The Minister has not done his job. He has not carried out the preparatory work which should precede the introduction of a measure of this kind. What the Minister is really annoyed at is that, on this Money Resolution, he is now being shown up. Instead of being able to come to this House and say: "Here are the purposes, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) for which we propose to advance the £25,000 and here is the reason why we have set up a board to draw up a voluntary health insurance scheme"— the Minister is responsible for his Department, and I have no doubt, if the Minister gave a direction to his Department, that a voluntary health insurance scheme would be forthcoming—the Minister comes in here and says: "Here is the reason why I have not discharged my function as Minister for Health, here is the reason why I am not fulfilling the pledge I held out to the people in 1954 that, if they elected me, I would introduce a voluntary health insurance scheme."
This Bill does not introduce any such scheme. No part of this £25,000 that we are asked to lend to this board is being devoted to the purpose of this scheme. That £25,000, let me repeat again, is being used in order to finance a certain number of individuals—not members of the public service and not people who are under the control of this House. Indeed, I doubt if, under this Bill, they will be under the control even of the Minister. That £25,000 is being used to finance a certain number of people to set out and implement an insurance scheme.
We are not opposing the idea of voluntary health insurance. Nothing that I said in my opening remarks and nothing that I am saying now can be interpreted as opposition towards the principle of voluntary health insurance or a voluntary health insurance scheme. What I am opposed to and what I am now exposing is the trick which the Minister is trying to play upon the people who supported him in 1954. There is no, let me repeat again, voluntary health insurance scheme being introduced by this Bill. All this Bill proposes to do is to set up a body to make such a scheme.
If the Minister were in earnest, if the Minister had considered this scheme, he would now come along and say to this House, in introducing this Bill: "Here are the benefits we propose to confer and here are the premiums that will have to be paid." There is no use in the Minister trying to get out of the dilemma in which he finds himself by referring to anything which was published outside this House. So far as the House is concerned, it has nothing before it. If any private body of advisers which the Minister set up made certain suggestions to him, they are not in debate on this Bill because the Minister did not, in introducing this Bill, submit a White Paper to the House setting out what his expectations were. The Minister has carefully avoided endorsing any recommendations or suggestions made to him by anybody. But he proposes to try to confuse the issue by referring to a document which was published elsewhere. We are not discussing that document here. We are discussing this Money Resolution in relation to proposals which the Minister has put before us. While the Minister, as a lawyer, may be adept at confusing issues, he will not get away with that here.
If he was really in earnest about this—let us be quite clear about it— he would not have brought in this Bill in this way. He would have come to certain conclusions first regarding any document which had been submitted to him by any body of advisers he had set up. He would have had a certain sense of responsibility. He would have been able to tell us he had considered such and such proposals. He would have been able to tell us that, in his view, these proposals were practicable, these proposals would be acceptable to the people. But the Minister has not chosen to do that. The Minister has not circulated to the members of this House any document which received publication elsewhere. No Deputy has received from the Minister—certainly I have not received it— any report.