If there is no objection I should like to get the Fifth Stage of the Bill to-night.
Agreed.
In Committee on Finance. - National Health Insurance Bill, 1933. Fifth Stage.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
I do not want to delay the House, but if I were to deal with Deputy Norton's attitude on this Bill I should have a good deal to say. There are two things, however, which I want to make clear. One is that the Minister has been unable to provide, as he would have wished to provide, for the existing part-time agents who cannot satisfy him that they are making the major part of their income from that employment. I think it would greatly relieve the situation if the Minister would say that it is the intention of the unified society to give preference to existing part-time agents, in any case where they propose to appoint part-time agents in rural areas. I believe that that would greatly, if I might use the word, console those people and give them to understand that their position was understood. Secondly, the difficulty about the treasurers has not been met, except in so far as they are covered under Section 22 (3) (a) (iii). I ask the Minister to consider an amendment in another place to make lines 30 to 34 on page 8 read as follows:—
"a part-time employee of such society who proves to the satisfaction of the provisional committee that his earnings from such society were his principal means of livelihood on April 5th, 1933."
That is the date of the introduction of the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider that for this reason: a man who was a treasurer and had another position may have thrown up his other position since last June. On 30th June, 1932, his remuneration as treasurer was not the major part of his income, but as a result of his having thrown up his other job between 30th June and the date of the introduction of the Bill, his remuneration as treasurer on the date on which this Bill was introduced was the major part of his income. Cases of that kind exist, where a man was earning £200 per year from another job and £100 per year as treasurer on 30th June last, and in July, 1932, threw up the £200 a year job, and the £100 per year as treasurer has been his main source of income ever since. Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, he is not entitled to compensation, because on 30th June it did not form the bulk of his income, but, at the date of the introduction of the Bill, it did form the bulk of his income. I am asking the Minister in another place simply to put in the words "on April 5th, 1933," and if a man can satisfy the Minister that at that date his remuneration as treasurer formed the bulk of his income that he become entitled to compensation as a part-time employee under Section 22 (3) (a) (iii). These are the only points I want to mention.
The House desires to convenience the Minister in taking the Final Stage of this Bill to-night and I did not see any point in making an objection to it. There is, however, one point that I should like to mention at this particular stage. I have not the papers with me at the moment and I shall, therefore, refer to it only in brief. Exception has been taken on the part of the officials of, I think, the Irish Trade Unions' Congress Approved Society to certain remarks made by me on the Second Stage to the effect that the management of the society was bad management.
It is felt by the officials of that society that the statements that have been made here may prejudice their future in the eyes of the Minister, or the body of trustees that is going to be set up to carry out the reorganisation scheme that will be necessary in setting up the unified society. I do not think the officials of that society need be in any way concerned with that, and I do not believe they are. I am quite sure that their worth will be judged on their individual merits when it comes to considering whether or not they are suitable persons for employment in the unified society. I was pointing out at the time that a Bill was being introduced here, and was being sponsored by the Labour Party, and that perhaps it would not be before us at all but for its sponsoring by the Labour Party. I pointed out that there are a number of small societies run by workers in different branches giving substantial benefits and carrying on without losing any moneys during the last few years, but that you had societies like the society I mentioned which lost substantial sums during the last quinquennial period, and that there were societies organised by labour bodies that were infinitely worse from the point of view of management and from the point of view of losing large sums of money. If I individualised one labour society it was because of its name, and because of a connection that I supposed it had with the Irish Trade Union Congress. I am told it has not, but whether it has or not I do not think it was at all unreasonable to make the case here that you had a unified society being formed under the national health insurance scheme that was going to prejudice the interests of not only small well-organised and well-managed societies throughout the country, but other smaller labour societies; that in my opinion a lot of the support of the Labour Party to this particular Bill came from a desire to cover up the bad management of some of the national health insurance societies that have been run under labour management; and that this unified society which is now being brought about by their help is going to prejudice and damage the interests of the members of many other labour societies that have been well managed. The Minister has told us in connection with this Bill that he is hoping there will be no reduction of benefits to anybody. I trust that the Minister will be able to see his hopes realised in that particular matter, but the information that he has put before the House here has not enabled us to see any solid foundation upon which his hopes are based. On the other hand, we feel that there will be a very considerable amount of disorganisation and confusion, and that members of many well-run societies at the present moment are going to suffer substantially not not only in benefits but in the matter of the convenience of the service they are going to receive under the unified society.
Deputy Mulcahy has made reference to a speech which he delivered here on a previous stage of this Bill, and if his contribution to-night is intended to be an apology——
Oh, not at all.
Well, I suppose it is too much to expect the omnipotent General to apologise for any of his mistakes.
Oh, no. I should like to intervene. If there was anything in my statement here that required criticism at the hands of any member of the Labour Party I would have expected the members of the Labour Party to criticise that statement here. It was made on the Second Reading. We have passed through the Committee Stage and the Report Stage, and it was only when the Chair was putting the Final Stage of the Bill that I intervened. I again emphasise that if there was anything to be criticised in my statement the members of the Labour Party could have criticised it.
If I had been here on the occasion instead of being away with a deputation I would have challenged the Deputy's statement.
It was printed.
The Deputy's statement to-night is just as miserable and just as incorrect as his libel and slander were outrageous on the last occasion. The Deputy comes along to-night and attempts to whitewash his misdescription of the society. The Deputy knows perfectly well that he uttered a gross slander, and was guilty of gross libel against the Irish Trade Union Congress National Health Insurance Society, when he made the inaccurate statements—one refrains in this House from describing them otherwise—on the last occasion on which he referred to the matter. The Deputy comes along to-night to explain that he called the society by the wrong name; he only libelled another society, because he did not know the name of the society he wanted to libel.
That is not so.
Every statement made by the Deputy on the last occasion in connection with the society he referred to was a gross and outrageous slander. The Deputy comes along to-night to try and whitewash that slander by saying he mixed up the names. Of course, the haughty General Mulcahy would not dream of apologising to anybody, although he knows perfectly well that he grossly wronged the officers and management committee of that society. He was absolutely blind, apparently, to the knowledge that that society is one of the best conducted national health insurance societies in this State. The Deputy ought to have known that. He is the late Minister for Local Government, and might reasonably have been expected to have some knowledge of that fact, unless one is to say that knowledge of his own Department was not a strong characteristic of the General when he was a Minister. He comes along to-night on his whitewashing expedition. I wonder why did the Deputy not tell the House what he has learned in the meantime about the society? I suggest to him that if he thought fit on the last occasion to utter libel and slander about that society, which he knows here to-night to be perfectly untrue, he should at least come along here to-night and acknowledge frankly that he misled the House on the last occasion, that he uttered libel and slander on the last occasion, and he ought to have courage to withdraw the statements he then made.
I should like to enter a word of personal explanation.
The question must be put by half-past ten.
Is the Deputy entitled to speak again? He has already spoken three times and we want no more libels in this House.
I repudiate entirely that there is anything grossly slanderous or libellous in what I stated. If there was, the members of the Labour Party were there while this Bill——
Is the Deputy entitled to make three speeches?
Will Deputy Mulcahy repeat outside the House the statements he has made here?
I have made statements in this House which I considered it my duty to make.
Interruptions.
Privileged statements.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1st June.