister building on them, in another part of his responsibility. In that respect, he shows no desire to spend money. But, then, it is money in the control of the State; it is not money subscribed by contributors to a social insurance fund. It is money in the Hospitals Trust Fund.
The Hospitals Trust Fund does not arise on this Bill.
A passing remark showing the difference in the Minister's approach is surely very much in order.
In fact, it is very much in order to show that the Minister, having got the foundations of the hospital out at Nutley Lane six or eight feet above the ground four years ago, has left them there. On this occasion, he is building on the most conservative foundations. If he wants me to give him the reference, he will find it in the last Report of the Department of Social Welfare, 1957/58 on page 41, and the more significant figures on page 68, showing, as I say, an income of about £6 million a year.
Arising out of these figures, I do not understand where the Minister gets his figures, whether things are "trotted out by reactionaries" or not. I do not blame the Minister for that remark because I have said on occasions that the Minister was a right-wing Tory, and I do not mind repeating it now. He is not just a reactionary. Every approach he makes to anything shows him to be a right-wing Tory. I simply do not understand where the Minister gets the figure of £4 million, having regard to the fact that the increases in contributions range from 63% to 150%. The average increase over the whole lot of them would be 100%. If there were a heavy weighting in favour of any one group, that is to say, if a big proportion, say 90%, had only an increase of 63% or 64%, I could understand the calculations, but there is no such weighting.
There are 200,000 women workers in the Social Insurance Scheme and the increase in contributions varies in the case of women from 100% to 250%. My remark about an old man's Bill in one context has a certain weight attached to it. There is a good deal more weight attached to it in this context. It does not seem as if the Minister has had any undue regard for the interests of women in the way he has mulcted them in this Bill. The contributions in respect of domestic servants and nurses would suggest that many people in this country think that domestic servants and certain classes of nurses are a super-luxury. The remarks made this evening about wages of from £5 to £9 a week would give one the impression that a wage of that size was a significant wage today. Of course, it is not.
There is no use in putting a tooth in it, in the western world of today, it is a miserable income. The Minister tells us the increase in the contribution will bring in £4 million but in fact the figures I have given show it will bring him in a much greater sum. That is one of the bases on which the scheme is to be financed. Otherwise, my original criticism stands, that the workers and those who will pay these contributions are paying for a benefit for which the Minister will get credit and he will leave the commitments to the people who succeed him.
I want again to draw attention to the contribution being paid by the person who is insured in respect of widows' and orphans' benefit only. Unfortunately, I missed the Minister's reply. I suppose my suggestion in this matter might be termed balderdash. Nevertheless, I would ask the Minister if he could give any indication that he would sympathetically consider the position of people who retire on pension at 65 and who have to stamp their own cards to maintain cover for widows' and orphans' benefit. Could he regard those people as being unemployed and credit them accordingly, without the necessity of their having to go along to the employment exchange and register there? They are not disposed to do that, as can be understood. They are not looking for employment, and they are not going along, as other people would be, to get unemployment benefit. I think the Minister might make provision for such people.
The whole basis of this Bill is to continue people in insurance in respect of those benefits for which they have been insured during their working life, and, in the case of those who have been insured for national health purposes, to give them the right to a contributory old age pension. Those people have been paying considerably more than the others who have been insured only for widows' and orphans' pensions, and even in enlarging the benefits to be secured in the widows and orphans section of the Social Insurance Scheme, we have gone very far to benefit those people, particularly those to whom Senator Murphy has referred. We are entitling their widows to a life pension at a minimum rate of 32/6 and in some cases considerably more.
A particular difficulty is that this Bill must go through to-night in order that it may come into operation on 1st January, and the Dáil is going to adjourn. Even if there were not that practical objection, there are many other practical objections to doing what Senator Murphy asks. These people have no basis in respect of their former insurability for securing contributory old age pensions.
That is not the point.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the Senator. The other point is that people should be entitled to get this contributory old age pension without in fact continuing as voluntary contributors?
No.
I shall sit down and let the Senator make the point again. We seem to be at cross-purposes.
These people have been insured for widows' and orphans' pensions until they retired on superannuation. If they do not then stamp their cards themselves, they lose the benefit of the widows' and orphans' cover and if they die, though they have been insured, if the card has not been stamped, there is no benefit. That is what I am told.
To maintain their cover, they have to stamp their own cards now at a rate of 2/6d. They are out of employment; they are on pension. The other people in that position who have been insured for all the benefits can go to the employment exchange and register because they get not alone credit but they also get the unemployment benefit. There is no purpose in these people going to the employment exchange. They are not looking for work as such. They are not getting benefit. The only purpose would be to get credit instead of spending the 2/6d. on stamps. I suggest that the Minister might, by regulations or such, provide that these people's entitlement would be kept alive without the necessity of themselves purchasing 2/6d. stamps and putting them on the cards.
Surely that is going over far? First of all, they are on superannuation. They already have a pension. The next thing is to secure an additional benefit, the benefit for which they were insured, the widows' and orphans' pension if they happen to predecease their wives, with allowances for their children, if they have qualified children. They get all that for the sake of 2/6d. That is all they are asked to do. They may die within a very short period, one does not know. The Senator earlier cited statistics to show that their expectation of life was very dismal indeed. It is not correct for the Senator to assume that very few people will qualify for old age contributory pension since we, know that at least 50,000 will—but I really do not think there is any merit in that contention. If they pay 2/6d. until they reach 70 years of age or until they die as it would be in their case, they would be doing very well.
Senator O'Donovan said he did not understand how this, that and the other was. I am not going to accept the Almighty's responsibility for Senator O'Donovan's lack of understanding. The position is that the figures I gave are figures calculated by an actuary and the contribution income which is to be £4,075,000 is the calculation which he made. I do not think that either Senator O'Donovan or I is qualified to challenge that. I am not challenging it, whatever about Senator O'Donovan. The Senator also suggested that the greatest proportion of the income was coming from women.
I suggested nothing of the sort. Perhaps, the Minister will allow me to continue?
Certainly.
I suggested that the male contributors who were to suffer an increase of 63 per cent. were the great bulk statistically. If they were 90 per cent. of the number, I could understand why the Minister's calculation of £4 million might be correct but, in fact, they are not. There are 450,000 men and 200,000 women. There are many contributors who have to pay a 150 per cent. increase. We have the changes here in paragraph 6 of Section 14. You have 2/6d. and 3/3d., that is 5/9d., as against, I think, 1/7d. That, by the law of Harry, is an increase of 200 per cent. or something of that order. I said that the weighting was such that the Minister's figures could not be correct. I did not suggest that the great bulk of the contributors were women or anything of the sort.
As far as I see now, the Senator is suggesting that the estimates which have been furnished to me are incorrect. As I say, we have a highly qualified actuary in the Department—one of the most brilliant, I think, in Great Britain or Ireland. I am perfectly certain that his figures are correct and that the deductions which the Senator attempted to make on the basis of very flimsy statistics are not sound.
In any event, the general principle upon which the increased contributions have been determined is a simple one. I referred to it in my opening statement It is that the increases in the rates of contribution were fixed so that each rate should bear its due share of the cost of the increase in the benefits to which it gave title, that is to say, that every person will pay fairly for the increase which he is getting. We cannot have it any other way. If we are to reduce contributions in relation to one sector of the scheme, then we can do that only at the expense of the other contributors to the scheme or else, at the expense of the taxpayers—not of the State.
Earlier the Senator was saying that the State should do this and that. The State can do nothing. All the State can do is to take that money out of the pockets of the taxpayer and use it for certain purposes, so that if the Senator wished to reduce any one of these rates of contribution, he could do it only at the expense of some other section of the contributors or at the expense of the general taxpayer. No matter how I would propose to do it, the Senator would be bound to find fault and bound to criticise me because I did not do the other. That is all I have to say in reply to the Senator's criticism.
I am afraid that I shall have considerably more to say, for the reason that the Minister, having started off on actuarial grounds, ended up with the same line of argument as I adopted myself. He said that Senator O'Donovan put forward the view that the State should pay more. Senator O'Donovan put forward the view that if the State wishes to appear as a fairy godfather to the public in general and to a certain limited number of the public in particular, the State should be prepared to bear the burdens in the initial stages and should not shift the burden on to people who have no other option but to bear it.
I stick to my point which is a matter of logic that if you have certain people contributing a certain rate and the minimum increase in contribution is 63 per cent. and the maximum increase in contribution is something like 250 per cent. to 300 per cent.—you still have a sizeable number of people, although apparently they are regarded as a luxury, domestic servants and certain kinds of nurses—I stick to my point that the Minister will receive a great deal more than £4 million a year. He is being conservative—"a certain degree of caution" is the phrase used by him.
It is not true to say that we of the Fine Gael Party wish that this scheme should not be adopted at all. The Minister in his statement this evening put together a certain amount of what looked like logic to him and said: "You are faced with two options: we cannot afford them and therefore we cannot have them or we should accept the insurance principle." Of course every right wing Tory from the year dot to this day, from the day that compulsory national education was introduced in these islands, always said: "We cannot afford it; it will lead to immorality; it will create a disturbance in the community and everything else"; every right wing Tory has put forward that point of view.
Will the Senator tell us what is a right wing Tory?
The gentleman who stood with his back to the wall on Suez. His name was Waterhouse, was it not?
Senators might leave the right wing Tories alone.
I should have thought that the right wing Tories worked the welfare state as well as their predecessors of 1945.
I do not think they were right wing Tories at all.
We are discussing Section 14.
The Minister has suggested that the question is whether it is fair that the community as a whole should be taxed to provide benefits for certain sections—not those who are in such need as to justify the burden. I argued in my Second Reading speech that the Minister, for political reasons, was giving out benefits now at the expense of workers who would have to bear the cost for many years to come; he was going to put the Social Insurance Fund in the red deliberately so that he might get a political benefit from it. That is what I argued. It had nothing to do with insurance. The first time that insurance was introduced into any scheme in this country was by the Government with which I was associated, in the Health Insurance Bill.
Let me say at least that when the Minister was answering my arguments, he did not twist them. He put a slight veneer on them but he certainly did not twist them—I want to be fair to the Minister. There is no use in the Minister suggesting for his own purposes that the social welfare provisions in this country are not part of a more comprehensive system and there is no use in suggesting that this is something original, something never thought of before. The fact is that the Minister, for the next year or two, is going to give out, at the expense of all the workers in this community who are in the prime of life, benefits for which he as Minister is not prepared to take responsibility. He is not prepared to place the burden where it should rest on his colleague, the Minister for Finance, rather than on the social welfare contributors, the people who do the work of the community and indeed on their employers.
The result of all this will not be "tantamount" to an increase in the cost of living—though indeed I blandly suggested that on the Second Reading. It will be an increase in the cost of living. The only result of all this heaping up of burdens will be a further round of wage increases. I was taxed on one occasion with saying that people should get an increase in wages when the cost of living goes up. I agree that they should regardless of whether there is an increase in productivity or not. I do not mind declaring that as one of the ideas in which I believe. In a modern community, there should be a sufficient increase in progress all the time as to enable that to happen, but whether there is an increase in productivity or not, it is certain that this section is going to put up the cost of living and the result of that will inevitably be a further round of wage increases.
The Minister may think it a bright idea to adopt an extremely conservative line, a line of great caution—as I have seen indeed on many occasions—a caution which was not subsequently justified. The Minister may say that, but at the same time he cannot say that he is laying the foundations of something, when he will not in other directions build on foundations already laid for him.
I do not want to delay the Seanad but the arguments carried on between the Minister and Senator O'Donovan are so lofty that I am afraid I cannot get in my rather small point. May I put it in a different way to the Minister? People retiring at 65 have been either fully insured or insured to a limited extent, for widows' and orphans' benefit only. If they were insured fully they register at the employment exchange because they draw benefit and under the Bill they will, if they are married, have a benefit of 52/6d. per week or get benefit by way of disability allowance. They get the benefit and do not have to stamp cards to maintain the cover for widows and orphans in case they die. But if they were insured only for widows' and orphans' benefit, they do not get benefits by going to the employment exchange. I am not advocating that they should because they have not paid for them, but instead they have to stamp their cards and pay the sum of 2/6d. a week in order to maintain their cover. All I would ask the Minister is that he should consider this matter in his Department and if he can, by regulations, ease the burden on these people who are out of benefit and for whom, whether we like it or not, it is an expense; 2/6d. is a sizeable sum to them.
I am afraid this has been disposed of on Section 13. We are now on Section 14.
I do not intend to keep the Seanad. I understand there is a very heavy agenda and I do not think Senator O'Donovan's remarks really require an answer. After all, I did not lay any foundations on which I cannot build and continue to build. The foundations were provided by my predecessor and I am not going to be in the position he was in when he had to discontinue work which he had started.
As a preliminary, I want to ask the Minister what the results of his cogitations were in accordance with his promise to Deputy J.A. Costello at Column 881 of the Dáil report for 5th July, 1960. He promised he would see what he could do and bring in an amendment in the Seanad.
I am writing to Deputy Costello on that matter to say I have not been able to do it.
One of the difficulties about Section 16 is that there are two subsections (c) in it. I would refer to Section 16 (c), 6 (c). It seems to me that this is extremely hard on the contributors. They must pay 48 contributions minimum a year, I take it— this is my interpretation, subject to correction, for it is a complicated matter —over a period of ten years. It seems to me that if a person were out of the system as Senator Miss Davidson mentioned or was unemployed for any period worth speaking about in the period of ten years, he would become ineligible under the scheme for the contributory pension.
I would like to ask whether the Minister would not consider some more reasonable number of contributions over the period. It is forty-eight. There is only a leeway of four per year over a period of ten years. That seems to be a very small leeway which could quite easily be eaten up in a variety of ways. I should like to know whether this subparagraph (6) (c) is not really too severe on the contributors who, having been in the system for ten years, qualify on that basis, but would have difficulty even if they had one period of unemployment, in meeting the requirements.
I am afraid the Senator does not grasp the significance of the words "or credited to the claimant in respect of the period beginning ..." and so on. That means if a person draws unemployment benefit or disability benefit, he is credited for the period.
Very good.
I have read the section carefully and I have read the Dáil debates on the section and I am still somewhat puzzled and uneasy as to what is intended. I am particularly concerned with the question of redundancy. In my trade union capacity, I have experience of the arrangements in operation in C.I.E. and I am particularly concerned to know that there is no intention in this section of making regulations which would have a retrospective effect. The unions and the Board of C.I.E. in dealing with the problem have agreements relating to redundancy and people have gone out on compensation, as provided under the 1958 Transport Act, and they have gone out knowing what their entitlement is. It would be disastrous if there were any doubt or any question now that the Minister, or the Minister for Transport and Power, might, by regulations under this section, in effect diminish the entitlement under the 1958 Act or the expectation of the compensation on which they went out on redundancy. That redundancy, of course, is reduced at a certain age, 65, but they have gone out knowing their entitlement and I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that there is no intention of making regulations which would diminish their expectation of what their compensation would be at 65 or indeed at 70.
I am not in a position to give any undertaking in respect of any other Minister whose responsibility may lie in respect of any scheme outside that which I shall be administering under the Bill. The sole purpose of this section is to enable existing schemes to be fitted into this insurance scheme. It may happen that in schemes which provide for redundancy, the people may wish, having regard to the fact that these schemes are on a contributory basis, to vary the redundancy conditions and at the same time, vary the contributions. Nothing will be done to affect the position of people already enjoying benefits under superannuation schemes.
I think I can say for my colleagues, as I would say for myself, that in so far as there is any person who may be enjoying the benefits of any of the existing schemes, whether he is benefiting under redundancy conditions or not, his position will not be affected. It may happen however that in relation to schemes which provide for redundancy, where agreement has been substantially reached but is not unanimous, then, by regulation, the Minister may determine a certain issue in order that an impasse may be resolved, but it is not the intention, as I said already, and I wish to repeat it, to affect the position of any person already enjoying benefits under any of the superannuation schemes.
I understand from reading the Minister's statement in the Dáil on this section that there is a precedent for it. He referred to a section in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935. I must say that this kind of section in legislation is obviously extremely objectionable. The first part of the subsection reads:—
If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation this Act or any amendment of the Acts or the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1959, effected by this Act, the Minister may, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance, by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Act into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
As we all know, there is in existence the Statutory Instruments Committee, which is a very excellent committee from the point of view of the Legislature, from the point of view of both Houses of the Oireachtas. But this kind of blanket provision that the Minister may by Order modify the provisions of the Act seems to me to be extremely objectionable. What it means is that we are handing over to the Executive part of the machinery of Government, powers which, strictly speaking, belong to the Legislature. If any difficulty arises in bringing the Act into operation or in implementing the Act, the obvious thing would be to bring in an amending Act. There is no great difficulty in bringing a short amending Act before both Houses and as far as effectiveness is concerned, it would be put through just as quickly as would an Order which has to go through the Statutory Instruments Committee and be tabled in both Houses. This kind of provision makes the work of the Committee extremely difficult and I see no reason for it.
In reply to Deputy Corish in the Dáil, the Minister stated that there is no question of reducing any benefit. I take it that perhaps Deputy Corish's question arose from the phrase "subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance". The Minister for Finance might not be inclined to sanction anything which he might have to pay out of his own purse, but he might be inclined to sanction something which might have to be paid out of somebody else's purse. I imagine, on the other hand, that the words "subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance" would suggest an increase of some sort by association with that phrase in other Acts. On the whole, this kind of section in legislation is objectionable and should not be resorted to by the members of the Government.
Really Senator O'Donovan laid great stress upon the contents of the provisions of subsection (1) of the section but he glided very quickly over subsection (2) which leaves the final powers in this matter in the hands of either House of the Oireachtas—not both Houses, but either House.
The Senator suggested that the laying of the Order before the House, and taking the steps necessary to secure its annulment, is a cumbrous procedure. He suggested that we should substitute for that the whole machinery whereby the law is fundamentally altered, that we should go through the solemn procedure of putting down a Bill for First Reading in either House, getting leave to have it printed, proceed to debate the principle of the Bill on Second Stage some days later perhaps, then go on to Committee Stage, Report Stage, and then to Fifth Stage, and when those five stages have been gone through in one House to proceed to go through four Stages in the other House.
I think the procedure which is laid down here is simple. It gives either House complete control over the actions of the Minister for Social Welfare, who himself, as Senator O'Donovan pointed out, is subject to a degree of control by his colleague, the Minister for Finance.
For the first time this evening the Minister sounded really happy on this Section. He was able to detail the roundabout procedure that has to be implemented to pass a Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister knows well that many Bills have been passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas in ten minutes. It is not only with regard to this section, but in many aspects of our affairs, that this type of question arises.
The Minister contented himself with saying that one procedure is easier than the other. He even mentioned the printing of a Bill. The fact is—if I may imitate the Minister for a moment in the same happy vein—that there is a great deal more printing in an Order than in an amending Bill because in an Order there are successions of "whereas" and so forth.
We could drop those, if it would please the Senator.
The Minister could do that also, I suspect, without affecting it legally. At any rate, that is the way it is done. In fact, there is a great deal more printing in an Order than in an amending Bill. There is no doubt that this kind of provision is objectionable. There is no question about that. It is eluding and sidetracking the Legislature. We all know that an Order would be 21 days with both Houses, etc., but we also know that the number of occasions on which these Orders are queried is very few.
I should like to support very strongly the case made by Senator O'Donovan, because this is one other step towards government by Order which is lowering the status of both Houses. We all know that a short amending Bill could be put through very rapidly and, in fact, we know to our cost also that in the discussion, on such a Bill, we are restricted very narrowly to what is contained in the amending Bill, and have not the power to refer to the Act which is being amended, or make suggestions for other amendments we might feel were necessary. The Government know they can rely on a majority in both Houses and, therefore, they know that an Order cannot be rescinded.
We all know that the Government could get an amending Bill through the House, if they wished. On an amending Bill the Government have to explain precisely why the change is necessary, and in the ensuing debate, points may emerge which might even cause the Government to change their mind. When an Order is laid on the Table, it is not queried usually because there is not a debate which might show the real purpose behind the Order, or raise unsuspected points about the Order that might not be apparent at first sight.
I should like to protest against this inroad into the functions of the Legislature, and if this type of thing persists, we shall have no option but to challenge every Order laid before the House and in doing that, we shall fulfil our function as a legislative assembly and ensure that reasons will be given why Orders are necessary.
For the life of me, I cannot see any justification for the opposition levelled at these two subsections, especially subsection (2). In my opinion, it is usual in measures of this kind, where Orders have to be made, to have copies of those Orders laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that should be acceptable to any reasonable person. We have also the Committee on Statutory Orders and Instruments functioning, and it is their duty—and they meet for that purpose—to examine all the Orders that are laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not see what objection there can be to these subsections.
Subsection 3 of the section provides:—
No order may be made under this section after the expiration of one year after the commencement of this section.
It would be a very unusual procedure to have an amending Bill dealing with Orders and, in my opinion, there would be no justification for it.
The operative word in subsection (1) of Section 22 is "modify". If an Order made under this section is to modify the provisions of an Act of Parliament, if an ordinary Order made under a certain section modifies the provisions of an Act of these Houses, I think that if there were a provision that any such Order should be brought before the House within one year as an Act or some such provision, it would be all right, but it is wrong for us to pass legislation here allowing the Government or anyone else to modify the provisions of an Act of the Oireachtas. Possibly there would be great difficulty in a measure such as this which is new legislation, but it is a principle we should not give away freely.
I think the section has to be read as a whole. If an Order has to be made, it will not be made for frivolous reasons. It must be assumed that a Minister who makes an Order will act responsibly and in accordance with the terms of the section which gives him the power.
This section starts with a proviso which governs it as a whole. The proviso is: "If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation this Act or any amendment of the Acts or the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1959, effected by this Act,..." If a difficulty arises in bringing into effect this Act, which the Oireachtas has already passed and, having passed, indicates it wishes it to be brought into effect, then the Minister is given temporary power— power for a period of one year—to make an Order, subject to a certain condition, namely, that either House of the Oireachtas has the power of veto upon any Order he may make.
Having regard to the complex administrative difficulties, many of which cannot ordinarily be foreseen, in bringing a new Act containing novel provisions into effect, I feel that that is the least power that might be given to the Executive and that there is no encroachment whatsoever upon the legislative power of either House of the Oireachtas.