The motion is:: "That this Bill be considered in Report."
FOURTH STAGE. - THE SEANAD RESUMED.
Bill reported.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Am I in order now?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are, unless some Senator wishes to call attention to an earlier clause, Senator Kenny. You see, we are now considering the entire Bill in Report. I do not want to go through it again clause by clause, but if there is no earlier matter——
This is Clause 1. There could not be an earlier Clause than that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This is your time, then, Senator. What is your motion?
My motion is that the expression "‘Great Britain' shall be deemed to include Northern Ireland" shall be deleted, or otherwise expressed "that ‘Great Britain7rsquo; shall not be deemed to include Northern Ireland." I do not think that we should allow it, by inference or implication or otherwise, to be stated that we tacitly assented to the severence of Northern Ireland from Ireland. We hope one day that Northern Ireland will come into the Free State, and so long as that hope exists I think that we should be very careful and guarded in saying or doing or writing anything, or putting anything into print, which might be inferred as tantamount to our saying good-bye to a reunion, within a short time or in the future, and I think it does convey that impression, that our hopes of a reunion with Northern Ireland are being dimmed. If the words "Great Britain" appear in the Bill, it should be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and where the expression "British" appears in the Bill the line should read "British or Northern Irish."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think that latter part is necessary for your purpose, because, as far as I can see, the expression "British" is confined strictly to Societies in Great Britain itself. If you look at the Definition Clause that you are dealing with, you will find the expression "British," in relation to a Society or branch, means a Society having its principal office in Great Brtain.
I beg to point out that in Clause 25 we take the word "Irish" entirely to ourselves in Southern Ireland, to the exclusion of Northern Ireland altogether.
I feel anxious to second this, but at the moment I do not know what I would be seconding.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Have you made up your mind whether you are going to second it or not?
I am asking you what the exact proposal is, so that I may know whether I should second it or not.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The proposal of Senator Kenny is, to delete the last clause in Section 1—that is "the expression ‘Great Britain' shall be deemed to include Northern Ireland"— and he proposes to delete these words.
What would happen Northern Ireland then? It will be nobody's child, apparently, then.
I am not able to second that, though I agree with what he said.
I would like to support that. I think if the Seanad accepts that, it would be necessary to make more alterations than simply deleting that particular clause, for everywhere the word "British" appears in the Bill you would want to add "British or Northern Irish," and everywhere "Great Britain" occurs you will require to add "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." But I think it is very desirable that it should be done and I agree with Senator Kenny that we should not allow Northern Ireland to be tacked on in that way.
If the words "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" could be introduced where necessary it might meet the difficulty.
I am going to vote against this motion. The reason I do so is, as it is framed, we only draw attention to the fact on one occasion that there is such a place as Northern Ireland. By adopting the amendment we shall be emphasising Northern Ireland all through the Act.
That is what we want to do.
That is not what I want to do. I want to emphasise Ireland as one if possible, but not Northern Ireland as distinct from Southern Ireland.
I desire to second Senator Kenny's amendment. I think if "the expression ‘Great Britain' shall be deemed to include Northern Ireland" goes forth in a Bill from this Seanad it will be very unfortunate, as it is tantamount to the recognition by this Seanad of partition.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
May I suggest to Senators that I appreciate their point of view, but it would occur to me as a matter of common sense that you are emphasising that much more effectively if everywhere you are going to insert Northern Ireland as an entity by itself. I think you are doing something which will accentuate rather than relieve the matter that you want to get rid of.
We want to accentuate it. That is the object of my motion.
I entirely agree with the remarks of Senator MacPartlin.
A great deal of difficulty arose almost from the beginning with regard to what particular description was to take the place of "the United Kingdom." There was, I believe, generally speaking, amongst a very considerable section of the population in Ireland an objection to that term. It would not be an improvement to say "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." It would have exactly the same disadvantages, and it was decided then, for brevity and for other purposes, that this particular form should come in, and that the expression would be deemed to include the two. There is a very particular reason for it. The same laws, I think, generally prevail, certainly so far as National Health Insurance is concerned, that a person can be a member of an Approved Society though living in Belfast, and though that Approved Society may have its head offices in England. There is a certain simplification in the use of the term embracing both. It has no political signification here. It prevents continued repetition of "Northern Ireland," and I think it will be admitted that we have no particular desire to be perpetually bringing these two terms before people's minds. It is explanatory as far as this is concerned. If this particular clause be taken out, it means going through the Bill, on one page of which, I think, the two words occur very often, and changing every one of these. It was not meant in any way to be offensive to anybody—either those who stand for Northern Ireland or those who stand for the Saorstát. It was certainly not intended to be offensive to Great Britain. If that particular explanation be changed, then some other designation must be inserted everywhere through the Bill where Great Britain is brought in, and I do not know whether it would be an improvement.
Amendment put and lost.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The new clause proposed to be added is as follows: "Provided that where the employed contributor is in regular employment, the employer shall be entitled to recover from the employed contributor by means of deduction from the wages or other remuneration the amount of any contributions paid by him on behalf of the employed contributor for a period not exceeding 26 weeks."
The amendment, as you have read it out, meets the point I have in view. At the present time deductions have to be made weekly, which is very awkward both for the employers and the employees. In the case of permanent workmen, in all the cases I have come across, the workmen and the employers would prefer the deduction to be made at the end of the period when the card has to be sent in—that is, the period of 26 weeks—than to have these calculations made every week. The entire sum which might be deducted from an employee is only 8s. 8d. for the 26 weeks, and I do not think that deduction will be a hardship on anybody. It would be a convenience to both parties if, instead of compelling them to make deductions weekly, they were allowed to do so at the end of the six months' period. I beg to move the amendment.
I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment. I would like to point out another reason why I think such an amendment desirable. Employees are not always paid weekly; in many cases they are paid monthly. It is impossible in these cases to deduct the sum weekly. As a rule, employees do not raise any objection to it being done, but I know cases in which they have raised objections, and it has led to friction and given rise to a great deal of trouble. There is another matter that I would like to draw attention to, and that is the way in which Approved Societies evade their responsibilities. In order to put the matter in order, I have drafted an amendment which might very well take its place immediately after that of Senator Linehan. I do not want to say that it is perfect, but it expresses the idea, and if the Government would consider it and put it in its right place and in proper wording, that is all I would ask. There are numberless cases. I have a case at the present moment of a servant, a girl who has been in our employment. She has paid the sums that she was liable for and the employers have done the same. There is a clause in the original Act which requires notice to be given. This girl was in hospital, and it was impossible for her to give notice at the time, as she was too ill. Her society have evaded any payment to her in consequence of the notice not being served. I know of another case——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you now speaking about the amendment of Senator Linehan? We must take the amendments one by one, but any observations relevant to that amendment of course are in order.
I am proposing to add to that this Clause.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As part of this Clause?
Yes. I am afraid I have made myself rather a nuisance to the National Health Insurance Commissioners, because I have had to invoke their help on so many occasions. I have had numbers of cases of men who went to hospital and who were entitled to benefit, and their societies refused to give it to them. It was only by the good offices of Sir Joseph Glynn that on one occasion, at all events, I got one of my men paid who had been for a long time out of his money. He had got all the certificates and everything necessary, but they actually refused to pay him. I got the Commissioners to write, and they stated that it was necessary to have an arbitration. The arbitration was held, and this man was awarded a further sum but they would not pay it. After an immense amount of trouble finally we got the money paid. It is in the interest of the contributors that I am raising this question, and not in the interest of employers. It is a perfect scandal the way a great many of these things go on. The addition I propose to add is: "That where an approved Society have evaded their liabilities to an employed contributor who is entitled to sickness benefit it shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an order compelling the Society to pay the benefit, and it shall be competent for the District Justice to inflict a penalty in addition to whatever sum he finds to be due, not exceeding the amount of the award."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That has nothing to do with the new Clause proposed by Sénator Linehan. It is not pertinent to it at all. You will be in order in moving it as another Clause, but it has no connection with this one.
Senator Linehan and I were discussing it and we were in a great difficulty to know where it could be put in. Finally we came to the conclusion that, perhaps, you would set us right.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You can move to insert it after this one of Senator Linehan's. What I am pointing out is that it is not an amendment or addendum to Senator Linehan's new Clause. It is a substantive provision or enactment in itself. I will give you an opportunity of moving it later, and for the moment we will deal with Senator Linehan's proposal.
I must oppose this amendment. Senator Barrington said that Senator Linehan and he were worrying themselves on behalf of employed contributors. I do not think any people who are subject to the provisions of this Act will be thankful to either of them or to the employer who will attempt to deduct 8s. 8d. in one week from their wages to pay a half-year's contributions. Would a man with 30s. a week' in the country who is the father of seven or eight children like to be sent home with £1 one week, even though he may have steady employment? I do not think that this is going to improve the Act in any way, to deduct the insurance half-yearly.
No insurance that I know of is paid half-yearly by the working people, and this Act only covers working people. It is said that large numbers of these people are paid by the month. That is not so. The great body of the people are paid weekly, and could not afford to wait a month. They are not salaried, but are wage-earners, and their outgoings and income cover the seven days. I hope it will not be possible for employers to stop the money half-yearly.
Senator MacPartlin has rather misrepresented what I did say. In connection with Senator Linehan's motion I did not say that we were fighting the battle of the employees, but I did say, in reference to this further amendment, that we were fighting their battle. I would like to know how he is going to deal with people who are paid monthly. I can assure him that there are hundreds of cases in the country in which people are paid by the month.
In Donegal and Monaghan domestic and farm servants are paid half-yearly, and the Insurance Inspectors never made any difficulty about having the stamps put on the cards at the end of that period. They recognised that these people are hired for six months, and that they could not stamp the cards weekly.
In the case of any person who is paid monthly or half yearly there is nothing in the provisions of the Act to prevent the employer deducting the full amount for that period on pay-day. If you put in the provision that has been drafted by Senator Linehan it will mean that every employer who pays weekly will be empowered to do the very same thing. The regulations of the Insurance Commissioners cover the point raised in the amendment and in my opinion there is no necessity for it. It is the common practice, whatever the period of employment, whether for a week or for a month, that the amount of the contribution of the employee is deducted on pay-day. There is no necessity for the proposed amendment as it is already covered by the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners. I have some little experience of the working of an Insurance Society and I am satisfied that the Irish Insurance Commissioners will not impose any hardship on any section of the community, whether employer or worker. I must say from my experience of the officials of the Irish Insurance Commission that they are a most competent body, and go out of their way on every occasion to help everyone connected with that work. I think it is only fair to pay that compliment to the officials. Whether it was the representative of an Insurance Society or the insured persons everyone got fair treatment from the Commissioners. I suggest to the mover of the amendment that there is no necessity for it as if it is put into the Bill it will give power to people other than those it is meant to cover, and will be taken advantage of. It will also lead to ill-feeling and will not be for the good of the employer or the working class people.
This Bill was generously received in the Dáil. In essence it is an Adaptation Bill with, what musical people call variations, and the variations are very slight. I think this would be a change. It would contemplate more than was certainly in our minds when we started the work of making up this Bill. The Bill is to deal with the change that has taken place by reason of the setting up of the Saorstát. If there were no such change there would be no such Bill. This branches into the question of National Health Insurance in a way in which it was not our intention to deal with it. I do not think this amendment would have been accepted in the Dáil, at least it would not have conduced towards the easy passage of the Bill. The Bill was passed through generously without any delay. It was because of its urgency and the necessity of having it done rapidly that it got such a swift passage. It was purely technical and intricate, but if other matters are brought in, it certainly loses its character. It is an amending Bill as well as an Adaptation Bill. Although it says to amend it also says to adapt and if it were not rendered necessary by reason of the setting up of the Saorstát no such Bill would have been considered at all.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 19.
Tá
- William Barrington.
- Thomas Westropp Bennett.
- Richard A. Butler.
- John C. Counihan.
- Benjamin Haughton.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Joseph Clayton Love.
- James MacKean.
- Michael O'Dea.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
Níl
- Henry L. Barniville.
- Mrs. Eileen Costello.
- William Cummins.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Dowager Countess of Desart.
- Sir Nugent Talbot Everard, Bart.
- Thomas Farren.
- Martin Fitzgerald.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Marquess of Headfort.
- Cornelius Joseph Irwin.
- Arthur Jackson.
- Patrick Williams Kenny.
- Edward MacLysaght.
- Thomas MacPartlin.
- Colonel Maurice Moore.
- Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.
- William Butler Yeats.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move to add the following new Sub-section:
"That where an Approved Society have evaded their liability to an employed contributor who is entitled to sickness benefit, it shall be competent for the employed contributor to apply to the District Justice for an order compelling the Society to pay the benefit, and it shall be competent for the District Justice to inflict a penalty in addition to whatever sum he finds due not exceeding the amount of the award."
I do not want to add much to what I have already said, except to say that Senator McPartlin and his friends will find that they are not the only persons who take an interest in the people of the country who are covered by these insurances. A great deal of my time is taken up in endeavouring to deal with the cases of contributors, and it is only with the assistance that I received from the insured persons that I was enabled to succeed in getting the benefits for them which is their proper due. I think, until a sense of their duty is brought home to these people who are responsible, by enabling the District Justice to inflict a penalty, we will never get over these abuses.
I second the amendment.
I think it would be very useful if this amendment were given effect to. My experience of insured persons is that the first 4 days of their illness are virtually, in 9 cases out of 10, the most serious, and I find that after that period, as a rule, the bulk of the workers are able to resume their work, and then we find the Societies in which they are insured denying liability. I know it is a very serious grievance in the manufacturing industry, both in Dublin and elsewhere, that the workers do not get the benefits they are entitled to. In fact I, myself, got so tired of it in a few cases I had to do with that I had to go so far as to appeal to Sir Joseph Glynn in order to get even common justice done to those people. It appears to me as if those Societies, for some reason or another, wish to deny those poor creatures the benefits they are entitled to. Every sort of difficulty and objection is raised to the benefits being paid. I think it would be a very good thing for the country if this entire Insurance Act was recast. It is not satisfactory either to the employer or to the worker, and we are very doubtful—at least I am very doubtful— about the amount of benefit that the workers concerned get out of the amount of money that is collected. I would like, very much, to know the amount subscribed both by the workers and the employers, and I would, also, like to know what benefit the workers get out of the funds. I think the whole system of insurance, as far as I know it both domestically and in other employments, is most unsatisfactory.
I must oppose this amendment. I believe it is moved because of the want of knowledge of the Approved Societies and the rules and regulations laid down by the Insurance Commissioners regarding the payment of benefits, and that is responsible for Sena tor Barrington moving this amendment, because the amendment is altogether against the spirit of this Bill. It is laid down specifically in this Bill that the persons who do not receive benefits are entitled to recover from the Society if the Society is in default. A person has no power under the Health Insurance Act to proceed in a Court of Law. He must proceed according to the regulations laid down in the Bill. Therefore, I think, this amendment is entirely out of order and cannot be accepted. Senators must remember that we are not dealing at the moment with the general principle of the National Health Act. We are dealing with a set of circumstances that make it necessary and compulsory for the Oireachtas to pass certain regulations to bring into operation a scheme that has arisen under peculiar circumstances. It is essential that these regulations should be introduced for the purpose of dealing with changes of circumstances that have taken place. I explained before that the position is that there are approved societies with their headquarters across the water and the members resident in the Saorstát of societies having their headquarters in what is called Northern Ireland and vice versa. There are approved societies registered with headquarters in Ireland which have members at the moment in Great Britain, or in Northern Ireland, and owing to the change of circumstances brought about by the setting up of the Saorstát it is essential that regulations should be made whereby the people resident in the Saorstát who are members of approved societies with their headquarters in Great Britain or what is called Northern Ireland should be allowed to make the necessary transfer, and for that purpose it is necessary that the Government should make certain regulations. I do not think it is in order, in the circumstances, to deal with the general principle underlying the National Health Insurance. If we were dealing with that some of us would have a good deal to say.
Then with regard to the regulations of Approved Societies and their relations to their approved members, that is already covered in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Irish Insurance Commissioners. Senator O'Dea referred to the question of men being four days sick and not paid benefit. I would like to point out, for the information of Senator O'Dea, that according to the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act a person is not entitled to receive benefit for the first three days of illness. If there is a continuing sickness or a person happens to fall sick within the specified period, then they have to wait three days for benefit. If declared off benefit and a person becomes ill again within a certain period, he is not entitled for the three waiting days in the second period or the days already dealt with under the principal provisions of the Bill.
With regard to the payment of benefits, I must say that any person who is insured and in good standing in an Approved Society is entitled to receive certain benefits, and if a person does not get the benefits it is that person's own fault. The provisions are laid down by the Commissioners for the payment of benefits by all societies. We know that serious complaints and allegations have been made against certain societies because of the way the Act was being administered, but we cannot deal with that on this stage of the Bill. If complaints are to be made, they should be sent to the Commissioners who will deal with them without delay. I hold no brief for the Insurance Commissioners or their officials, but I have had experience of them from time to time, and I must say that I always found them anxious and willing to help not only the Secretaries of Insurance Societies, but also insured persons. I do not think this amendment should be pressed, because, in my opinion, it is out of order.
My reason for seconding the amendment was because of complaints made to me in the West of Ireland by insured persons. In some cases the complaints were of a very serious nature. They were made by persons in domestic service, and in other kinds of employment. The rules made by the Commissioners provide that the societies should pay to their members certain benefits during illness. I think it ought to be the duty of secretaries to societies to assist their members to get these benefits when they are entitled to them because of illness, but I am afraid that does not happen. I know of many cases where application for benefit was made week after week and month after month, and still the assistance was not forthcoming. If we can do anything to assist people who are entitled to benefit from these societies to get it promptly, we should do it. The contributions are collected weekly from the members. It is compulsory on them to pay it, and when claims come into societies they ought to be dealt with promptly.
I desire to support the amendment. I have had experience of some of these societies, and I can bear testimony to what Senator Barrington has stated. I know that in many cases it was practically impossible for insured persons to get the benefits they were entitled to. In some cases the payment of the benefit was so long delayed that they had become worthless when paid to the insured persons. I feel that if this amendment were adopted, whereby powers would be given to a District Justice to inflict a penalty on a society for the nonpayment of a benefit justly due, it would be of the greatest advantage in stimulating secretaries to Societies to pay up promptly the amounts due. It is a pitiful thing, for instance, in the case of a poor woman at a serious crisis in her life when she may become entitled to a £1 or 30s. to have the payment withheld for, perhaps, two or three months. I feel that if penalties could be inflicted on societies for committing flagrant breaches of the spirit of the Act it would arouse them to more enthusiasm in carrying out their duties properly. I may say here that I was associated with Sir Joseph Glynn in trying to correct the errors of a society, but despite his great ability and determination, and that of the members of the Committee, it was found quite impossible to get things conducted as they should be in that particular case. I feel that such cases are not isolated amongst societies, and I think if a penal clause were inserted, as suggested, in the Act it would make for the more useful administration of it.
Senator O'Dea inquired as to the amount of benefits that had been paid. The last audited accounts are for the year ending 1920, and they give the following particulars:—Sickness and Disablement benefits paid, £460,000; Free Medical Certificates, £90,000; Sanatorium benefits, £40,000; total, £590,000. As regards contributions, I cannot give the amount as I have not got the return. I fear that much the same position prevails with regard to this amendment as prevailed with regard to the last one, that is to say, it is one that is to some extent outside the scope of our intentions. We have not examined this particular point that is being made. It is natural that complaints should be made with regard to certain societies. During my own experience of them I found that some societies were much more satisfactory than others. I am not in a position to say that the Dáil had any intention of going into the merits or the defects of the Bill as it stood. This adaptation of the Act was not intended by us to deal with that. We had only to arrange the adaptation of this and other Acts that have been passed in such a way as to provide for the changes that have taken place.
Before a vote is taken on the amendment I should just like to clear up one point. Senator Farren has pointed out that, for the first three days, no payment is allowed. That is quite true and I am not proposing to alter that in any way, but the Act also provides that within these three days notice must be given to the Approved Society. It frequently happens, and I know cases myself in which it has happened, that people were too ill to give the notice within that time. I think it is a perfectly scandalous thing that Societies, availing themselves of the fact that people are too ill to give the notification should evade payment of their liabilities afterwards. As regards the other argument that it would affect Societies outside the Free State, I would not attach any weight to that at all. It seems to me it would be very desirable to get people to join Societies that are within the control of the Free State. If this amendment has the effect of making them leave other Societies to join ones under the control of the Government here I think it would be, by no means, an unmixed benefit.
Before the amendment is put I desire to ask a question in regard to this Act which I see is to continue in force until the 31st December, 1924. What I want to know is, if the whole question of insurance is to be reviewed after that date.
The Section the Senator refers to does not deal with the matter at present under discussion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Section to which Senator Guinness draws attention is not at present under discussion and has no relation to the amendment which I am now going to put to the Seanad.
Amendment put and declared carried