Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the question: "That Section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Before the debate was adjourned on this section, the Minister, when speaking, said that dockers were privileged with a higher rate of pay per hour than other workers because of the casual nature of their employment. He said he was informed of that. It was rather strange to hear that statement from anybody. They get that higher rate because of the heavy work they have to do. I think a case can be made for them because of the casual nature of their employment and, therefore, the amendment which I had down was all the more necessary. There is a principle involved in this section. The principle is, are such workers entitled to get benefit from the date on which they fall ill, and are they entitled to get unemployment benefit from the date on which they are thrown out of employment?
I would remind the Minister that these are classes of workers who have no resources at all. The Minister made the point that they can earn so much in four days that they can easily suffer the loss of getting nothing at all for the other two days of the week. The fact is that throughout the whole year they have 17 weeks and two days during which they will get no benefit from the State. Yet they will have their family obligations to meet during that period. Many of these men are the fathers of very large families. They have rent to pay the same as everybody else. Some of them may be in houses where the differential rent system operates. If they earn so much in the four days, the rent of their houses will go up accordingly. I think that is an argument against the point raised by the Minister. If, for instance, they have to pay rent of 10/-a week during a week in which they got two days' employment, then under this differential rent system their rents may go up to £1 a week in the following week because in that week they had four or five days' employment. Therefore, the privileges which these men enjoy, according to what the Minister was told, of a special rate because of the casual nature of their employment, are completely, nullified. The same applies to builders' labourers.
I think there is a very grave principle involved in this section, and that a case can be made for this class of workers. I submit that they should get paid sickness benefit from the date on which they fall ill, and unemployment benefit from the day on which they are thrown out of employment. As I said before, they are no less worthy of consideration than men in regular employment. If they are out for two or three days, or even for a fortnight, they get half wages or full wages. If public servants are out ill for a week or a fortnight they get full pay. I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider the section and come to the rescue of these people. I think their case requires special consideration.
I think that every member of the House who has been connected with local authorities and has been brought face to face with social work of one kind or another, will support the views put forward by Deputy Hickey and Deputy McGrath. I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this position, because if we are trying to prevent a delinquent from getting something we are at the same time putting a hardship on the 95 per cent. who are honestly looking for work or who are genuinely ill. The pressure of economic circumstances is such at the present time that anybody who is idle and is seeking work, will be glad to take it if it is offered. Undoubtedly, the Minister has gone a certain distance already. I would make a special appeal to him to consider especially the case of men with families who are left without anything whatever for three days. That will mean hardship not only for himself but for his family.
The suggestion that has been made, that the time period should be reduced for all these purposes to two days, would, if accepted, go some way to meet the position. The suggestion has been made that, if a man is ill for a week or more, he should certainly get an allowance, small though it is, for all the days that he has been ill, no matter what the expense of meeting it might be. I think there is a duty on us to do that. No matter what may be said to the contrary, charity will always remain one of the theological, one of the divine virtues, and so neighbours and families will help one another in their difficulties. It would be a sad day if that spirit were to die out of Irish life. It is a virtue that we see practised amongst the dwellers in crowded areas in our cities. They all try to help one another in their difficulties. At the same time everybody knows that the allowances which are made under these Acts are not entirely adequate, and so whatever is given should be given for all the days a man is out of work so as to enable him to meet the requirements of his case.
I must say that when I had to deal with this problem, the problem of the period during which unemployment benefit should be paid in respect of people who had lost their employment, I was impressed by the case which could be made for dockers. I do not think it is impossible to meet the situation which arises specially in that particular occupation. As Deputy Hickey has said, there is a problem common to dockers which has no parallel, I think, in any other occupation. Dockers are employed to load and unload boats. Boats do not come in regularly and dockers have not available to them the regular volume of work that is available, say, in a factory, Their employment is necessarily geared to the arrival and the discharge of boats, so that anybody who follows the occupation of a docker will have to face up to the fact that it will be extremely difficult for him to get continuous employment throughout the year. But, yet, you must have dockers to load and unload boats, with the result that anybody who follows that occupation necessarily loses a considerable amount of employment during a year because of the irregular character of his employment.
Efforts have been made elsewhere, and efforts are now about to be made here, to try and evolve a scheme known as the decasualisation of dockers. The occupation is one which is very subject to casualisation. I think, however, in our circumstances, since we are not a mammoth commercial nation, it is going to be extremely difficult to deal with the problem of the decasualisation of dockers here. We must face up to the situation that anyone who becomes a docker has to be satisfied with one, two, three or four days' employment in each week, and the docker who gets four days' employment each week regards himself as relatively lucky. It means that, for his employable life, he will lose two days' income per week. He has to pay unemployment insurance contributions, and can only get benefit now if he is employed for three days. The position is that he will be almost on the verge of qualifying, but, because of the insistence on three days' interruption of employment, will be denied the benefit on a great many occasions.
I do not think it would be going too far—and, frankly, I was prepared to face up to going this distance—to take power to enable the Minister, in consultation with the trade unions catering for dock workers, to evolve a scheme which would recognise the casual nature of employment in dockland and whereby those workers who regularly lose two days' employment per week might be able to cover that risk. It might necessitate some amendment of the normal unemployment insurance scheme which operates in respect of other classes. I can see that, but I do not think it is wholly impossible to devise a scheme in respect of dock workers which would enable benefit to be paid in respect of those who regularly lose employment each week because of the nature of the employment.
I would ask the Minister not to close his mind to that. It is well worthy of examination if ultimately we evolve a scheme which obviates the casualness of the work of dockers. Under such a scheme the scheme that the Minister now uses will fall into desuetude. That may not matter if in the meantime we can cover those who have genuine grievances in respect of unemployment benefit by the way in which legislation is drawn at the moment and will have grievances, although to a lesser extent, under this Bill.
I would ask the Minister to undertake to examine the matter between now and Report Stage. If he took a general power to devise a scheme for dockers he might, when the Bill is passed, have consultations to see if a suitable scheme could be worked out. Could we have any word from the Minister?
I am afraid I cannot say very much more than I said already. What I did point out was that the period has been reduced from six days to three days and, as Deputy Norton knows at any rate, if the docker qualifies in any particular week, then for the three months following he would be eligible for unemployment benefit for any day he is idle. It means that he must qualify in one week. It does not mean, as Deputy Hickey might think, that he must qualify every week for three days.
No. Let us not misunderstand the position. I said no such thing because I know the position too well. I am pointing out that for every week of the year a docker can be idle two days and sign at the labour exchange and will not get any benefit for it. In other words, he is idle 17 weeks and two days throughout the year and he must go to the labour exchange and sign on, even though he will not get benefit for the two days. There are 17 weeks and two days in that year for which he receives not one solitary penny benefit and he is paying the same amount of contributions as a man with constant employment. He is the one man that is subject to standing in wet and cold in the morning on the off-chance of getting employment. Every morning he must go out and stand there on chance, and if he does not get work he must go to the labour exchange and sign on. If he gets three and a half days' work and is two days idle every week in the year, he does not get a penny for that. A special case can be made for this class of worker. I do not see that it would be difficult from an administrative point of view. These problems are there to be met and to be solved.
Mr. Byrne
I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the suggestions made by Deputy Norton for special consideration of dockers. It is true, as Deputy Hickey has just said, that casual dockers may be idle for 17 weeks in the year and get nothing for it. In the past the Government provided what was thought to be an impossibility when they provided wet time for the building trade, which was a very valuable concession. If they did that I want to know why dockers, who stand by waiting for hours for a ship to come in, should not be provided for. There may be 50 dockers waiting and only 25 are wanted. The other 25 must go home. Surely that type of man is worthy of special consideration by the Government. At the present moment I know that is going on at the North and South Walls. One hundred men will turn up and wait for a boat to be unloaded and, out of the 100, 50 might have to go home without getting work and may have to wait for another two or three days. Some special provision ought to be made, and I plead with the Minister to consider the points made by Deputy Norton and Deputy Hickey.
It would appear that a good case is made for that particular section of our workers. As has been very properly pointed out, the wet-time provision has been made for certain people and it ought to be possible for the Minister to make a regulation for dockers such as that suggested by Deputy Norton. It certainly appears to be a very great hardship that it is possible that a man would be 17 weeks idle. I suppose it is not probable that every man would be idle for that length of time, but it is possible that for quite a number of weeks a man would be idle and get no benefit.
Deputy Hickey and others who have spoken have impressed on us the casual nature of the docker's work. Deputy Hickey went on to say that a man can be employed regularly four days a week the whole year round and be idle for two days.
If that is not the case, he is all right.
I did not say any such thing.
If his work is very casual, in all probability, he will be eligible after three days, some way or other, and, if he is, he is qualified and remains qualified for the next three months. He is not too bad then. If he gets five days a week, on account of the hard work that Deputy Hickey has impressed on us, five days is enough to work. It can only possibly occur in the very case that Deputy Hickey mentions, where a man gets four days a week work the whole year round and never less than four or never more.
I want to be understood. The Minister is taking entirely wrong the point I made about four days every week. I want to tell the Minister that I know a number of casual dockers who only get one day in the week.
A number get four days' work a week and a number get three days' work and some of them get two days' work. The Minister talked about being qualified for three months. That is not the point I am making. I know he is qualified for three months. I am referring to the docker who gets two, three or four days. If he is idle, he has to go to the labour exchange and sign on. He may work three days in the week but it may not be on consecutive days. He may work Monday, Wednesday and Friday and he has to go to the labour exchange for the other days. He gets three days' benefit for that week. The following week he may work only one and a half days at the docks and he will sign on at the labour exchange and get four days' benefit. The following week he only gets two days. He will sign on at the labour exchange and will not get any benefit for the two days. If he is in that class of employment for 12 months, it means that for 17 weeks of the year he is not getting benefit for being unemployed.
I am concerned about a number of dockers who sign on every week at the labour exchange, whether for two or three days, and in respect of whom it works out like that in practice.
It is no exaggeration for me to say that there is a very small number of dockers who could get four days' work as casual workers at the docks. In Dublin they have casual casuals, men who are called on nearly every day, but with regard to the suggestion about a docker trying to stay away from a day's work, that is not so in practice at all. One fellow might do it, but one swallow does not make a summer. If any men are inclined to work, it is these dockers, and I should like to impress on the Minister that, if the docker lives in a corporation house which is rented on a differential rent system, if he works three days this week, he gets a reduction in his rent, but if he works four, five or six days the following week, up goes his rent, and he is therefore not in any privileged position in the matter of getting a higher rate as a docker. There is a case to be made for men of that kind and a principle involved with regard to them.
I think there would have to be a special scheme.
I have some considerable experience and knowledge of the working of dockers in the Port of Dublin, and, listening to the Minister, I wondered whether he has been in consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce on the matter. A scheme for the decasualisation of dockers in the Port of Dublin was submitted to the Department some considerable time ago, and the information contained in that submission would be very valuable to the Minister in relation to this matter. I urge him, if he has not consulted the Department already, to do so before the next stage. The system in Dublin is different from that in other ports because as many ships are being dealt with in the Port of Dublin for the past couple of years as the quays can accommodate, and ships often have to wait out in the bay for a berth at the port.
There is a priority list for the employment of dockers, so far as it affects deep-sea and cross-channel dockers. The majority of those on the list so far as cross-channel working is concerned, get five days' work. Some of the dockers voluntarily surrender one day in the week in order to give their sons or other dockers a fair chance. I appeal to the Minister not to close the door on this matter without looking into it further, and having a further talk with the responsible officials of the Department, or with the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself. It is deplorable to watch dockers turning up at 7 o'clock on a wet morning, hoping to be called for work and these same men who are not taken on during the day very often turning up on a wet night for work and failing to get it.
A deputation of the dockers recently called to see me in regard to this very problem and I agree entirely with what the Minister has said that it would need a special scheme. It would be very difficult to provide for it within the four walls of this general Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, but the Bill ought to contain a section enabling a special scheme to be put into operation in regard to them. Deputy Davin, Deputy Byrne and Deputy Norton have mentioned particular features but there is another feature which operates in the docks in Dublin which is known as the "button" scheme.
That is another aspect that will have to be taken into consideration because it causes quite a good deal of concern. The matter is something which must be considered on its own, and an enabling section could very easily be brought into the Bill on Report to enable a special scheme to be operated in the interests of dockers and to remove the objectionable features which have been mentioned by other Deputies.
I think a special scheme is the only hope.
Are we overlooking the other point about the man who falls ill? I am prepared to admit that there is a difficulty but a man will not get national health insurance unless he submits a medical certificate stating that he is ill. If he is out for two or three days and goes back to work on the fourth day he does not get anything and he is minus his three days' wages. Why, if a man is out for three days and gets a certificate, should he not be paid for these days? We are penalising the most helpless section of the community, so far as workers are concerned. A man will lose his £1 a day wages through being out, and if he has a wife and family he is not going to fall ill. Doctors tell me very often that many of the tuberculosis cases could be dealt with if these people gave up work in time, and I know that it is poverty and lack of income which prevent a good many decent workers from reporting their illness. I maintain that we are penalising these men by such restrictions.
The Minister has indicated his willingness to look into the matter before Report Stage?
The special case of dockers, yes, but there is no use in my promising to bring in any alteration of the three days' waiting period generally.
Would the Minister agree with what I put to him, that, as distinct from the person who is ill for one, two or three days, in the case of the person who is ill for a longer period and who is entitled to benefit, where he has justified his claim to benefit, payment should commence as from the date of illness? He is in a different category from the person who is ill for one or two days. If a man is ill for a week, he ought to get the first three days, and I press the Minister to consider it.
There is a similar restriction in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but if a man is four weeks laid up, as a result of injury, he is paid from the date on which the injury was sustained. If a man is ill for a week, he should be paid for the first day as well as the other days.
The Minister will consider it?
Yes, that is all we can do.
What is Section 15 (5) intended to do?
It relates to the days which are not to be counted. A Sunday would not be counted. We have to make regulations covering various matters. A person may be digging his garden waiting for a job to turn up and we do not say that it is a gainful occupation and we do not disqualify him.
Is this the section in which provision is to be made for covering the person who is ill from the point of view of his normal employment which sustains him, but who may also have a subsidiary employer from whom he receives a low income, and a decision has to be made as to whether that is a day's interruption of employment—if he cannot do his main job but still can carry on a small subsidiary job?
Is this the section which is intended to deal with a woman who might have been entitled to a maternity attendance allowance or maternity benefit which she will be entitled to for a period of 12 weeks under the Bill, where the woman might not be sick at all but would be qualifying for benefit by reason of the fact that she was entitled to the allowance? Is that what it is intended to do?
Yes, that is covered here. I should add that it is a question of holidays. A person could not claim unemployment benefit when on holidays.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Is this section, which is a very technical one, the same as the section in the previous Bill?
Exactly the same, I think.
This prescribes the conditions under which unemployment insurance benefit and disability benefit may be drawn. Am I right in the construction of the section—once you have 156 contributions paid you are entitled to disability benefit so long as you continue to report sick and furnish certificates?
But if you have less than 156 you get benefit for 312 days.
At the end of it you can only requalify by getting a further 13 contributions?
In respect of the unemployment benefit you could get benefit for 156 days as at present, and then you must requalify in order to resume your right to claim.
You must work for three months to secure six months' benefit.
In other words, get 13 stamps.
Is that not unfair to the man who has been contributing to the unemployment fund, as in many cases I know of, for 25 or 30 years, and who is cut off? I am talking of a man in private employment. No one wants him when he is 60 years of age, and he is left on the stones. He goes to the labour exchange and draws for six months, and then has to go off for six months and go on unemployment assistance. I hold he should get benefit for whatever stamps he has. He has to go back after the six months and then can continue drawing another six months' benefit from his stamps. That is one 12 months' benefit he has drawn from his stamps, towards which he has been paying for 25 or 30 years. He is no longer entitled to draw benefit from his stamps until he has been 13 weeks employed and has 13 stamps to bring him back into benefit, in spite of all the stamps he has to his credit. Is that not unjust to a man who has worked honestly, and who never shrank from work all those years? What is the justification for that penalty on the workers? I made that case to Deputy Norton when he was Minister, and I make it now. It is most unjust to the workers.
I suggest that there should be no such penalty there, that a man should at least draw the value of the stamps he has paid for. If he had not stamps to his credit I could understand it, but he has years and years of stamps to his credit yet he cannot draw against them until he has 13 more, which means he must be employed for 13 weeks to bring him back into benefit. The Minister should reconsider that and allow the man who has stamps to his credit to draw the benefit until they are exhausted.
There was a time when one stamp was guarantee for one week's unemployment insurance benefit, but we cut that off and said one stamp would count only for one day's benefit. The Minister should reconsider the matter on no other principle except the principle of justice to those honest workers. They should be entitled to draw benefit over the full period covered by their stamp contributions.
That is one way to put it, but if everyone did that the fund would not last very long.
I am not saying that anything should be done to abuse the fund, but only that he should be able to draw the benefit to his credit when he is unemployed at the end of his days.
At the present time, as the Deputy knows, a person only draws six months' benefit in the year and can draw only one day's benefit for each week's contribution. That is a considerable improvement. Under this Bill he can requalify when he has 13 stamps and will get six months. It is true that a man who has been working for 25 or 30 years can draw only six months' benefit, but taking it all round it is a very considerable advance. I would like to point out to the Deputy that if a man is genuinely looking for work and has drawn benefit for six months and cannot find work, he will fall back on unemployment assistance which, if this Bill goes through with the amendments now proposed to it, will be at least a considerable improvement even on the present unemployment insurance. Taking the Bill as a whole, between unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, the position will be considerably improved.
One must remember that we are dealing with the insurance part first in this Bill—that is the unemployment insurance, national health and widows' and orphans' part. That is framed so that the contributions being divided equally between the employer, the employee and the State will pay for the scheme. If we were to accede to certain proposals by Deputy Hickey and others, the contributions would not be sufficient and would have to be raised. Looking at it from the point of view of an insurance scheme, we must keep that in mind.
I am, but I have also in mind the fact that the class of man I have been referring to has been a burden on no one. He has not been a burden on the unemployment fund for all those years. It is not justice to him to cut him off after he has drawn six months' benefit. Then, when he comes back again, what I am objecting to is that, after another six months, he can draw nothing and is cut off completely. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that and not make it 13 stamps as that would mean that he must be employed for 13 weeks. I could understand some taken period, but do not make it 13, as he never would be employed for 13 weeks, since no one would want him when he is over 60.
Over 60 he is all right. When he is over 60 he can draw unemployment benefit, provided he has 156 contributions.
But if he is anxious to go out to work and get employment? I have spent a number of years in the court of referees and can speak from knowledge of both sides of the problem. No one wants him.
I should have said "over 65" a moment ago.
Even at 65 no one wants him.
Regarding sub-section (4), is this the section that is designed to prevent a case arising where the person ceases to draw benefit to which he is entitled?
Do not say "no" to that too quickly. Is this the section in which the person may decide not to draw benefit to which he is entitled in order not to disqualify himself?
So this section is designed to make him exhaust his right to benefit, so that he will not be able to prevent himself from being disqualified by refusing to draw within the period?
That is right, sub-section (4).
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (4), page 16, to add at the end of the sub-section (not as part of paragraph (c):—
"and the period of disqualification shall commence on the day on which the loss or leaving of employment, refusal, failure or neglect (as the case may be) occurred."
This section deals with various disqualifications and special conditions. Amongst the disqualifications is one where a person does not seek employment or refuses suitable employment offered to him. He can be penalised for six weeks. This amendment is put in to say that the period of disqualification shall commence on the day on which the loss or leaving of employment, refusal, failure or neglect occurred. It is really put in to safeguard the worker because if it were not the Minister would have power to come along six months or 12 months afterwards and penalise a man for something which had occurred. The man must be penalised within six weeks and at the end of six weeks the penalty ceases.
Six weeks is rather severe.
For instance, a man leaves his employment because he has a row with somebody on the job and is put off. He goes to the labour exchange and because he has lost his job through his own fault he can be penalised up to the end of the six weeks' period. It is about time that we amended that kind of regulation. Then the man must go before the court of referees. Their report goes to Dublin and the decision must come back. It is unfair to the worker that he may be penalised for six weeks because he left the job through his own fault.
I must say that I have not very much experience of the administration of this power. I have not come across a case but nobody has complained to me and I think that it has not been administered harshly.
I admit that some members of the court of referees are all right. Mr. Chambers, as a member of the court of referees in Cork, is a very humane man. Suppose that a man who goes to the labour exchange must go to the court of referees. For three weeks he is signing on at the labour exchange. Is it necessary to have that penalty because a man falls under the influence of drink? His wife and children must get home assistance instead of his going to the office where he has stamps to his credit.
I know the case of a man who was working at a job where a senior man was dismissed, and a lower rate than the senior man had he was refused. I do not think that a man like that should be penalised very much.
A person becomes unemployed and his employer is asked why.
The employer writes in and says: "I dismissed this man for some misconduct." He is immediately refused benefit. Then he must proceed to prove that his dismissal was not due to misconduct. If he proves his case he is reinstated and gets the benefit. I think that this would be the better approach: If a man is unemployed he should be entitled to benefit and if his employer writes that his dismissal was due to misconduct the man should be notified and such a report should be made to the employer.
His benefit should not be stopped until it is proved conclusively that his dismissal was due to misconduct for one or other of the reasons here. That would be a more just way of dealing with it. As I have seen it operate, a man's benefit is stopped on the say-so of his employer. It is only on proof, notice having been given to the workman, that a penalty should be imposed—that is, if it should be imposed at all.
That is the point. These regulations were made in former days.
I would be surprised if benefit were stopped in the case mentioned by Deputy McGrath.
With regard to what Deputy Cowan said, I would like to look into the matter more fully to see what delays there are. I quite agree with Deputy Cowan that it would be hard on the man if there were a long delay.
Would it not be feasible in a Bill like this to give some executive authority to the local man to deal with those cases? As it is, it is nonsensical. A chairman presides, a case is tried on its merits and a man may be deprived of benefit. If he has lost his employment, it is unfair that he should not get benefit. The case goes to Dublin and, very often, after two or three reminders, we get it back. All the time that man's wife and children are waiting. He has to go to the home assistance officer. We should give some executive power to the manager of the labour exchange in Cork City, for instance, rather than have the case sent to Dublin, where some junior clerk will decide on it.
That happens very frequently.
I would like to support the point Deputy Hickey makes. I know that the view the Department has on the implementation of a scheme as comprehensive as that which we contemplated is that it could only be done on the basis of decentralisation. It is, unfortunately, true that the manager of a local exchange, a man of standing, judgement, ability, a man with years and years of experience, is obliged by over-centralised regulations to send cases to Dublin for decision.
Very frequently the decisions in Dublin are made by officers substantially junior in rank to the submitting officer, although the final decision which issues from Dublin may be countersigned by an officer of higher rank. The officer of higher rank, however, could not possibly get down to all the minute details, and must rely on the judgment of the person who assembles the material and gives a decision on that material. It would make for more smoothness in the administration of the unemployment insurance benefit scheme if arrangements could be made to give more responsibility in the matter of decisions to the managers of local exchanges, particularly of the large control exchanges, so as to take away the bottle-neck caused by a lot of cases coming to Dublin for decision. Local managers should be given wider discretion regarding the circumstances in which benefit should be withheld or paid, even if the case went to the court of referees.
I remember putting that view before Deputy Norton in 1948. As he is in sympathy with it I am afraid that officials in the Department are preventing this from happening. Cases are held up for a very long time on many occasions. As Deputy Hickey pointed out, the man gets home assistance in the meantime, and then the home assistance man is after him to collect it. Surely to goodness there should be some way of getting the benefit paid, even if it had to be confirmed later in Dublin. If a man were paid illegally there is plenty of machinery to make him refund it.
I do not think that this amendment is of very great importance. The punishment starts to operate on the day the man left his employment. It is as well to let the punishment start on that day as on any other day if he is found guilty. How will he be proceeded against? What is the evidence on which he will be disqualified from benefit for a period? Sub-section (c) says if he has failed or neglected to avail himself of any reasonable opportunity of obtaining suitable employment. That does not call for his employer to disqualify him. An anonymous letter can do it.
A letter could be sent to the effect that X, Y or Z had refused a job. That is what has been the case up to now; the authority of the manager automatically disqualifies that man. I have had a case where six, seven or eight weeks have elapsed before a man was eventually brought to trial and justice and the money refunded to him, and all because the news conveyed in the anonymous letter was bogus. I feel there should be something done to prevent victimisation of that kind. I have in mind the case of a man with six or seven children who was left without benefit for two months all because of information conveyed in a malicious letter. I am not very much concerned with this particular amendment but as to how a man who is brought to trial is going to suffer before he is proven guilty or innocent.
There is a further case, and I do not know whether or not the Minister can cover it by regulation. I came across the case personally some time ago of a man with one leg who was disqualified from benefit because it was alleged that he had not availed himself of every reasonable opportunity of obtaining suitable employment. At the time, I and every other Deputy had tremendous difficulty in finding employment for a two-legged man. I feel that that treatment was rather harsh. However, the case was put right on appeal, and I do not think it is proper that there should be a summary decision taken to stop benefit and then put the onus on the man to prove he is entitled to benefit. That is unjust. This is the same point that has been already raised.
We are using regulations which were handed down to us from the days of the British régime here. Surely to goodness we should approach these problems in an entirely different light. I am speaking from experience in a court of referees which dealt with men every day of the week over a number of years. A man is sacked from his job because he has partaken of too many pints of stout or because he struck a foreman who has spoken wrongly to him. He has then got to go to the labour exchange and all this machinery is used against him. Is it not time that we should attack these problems from a humane point of view rather than through the medium of regulations inherited from the British régime? I can assure the House that the court of referees in Cork are sick and tired of cases such as this. Sometimes they would feel sympathetic towards the man in question because of his wife and family. We are not approaching our problems in a proper way by introducing an Act in this Parliament which says that if a man loses his employment through his own fault he will not get any benefit for six weeks even though he might have had a clean record for 15 years. If a docker is found even slightly under the influence of drink, he is put off immediately. He has to go to the labour exchange and will not get any benefit for six weeks because he has lost his employment through what is called "his own fault". I think we have reached the stage now where we should work out our regulations differently. I am suggesting to the Minister that he should display a different attitude towards men who lose their jobs.
I do not know what the Deputy wants me to do.
I want this period of six weeks to be removed. I do not see why he should have to wait so long for benefit. He goes to the labour exchange and all this machinery is set in motion against him. He cannot draw benefit for six weeks because he has lost his employment. However, he goes to the home assistance officer and he will give him assistance until such time as his claim is disposed of.
A Deputy
And the money must then be refunded.
I think the point Deputy Hickey is making is the point I have also made. In other words, if a man has stamps to his credit he ought to be entitled to benefit. If that benefit is to be stopped for six weeks misconduct ought to be proved with the minimum of delay.
If Deputy Hickey is referring to delay I can assure him that that, at any rate, will be considerably cut down. Under the new system, which will have an appeals officer, these things will be dealt with much more expenditiously. I take it that Deputy Hickey does not want to give the power to a man to do what he likes.
I do not, indeed. If an honest, decent worker falls into a minor error and is put off, why should he have to go through all this machinery because he committed a minor offence? If a man is prosecuted and spends a month or a week in prison he will get no benefit for three months.
Yes, if he is convicted. Can we reform a man who has been unfortunate enough to fall into the arms of the law by committing him to prison for a week or a fortnight and by making him an outcast? We have got to approach these matters in a Christian spirit. In my view we are not tackling them in such a spirit. We prefer to leave things as they are rather than change them to what they ought to be. Will the Minister give us any promise in this regard?
I will give you the promise that these cases will be expenditiously dealt with.
I am not concerned with pinning a penalty on a man so that he will be deprived of his benefit for a maximum of six weeks. Why not try the case, before he is put off?
I want to tell the Minister that there are cases where a man is receiving benefit and where, because this man was known to be working for two or three days in the week, the benefits are cut off.
Benefits should not be stopped because of anonymous correspondence.
Try the case before he is penalised to the extent of six weeks.
The Department of Social Welfare does not pay any attention to anonymous letters. Secondly, a man is not penalised because he was in jail. He is penalised only for the time he is in jail. He will forfeit his rights to benefit only for as long as he serves the sentence but he will be permitted to draw it afterwards.
He cannot go to the labour exchange while in jail. If he goes to the labour exchange for unemployment assistance under this Act, will he get it?
We are dealing with insurance now.
He is unemployed when he is looking for unemployment assistance.
I feel that there is a case for probing this matter in the light of this discussion. We are dealing here with the cases of persons who, in the future, if they have 156 contributions paid, will be eligible to draw benefit for a period of 156 days in any one year. Then if they are qualified by getting a further 13 stamps to their credit, they qualify for 156 further days, which means, in effect, that one may qualify for unemployment benefit for nine months as against six months at present. That is a substantial improvement on the existing legislation. Bearing in mind the fact that we are recognising the extended right to unemployment benefit, would it not be possible for the Minister, from the standpoint of seeing if people on first examination of the case are likely to incur a penalty and disqualification, if the case comes before the court of referees, to provide that the Department will nevertheless pay benefit to him until such time as he has actually had his case heard and a decision arrived at. At most it means he gets benefit for, let us say, two weeks at the outside if there is a speedier method of hearing these disputed cases. In any case, as the person is likely to qualify for benefit for a prolonged period, so long as he is idle, it can be arranged that whatever benefits he improperly received, because of having been found guilty of some irregularity before a court of referees, could be deducted from subsequent benefit to which he was entitled. In other words, his card could be marked in such a way, that he was liable to refund whatever amount was improperly paid to him in benefit by reason of the fact that he was found guilty of an irregularity and, therefore, not entitled to draw benefit during the period it was paid to him. I think that should be examined sympathetically at this stage without the Minister making any commitment.
Is it not common sense that what I am advocating should take place. If a person is not drawing benefit at the labour exchange, he goes to the home assistance officer. The home assistance officer takes cognisance of his dependents and will give him home assistance. If it is wrong for the social welfare officer to give him benefit, it must be equally wrong for the home assistance officer to give him benefit under the same circumstances. These regulations should not be enforced so stringently.
There is really only one point, and no matter how this matter is argued, it comes back to the ordinary elements of justice. In this case a man is entitled on his stamps to the benefit. The Act gives him the right to apply for benefit for a period not exceeding six weeks. What I am putting to the Minister—and I think it is the same case that has been put by Deputies Hickey, Norton and Keyes—is that you should not stop benefit unless it is proved at a hearing at which he is present that he is entitled to forfeit the benefit for this period. It is really a matter of justice.
Something on those lines could be considered.
That is satisfactory. I would like the Minister to satisfy me on sub-sections (2) and (3). This is an improvement on the position as it was. It is a thing that came to my notice during the strike at the docks, when as a result of that strike, a number of people who were engaged, not as dockers but employed at the docks, lost their employment and, consequently, it was held that under some decision under the old Acts they were not entitled to benefit.
I know that the officials administering the Acts found that there were difficulties there that they themselves could not get over because of this particular decision. Has this section been so drafted as to get over the difficulties that were in that old decision? It does provide that where "a person has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, farm or other premises or place at which he was employed shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit". Sub-section (3) provides that "where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises or at separate places are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises or at the same place, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of the immediately preceding sub-section, be deemed to be a separate factory, workshop or farm or separate premises or a separate place, as the case may be".
It may be that that section has been specially drafted to overcome the difficulties because I do not think it was right, if dockers were on strike, that every person employed in, around or about the docks should lose employment as a result of that strike and should be debarred from receiving unemployment insurance as they were debarred during the last strike. I want to know do these two sub-sections improve the position so that workers could in those circumstances receive unemployment insurance in the future?
There is no change in the law. The wording of sub-sections (2) and (3) is practically the same as the relevant provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. If the Deputy looks it up he will see in Section 8——
I would like the Minister to look it up. Apparently the officials in Beresford Place are in the difficulty that there has been some old judicial or other decision that binds them and that prevents a person employed about the docks who loses his employment benefiting under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. That loss of employment was brought about by a trade dispute somewhere else. I do not think that is right. If that is the position I would like the Minister to look into it. If the passing of these two sub-sections does not alter the position then I would say that he should take power in this Bill to give unemployment insurance to people who lose their employment indirectly as a result of a strike in which they are not involved.
Take the case of sailors who may withdraw their labour from ships. Men who are employed delivering coal or working in warehouses or some other employment of that kind are not interested in the withdrawal of that labour. When they go to the labour exchange they are told they are not entitled to benefit. Although they are not on strike themselves they are treated as though they were. I think it is most unfair to prevent those people from obtaining assistance.
On the occasion of the Córas Iompair Éireann strike, when bus conductors and drivers were idle, after a period mechanics were laid off and they were refused unemployment benefit. I think that is an injustice to those men who were not on strike at all.
Apparently it is some old decision that is causing the trouble.
Has the Minister had any discussion with the Trade Union Congress or the Congress of Irish Unions in connection with this section? As it stands the section is a copy from the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and is to-day the same as it was in 1920. Frankly, I do not say that it is due to any want of goodwill on the part of the people who have been called upon to deal with this particular difficulty. In Britain they have got away from those two clauses which were in their 1920 Act and they got a substitute clause dealing with a situation such as those two sections are intended to provide for. But I do not think the British section has given satisfaction to the trade unions there and the committee which was set up by the British Ministry of Labour charged with the responsibility of trying to remove whatever hardships that were contained in those two sections as now phrased finally reported that they did not think they would get satisfaction on this problem, that no set of words could be devised which would give satisfaction. In the long run they made an effort to try to ease the situation. Quite frankly I think the British attempt to remedy the situation creates a position which makes it more rigid, in fact, than it is in sub-sections (2) and (3) here.
I discussed this matter with both the Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions, and said to them that, subject to the unemployment fund not being used for the purpose of financing or even appearing remotely to finance the continuance of a strike, I was prepared to look with sympathy on any amendments which they could suggest to these sub-sections. That offer remained open to them, but it was not availed of, because I think they both found difficulty in dealing with the situation envisaged here. Of course the situation is still more difficult where you have an organisation which caters for a large number of workers, only one section of which may be involved in a strike although the remainder may be in the same organisation. It is a situation of that kind which presents the greatest difficulty, because it is easy to create a situation in which a strike applies only to a very minute section of the organisation but has ramifications over a much wider field.
I suggested to both congresses that they might try their hand at devising something. The best one I got from either of the congresses was the present British substitute for these two. After discussing it with them, however, I was certainly convinced that it was no improvement on the present situation. In the end, I think they were also convinced, but the offer still remained open to them to try their hand at doing something which would give reasonable satisfaction, and I was prepared to approach it with a bias towards accepting anything which they thought would remove the hardships which are inherent in this. I should like to know whether the Minister has had any such discussions.
I was aware that Deputy Norton when he was Minister did ask the Trade Union Congress—I do not know about the Congress of Irish Unions—to make suggestions on this question. They have not really any suggestions to make. As the Deputy mentioned, the British Minister of Labour brought in an amendment to his scheme, but some time afterwards he said that it must not be assumed that it would be entirely satisfactory. He said that no matter how it was worded many would be entitled to benefit but, if the whole truth were known, they would be excluded. Others would be excluded who, if the whole truth were known, ought to get benefit. It is impossible to make any change for the better. No suggestion has been made by the Trade Union Congress or anybody else that could be adopted.
I am glad that the position has been made clear both by Deputy Norton and the Minister, that the Trade Union Congresses, who after all are the responsible bodies, have not been able to suggest an improvement. I know of the hardship that was caused in connection with that particular strike. As a matter of fact, I attended the court of referees with the men concerned in an effort to get them benefit. Where a strike was declared by a section of a union I felt that any other members of that particular union who lost their employment as a result of that strike could hardly claim unemployment insurance. The situation would be entirely different with members of other unions not associated with the strike in any way. I realise the difficulties that must be there. But I think these two sub-sections are no improvement and do create hardships for particular classes of workers. However, I cannot suggest any way out if the Trade Union Congresses cannot.
I should like to make this point to the Minister although I have not given it any consideration. Here are two sub-sections which have caused a good deal of irritation to trade unions through the years. Somebody might have a brainwave and produce a solution for the difficulties but, once we pass this Bill and it becomes an Act, then the most meritorious suggestion that can be made for remedying the position cannot be given effect to except by means of an amending Bill. Everybody knows, however, that what would happen in a case such as that would be that the suggestion would be parked away to be considered in due course when an amending Bill would be under consideration.
I was wondering if the Minister would look at these two sub-sections again from the standpoint of allowing them to remain as at present because there is no suitable alternative, but giving himself power to make regulations substituting for them either one or more sub-sections which might be devised as a result of agreement between the Minister and the Trade Union Congresses. That would enable any useful suggestion which might overcome the difficulty to be given effect to without having to wait for an amending Bill. I do not know whether the Minister can do that but I imagine it is possible to do it.
The Deputy will notice that this section begins by saying: "Regulations may provide," etc. I am looking at sub-sections (2) and (3). I do not think they are so tightly drawn that a regulation could not be made covering an awful lot if we could have a good regulation.
I gather that the regulations refer to (a) and (b) of sub-section (1). I think we might get over it anyway.
The regulations do not tie in with sub-sections (2) and (3).
Would it be possible for the Minister to look at it from the standpoint I have suggested, and say that the Minister may by regulation vary sub-sections (2) and (3) on a resolution of the House?
Somebody higher than the referee apparently some years ago gave a decision, and it is the operation of that decision that is creating the trouble. Perhaps if there was an interpretation given to this now declaring that the previous interpretation went too far it might get over the difficulty.
I do not know about that decision. I will look that up.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of £2 in respect of a confinement. My regret in connection with this section is that the Minister did not allow the amount to stand at £5, which was provided for in the Bill which I introduced. Instead the Minister has reduced the provision in the previous Bill from £5 to £2, with the result that £2 is now the normal payment which will be made in cases of maternity instead of £5 which was provided for in the previous Bill. The existing £2 was decided upon many years ago. In so far as it was intended to be a contribution towards easing the financial difficulties of a family consequent upon the birth of a baby it made, in the year it was introduced, a contribution comparable with the living costs in that particular year. Quite clearly that £2 has so shrunk in value to-day as not to have anything like the purchasing power which it had originally. I felt sure that in increasing the maternity benefit from £2 to £5 we were doing little more than bringing the £2 maternity benefit to its current value and that if it should happen that £5 was even more than that, then it was meritorious to give the increased contribution to a person who was facing both the risks and expense of childbirth. In this Bill we have left the sum at £2.
I think that is a great mistake. It is a pity that the Minister has interfered with this particular section as it stood in the Bill which I introduced. If the amount of the benefit had been left as it stood in the previous Bill it would have been a particularly useful benefit and, when tied-in with the maternity attendance allowance, would have made a very tangible contribution towards easing the difficulties in ordinary working class households where the arrival of a new baby is often accompanied by considerable expense to the family.
I provided in my Bill for increasing the maternity benefit from £2 to £5. In addition, I provided that the mother, where she was not an insured person but the wife of an insured person, would get a maternity attendance allowance of £1 for four weeks. In other words, under the Bill for which I was responsible, a confinement in a household meant that the family got £5 maternity benefit and £4 in maternity attendance allowance, making £9 in all. The provision in this Bill is simply to continue the present £2, which has so shrunk in purchasing power as not to be worth anything like the £2 originally contemplated. This section, with the section which is missing from the Bill—the maternity allowance section—means that for a confinement in an ordinary working class household in the future the family get £2 instead of the £9 originally provided for. I do not think our standard of living and our standards of comfort surrounding childbirth are so high that we ought to economise in that domain. I think we spend far too little in trying to help those who bear heroically the task of facing childbirth, and who have to meet the heavy responsibilities involved. Indeed, I would regard a saving of money on that as something for which I personally would have no responsibility. If there should have to be any trimming at all, it ought not to be in that connection. Some other potential beneficiaries might be found to yield something instead. In the field of maternity services and in the field of helping the ordinary workers over the expensive periods which childbirth means for them, I think we ought to have left the provision as it was in the Bill which I introduced.
My view about maternity benefit was that it was needed just as much by the self-employed as by the wife of the insured worker or by a woman insured in her own right. Hence I decided that this benefit should be dealt with under the health scheme. That scheme will, I hope, provide maternity benefits of various kinds for all women, whether insured or not. I think it is better that it should be done in that way. Generally speaking, in all these various schemes it appeared to me that where the self-employed person needed the benefit just as much as the person working for an employer it should not be done under an insurance scheme but either under an assistance scheme or under the health scheme, and preferably under the health scheme.
According to paragraph 21 of the White Paper, maternity benefit payable in respect of confinement will consist of (1) a lump sum maternity grant of £2 and (2) a maternity allowance of 24/- for 12 weeks. Maternity grant will be payable either on the husband's or the woman's own insurance; if there is a double qualification the grant will be payable on both qualifications.
The maternity allowance is a different matter and it is paid only to the woman who is working. She is advised to cease work six weeks before the confinement and not to resume work until six weeks after the confinement.
What Deputy McGrath does not understand is that in the Bill which I introduced there was a provision that a woman who was the wife of an insured man could get a maternity allowance of £1 a week for four weeks as a result of her confinement. She cannot get that now in this Bill because there is no provision made for it.
The Minister has stated that he will make provision in the Health Act in that respect.
You read about Alice in Wonderland and the Red Queen.
I read about Puffing Billy too.
The Minister has already stated that it will be in the Health Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Is this section the same as the one in the previous Bill?
I think it is practically the same.
I am assuming the Minister is doing this for the same reason which I had. A problem was raised by Christian Scientists who, apparently, do not think too highly of medical officers and who, apparently, dislike sending in certificates from them. I undertook to meet them. In fact, I think I circulated an amendment for the purpose of avoiding ruffling the feelings of Christian Scientists by being willing to take evidence otherwise than by way of the certificate of a registered medical practitioner. The amendment I circulated was to provide that the allowance would be paid on the production of the certificate of a registered medical practitioner or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Minister. I take it the Minister has put in the same amendment here for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Christian Scientists?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
Is this section the same as the section in the previous Bill?
I was never very happy about this section, and I am still not happy about it. Entitlement to benefit here is swung on confinement and what issues following confinement. If a child issues as a result of confinement then benefit is payable. But if there are two children or three children or four children born as a result of that confinement, benefit is paid only in one case.
I was never very happy about it because I thought if twins or three or four children were born at one confinement it is not such a frequent occurrence that we must frown on it and say: "Well, now you have got to be careful; there is only one benefit to be paid in this case." Frankly I would have advised—and my mind was travelling in that direction—that if more than one child issues as a result of a birth, the State should pay benefit in respect of each child because if the contribution is intended to be a contribution towards helping a family to meet the expenses involved in the birth of children, quite clearly the expense is much greater if two or more children are born than if one child is born. I still think that a strong case can be made for paying maternity benefit in proportion to the number of children born. It is certainly somewhat odd—and I think indefensible—that you pay the same maternity benefit to a woman who gives birth to one child as you do to her neighbour next door who gives birth to triplets or quadruplets. I think again that matter might be re-examined, especially bearing in mind the fact that the rates of benefit have not been increased to the £5 originally provided.
There is something in that, all right.
Will the Minister look into it?
Does it provide for one grant or two?
One or two. Where both the husband and wife have been insured persons, there are two grants.
That is the unusual case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No.8:—
In sub-section (3), line 29, to insert "(contributory)" before "pension."
This section applies entirely to widows' contributory pensions and the word "contributory" should have been inserted in the sub-section where indicated.
It is only a textual amendment?
Only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I know a case where a woman was married only six months when her husband died and it was held that she was not entitled to a pension.
If a widow is to qualify for a pension, the husband must have paid 156 contributions. If two young people get married after a very short time in employment, it is possible that the widow would get no pension because neither of them would have qualified. It is assumed that a man will be working for at least about three years before he gets married.
I should like some further information in regard to the case which I have mentioned. In that case a widow whose husband died after they had been married only six months, was refused a pension.
It does not matter how long they were married. The qualification arises from the period during which contributions have been paid. If she was married only a month, she would get a pension if the husband had paid the qualifying number of contributions. If he has qualified by the payment of 156 contributions and he dies inside a month after the marriage, she will get a widow's pension.
I might explain to Deputy Hickey that the payment of the widow's pension is not dependent on how long the parties have been married. The husband pays from the very day he goes to work; consequently after he marries the only question that arises about the entitlement to a widow's pension is: has he qualified himself to get her a widow's pension when he dies?
In the case I have mentioned they were married only six months but she never got a pension.
I do not know why the Minister put in sub-section (3) of this section at all, or whether it is a carry-over from some other legislation. I can see tremendous trouble and difficulties about it for everybody and opportunities for "Peeping Toms" and different types of persons of that kind to send in anonymous reports. I think it could cause a tremendous lot of trouble. Every widow is entitled to a contributory pension while she is a widow. She would, of course, cease to be a widow if she married again, but to put in this clause, that she will be disqualified from receiving a widow's pension "if and so long as she and any persons are cohabiting as man and wife", is altogether unnecessary. Who is going to decide that? I think it will cause a good deal of trouble. It is the sort of thing that will give rise to all sorts of malicious reports and investigations. In fact, if a person were to visit a widow frequently, the Minister would have complaints that she was cohabiting with that particular individual. I do not think it right that that sub-section should be put in the Bill, and as to what cohabiting means, I do not know who is going to decide that either. Is it defined, is it a carry-over, or what is it?
I am not concerned about the legal word. I am concerned about the disqualification of a woman who is legally entitled to a widow's pension. She can lose that pension by getting remarried. In this country the number of occasions on which cohabitation, as laid down in this section, occurs are not very many. I would rather not see it in the Bill at all.
It is carried over from previous legislation. I quite agree it might give rise to some difficulty in regard to interpretation. I do not think it has arisen, although it is in the other Acts for many years. No case has arisen of this kind.
I would drop it altogether if I were the Minister.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for cases where—
"(a) the beneficiary is living with or wholly or mainly maintaining his wife, or
(b) the beneficiary is wholly or mainly maintaining her husband who is incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity, or
(c) the beneficiary, being a single man or widower, is maintaining wholly or mainly a female person over the age of 16 years having the care of one or more than one qualified child who normally resides or reside with him."
I think there is another class which should be covered—there are a good many of these cases in the country— where unmarried brothers and sisters are concerned, where the sister is at home housekeeping for the brother or his wife and where he becomes idle and does not get any dependent's allowance for that sister who has been caring for him all that time. I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister to do anything about that. There are plenty of those cases.
That case was put to me and although I was in sympathy with the opinion expressed by Deputy McGrath now, I found it very difficult to put a provision like that into the Bill. It would be very difficult to limit it as I think it should be limited.
We know that all those cases are difficult but there are such cases and not so many of them.
It causes a lot of hardship.
Yes, and very serious hardship on the household. I have in mind two cases at least. One is that of a chap who is 26 years of age who has to be wheeled about in a chair. I was asked a few times if anything could be done for him. The reason nothing has been done is that his brother, who is a tradesman, is living with him and that brother is expected to look after him. That poor chap was wheeled to school for a while and was trying to do some paintings, as he was not able to move around. He is not taken around until night-time and then has to be wheeled. He has not as much as a penny coming from any source except his brother. His brothers and sisters are married and he is there with his aged mother and the brother who is living there also is expected to look after him without getting anything from the State. I suggest to the Minister that these are matters which we should not allow to continue. I have a couple of such cases in mind and believe they should get some assistance from the State. There is the case of what are known as handicapped children. I know one chap who has only one hand and another who has only part of his right hand and is not able to do anything for himself. His father has passed away and because his brothers are working he is not getting anything at all. I agree that from the moral point of view the brothers are expected to look after him but I also believe that it is the duty of the State under the Constitution to give some assistance to this citizen who needs it. The Minister might consider these points. I admit that there may be difficulties but what problem is not difficult? If we have the will to get over the difficulties we will do so. I hope these cases referred to now will be dealt with and will get some assistance from the State.
The case mentioned by Deputy Hickey is different from that mentioned by Deputy McGrath. We are dealing with cases where an insured person has a female relative looking after children. Supposing he is a widower, that is covered here. Deputy McGrath goes further and speaks of the case of a man who has a sister keeping house for him for years. When he becomes unemployed he gets benefit only for himself. Deputy McGrath says that the sister should be covered. I examined that sympathetically, but found it extremely difficult to cover it, as it would bring so many people into it.
Deputy Hickey mentions quite a different case. Persons who are permanently disabled present a different problem. I have great hopes of dealing with that also in the Health Bill— not here, as they would not be insurable in any case. I presume Deputy Hickey has in mind people who are disabled almost from birth.
They would not be insurable. They would come under the Health Bill.
This section provides that a female relative living with a single person and having the care of one or more qualified children will be entitled to additional benefit. Then the section says: "Subject to the restriction that a beneficiary shall not be entitled for the same period to an increase of benefit in respect of more than one person." If there happened to be, say, two persons looking after a number of children, there would be no additional benefit except in respect of one?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That Section 31 stand part of the Bill."
As expressed here, of course, this is far too rigid, and I do not think it was ever intended that it should operate in this particular way without some qualifications. It is not intended, for example, that where a person leaves the State for holidays or for a long period of medical treatment there would be any disqualification.
I know it was my view that if a person left the State permanently, that was one matter; but if he left the State for holidays, for medical treatment or for any good reason, that person would not lose entitlement to benefit because of that fact. If, for example, a person were ill or drawing benefit but were advised to go to some home in Britain or elsewhere to get special treatment, training or exercise, that person should not be denied benefit. It was contemplated then that regulations would provide for cases of that kind. I would like to know if that is still the Minister's view.
In the case of a person undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment or detention in legal custody, here again, operated in this way without qualification, it would cause hardship. A man may be undergoing a term of imprisonment in respect of some offence, which may be a trivial offence—it may even be a political offence, which would not mark him out as an objectionable member of society —but I do not think it was ever intended that merely because the husband was in prison, the wife should not get maternity benefit if a child were born. Again, I do not think it is intended that an orphan's allowance would not be paid to the orphan merely because the person to whom it was being paid was temporarily in custody. My intention was that where a person was undergoing imprisonment the punishment would be confined to him as much as possible and his wife would not suffer; and an orphan would not be penalised because the drawer of the pension were in a State prison. Will the Minister clarify the position for us? I take it that otherwise this section is the same as the section in the previous Bill.
As the Deputy is aware, this section will be governed by regulations made under it. The cases the Deputy has mentioned are cases that will have to be dealt with by regulation. First of all, there will be a general regulation that one cannot draw benefit while residing outside the State, but of course a person drawing sickness benefit might be advised for instance to go outside the State for treatment and naturally that would be permissible. There is another case which comes to mind in relation to members of the Defence Forces resident in the Six Countries who would be entitled to unemployment or sickness benefit after discharge from the Army; though technically speaking they are outside the State they would be entitled to draw benefit in such cases. In the case of a woman drawing maternity benefit, whose husband is in prison, regulations will be made to cover all cases of that kind.
It is provided in the section that it is subject to regulation because each sub-section starts: "Except where regulations otherwise provide...."
The Minister has power under this section, therefore, to deal by regulation with any cases of hardship that may arise in the operation of the Act.
I have in mind two specific cases. One is that of a woman whose husband was in Northern Ireland for a number of years. He died there and she got either 10/- or 15/- a week pension. Within the last few years the pension has been increased but she received no increase. The Department responsible was written to and the reply was that the widow lived outside the State and was, therefore, not entitled to full benefit under the Act. I think the Minister should investigate that matter. In the second case the widow's husband died in England after having lived there for a number of years; she is getting a pension but it is not the full pension.
I would not like to express an opinion on that without investigating the matter first.
I saw the actual correspondence in the case of the widow whose husband died in Northern Ireland. She was quite definitely told that she could not get the additional benefit. Even though she resides in Ireland she is, as far as the Six Counties is concerned, outside the State.
Possibly that is a British question. I shall have to examine it.
One is British and the other is Six Counties.
There is an anomaly it might be well to bear in mind in connection with this Bill because this may be an opportune time to remedy it. I came across cases where old people in Donegal, enfeebled through physical infirmity, found a home for themselves in an institution in Derry called the Nazareth Home. They had qualified for old age pensions whilst living in Donegal. This home was a convenient place for them to end their days and they were anxious to be admitted to it when vacancies arose. When they were in the home for three months their old age pensions ceased because they had been living outside the State for three months. That seems to me to carry punctilio to absurd extremes.
I suggested that someone should take a bus down to Derry and bring these old people back to Donegal for a day so that they would not be continually absent for three months from Donegal. I do not know whether or not that was done. In an administrative sense they are living outside the State but the fact remains that they are inside the the national territory. Because we do not provide such a home for them in Donegal or elsewhere in the Twenty-Six Counties—
—they are forced to go to the Six Counties. If this Bill provides us with an opportunity for dealing with cases of that kind, that opportunity should be availed of now so that these unfortunate old people will not be deprived of the rights that have accrued to them merely because they seek sanctuary in a home outside the Twenty-Six Counties but within the confines of the national territory.
This particular section deals only with insurance benefits. Old age pension cases will have to be raised when we come to the section dealing with old age pensions.
Would the Minister consider using the phrase "absent from Ireland" instead of "absent from the State" thereby treating Ireland as an entity for the purposes of these benefits?
I think our regulations will probably be in that direction.
I would much prefer to see "Ireland" used instead of "the State".
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1), page 21, to delete "1948" and substitute "1952".
The Unemployment Assistance Acts 1933 to 1948 are mentioned but, in view of the amendments coming in later on in this Bill, it is suggested now that we should put in 1952.
Amendment agreed to.
Would the Minister broadly explain the section?
I think the Deputy is aware of the general principle that a person is not supposed to draw more than one benefit at one time or during the same period. It is considered wrong, for instance, that a woman should draw disability allowance at the same time as she draws maternity allowance.
I understand. I follow the section now.
Section 32, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 33 put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."
What is the intention of the Minister in relation to workmen's compensation? Would the Minister indicate what he has in mind?
This is all in favour of men drawing workmen's compensation. What they get under the Workmen's Compensation Act will not be held against them in relation to these provisions.
What they get under the employers' liability provisions will not be held against them.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."
Where an employer fails to stamp cards the onus is placed on the employee of taking that employer into court. I think that is a great hardship on the employee. I know cases where, having gone into court, the employers subsequently went into bankruptcy and were not able to pay. In the Bankruptcy Court first preference was given to employees whose cards had been stamped. The others were not able to succeed in getting stamped cards and they were debarred from drawing benefit. I think that the onus in such a case should be placed on the State rather than on the employee.
I have come across cases quite frequently where an employer does not stamp his workers cards. The worker is entitled to bring civil proceedings to recover the benefit from the employer.
I think that should be changed, and that it should be a summary proceeding brought by the Minister against the individual on the criminal side of the court, whereby the district justice could punish the employer as well as summarily ordering him to pay the benefit the worker was entitled to. I certainly would be very strongly in favour of that. I do not know that this is the Bill or the section to deal with that. I am very strongly in favour of provisions whereby, if the wages to which a worker is entitled are not paid to him, recovery would be by way of summary proceedings in the District Court. However, that does not arise here.
Not the wages. The benefit does.
Instead of saying that the contributor shall be entitled to recover from the employer why not say that the Department of Social Welfare shall be entitled to recover?
Sub-section (2) does that.
It very often happens that an employer has not sufficient means to meet the demand of an employee, and so the employee suffers. I think there should be a provision to the effect that it is the Department, and not the employee who should recover from the employer. Whatever chance the Department would have of collecting from an employer, in a great number of cases the employee would have very little chance of doing so if the employer is not a person of substantial means. Suppose he is a small farmer. We all know it is very hard to get a farm sold out. It would be very hard for an employee to get that done.
Sub-section (2) means that the Minister may again proceed in a civil way as if it were an ordinary contract debt. In other words, the Minister would have to instruct the Chief State Solicitor to serve a civil process on the particular person. That would be dealt with as an ordinary contract debt in the District Court. Sub-section (3) gives the Minister power to take proceedings against the person separately. Instead of this money being recoverable by civil action, I would like to see it recoverable by summary proceedings, and that is why I am supporting Deputy Hickey.
That would be all right if the employer were a person of substantial means. But in two or three cases that I knew of the employers were bankrupts and, of course, the employee could not succeed.
I would put the employer in jail if he did not pay up the benefit. It is a strange thing that if you go to put him in jail, whether he is a bankrupt or not, you will get the money.
I think sub-section (3) of Section 52 provides a satisfactory way of dealing with this.
Under Section 35, not only the person is entitled to sue, but the Minister may sue if the person concerned does not do so. There is also power to take proceedings against the employer for transgressions in respect of other sections of the Bill.
I accept all that, but what I suggest is to eliminate this civil procedure altogether and provide that, if there is any benefit due to a man, the Minister will proceed immediately, on being so satisfied, by summary proceedings in the District Court. If say, I write to the Minister and refer him to these different sections in the Act, I will have a reply back from the Department referring me to the rights of my client under this section to sue. I do not want that loophole there since it is such a serious thing not to stamp a man's cards. I would make that a criminal offence to be dealt with summarily.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister explain what this section means as now drafted? It is different from the previous section.
I am not sure but I think it is the same as the previous section.
No, it is not. If you look at Section 43 in the previous Bill you will see the difference between it and Section 37. What does this mean?
Voluntary contributors are persons who were formerly engaged in insurable employment for at least three years, then ceased to be so employed and elected to become voluntary contributors.
"Ceased to be so employed"? A voluntary contributor was any employee who paid a contribution and was liable to continue to pay it so long as he had not more than £500 a year, but if his rate exceeded £500 a year he could then become a voluntary contributor. He had not to leave his employment if the rate went up for the purposes of insurance, but he was not an insured contributor.
A voluntary contributor under the previous Act had to be three years in insurance, then went out of insurance and elected to become a voluntary contributor.
Will the Minister tell us what he is getting now and what he will get under this?
If he continues to be a voluntary contributor he will pay ? a week. It is the same for both males and females.
What is he getting at the moment?
He is getting national health insurance at the moment; he is also covered for widows' and orphans' pensions, and he has to pay his own and his employer's share of the national health insurance benefit. Will the Minister say what he is going to get under Section 37?
The widow's pension only.
He will not get sickness benefit?
What will be the position of a man who had been in constant employment, who loses it and continues to pay a voluntary contribution? At present he is entitled to get national health benefit during illness. Will he still be entitled to get it when he falls ill?
Not if this Bill goes through. He will only be entitled to the widow's pension.
Can the Minister not make regulations whereby, on payment of a certain contribution, the man can be brought in under some of these excluded benefits? I gather that a voluntary contributor is not entitled to disability benefit, unemployment benefit, marriage benefit, maternity benefit or treatment benefit. But, notwithstanding that, a voluntary contributor may be entitled to all such benefits as may be prescribed. In other words, the Minister may make regulations whereby a voluntary contributor can become entitled to one or more of these benefits.
Take the case of a man with a certain income. He leaves his occupation. He has been paying contributions for the last 25 years and still continues to pay both the employer's share and his own. If he falls ill in the course of the next 12 months or two years, you tell me now he is not entitled to receive national health benefit.
I want to explain. Sub-section (2) is dealing with a different matter. Sub-section (2) is dealing with a person who ceases to be an ordinary contributor and becomes a voluntary contributor. As Deputies are aware, a person who ceases to be an ordinary contributor, even if he does not become a voluntary contributor, is entitled to benefits for some time. They do not lapse immediately. This sub-section (2) is giving that right—that is, when he becomes a voluntary contributor he is not immediately cut off the other benefits; he continues to be entitled to these benefits for whatever length they are given to the ordinary contributor.
Take a person who is employed and who then takes a lorry or taxi of his own and still continues paying contributions to the unemployment fund and the national health fund. What becomes of him if he becomes a voluntary contributor? Is he not entitled to national health benefit if he falls ill?
He would be for a time. I think it is 12 months. Any person who ceases to contribute is entitled to benefit for 12 months.
That is not what I am asking. I have in mind a man who leaves a job that he has been in for a number of years and who has been contributing all the time, and who takes a lorry or a taxi and still continues paying his contribution. He is now paying the employer's contribution as well as his own contribution. If, in the course of the next two or three years he still continues paying as a voluntary contributor, is he still entitled to the same benefits as the ordinary man in employment gets?
The contribution goes down to ?, and it is only a voluntary contribution.
Whatever he is expected to pay, whether 2/- or ?, he is paying the full amount of employer's contribution and his own contribution.
Section 4 defines what these voluntary contributors are.
I do not think we have got an adequate explanation of this section.
This section says in substance that a voluntary contributor shall not be entitled to disability benefit, unemployment benefit, marriage benefit, maternity benefit or treatment benefit. I want to deal with the case of existing voluntary contributors. What happens a person who is a voluntary contributor at the moment, when this Bill is law? This section declares that he is not entitled to any of these benefits, but this person has been paying contributions and has built up credits. What is his position? Once you are in, then you have a right within 18 months to exercise your right to become a voluntary contributor. I have to take this by stages. Would the Minister answer my question first?
In regard to a person who is a voluntary contributor?
If he applies within a prescribed period—the period will be prescribed under Section 70—stating that he wishes to continue as a voluntary contributor, he may so continue.
No. He will get widows' and orphans' benefit.
What about the man I am referring to who has left his employment in which he has been for over 20 years and whose contribution while in employment was 1/11, to which was added the employer's contribution? When he takes a lorry for himself and goes out as a self-employer and continues paying the total contribution, is he not entitled to benefit?
We only cater, if you like, in the insurance business here for people who are working for an employer. We do not accept self-employed people into all the benefits.
Is not that a great injustice to the man who wishes to continue as a voluntary contributor and who for the past 20 or 25 years has been paying contributions into both funds and who, even though he becomes a self-employer, continues to pay the employer's contribution as well as his own contribution so that he could qualify for these benefits? What is the justification for cutting him off the benefits that he is entitled to? Is it because his employer is no longer paying it and that he is paying it himself? Are you not penalising him because he tries to better himself and continues paying the double contribution?
He goes out of the insured class.
He is not out of the insured class because he is continuing to pay insurance contributions.
Are there in fact voluntary contributors at the moment?
About 400 I believe. People who were insured and whose salary went above the limit could continue as voluntary contributors.
I think that if the Minister checks on this he will find that there are more than that and more categories than that. At one stage you had a situation in which the ceiling for national health insurance for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes was £250. Then that was raised to £500. Where persons went over a rate of £250 they were in this position: They were covered up to then. Take a State servant, a clerical officer in the Department of Social Welfare. That person was insured for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. When his salary went over £250 he ceased to be eligible for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes but he could exercise his right to become a voluntary contributor within 12 months of the date on which his salary went over £250 and, if he exercised that right, then he could become a voluntary contributor but that imposed upon him the responsibility of becoming a contributor under the National Health Insurance Act. Under that Act, since he had no employer who was liable to pay contributions for him, he had to pay his own and the employer's contribution as well. That made him a voluntary contributor and enabled him to stay in for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. If he were sick in such circumstances he would be entitled to draw national health insurance benefit in the ordinary way, and if he had three years' membership in that way he would be entitled to avail of the treatment benefits as well. That situation continued and a number of people got into that category. Then the ceiling was changed from £250 to £500 and that brought back a lot of these voluntary contributors under the ceiling of £500 and made them liable to compulsory insurance for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes.
A number of them also elected to remain as voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts and are still voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts by virtue of the fact that they became voluntary contributors in that period between the ceiling for insurance purposes being £250 and being raised to £500. You have now got these categories and I want to find out where they stand in relation to Section 37. You have the case of the voluntary contributor. Again, take the clerical officer in the Department of Social Welfare. You may have two of these people in the Department of Social Welfare and they may be in two different categories. You may have one man who is a voluntary contributor, who paid his own contribution for national health insurance purposes and the employer's contribution and became a voluntary contributor then, as well, for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. You may have another person who was in that category but who, when the ceiling was raised from £250 to £500, decided that he would drop the voluntary side of national health insurance and become a compulsory insuree under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. These are two separate classes.
Now we will have another class in future. We will have in future the case of a person who is covered by this Bill so long as his salary does not exceed £500 per annum and, if he is covered and builds up credits while he is under a salary ceiling of £500 per annum, and then goes above the £500 ceiling, he will be entitled to become a voluntary contributor. There will then be a third category of voluntary contributor. Will the Minister tell us where precisely these three categories stand under Section 37?
They will be all in the same position, voluntary contributors. The contribution will be ? per week and the only benefit to which they will be entitled will be widows' pension or orphan's pension, or both.
I wonder is the Minister right in that. Surely that is a sweeping way of dealing with it. That is the attitude of saying: "Get out of my way and do not bother me. You are too small and not numerous enough to kick up a row. Therefore, get out of my way." They are not all in the same position. We are dealing to-day with only two of these classes. The third class cannot be born until the Bill becomes operative, and therefore you may say to that person: "If you are coming in as a voluntary contributor under the Bill, you are coming in with the conditions written down there. You need not become a voluntary contributor if you do not wish, and you need not pay if you do not wish, and you need not therefore pay to qualify for these benefits if you do not wish."
That is one problem with which you can deal in a separate way, but there is another, the problem of the man who is a voluntary contributor at the moment, the man who is paying his own national health insurance contributions, the employer's contributions as well as his own, the man who has built up a vested interest in the funds of the national health insurance section of the Department, and who has an interest now in the treatment benefit provided at the moment and continued under this Bill. Is it suggested that in the case of that man who has the right to-day to sickness benefit, maternity benefit and treatment allowance, under this Bill all these rights are to be swept away and he is to be told: "You will not get any benefits except widows' and orphans' pensions, and all the credits which you have built up are credits which are going to be swept away"?
I think that is a brutal way of dealing with a case such as that. They may not be numerous people, but that is all the more reason why we should respect their rights. This is not by any means an insoluble problem, but it should not be dealt with petulantly.
We should try to understand their position and make an effort to meet it. I wonder whether the Minister in what he has said has correctly interpreted ever his own intention in respect of these people because he first assumed that there was only one category of voluntary contributors. I have now told him of three—two actual and one possible. The latter will not be born until the Bill is in operation and is in an entirely different category from the others.
Under this Bill, will everybody under £600 per year not be compulsorily insured?
Working for an employer, yes.
Will that not cover many of the points raised by Deputy Norton?
The Bill makes provision in itself for the voluntary contributor and the voluntary contributor is a person who has 156 unemployment contributions. Contributions to the number of 156 have been paid in respect of him and he can, if he applies to the Minister in the prescribed manner, be deemed to be a voluntary contributor. If so deemed, he pays ? per week and for that ? he is entitled to the benefits set out in Section 37. In other words, he is entitled to benefits other than disability benefit, unemployment benefit, marriage benefit, maternity benefit or treatment benefit.
I am only reading what is in the section. Notwithstanding that, the Minister may, in respect of a voluntary contributor, prescribe that, if he pays an additional contribution—although that is not set out, he nevertheless could do it—he may be entitled to any of the benefits— disability, unemployment, marriage, maternity or treatment benefit. There is no trouble about that part of it—it is as clear as can be; but what Deputy Norton puts forward is that at the moment there are a number of voluntary contributors who do not come within the definition of voluntary contributor in this Bill. They do not come within the machinery laid down in Section 4 for becoming a voluntary contributor. The Minister may say that I have not studied the Bill to the extent which would enable me to be helpful in regard to it, but I should like to know if there is any other provision in the Bill whereby a voluntary contributor at the moment can be continued as a voluntary contributor. It may be that there is no such provision in the Bill and, if not, I think it would be sufficient if the Minister indicated that he would have the point examined because, clearly, if there are voluntary contributors at the moment, who are contributing, they have some rights and it may be that when they see the provisions in the Bill, they may not wish to continue to be voluntary contributors, but there should be some short sub-section or section in the Bill whereby they would be for the purposes of the Bill, considered to be voluntary contributors.
Is it not clear that a voluntary contributor earning over £500 and under £600 will be compulsorily insured?
It will cover many of the cases mentioned by Deputy Norton.
It does not cover this specific case I put to the Minister of the man who has been 25 years in employment and contributing as every insured worker has been contributing and who gets a lorry or a taxi, becomes his own employer and volunteers to become a voluntary contributor.
After the Bill he is covered.
The Minister tells us that he will get only the widows' and orphans' pension. In the case of a good many employments there will be men who will be put off at 65 on a certain pension—not a very liberal pension. If they continue to pay their contributions to the national health insurance and unemployment insurance funds as they have been paying all along, plus the employer's contribution, is the Minister going to deny them the right to be insured persons, and if that is so, on what ground does he propose to cut them off?
It is not possible to have a scheme of social insurance except for those who are employed by another person—who are working for an employer. The case Deputy Hickey has in mind is the case of a man who becomes a self-employed person, and I am afraid we have to say in that case that he can no longer continue for all the benefits laid down. He could continue as a voluntary contributor as we are discussing here and as is laid down here and he would be entitled to widows' pension and orphans' pension, or both.
I did not contemplate, I must say, more than bringing the present voluntary contributors into that same category and see that for the future, at any rate, the only benefit they could draw would be widows' pensions or orphans' pensions. Deputy Norton thinks that is unfair. Deputy Cowan wants to know if there is any way of dealing with it. There is, I think, under Section 66 (2) provision which would give power to deal with these present categories of voluntary contributors if we thought they were unfairly treated because it does deal with those who would suffer by the repeal of certain enactments. Regulations can be made to deal with such persons.
Clearly that gives the Minister power to deal with it.
It does, but I do not say that it will be possible to do so. However, it will be considered.
The Minister ought to recognise frankly that people have built up an interest as a result of being permitted and encouraged by the Department and the National Health Insurance Society to become voluntary contributors. The Department even issued leaflets explaining to them how to become voluntary contributors, and explaining the benefits to them. Having accepted the Department's invitation to become voluntary contributors the only fair way of dealing with the situation is to give them the option. Some of them do not get the option; the clerical officer will not get the option of getting in compulsorily.
The obvious thing to do is to permit him to remain as a voluntary contributor for the purpose of this Bill and to permit anybody who has the right to become a voluntary contributor, as the Minister says in the future, for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes only, if you wish, by recognising the special rights of those who contributed. We should carry these. There are only a few and the fewer there are, the sooner the programme will be disposed of and then anybody who is not now covered by national health in the future can only cover themselves for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. For those who come in under this Bill it is an entirely new problem which will be dealt with under the regulations the Minister may make. Since these people have built up a vested interest by reason of their contributions, the Minister should frankly recognise the obligations to carry them. There should be a frank statement that the rights of those limited number of voluntary contributors will be respected.
There may be a difficulty in the interpretation of "existing contributor" because we have "employed contributor" and "voluntary contributor." Does "existing contributor" include both? However, that is a matter for consideration.
It is important that the Minister should say something on it.
I think it is very important that he should say something. They are telling people who are already voluntary contributors that they must cease to be voluntary contributors. That is the worst feature about the whole thing.
If the Minister says he will consider the matter between this and Report Stage it will be sufficient for to-night.
The point which Deputy Norton raised about people being promised certain benefits, I am quite prepared to consider that.
With a view to meeting it?
To see if it can be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed : "That Section 39 stand part of the Bill."
Is this the same section as was in the previous Bill?
This section amalgamates the three into one.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to this section, I intend to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to limit somewhat this particular section to the insurance part of the Bill. As it stands, it may be taken as referring to the whole Bill. This is a technical matter.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Question proposed: "That Section 41 stand part of the Bill."
I should like the Minister to tell us what he has in mind in this particular section. The people referred to in this section were described as insurance officers in the previous Bill. What is the difference between an insurance officer and deciding officer?
My impression was that they were described as deciding officers in Deputy Norton's Bill also.
I called them insurance officers.
The officer decides and after that it is the appeals officer.
This section says:—
"The Minister may appoint from his officers such and so many persons as he thinks proper to be deciding officers for the purposes of this Act, and every person so appointed shall hold office as a deciding officer during the pleasure of the Minister."
There is no question of an appeals officer there.
No, but we will come to that.
How many deciding officers is it contemplated the Minister will appoint and what precise functions is it contemplated these deciding officers will discharge? What is the relation of the officer to be vis-à-vis the Court of Referees?
I could not say what number will be necessary. In Section 42 is set out the functions of the deciding officers.
There is a deciding officer and an appeals officer. All these things are to be decided by the deciding officer.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."
What is the deciding officer's function under Section 42 in relation to a claim for benefit made by a person employed and whose employment is terminated for, it is alleged, some indisciplinary action on his part? Does the deciding officer deal with that case or will it go to the appeals officer?
As to whether a person is disqualified from benefit, I take it that it will come under (b).
Under (a) or (b). I want to find out what functions the deciding officer will discharge which are at present being discharged by the Court of Referees. When I was dealing with another Bill—the Social Welfare Bill of 1950—a point was raised then by the Opposition Party at the time that the decision in the future would be given by officers of the Department in appeal cases—that is, national health insurance appeal cases. It was alleged that it was unfair, wrong and improper that officers of the Department should have to decide whether a person was entitled to national health insurance benefits in a particular case because the previous practice had been that it was decided by an appeals officer and subsequently by an arbitrator, both of whom were not on the pay-roll of the Minister.
The Court of Referees is constituted at the moment of representatives of the employers, representatives of the workers and an independent chairman. To that extent those going before the Court of Referees may feel that they have a fairer tribunal to adjudicate upon their case than that which is offered to them now. To what extent will the decisions of the deciding officers encroach upon the work now discharged by the Court of Referees and how far will the independence of the chairman of the Court of Referees now be lessened by the deciding officers who will be on the Minister's pay-roll?
The deciding officer decides on all the things listed in Section 42—payment of benefit, disqualification for benefit, and so on— and the insured person, if he feels aggrieved, can appeal to the appeals officer. The appeals officer's decision is final except in a case of law which may go to the High Court.
Then there is the chief appeals officer, who can look over the decision.
The chief appeals officer may have to review the decision of the appeals officer. The same applies to the appeals officer with regard to the deciding officer supposing that the first decision has been given on wrong evidence or something like that.
Will all the appeals officers be in Dublin?
Would it not be possible to make the managers of the labour exchanges in Limerick, Cork and so on appeals officers?
There should be a deciding officer in Cork.
There will be deciding officers in these centres. That will be decided by the Minister.
This section is the same as a section in the previous Bill, but this idea was opposed by the Minister's Party. Now the Minister is going to do the same thing although he complained about it at that time. I take it that the Minister now thinks that this is a more beneficial arrangement.
The Opposition should oppose a thing like that.
The Minister has been converted.
Does the Minister suggest that Deputy Norton should oppose it now?
I would congratulate the Minister on his conversion even to the extent of accepting the amendment from the Christian Scientists.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."
What are the broad classifications as far as official nomenclature is concerned of appeals officers and deciding officers? From what class of officer will appeals officers be chosen?
Deciding officers will be chief executive officers and appeals officers will be something higher.
How many of these will you have?
I do not know. We will have to find out from experience.
I would say that it would be important that these deciding officers should be experienced officers of reasonably high rank.
They should be very responsible people, and the appeals officers and the chief appeals officer should be of higher rank again.
Will the number be adequate to dispose of all these cases with reasonable expedition? Is there any danger of a bottle-neck?
No, I hope not. I hope that we will have sufficient to do the work expeditiously.
If you do that you will clean out the Department of people above the executive grade.
There would not be so many appeals officers as that.
I want to get the Minister's mind on this. I contemplated the possibility of providing for what I am now about to mention. So far under unemployment insurance legislation we have had an appeal board which was balanced, as it consisted of equal representation of workers and employers. The court was presided over by an independent chairman who, although he need not necessarily be a legal man, in 95 per cent. of the cases was in fact a legal person. That court of referees dealt with appeals against the disallowance of unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance benefit. The advantage of that machinery will be obvious to anybody who remembers the circumstances in which the Unemployment Assistance Act was first introduced.
It was necessary at the time to create confidence in the machinery and for that purpose it was decided to have workers' and employers' representatives on the court of referees. We are now getting away from that. It stands only in respect of unemployment insurance legislation at the moment. We are now going over wholly to the scheme envisaged under the Children's Allowance Act and the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act where you have referees who hear cases which have been dealt with at a lower level but where the referee is an official of the Department—although he has certain statutory powers—and he decides all the appeals submitted to him. At one time the case was made for having assessors as well as deciding officers. The idea was to give an opportunity to the applicant whose educational qualifications did not enable him or her to make a good case to be assessed by somebody who knew his general pattern of life and the conditions in his employment and who would act as a kind of advocate for the person whose appeal was being heard by the court. There is something to be said for that mode of procedure particularly if the man created confidence in the applicant that he would get a fair hunt before the appeals tribunal. What is the Minister's mind on that? Does he intend to do anything?
That is provided for under sub-section (11) of Section 44.
How is it intended to collect these assessors?
I must say that I have not considered that in detail at all. It is obvious of course that the workers and employers will be asked for suggestions and that a panel will then be formed in that way.
There would be a panel? You might have an appeals officer dealing with Munster cases and a panel drawn from a wide area. If there are to be assessors they would be chosen from both angles?
One from each side? Yes. Perhaps in some cases the assessor would be a specialist like a medical man.
In addition to the ordinary assessor? Or do you mean that you would have no layman but merely the medical assessor?
That would depend on the case. We might be anxious for a decision in a particular case where a medical man would be called in to give his ruling.
I can see the advantage of a medical assessor in a sickness or disability benefit claim, whereas he would have no function in an unemployment assistance claim.
He might be useful in certain cases.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Question proposed: "That Section 44 stand part of the Bill."
This section is the same as in the 1950 Act.
It seems to be the same as in the previous Bill.
Section 45 is also the same.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."
Why the appeal to the High Court?
You get a quicker decision in the High Courts than anywhere else and, it is hoped, a better one.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister explain the section broadly?
This deals with the fixing of places for the payment of benefit. It provides that certain benefits may be paid through the Post Office. It is intended to continue the payment of the widows' and orphans' pensions benefits through the Post Office and national health and unemployment benefits as they are paid at the moment.
I want to raise on this section a matter which, if it was proposed to remedy it, might be dealt with on the section. At the present time there are a number of persons who are described as unestablished officers employed in the Post Office Department. When sick they receive two-thirds of their pay less national health insurance benefit; in other words, let us for convenience sake assume they have £3 a week; two-thirds of their pay would amount to £2 a week: the amount to be deducted for national health insurance benefit would be £1 2s. 6d. from the £2 per week, and they would get the net sum of 17/6 per week which, with the 22/6 national health, would make £2 per week. These figures are fictitious from the wages point of view but they serve to illustrate the case I have in mind. Efforts have been made to induce the Post Office Department to pay those people the two-thirds pay while sick and to collect from the Department of Social Welfare or the National Health Insurance Society the amount of sickness benefit which was due to be paid by the Department or the society to the insured person. But whenever solution was sought for the problem along those lines the attitude of the society and the Department was that the contract was with the insured person and that only he could receive the benefit payable under the National Health Insurance Acts.
This arrangement which operates to-day in the Post Office is a very inconvenient one because if the person is sick, let us say this week, the Post Office assume that he will get 22/6 national health insurance benefit for the week whereas, in fact, he will get no national health insurance benefit at all this week. He will get portion of it next week but the Post Office make the deduction this week on the assumption that the person concerned will get benefit from the Department of Social Welfare. As I say, he will not get that benefit until the following week and the Department of Social Welfare say they cannot pay it over to the Post Office even if the Post Office pay him the equivalent in the first week in which he is sick. That seems to be a stupid rigidity, in my opinion. I think some power might be taken by the Minister to deal with a case of that kind so as to make the position much more flexible than it is at the moment. If, for instance, an insured person would say to the Minister by written authority: "Pay my sickness benefit to somebody nominated by me, and you will satisfy my requirements," the Minister ought to be empowered to do so. If he were so empowered, it would probably help in the solution of the particular problem to which I have adverted. I would like the Minister to examine the matter to see if he could put into this section a clause to cover a situation of that kind.
I am very doubtful that it could be brought in under this section. However, I would like, first of all, to have the matter examined, but it appears doubtful that what the Deputy has suggested could be done.
Not at all? When I made inquiries I was told that the difficulty lay in the fact that there was no provision for such a case, that the problem was not insoluble and that it could be dealt with in a measure of this type.
It possibly could be covered by regulation, where a man signed a document.
Would Deputy Norton mean to confine it to the Post Office?
No. I would wish it to apply all over.
A clause comes later in the Bill for the purpose of coming to an agreement with employers of large groups of labour so that they will untertake to give all those benefits themselves and we will give them a lump sum. That is the idea in a clause later on in this Bill.
Sections 47 and 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Question proposed: "That Section 49 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister says he may appoint "such and so many inspectors." Of course, there is a substantial inspectorate in the Department, and I take it that these will be assigned to whatever branch of the inspectorate is necessary.
This section is to continue the power to fill their places.
And to give the inspectors power.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 50.
Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill".
I have always felt that the certificates required for this purpose should be given free of charge, though I do not want to make an issue of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Question proposed: "That Section 52 stand part of the Bill".
This section provides a clause to the effect that if an employer fails to pay an employment contribution he should be charged with an offence and fined a sum not exceeding £10. I feel that this section should be amended to provide for imprisonment as well as for a fine. This section is to give effect to what I mentioned in an earlier section in regard to punishment for not paying a contribution.
This section is meant to deal with very serious offences such as affixing to an insurance card defaced or used stamps, and so forth.
I am dealing with the sub-section which says that if an employer fails to pay an employment contribution he will be charged with an offence and fined a sum not exceeding £10. I feel the section should be amended so as to provide for imprisonment as well as for a fine. The District Court should be given authority to deal with the case as it ought to be dealt with.
We can consider that case. I move to report progress.
Progress reported.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30. a.m. on Thursday, 8th May.
