Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1974

Vol. 79 No. 4

Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

The object of this Bill is to provide a means whereby any particular class of ministers of religion who are engaged on pastoral duties may be covered by the social insurance scheme as employed contributors when the appropriate authority or body acting on their behalf has sought their admission to that scheme. I trust that the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill will assist Senators to understand more readily the somewhat technical provisions of the Bill.

Under existing legislation all persons in religion whether doing pastoral or other duties are specifically excluded from participation in the social insurance scheme. The reasons for their exclusion are complex but broadly speaking stem from the fact that such persons are not employees in the commonly accepted sense even though some are paid by fixed stipend or salary.

While there was no evidence of dissatisfaction in the past with the exclusion of clergy from the social insurance scheme, the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland has in recent years been pressing for the admission to that scheme of their ministers of religion who are engaged on pastoral duties. I am satisfied that the continued exclusion from social insurance of such clergymen, many of whom are married with family responsibilities, can no longer be justified.

Normally the admission of an excluded class of persons to the social insurance scheme is a fairly straightforward matter. The inclusion is effected by adding the employment of the class to the statutory list of insurable employments. The adoption of this procedure in relation to the admission to insurance of a specific class of ministers of religion has not however been possible. Such a step would create difficulties in view of Article 44.2.3º of the Constitution, which reads:

The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

In any event it is not intended that the Bill should provide that only one class of ministers of religion would be enabled to join the social insurance scheme.

The Bill therefore proposes to remove the barrier standing in the way of any class of ministers of religion engaged on pastoral duties in respect of whom the appropriate church authority makes representations that they should be insured. This method, which I am advised is free from constitutional defect, will permit the relevant authority of any religious denomination to seek to have its ministers of religion brought within the social insurance scheme if it so desires.

Any class of ministers of religion which may become insured under the provisions of this Bill will be covered for all the usual benefits except unemployment benefit and occupational injuries benefit, and accordingly the rate of insurance contribution payable is being appropriately reduced.

I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to Seanad Éireann for favourable consideration.

Mr. Yeats

This is a small but important Bill for those covered by it. We, on this side of the House, welcome it. This is a routine Bill. It is hardly worthwhile complaining about a Bill of this kind being introduced in the week before Christmas, when one assumes it has been lying around for a considerable time in the files of the Department and could have been produced much earlier. Nevertheless, it is welcome. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on dealing with this matter.

I wish to say something about the extreme complexity of this Bill, which deals with a relatively simple matter. I know that for some reason —I am not at all clear why—it seems to be necessary in any amendment of the social welfare legislation to produce Bills of this kind. It seems to be almost impossible to make any amendment in social welfare legislation without getting involved in the most extraordinarily complex and, to a large extent, unintelligible legislation. One would wish that it were possible to bring in some kind of codification which would enable all the social welfare legislation under all the different Acts to be brought into one Act, so that future amendments would refer to one Principal Act. Even allowing for the inevitable complexity of this kind of legislation—one certainly cannot blame the Parliamentary Secretary for this because he is obviously in the hands of his parliamentary draftsman—this Bill is unnecessarily complicated and, in particular, provides unnecessary difficulty for those who try to make out what is in it.

Section 3 amends section 12 of the Principal Act. The whole section, as it now stands, is set out. One can congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on this, because in answer to complaints made in previous years that sections of Acts were being amended by the addition of one small subsection, and nobody ever quite knew how the Act now read, the practice has been adopted recently— it is a good one and to be commended—of setting out the entire section being amended. In that way, one at least knows the present position. However, it could be done better. If one looks up section 12 of the Principal Act of 1952, one will realise that it bears very little relationship to section 12 of the Principal Act, as set out in this Bill. All kinds of additions have been made in recent years whether by other Acts, by ministerial order or by a combination of both. I really do not know. It is misleading, even though it may be in accordance with the rules of the parliamentary draftsman, to set out in a Bill of this kind what is described as section 12 of the Principal Act, whereas in fact it was section 12 as amended on frequent occasions by various means. We have paragraphs (bb), (dd), (cc) and so on, which have been added at different times. If it is not possible in the side note of this Bill to say just what is happening to section 12 of the Principal Act, it ought to be possible to state it in the explanatory memorandum. One very small amendment has been made to paragraph (a) and all the others have really no relationship to this Bill. It is nice to see them here, but it would be better if amendments made in previous years were set out precisely. It should not be described, misleadingly, as section 12 of the Principal Act.

I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the hands of his draftsman in this matter. However, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to insist as a matter of some urgency that the codification process, which I hope is going on, should be speeded up. This Bill, which deals with a very simple matter, is extraordinarily complex. In the interests of all those concerned with the social welfare law, some effort should be made as soon as possible to codify this law.

Mr. Russell

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary in bringing it before us. I do not think it could have been brought in at a more appropriate time than just before Christmas. I am sure this House will not delay the necessary legislation. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions which he might deal with in his reply.

This Bill removes disabilities against people in religion, and very necessarily so. However, the Parliamentary Secretary stated in his speech:

Any class of ministers of religion which may become insured under the provisions of this Bill will be covered for all the usual benefits except unemployment benefit and occupational injuries benefit, and accordingly the rate of insurance contribution payable is being appropriately reduced.

When we are bringing legislation of this kind, why cannot all benefits be included, or are they included under some other legislation? We would all like to feel that in religion people of either sex, who work and carry out the same duties as the lay man or lay woman, should be covered for the normal hazards of their occupation. In this day and age it is rightly accepted that discrimination of any kind on the grounds of religion should be excluded from our legislation. This measure is to be welcomed. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up this point.

Dr. West

I give this Bill a very warm welcome, as someone who has made representations over a considerable period to the Parliamentary Secretary to rectify the anomaly in our social welfare legislation by which all ministers of religion were excluded from paying into our social insurance scheme and therefore excluded from claiming the benefits which accrue to people under this scheme.

There was a technical difficulty, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, in putting this scheme into operation, because there is basically a distinction between the two main groups of clergy in the country—the Protestant clergy, taking all the denominations, and the Roman Catholic clergy. The Protestant clergy are generally married and the Roman Catholic clergy are always single. The benefits from social insurance schemes appeal much more to people who are married and have families. That is mainly the problem we are dealing with. While Protestant clergy, particularly the Church of Ireland clergy who make up the bulk of Protestant clergy in the Republic, wished to enter the scheme, it was not so clear that Roman Catholic clergy were as interested because they would have to make quite a contribution from their salary. Therefore it was not clear that the two groups of clergy had the same interest. It is also not clear to me if in the future the Catholic Church might not consider having married clergy. It is not my problem, but I think from what I read in the liberal Press favoured by Senator Halligan, that it might happen any day now.

However, this is a pressing problem for the married clergy. Under Article 44 of the Constitution the State is not allowed to discriminate between people of differing religion on the ground of their profession. That was the difficulty facing the Parliamentary Secretary. He has got over this problem in a very successful way in that any particular church involved can make representations on behalf of its clergy. If the church makes a representation to the Parliamentary Secretary, then he will include the clergy of that church under the social welfare scheme. They will be eligible to pay insurance and eligible to receive the benefits.

I am particularly pleased to put on the record that when I first approached the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago he outlined the difficulties in this respect. He said that this was being considered and that they were seeing what could be done. When we got the matter a little further on and pressed our inquiries further, he promised that the legislation would be forthcoming in a very short time—in fact, in this session. I am particularly pleased to see that promise honoured. It is greatly to the credit of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Bill is with us before Christmas as he promised. It is not often that a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary is able to honour such a promise because of the exigencies of political life.

There are a couple of small points I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about. Perhaps he would outline the main benefits to which the clergy who pay into this scheme will be entitled to now which they did not have before.

At what date will this Bill come into operation and what will be the mode of operation of the Bill? It is not quite clear from section 2 whether the benefits of the Bill come into operation after representation has been made by the specific church. In section 2, where the amendment is being made to the First Schedule of the Principal Act, these are two categories—category (a) a clergyman who is remunerated by stipend or salary or similar payment; and category (b), a clergyman on behalf of whom the church authority makes a representation to the Minister. Are these distinct categories or are they the same? Could the Act come into operation immediately for all those who have a salary, or must the church make a specific representation?

One of the problems for the Church of Ireland clergy is that, although they receive a regular salary—and everybody knows what their salary is— nowadays that salary is pretty small, relatively speaking. A man with a family is often hard pressed to give them a decent standard of living. He is not technically employed by the bishop, who does not have the right to fire him as an employer would have, except for very unusual reasons. I do not know the legal position, but technically the bishop is not his employer. One cannot say that the Almighty is his employer: he must have a physical employer down here if he wants to qualify for the Bill.

However, on behalf of the Church of Ireland, I give this Bill a very hearty welcome. We are delighted to see that the anomaly has been removed and hope that other denominations will feel that they can avail of the very important benefits that accrue to people in the social insurance scheme. I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on having it before us on time.

Mr. Halligan

Senator West from his own experience has given us some idea of the complexities behind this Bill, which though a minor Bill is nonetheless an important one which had to circumvent and then overcome quite complex problems. I am sorry that the spirit of Christmas has not yet affected Senator Yeats. When it does he might be a little more generous towards the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Yeats

I specifically said I did not blame the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Halligan

I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary again on a very imaginative approach to the whole area of social welfare. This, along with his obvious sense of compassion, is his greatest characteristic. I will not embarrass him any further beyond saying that he is embarking piece by piece on a programme of reform necessitated not only by the social conditions under which we live, and presumably will continue to live under for quite some time, but also by the lack of imagination so evident in the previous 16 years.

I agree with Senator Yeats in one regard: I would support his plea for a codification of social welfare legislation. I have no hesitation in putting on the record of the House that as a Member of it I have not really come to grips with this relatively simple piece of legislation. I cannot find my way through it as well as I would want. I am sure that the problem must be equally difficult for those who are professionally engaged in the field of social welfare, whether voluntarily or statutorily. Accordingly, I would support the plea that has been made for a codification and simplification of the whole field of social welfare legislation.

I am happy that the Bill has been phrased in such a way, as is required by the Constitution, that it does not make a specific reference to any one religion or another, although it was occasioned by the economic necessities of one particular group of clergymen. I am glad therefore that the Bill is more ecumenical than it might otherwise have been. I am glad also it is so far sighted that if what Senator West prophesises occurs—that the major Christian denomination in this country does have married clergy— it will not be necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to come back and seek an amendment to the Bill.

However, I have just one query. Perhaps I am speaking out of total ignorance and am making an inquiry which may be totally unnecessary. The Bill refers to "a minister of religion". Am I correct in assuming that we are dealing only with the masculine gender? Do nuns come under the provisions of the Bill? They, too, are people employed full-time in religion. Many of them are remunerated and I wonder whether or not they are included also? Do I take it that ministers of religion only are included when they are being remunerated in one way or another? Is that leaving out of the scope of the Bill those who are enjoined by vows of poverty not to receive financial remuneration one way or another? Perhaps there is provision for the inclusion of monks within the terms of the Bill. There is a possibility, under section 2 (2), where it states "or a person living in a religious community as a member thereof," that they are covered there.

I should like to again congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on closing this loophole in the social welfare legislation and to expressing the hope that his obvious energy, determination and dedication to this particular area of government will result, within the not too distant future, of the complete codification and simplification of the social welfare legislation.

Miss Walsh

I want to qualify my opening remarks by saying that, while I have not actually studied the legal ramifications of the Bill—I have just read the memorandum—I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on this innovation of his and I welcome it. As a member of a local authority I have been in the embarrassing situation of having been approached on two different occasions by ministers of religion who had to come to me to find out if they could have a medical card. This is a deplorable situation in any allegedly Christian country. The humblest person is entitled to a medical card. Yet ministers of religion are precluded because they wear clerical garb. In some instances that clerical garb covers a multitude, a multitude of necessity. There are ministers of religion working hard for their cause who are living on a mere pittance, who are on the bread line, so to speak. It is about time we took such people into consideration. In this day and age, with the rising cost of living, this is one section of the community who have been totally ignored.

I should like to join with Senator Halligan in asking if the female members of religion, the nuns in our society and particularly the nuns who have returned from service in the foreign mission fields, are included in this measure.

I should like again to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary. This Bill has my wholehearted support for the reasons I have stated. It must be an embarrassment for any person wearing clerical garb to have to seek the assistance of a health board to get a medical card. The time is well overdue for them to be entitled to some form of social welfare insurance. It should be automatic, without them having to go on bended knees to public representatives.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

First of all, I should like to thank all sides of the House for the welcome they have given to the Bill. There was clearly a recognition by Senators of the great need for this Bill and the difficulties and hardships that some clergymen were suffering because they were excluded. I do not think we recognise fully that these people not only serve their own congregations, their own communities, but they perform a very valuable and dedicated service to our society as a whole—and for very little material reward in the vast majority of cases. This has led to considerable hardship not only for themselves but for their families also. I hope that this Bill will remove some of the causes of this hardship.

I shall try and deal with a number of queries. Senator Yeats mentioned two points. The first was that it was regrettable that the Bill was not brought in before Christmas. I can assure him and the House that I made every effort to have the Bill passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. I was very conscious of the need for such a provision. As I explained in my opening remarks, there were certain constitutional difficulties which delayed the preparation of the Bill.

Senators Yeats and Halligan mentioned the complexity of what should be a relatively simple measure. I agree with these remarks. It is possible to get bogged down in even the most minor regulation or Bill dealing with social welfare. I accept fully that there is a great need for an updating of social welfare legislation. I appreciate this presents great difficulties to Members of both Houses and also for myself when I must sort out what is and is not relevant. The people who suffer most from this difficulty are those Senator Halligan mentioned, the staff of the Department, who must do a tremendous amount of work to get relatively small results—this is due to the complexity of the present legislation—and, also those people engaged in social work and voluntary organisations throughout the country.

I have begun the initial stages of preparing an updated Social Welfare Bill but because of the complexities involved it will not come before either House in the immediate future. I assure the House however that I am aware of this problem and that I hope to rectify the situation as soon as it is possible to do so.

Senator West was very active in promoting thinking along the lines which resulted in the present Bill. He pursued the matter very vigorously at least during my period of office and I do not know for how long before that. The Senator raised a number of points. He wanted to know what benefits would accrue and how the Bill would become operative. As the House is aware, when the President signs the Bill it becomes law. When the church authorities make representations to the Minister, the ministers of religion concerned will become eligible for social welfare insurance. I do not envisage any delay in the Bill becoming operative. However they must accumulate the normal number of contributions before they become eligible for the various benefits.

Senator West also asked for a list of the benefits. They are: disability benefit, widows' and orphans' pensions, retirement pensions, old-age contributory pensions, death grants, maternity grants, deserted wives benefit and invalidity pension.

Senator West also mentioned the exclusion of clergymen from unemployment benefit and occupational injuries. Senator Russell was more concerned that churchmen were being discriminated against because of their particular calling. This is a normal provision, which already applies to a number of lay people who qualify for limited eligibility. The reasons for this are that, as regards unemployment benefit, the possibility of these people ever needing unemployment benefit is very remote. As Senator West pointed out just as in the case of Deputies and Senators, it is very difficult to sack them.

Mr. Russell

Public sector.

Mr. Cluskey

They normally do not seek that kind of benefit. This also applies to other categories of lay workers in similar circumstances. The provision for occupational injuries is excluded for the same reasons as apply to other categories of workers.

Dr. West

What happens if a man falls out of a pulpit when he is preaching?

Mr. Cluskey

He sues the church, I presume.

Mr. Halligan

He gets back into the pulpit.

Mr. Cluskey

Senators Halligan and Walsh raised the question of whether there was any question of sex. There is no discrimination whatsoever on sex, in so far as there are religions which have ordained female ministers. Quite obviously these people would be as eligible as any male minister in the same category. It does not however include nuns, because in the normal accepted sense of the words a nun is not an "ordained minister". Nuns are professed in their religion. If there was any sort of interest shown by other religious categories to become eligible, I would not rule out the possibility of bringing them into the social insurance scheme. I have expressed the view before that the social insurance system should be as comprehensive and as all-embracing as possible. This may be a small step in relation to the number of people involved, but it is a significant one and quite progressive in the direction of making social welfare as comprehensive as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.