Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 17

In Committee on Finance. - National Health Insurance Bill, 1933—Report Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, lines 34 and 35, Section 3 (1), to delete the words "the Saorstát Eireann Unified Health Insurance Society" and substitute the words "Cumann Aontuithe an Arachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte."

This amendment is in connection with the name of the society. Deputy Kelly had an amendment down on the Committee Stage, suggesting that the name be in Irish only. The form of the name that is now submitted has been given to us by the Chief of the Translation Department. It is "Cumann Aontuithe an Arachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte." That is rather long, and as in future, if this Bill be passed, we will have only one National Health Insurance Society, I was thinking of suggesting that with the leave of the House the word "Aontuithe" might be dropped, thus shortening the title to "Cumann an Arachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte."

Question —"That the word ‘Aontuithe' be deleted"—put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 4 at the end of Section 7 to add a new sub-section as follows:—

The first secretary and the first treasurer of the unified society shall be persons who were on the 30th day of June, 1932, holders of qualifying posts under an approved society.

This amendment has been put down by me at the request of the Minister. He may remember that I moved the same amendment on the Committee Stage, and he agreed to look into the matter and let the House have his decision on Report Stage. I should like to know now what his decision is as regards the amendment.

Mr. O'Kelly

I have gone into the matter again, and I am still of the opinion that we had better leave it open. I feel fairly well satisfied that we may expect that from amongst the officials already acting in approved societies there may be found the most competent persons, but I would rather leave the matter open so as to be entirely free to select anywhere the most competent persons we can get.

Mr. Costello

Would the Minister go to the length of saying that in considering the filling of these first posts he will give the greatest possible preference to existing officials?

Mr. O'Kelly

I certainly will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 5, Section 10, between paragraphs (c) and (d) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(d) to examine and report to the Minister before the appointed day as to the possibility of establishing a suitable superannuation scheme for officers and employees of the unified society having regard to the moneys available for the purpose under the financial provisions of the Acts.

This amendment is to insert a new paragraph to meet Deputy Davin's amendment 5 on the Committee Stage. It will be remembered that there was some discussion as to the possibility of having a report submitted inside twelve months. I do not know whether that would be possible. It might not be possible, and we are desirous not to be bound to a twelve months' period. It would probably be impossible to have a report drawn up, because the staff might not be completed by that time. As any superannuation fund that is likely to be set up must come out of the administration fund of the society it is necessary to put in the words that are at the end of this paragraph "having regard to the moneys available for the purpose under the financial provisions of the Acts." I think this embodies fairly fully the point raised by Deputy Davin.

Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 4:—

In pages 7 and 8, Section 22 (1) to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) was the holder of a qualifying post under an approved society immediately before the date of transfer in respect of such approved society, and

This is a redraft of a sub-paragraph previously in the Bill, which has been rendered necessary in view of the later amendment No. 14.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 8, Section 22 (1) (d), to insert at the end of the paragraph the words "at a rate of remuneration which, having regard to the remuneration previously received by him in respect of national health insurance services, is reasonable."

This amendment is consequential upon the discussion that took place on the Committee Stage on an amendment moved by Deputy Thrift and Deputy Norton. It makes clear that the unified staff employed as officers in the present societies will be offered employment at reasonable rates. We had a discussion upon this amendment, and I promised to bring in words that would make it fairly certain that the posts to be offered to transferred officers would be as near as we reasonably could make them to their former positions. This amendment carries out that promise.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 8, section 22 (2), line 13, to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "five."

This amendment is consequential upon the right to compensation that I accepted on the Committee Stage. Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10 deal with the same matter. In connection with all these I agreed to give an increased measure of compensation, and all these amendments provide for that.

Amendment agreed to.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

7. In page 8, section 22 (2), line 15, to delete the word "one-eighth" and substitute the word "one-fifth."—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí).

8. In page 8, section 22 (2), line 17, to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "five."—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí).

9. In page 8, section 22 (2), to delete all words from the word "a" in line 18 to the word "limitation" in line 20.—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí).

10. In page 8, Section 22 (2), to insert at the end of paragraph (b) the words "together with a sum (not exceeding in any case ten-sixth of his annual remuneration) calculated on the basis of one-sixth of his annual remuneration for every two completed years of qualifying service."

Mr. Norton

I move amendment 11:—

11. In page 8, lines 31-32, Section 22 (3) (a) (iii), to delete the words "his earnings from such society were his principal means of livelihood" and substitute the words "prior to the 30th day of June, 1933, he had not less than five years' service with such society."

When we were engaged on the Committee Stage of this Bill the Minister told the House that, while his heart was perfectly willing to meet us, his pocket was unable to satisfy the demand contained in the amendment which I moved. The Minister then said that he assumed that under the Bill approximately 2,500 part-time agents would be compensated by the amendment that I then moved and that it would cost a sum of £30,000. I have since made very diligent inquiry from persons well versed in insurance work, in existing insurance societies, and also from persons who occupy a high reputation in their respective societies and in the eyes of the officials of the Department of Local Government. They are all positive in their view and they assure me that nothing like 2,500 people would have to be compensated if the Bill is passed. They say that it seems to them that a very large number of part-time agents unemployed would bring about a very unsatisfactory position in relation to national health insurance if they are to comply with the requirements of the National Health Insurance Act. Let us take the case at its worst. It has been pointed out by the Minister that at its worst the total sum involved in the amendment that I moved in Committee would amount to £30,000. But that £30,000 is not an annual sum. It meant one payment in the amendment as originally proposed by me. I said then, and I repeat now, that since the compensation will be provided in the form of a loan from the National Health Insurance Fund, that a loan of £30,000 could be easily extinguished by an annual payment of £1,500, and would be automatically wiped out in less than 20 years. Many of these part-time agents are people who have no other occupation whatever. In other cases, some of them have tiny farms. Some others have some kind of employment which is not remunerative in the sense of their being able to maintain themselves from the income they receive from that occupation. The sums they at present receive from the national health insurance societies, though they may not be very substantial, help to relieve the necessity to which they are constantly subject by having to exist upon their present meagre incomes. Therefore, to try to get some kind of compensation for people like that, I have submitted now an amendment, the purpose of which is to endeavour to provide compensation for part-time agents that have not less than five years' service with their society prior to the 30th June, 1933. The Minister's statement on the Committee Stage was that it would cost £30,000, if the original amendment that I submitted was accepted. The cost, if this amendment is accepted, will be nothing like that sum. If the Minister is prepared to compensate secretaries of national health insurance societies, and officers relatively better off than the part-time people, he ought to be prepared to provide some kind of compensation for that class of people. The Minister may say that the incomes they were receiving were small, but that only shows that their struggle for existence was all the harder, and the fact that they are likely to lose their livelihood and to have snatched away from them the pittance they are receiving is no reason for not giving them compensation for loss of the positions they had. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter and that he will indicate his willingness to accept this amendment.

Mr. Minch

I formally support Deputy Norton's amendment. Every circumstance in connection with the case he made has been brought to my notice and I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider this amendment. It is a genuine attempt to compensate the part-time agent who will undoubtedly lose the little he has been able to earn to make life worth living.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. I have gone into the matter again since the Committee Stage, and I can only repeat what I said then—that the money is not there. It is all very well, I suppose, to talk sympathetically about these people, and to say it is regrettable that they cannot be compensated. Whether it is believed or not, and whether any sincerity in me will be credited or not, all I can say is that the funds are not there, and I see no way of providing this compensation out of the limited funds at our disposal in the Administration Account. It would be a very great pleasure to me, indeed, to give compensation to this class as to the other class. I do not say that there is the same case for giving compensation to those part-time officers as to the people deprived altogether of their employment. Those deprived altogether of their employment necessarily have first claim upon the funds available for compensation. The officials whose whole time is given to national health insurance and are deprived of their office or employment come first. They came first with me and we are using the money available, so far as we can, to compensate these people. It is true that there may be some cases now of part-time people who get a not inconsiderable portion of their present income out of part-time work for national health insurance, but they are not being deprived of their livelihood in the sense that people who were whole-time employees may be deprived of it. They may have a case, but their case is not on all fours with that of the whole-time employees.

Mr. Minch

Would the Minister not consider cases on compassionate grounds?

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly

If you open the door to one case there is no way to shut it. If you admit the principle, you have to deal with every case, and there is no way of stopping it. I know that there are certain cases, such as Deputy Norton mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill where a man gets, say, £1 a week out of some outside employment and 18/- a week out of part-time national health insurance work. The taking away of that 18/- is a big loss, but I think that probably there are not very many such cases, and if we open the door for that type of case we cannot close it. We cannot say that any part-time official is not just as much entitled as any other official, and that that being so, we cannot meet these cases.

Mr. Murphy

I am afraid that the Minister is not quite accurate in this matter when he says that the money derived from work of this kind forms only part of the incomes of the people concerned. I know many men in certain parts of the country who receive about £20 from work of this kind, and that is their sole income. There are small artisans and people unemployed for some considerable time, who receive a small salary in respect of the few members they have on their list. That is the sole income of these people. I suggest to the Minister that he should endeavour, before this Bill is finally dealt with in the Seanad, to go some way to meet the conditions of hardship that may occur in cases of the kind I have described. I appreciate the fact that the Minister is quite sincere in his desire to do something in the cases mentioned if he could do it; but I think that he will find on enquiry that there will be a greater number of cases of undoubted hardship, by reason of the fact that these agents are shut out, than he imagines. On that account, I would ask the Minister to make further inquiry to see whether or not he could go some little distance to meet cases of that kind, or to meet the bulk of the cases even in a very small way.

The Minister knows, as we all know, that to the agents of the society is due the successful working of the Act, so far as it has been successful. In the matter of seeing that there is a fair deal for the insured person and in other such matters the agents have done extremely good work. They have made a success of the Act and they have done their duty very well. To a good number of them that are, to my own knowledge, out of employment for the last few years, and to people who had small businesses, such as harness makers, shoemakers and people like that, who were doing hardly any business, this is their only income. Accordingly, I should like the Minister to make further inquiries and endeavour to meet these cases in some small way.

Mr. O'Kelly

I believe that there are some cases of men—they may have been small tradesmen or goodness knows what else—who are out of employment and doing national health insurance work. Where men of that kind can prove that their livelihood— even though it was only part-time work—came out of national health insurance work, they will get compensation. Suppose a man got £50, say, as his livelihood—it may be a poor livelihood if you like—but he had to rely on that £50 for his own livelihood and that of his family—and if his trade disappears—I, certainly, will try to see that he will get compensation; but it will have to be shown and proved to us that he relied on that mainly for the source of his livelihood.

Mr. McMenamin

I appreciate that the Minister is doing his best, but we must consider that we are passing an Act that is going to disemploy these men. We are taking that responsibility of putting these men out of employment. There is another case that has not been referred to by Deputy Murphy. This matter of part-time work is very misleading. There is quite a number of these men who, while working part-time, have no other means of livelihood whatever. This work they do in national health insurance is the only job they have. I should like the Minister to consider making some provision for these men.

Mr. O'Kelly

Are they mainly dependent on the national health insurance work for their living? If they are mainly dependent on it and can prove it they will get compensation even though they are only part-time workers.

Mr. Corish

We certainly recognise the spirit in which the Minister is meeting this thing to a certain extent. We know that the Minister sympathises with these people, but I do not think he realises the hardship that will be inflicted on some people, especially in rural areas. There are a good many farm labourers in rural areas who have only casual employment as farm labourers. They draw certain quarterly wages as agents. Would such men be regarded as farm labourers merely, or would the quarterly payments be recognised? These farm labourers look forward to this money quarterly to provide boots and shoes for their children, and I would ask the Minister to leave the door open for the consideration of such cases. I do not think the Minister realises the hardship that will be imposed upon people, especially in rural areas.

Mr. O'Kelly

All I can say is that every case will be examined on its merits; but we will have to stand by the rule that a man, no matter what his occupation is—whether he is an agricultural labourer, a bootmaker, a harnessmaker or anything else—will have to prove to the satisfaction of the Department that he is mainly dependent on this national health insurance work for his livelihood, and if he can prove that he will get compensation.

Mr. Norton

I am sure that if the Minister were on the benches opposite I would have a very sincere friend to-night; but I am certain—and the Minister's timidity convinces me of the correctness of my view-point—that he does not believe in his heart that this compensation in my amendment will bring about any insolvency so far as the unified society is concerned. On the Committee Stage of the Bill I reminded the Minister of the fact that in 1912 the administration fund was 3/5 per member per annum. This is 1933, and almost every commodity has increased considerably over the level of 1912. The administration fund has been increased from 3/5 per member per annum to 4/5. When it is remembered that the complexities of the Act have increased enormously by the issue in the meantime of thousands of new regulations, and by reason of the extra charges for telephones, for rent, for stationery, and for labour; and when it is remembered that the work of the societies has increased enormously, by reason of the greater number of claims, I think the Minister will have to admit that a 30 per cent. increase in the administration fund, over the figure for 1912, is certainly a very low increase. There is nothing to prevent the Minister, and it requires no legislation, but merely the issue of a regulation to increase the administration fund from 4/5 to some higher figure. There is no doubt whatever that it can be expanded to a reasonably higher figure, to enable it to bear the extra charges which will devolve upon it by the acceptance of this amendment.

I will finish with this question: Does the Minister suggest that the administration fund cannot be increased over the present level? If it were increased over the present level, would it not be possible to provide the compensation suggested in the amendment? Has the Minister so little faith in the future solvency of the society that he cannot saddle it with the responsibility of £1,000 or £1,500 per annum for 20 years? If the Minister has not faith in the solvency of the fund, that it will bear an impost of that kind, I am sure the Minister will feel very little comfort in having introduced this Bill.

Mr. O'Kelly

I have said all that I can say on it.

Mr. T. Kelly

Being a neighbour of the Labour Party in the House, I would appeal to the Minister not to close the door absolutely, but to leave it so that it can be pushed a little later on. Probably the Minister would then be able to please the Labour Deputies. They got the better of my heart to-night, but not of my head.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided:—Tá: 59; Níl: 56.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Everett and Keyes.

Question declared carried.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 8, Section 22 (3) before paragraph (e) to insert two new paragraphs as follows:—

"(c) where a person who was the holder of a qualifying post under an approved society was temporarily absent from such post and during the whole of such absence was engaged in service in any of the military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland, or in the British Army, Navy, or Air Force, or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923, 1924 or was interned or imprisoned in consequence of such service, the following provisions shall have effect for the purposes of this sub-section, that is to say:—

(i) such person shall be deemed during such temporary absence to have been the holder of a qualifying post under such approved society and the period of such temporary absence shall be reckoned as qualifying service accordingly, and

(ii) if such person resumed his position as the holder of a qualifying post under such approved society not later than six months after the expiration of the period of such temporary absence, no interval of time shall be deemed to have elapsed between such expiration and such resumption, and

(iii) if such person resumed his position as the holder of a qualifying post under such approved society within a reasonable time after the expiration of the period of such temporary absence and the delay in such resumption was due to wounds or illness attributable to such service, internment, or imprisonment, or to no vacancy being available in such society, no interval of time shall be deemed to have elapsed between such expiration and such resumption,

(d) where a person who was the holder of a qualifying post under an approved society was temporarily absent from such post during labour disputes connected with such society, such person shall for the purposes of this sub-section be deemed during such temporary absence to have been the holder of a qualifying post under such society and the period of such temporary absence shall be reckoned as qualifying service accordingly.

This is an amendment substantive to the amendment moved by Deputy Costello on the Committee Stage. The amendment preserves the continuity of employment in respect of any period of absence on service in the various forces. In the case of the period after discharge employment must be resumed within six months. In the case of persons owing to wounds or because of a vacancy not being available his resumption of employment must take place within a reasonable time. The period between discharge and resumption will not count as qualifying service. The amendment agrees in principle with the amendment moved by Deputy Costello with the addition of the suggestion made by Deputy Kelly with regard to labour disputes.

Mr. Norton

I want to ask the Minister a question. Take the case of a person who fought in 1916 and was absent from his business with a national health insurance society because of that fact. Does the Minister think that he would be covered under this section?

Mr. O'Kelly

He would be covered.

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister sure of that?

Mr. O'Kelly

I feel certain that any period of absence is covered.

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister satisfied that, legally, the authority of the first Dáil would extend to 1916?

Mr. O'Kelly

I do not suppose that legally the authority of the first Dáil could extend in that fashion, but I am satisfied that, so far as we are concerned, anybody out of employment in national health insurance by reason of participation in certain forces will be treated under this section as being out of employment with the forces and will get compensation.

Mr. Norton

But, ultimately, when the Bill passes through this House and the Seanad it may not be the Minister who will be the determinator. It may be the courts, and the courts will have to construe this section by inquiring: "what is the authority of the First Dáil"? A person who served in 1916 would thereby be excluded because it does not seem that the authority of the First Dáil would cover activity in 1916. I suggest to the Minister that the case might be covered.

Mr. O'Kelly

If it is not covered, we will see that it is.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister may remember that on the Committee Stage an amendment was moved by Deputy Dockrell although it was, in fact, standing in the name of Deputy Good. It provided that persons who fell ill, or for any other reason had a hiatus in their period of employment with an approved society, should not be penalised: that they would be entitled to get credit for all the years they had, in fact, served. This is another type of case that could arise. A man might have employment with an approved society from 1912 to 1915, then be dispensed with for redundancy and get a job with another approved society towards the end of 1915. There would be a hiatus between his first period of employment and his second period of employment. As the Bill stands it would seem that he would not be eligible for compensation in respect of the entire term. The reason I mention this is because the Minister indicated his intention of covering this under his own amendment. I do not think amendment 12 does so cover it.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am certain that I did not promise to cover the case of any man who had actually broken service. A person, as the Deputy suggests, had employment for a number of years with one approved society and then because of redundancy was dismissed or lost his employment. A year or two later he got employment with another approved society. I do not think we would feel ourselves bound to compensate that person when there was a definite break in the service—compensate him for service anterior to the break.

Mr. Dillon

My impression is that words were used on the Committee Stage which led Deputy Dockrell to believe that it was the Minister's intention to accept this. I think I have the reference here. Certain it is, at any rate, that Deputy Dockrell withdrew the amendment under the belief that that was so.

Mr. O'Kelly

My recollection is that Deputy Dockrell's amendment dealt with the question of sickness. Certainly, anybody out of employment through sickness as long as the contract was maintained—even though he might be two years ill, if he were kept on the books as an officer of the society and were only drawing a very small proportion of his remuneration—would be covered, but not a person who had a definite break in employment with one insurance society and then took up employment three years later with another society. We would not feel ourselves bound to give compensation to that person over the entire field of years of service in any approved society.

Mr. Dillon

Let me put this case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy know that this is a Report Stage?

Mr. Dillon

I am aware of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already spoken.

Mr. O'Kelly

I think the Deputy was only asking a question.

Mr. Dillon

I gave way to the Minister so that I might find a reference in the Official Reports. If the Chair thinks that I have already exhausted my privilege, I will not pursue the matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a privilege. It is the right of a Deputy to speak once on Report.

Mr. Dillon

I am in the hands of the Chair. I gave way to the Minister to try to find a reference.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not know that the Deputy gave way.

Mr. O'Kelly

He did.

Mr. Dillon

A case may arise where you have men with a protracted period of service. Take the case of a man who has been in this business from the very beginning. He had a long period of service with one society which amalgamated with another or, perhaps, it ceased to exist. For some reason that man's services were dispensed with. In six months' time he got employment with another society, and perhaps had only three years' service in the second position when these unification proposals came along. As the Bill stands that man gets compensation on the basis of three years' service although in fact he has had 20 years' service. It was the most fortuitous circumstance that deprived him of his rights. I think it was the policy of the Government to encourage, where they could, a lame or a crippled society to amalgamate with a more solvent one. The policy was to encourage the solvent society to take over the lame one. Because of that the man had a hiatus in his employment. I would invite the Minister to examine that class of case and deal with it in the Seanad if he thinks it deserving of consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 8, line 49, Section 22 (3) (c) (i) to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "three."

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the remuneration of an officer who is to get compensation under the Bill shall be calculated on the average of three years prior to the date mentioned in the Bill. On Committee Stage, I put down an amendment providing that the remuneration should be the remuneration of the officer for the 12 months ending 30th June, 1932. The Minister could not see his way to accept that amendment and gave, I think, as his principal reason for objecting to the amendment, that it was quite possible that certain societies, anticipating that the unification proposals would be brought forward, had increased the salaries of their officers, or, of some of their officers, and he, accordingly, did not see his way to accept the amendment. It is felt that the five years' period over which the compensation is to be assessed or, rather, the remuneration of the officer calculated, is rather a long period, particularly in cases in which there has been a genuine upward tendency in the salary of the official in question and it is felt that it is not right that the officer who received genuine, gradual increases of salary, extending over three to five years, should be penalised for some small number of cases where hurried increases of salaries were given with a view to anticipating the unification proposals.

I am instructed that, even in such cases, where societies, in an endeavour to anticipate the provisions of this Bill, increased the salaries in an obvious way or on a large scale, the National Health Insurance Commission and the Department in general would have seen that abuse and would have been in a position, on the audit, to remedy it. I would appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment which I think is a reasonable one— three years instead of five—and to consider that the genuine cases are more appropriately dealt with than the exceptional cases of demerit or evasion.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. The question of unification has been discussed amongst the societies and the general public interested since 1925, and it has been known to the approved societies that quite a number of societies have amalgamated in a process, one might call it, of unification. Deputy Dillon referred to some of the lame societies joining up with other societies and that process has been going on for a number of years. I think that many societies realise that something of the kind that is happening now was bound to happen sooner or later and, as a result, a number of societies that could not out of their ordinary funds afford to increase the salaries of their officers have used their surplus funds to increase those salaries. The result is that the administration fund that ought to be at 4/5 per head has gone up to 4/9.

Mr. Norton

How many cases?

Mr. O'Kelly

I cannot give the number of cases, but there is one case where the figure is as high as 5/2.

Mr. Norton

Are there more than six cases?

Mr. O'Kelly

I cannot tell. I do not know them, but there are, I am told, a fairly large number of cases where the administration fund has gone up to 4/9½. I do not know how many cases there are, and we do feel that, that being so, the spreading of the periods over five years is fairer in view of the fact that, as I am informed, it is well known that increases that would not ordinarily have been granted, were it not that this possible unification was in view, were granted to a number of officials. Their rates of remuneration raised above what they ordinarily would have been because they anticipated that something of this kind was going to come and, of course, the compensation would be based on their salaries over a certain period of years. The administration fund, to which I have had to refer so often, is already too high, and reducing the period to three years would increase the compensation which we have already, at any rate, I think for the whole-time officials, made more generous than we can afford.

Mr. Costello

Might I ask the Minister a question arising out of a point which I made and which he has not answered? Would the abnormal increases in official salaries, such as the Minister has referred to, be regarded as a matter of maladministration by the Insurance Commission which could have been and would have been stopped if they were regarded as abuses?

Mr. O'Kelly

There was no power in the Insurance Commission to stop it. I believe that 4/9½ is the average over the whole lot and does not refer to a particular number of societies.

Mr. Norton

How many actually exceeded 4/9, because a big society exceeding it heavily might level up the average?

Mr. O'Kelly

The average over all societies is 4/9½.

Amendment No. 13 withdrawn.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment 14:—

In page 8, before Section 22 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where—

(a) a person who though employed by some other person or body has in the course of such employment been engaged on health insurance work for an approved society, and

(b) such person ceases to be employed by such other person or body by reason of the transfer of the engagements of such society under this Act, and

(c) such person, if engaged part-time only on such work for such society, proves to the satisfaction of the provisional committee that the remuneration paid to him by such other person or body in respect of such work was his principal means of livelihood,

such person shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed in respect of every period during which he was engaged on such work for such society to have been the holder of a qualifying post under such society, but in calculating under sub-section (3) of this section his average annual remuneration as the holder of a qualifying post under such society no payments, other than payments in respect of such work for such society, shall be taken into account.

This amendment is brought in to cover suggestions contained in Deputy Costello's amendment No. 29 on Committee Stage, so far as it was agreed to. The Deputy will remember that we divided them into three classes. We dealt with two of them, but the third we were not able to deal with. The amendment provides compensation for certain persons performing the health insurance work of approved societies but not directly employed by such societies. Certain big English insurance societies will particularly occur to the minds of those interested. Those societies make an annual payment in return for which the employees on these companies perform the health insurance work of their societies. Such persons who lose their employment as a result of the transfer of the society will be entitled to compensation on the same terms and conditions as if they had been directly employed by the society. It also covers the cost of clerical assistants not directly employed by the society but employed, perhaps, by the secretary or by the higher officials of these societies.

Mr. Costello

I suppose there is no use appealing to the Minister on behalf of the professional gentlemen employed on the salary basis—professional gentlemen of the legal fraternity? There is only one particular case I have in mind and, perhaps, an exception could be made in his favour.

Mr. O'Kelly

Could the individual concerned say that he was mainly dependent on that income?

Mr. Costello

Oh, no.

Mr. O'Kelly

There is not much chance of it, then.

Mr. Costello

I did not think there was.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, before Section 22 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where—

(a) a person who was the holder of a qualifying post under an approved society would, but for his being offered at the date of transfer in respect of such society permanent employment by the unified society at a rate of remuneration which, having regard to the remuneration previously received by him in respect of national health insurance services is reasonable, be entitled to compensation under this section, and

(b) such person accepts such offer, and

(c) such person is dismissed (otherwise than for misconduct or illness) by the unified society within five years after the said date of transfer, such person may apply to the Minister for a declaration that he is entitled to compensation under this section and thereupon the Minister may, if he thinks it reasonable in all the circumstances of the case so to do, declare such person entitled to compensation under this section and upon such declaration being made such person shall, notwithstanding paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of this section, be entitled to be paid by the unified society compensation under this section.

Deputy Dillon moved an amendment, No. 27, on Committee Stage which would entitle a man employed by the unified society to claim compensation if his services were dispensed with within seven years from the date of the transfer. I think the amendment was withdrawn after discussion. I did not, so far as I remember, make any promise to meet the case but I promised to discuss the matter with the officials of the Department. I have brought forward this amendment which gives a person, who has obtained employment with the unified society and who has, consequently, got no compensation, the right of appeal to the Minister to have his title to compensation restored if his services are dispensed with by the unified society within five years for reasons other than illness or misconduct or, for instance, if he were declared redundant. I think that meets the point raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

I acknowledge with appreciation the spirit in which the Minister has met the point I raised though I deprecate the inclusion of the word "illness." I think that shows a hardness of heart that I would not have expected from the Custom House. However, if the Minister feels that that is vitally essential in order to preserve the credit of the State and of the unified society, I am not prepared to trouble him, but if his heart grows softer between now and the time when the Bill will occupy the Seanad, I suggest that he withdraw the word "illness."

Amendment agreed to.

Professor Thrift

I move amendment 16:—

In page 8, before Section 22 (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where a person entitled to compensation under this section is offered and accepts employment in the unified society at a salary lower than the salary he was receiving from the approved society on the date of transfer, he shall be entitled to compensation calculated on the value of the loss thus sustained by him.

I think that this amendment has a great deal to commend it both from the point of view of the unified society and of the employee. If adopted, it might save the unified society money. It would certainly enable them to keep in their service employees whom they would wish to retain although they were only in a position to offer them considerably less remuneration than they had been receiving heretofore. I acknowledge at once that the Minister has kept the promise made to me on Committee Stage, when he said he would consider the matter and introduce an amendment. It is with that object, I presume, that he introduced amendment 5, which goes a certain distance along the line I have been advocating. I put down this amendment again because I want to draw the Minister's attention to cases which his amendment will not meet at all, but with which it would be very desirable the unified society should have power to deal. There may be people whom they would wish to employ but whom they can offer only a salary considerably lower than they have been receiving. Under the Minister's amendment the employee in question would choose his compensation and cease to be employed by the unified society. That would entail a further demand on the compensation fund and it would deprive the unified society of the services of an experienced man which it might be distinctly to their advantage to retain.

Take an entirely hypothetical example. Suppose there were three persons employed by different societies at salaries of £500 a year. The unified society, let us suppose, has three posts vacant and it would like to employ these three men. It can offer one of them £500, another £400, and a third only £300. It would desire to keep these three men in its employment, but the man who stands to lose £200 a year will almost certainly prefer to take this compensation and trust to supplementing his income in some other way. Therefore, the society will have to pay compensation based on the salary of £500 a year. If the society had power to compensate him for his loss, they could retain his services, which they desire to do, and they would have to pay less out of the compensation fund. The amendment, I suggest, is likely to save the compensation fund money rather than increase the charges upon it. The intermediate case of the three might come under the amendment the Minister has introduced, but the other case most assuredly would not. It would hardly be said that a salary of £300 was reasonably comparable with the £500 hitherto received. I am obliged to the Minister for his consideration of the matter, but he has probably not appreciated the likelihood of many cases such as I have suggested arising. The society would save money rather than lose it by my amendment and they would keep in their employment men whose services would be very valuable.

Mr. O'Kelly

What Deputy Thrift says is quite true—that I failed to appreciate the point he made. I am still in that position. I thought we had met to some extent the case made by the Deputy when speaking to the amendment on Committee Stage. I do not think that, mathematically speaking, we would gain anything by giving compensation to those officials for the amount they would lose. If the matter were examined mathematically, it could be demonstrated that the loss would be a loss to the National Health Insurance Unified Society. If any of these three desirable officers were offered employment, it would have to be at a reasonable rate of remuneration in comparison with what they had been receiving from the approved society. If they did not accept and if they were exceptionally good officials, the loss might be ours. But, with the variety of officials there will be available, I am sure there will be enough from which to pick and choose. Financially, I think we should be better off by giving them their full compensation and letting those we are not able to assimilate or provide with posts at a reasonable remuneration in comparison with what they had, go out. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

Professor Thrift

I ask leave to withdraw the amendment and I thank the Minister for what he has been able to do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment 17:—

In page 8, Section 22 (4), line 61, to delete the word "given" and substitute the words "offered and accepts."

This amendment is introduced to meet Deputy Norton's amendment, No. 23, on Committee Stage. It permits a person who refuses temporary employment with the unified society to claim compensation when the society by which he was employed is transferred.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment 18:—

In page 9, at the end of Section 22 (7), line 13, to add the words "but nothing in this Act shall operate to restrict the right of appeal against such decision to a court of competent jurisdiction."

While, normally, the Minister would decide as to the right of the person to compensation under this section, or as to the amount of such compensation, I want to preserve in my amendment the right of any aggrieved person to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter in dispute between himself and the Minister. Under this Bill, the legislature is deciding to amalgamate compulsorily all the existing national health insurance societies—65 in number. They have not been consulted as to whether they are agreeable to amalgamation or unification. They have not been asked whether they approve of everything proposed under this Bill.

The State, for reasons of its own, comes along and insists on introducing legislation designed to provide for the unification of existing insurance societies. Many of the existing employees will be taken over and others will not be taken over and the terms of compensation provided are by no means generous. In many cases it is not unfair to say that the compensation will be unreasonable having regard to the past services and the experience of these people. Here we have the State compelling unification and providing a grossly inadequate rate of compensation. When you come to ascertain whether a person is entitled to compensation, and when you come to consider the amount of it, you find the Bill drawn in such a way that the Minister, who has resisted efforts made here to provide reasonable compensation, sets himself up as the sole arbiter as to whether a person is entitled to compensation and also the amount to which he is entitled. That is a very unreasonable rôle for an inevitably interested Minister to assume. The Minister naturally has an interest in the passage of the Bill and in ensuring that the compensation will be as low as possible. I think the Minister will scarcely plead those are not his interests, having regard to the speeches made by him on various stages of the Bill. It is altogether unfair that an aggrieved person who may lose his employment under this Bill and who is offered an ungenerous scale of compensation should, in addition, be compelled to accept as final the view of the Minister as to his eligibility for compensation, or as to the amount of compensation to which he is entitled.

This amendment seeks to provide that the Act shall be interpreted not by an interested Minister but by the courts set up under the authority of the people. It seeks to give to an aggrieved person the inalienable right of every aggrieved person; that is, the right to go to the courts and get justice there from disinterested persons. This seeks to take away from the Minister the absolute right to rule out of consideration the claims of persons for compensation, if an eventuality of that kind should arise. In a democratic State with a democratic Government one can hardly imagine an amendment of this kind being resisted. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, while normally being the person who will decide eligibility for compensation and the amount of compensation, will indicate, by accepting this amendment, that he is not nearly as infallible as the draftsman of this Bill wants to make him. I hope he will consent to allow any matter in dispute to be determined by disinterested persons in courts of competent jurisdiction set up to decide issues of this kind and to interpret the intention of Acts passed by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Dillon

From quite another point of view than that expressed by Deputy Norton, I am supporting this amendment. I do not agree with the Deputy that the terms of compensation are inadequate. On the contrary, I regard them as fair. I consider the attitude of the Minister in his approach to the problem of compensation for these displaced employees is highly reassuring to any person who may in future have to refer a claim to him.

Mr. Norton

It may be somebody else next year or the year after.

Mr. Dillon

I am of opinion, judging from the attitude of the Minister throughout the discussion, that it might be materially to the advantage of men who may have a difference with the managing committee of the unified society as to their right to compensation to have their appeal to the Minister rather than to a court of law. I imagine it might be more advantageous for them to have their appeal to the Minister for a detatched and impartial interpretation of the Act. But here a question of great principle is raised, and that is the general right of men to go to the courts and invoke assistance and protection of the courts from the Executive. It is along those lines I am drawn to Deputy Norton's amendment.

I have frequently stated here that we may do things in special cases which are quite harmless in themselves but which, as precedents for future legislation, may be very harmful indeed. This is not the first Bill that has come before the House in which an attempt was made to usurp the functions of the law officers and hand them over to a Minister of State. In this particular case I do not think any single man would be a sufferer, but I think the whole course of legislation in this country would suffer because we would subscribe to the principle that a Minister should act as the ultimate and final court of appeal. I do not think that is a sound principle.

In this measure we ought to preserve the right of appeal to the courts. I cannot see how it can materially embarrass the administration in any way. I should think it highly unlikely that any material number of appeals would go to the courts, but it would be a mistake, even if there were only two or three cases, to withhold from any individual his right to appeal to the courts for protection in any difference that arises between himself and a Minister of State.

Mr. O'Kelly

This is no new principle so far as my recollection goes. I think in a number of Bills that were introduced here a similar principle was adopted, and I think it was adopted without much opposition from the House. I think that the officials concerned, while I hope they will get justice in any court in the land, will get more than justice with the Minister as arbiter.

Mr. Norton

In that case they would not appeal to the courts.

Mr. O'Kelly

They might. I believe they would probably get more than justice with the Minister as arbiter. The question of compensation will be settled in the next two or three years for all these officials. That is certain. I, as Minister, once this Bill is passed, am outside national health insurance; I will have nothing to do with it. It will be in the hands of the managing committee. The Minister's position is entirely an impartial one, and if there is anything to be gained I think it will be gained for the officials by reason of having the Minister there in contrast with the cold—evenhanded, if you like—justice that they would get in a court of law. They would, I believe, do better by going to the Minister rather than by going to the courts.

We feel that it would tend rather to hamper the unified society if they had to deal with matters of this kind in the courts. One must remember the long delays that are naturally associated with legal work. They can more rapidly and more effectively come directly to the Minister in cases where they have any doubt as to what they are entitled to, and they will get their cases more speedily dealt with. They will get justice, in any case, and probably more than justice. Of course it is not for me to argue against the right of an individual to go to the courts. I should not do that, but I do feel that for the good working of the unified society, any disputes that may arise—I do not think there will be many—could better be adjusted if the individuals concerned go to the Minister. If they do so they will probably in all cases do much better than by going elsewhere.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say what Act of this Legislature providing for compensation gave the Minister the absolute power to determine the amount? My recollection is that all these cases of compensation provided for the setting up of an independent arbiter. Will the Minister be prepared to consider even that proposal? I have in mind the Railways Act, the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tram Act and the E.S.B. Act.

Mr. O'Kelly

I think as far as any outside arbitrator is concerned the court would be better than any outside arbitrator. That is my own personal view. But in the interests of those concerned, the officials of national health approved societies, I think they would do better by going to the Minister. That is my belief.

Question—"That the proposed words be therein added"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 61.

Tá

Níl

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Everett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Motion declared lost.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Barr