Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Aug 1948

Vol. 112 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1948—Money Resolution.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

I move:—

That it is expendient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the following enactments, namely, the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1938, the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1947, the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1946, the Insurance Scheme, the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1940, and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1947, and to provide for certain other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps we could have some information as to precisely the amount which will be involved in the Money Resolution under various parts of this Bill. It would be interesting to know, for instance, precisely what is going to be the cost of the new widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and also how that is going to be defrayed. It is of particular importance in view of the practice which the Minister has initiated this year of robbing the contributory side of the fund in order to pay the non-contributory pensions which are properly the responsibility of the State. I have put down an amendment, amendment No. 29, which is designed to protect the interests of the contributors under the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme and to ensure that when, as a result of the excess contributions, which they have paid in the earlier years of the scheme, a substantial pensions investment fund is built up that will be regarded as a trustee fund to be used solely for the benefit of those who have built it up by the contributions which have been levied upon them by an Act of the Oireachtas.

I think it is particularly important that we should have some assurance from the Minister for Social Welfare, before this Money Resolution passes, that he will, on the Report Stage of the Bill, introduce an amendment in terms similar to mine. I understand that the Ceann Comhairle is, perhaps, in some doubt as to whether my amendment is in order, but I do not propose to discuss that at this stage, since the amendment is not before the House. I think, however, before passing the Money Resolution, that those who are concerned with the position of the contributors to the pensions fund—and they number over 630,000 persons—should exact from the Minister an undertaking that the State will assume its responsibility regarding non-contributory pensions, and pay the cost of these pensions from the general fund of taxation and that those who are compelled to subscribe to the contributory pensions in order to make provision for their widows and dependents after their death will not be mulcted as they were mulcted this year, in order that the State may escape what are its proper responsibilities. Never in any year since the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund was established has the contributory side of the fund been called upon to defray the non-contributory pensions. In one year, 1945, the amount fixed by the Oireachtas, £450,000, was reduced to £250,000, but there were special circumstances regarding that year, because an examination of the position had disclosed that excess contributions had been made and that the subvention given by the State in earlier years was more than sufficient to defray the full cost of the non-contributory pensions.

Having regard to the fact that this subvention of £450,000 has been paid for over eight years, it was felt that the State in that one particular year could take advantage of the circumstances and be released from its statutory obligations under the Bill, and to reduce it to £250,000, thus evening matters out. That having been done, if the State is going to provide non-contributory pensions, it must and ought in justice defray the cost of the non-contributory pensions out of the general body of taxation. To do anything else, as the Minister for Finance has done this year with the sanction of the Minister for Social Welfare, is, as I have said, to filch the funds properly belonging to the widow and to the orphan which have been built up—and the Minister cannot deny it— from the excess contributions of insured persons in the earlier years.

If any person has any doubt as to the position, I would refer him to the actuary's report, which he will find in the library. That report, in fact, as I have already suggested, should be printed and circulated to Deputies so that they may be aware of what the financial position is. I have detailed that position on the Second Reading of this Bill and I think it is important that Deputies should realise what it is. According to the actuary's report, which deals with the actual financial position from the initiation of the scheme in 1936 to the 31st March, 1943, we find that in 1936, when the scheme had been just initiated, the cost of contributory pensions amounted to £100. The receipts from contributions amounted to £73,400. In the year 1937, contributory pensions cost £27,000 and receipts from contributions amounted to £551,900. In the year 1939, the contributory pensions amounted to £120,900 and the receipts from contributions amounted to £587,000. In the year 1942, the cost of contributory pensions was £255,800 and the receipts from contributions amounted to £614,000. In the year 1943, the contributory pensions cost £297,800 and the receipts from contributions amounted to £605,000. Every year from 1936 until 1943, which was the last year for which the actuary had actual figures at his disposal as distinct from estimates, it is clear that there was a substantial surplus of contributions over expenditure on the contributory side of the account. Of course, that surplus was retained in the Pensions Investment Fund and mounted up until, in 1943, it amounted to something over £3,194,000.

I was told by the Tánaiste in the course of an interruption on the Second Reading of the Bill that that surplus was now over £4,500,000. That £4,500,000, I contend, belongs to the contributors, to the people who have had to pay contributions week after week, and it ought to be retained there and used solely for their use and benefit. It should not be used, as it has been used this year, to defray a liability which properly attaches to the Exchequer.

Let me detail what the position is likely to be in future. The next year to which I direct attention is the year 1951, and for that we have only the actuary's estimate. The actuary estimated that the contribution income in 1951 would be £610,000, and that the total cost of the contributory pensions would be £550,000. Notice that in the year 1951 he estimates that there will be a surplus, but the surplus is estimated to be smaller than it was in earlier years. In the year 1956 the contribution income he estimated would decline to £605,000, but the cost of the contributory pensions would amount to £646,000. That is to say, that in 1956 the cost of the contributory pensions would exceed the contribution income and the difference, of course, would have to be made up in some way. Normally it would be made up of the income from the investments of the Pensions Investment Fund. As I have detailed to the House, this fund was built up over years by the surplus contributions made by contributors under the widows' and orphans' contributory pensions scheme. In the year 1961, where the position becomes fairly stabilised, the contribution income, the actuary estimated, would be £605,000 and the cost of the contributory pensions would have risen to £707,000.

I ought to remind the House that to the actual amount paid out in pensions, namely, £707,000, we ought also to add the cost of administering the scheme, which might be taken, on the basis of the present cost, at £30,000 or £40,000 a year. If we add £30,000 to £707,000, we find that the total cost is £737,000, as against which we have contributions amounting only to £605,000, showing what would appear to be a deficit on the year-to-year working of the scheme of something like £132,000. There would be that deficit, and I contend there will be that deficit if the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare are allowed to get away with the precedent that they have tried to set up in this year, the precedent of robbing this Pensions Investment Fund in order to defray a liability which properly attaches to the State. However, that position has not yet been realised and I am hoping that the House will bring such pressure to bear on the Minister for Social Welfare that he will not be allowed to continue the practice which he has started this year and, because he will not be allowed to continue it, that the investments in the Pensions Investment Fund, which belong to the insured contributors, will be properly protected and safeguarded and utilised for their use and benefit. That is the purpose of amendment No. 29 which I have put down to the Bill.

With the income from the fund, which the actuary estimated would bring in £150,000 per year, in 1961 the position would be that if that income is added to the contribution income, the income derived from the contributions of the insured persons, the total income from the investment side of the fund will be £755,000, as against which we may set a total expenditure of £737,000, built up, as I have said, of £707,000, being the actual amount paid out in pensions, and the £30,000 for the administration of this scheme. Therefore, in the year 1961, the fund will just about balance, that is, if the investments which are in the Pensions Investment Fund are permitted to remain in that fund. If, however, they are taken out, and realised, as they must be realised if the non-contributory pensions are going to be made a charge against the fund, there will be no surplus, the fund will not balance and some other Minister for Finance will have to come in and make reparation for the trick which is now being played upon the contributors to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. That is what we are anxious to prevent and for that reason I hope the House, before it passes this resolution, will exact an undertaking from the Minister for Social Welfare that he will not continue in other years the practice which he has begun in this; that, on the contrary, he will now approach the Minister for Finance and ask him to do what Ministers under the Administration headed by Deputy de Valera did since this scheme was established, that is, to bear the cost of the non-contributory pensions.

Before I come to deal with another aspect of the matter I should like to bring out the point that in previous years since this fund was established the Fianna Fáil Government bore the cost of the non-contributory pensions on the Exchequer. I had intended to point out that for the first two years of this scheme, in the years 1935 and 1936, the Exchequer contribution to the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme was fixed at £250,000. In the year 1937 the scheme was considerably improved and this Exchequer subvention was raised from £250,000 to £405,000. The reason why that increase was made was that it had become clear in the year 1937 that the cost of the non-contributory pensions was going to be very much more than £250,000 a year and it was felt then that the State had no right to make the cost of those pensions a charge upon the contributors to the scheme and that if, as is being done here, generous pensions are being granted, they should be granted at the cost to the Exchequer and that the workers and the consumers should not be made to pay for them through the pool tax which is being collected under the widows' and orphans' contributory scheme.

Let me give the House the figures, which will substantiate what I said, for the actual cost of the non-contributory pensions over the years 1936 to the year 1946. In the year 1936 the non-contributory pensions cost £37,588—the scheme was only getting under way. Notwithstanding the fact, however, that the non-contributory pensions cost only £37,588, the State paid the subsidy to the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund of £256,000. In the year 1937, when the scheme was properly under way, and before the extended benefits had time to operate, the non-contributory pensions cost £254,156, plus the cost of administration. In the year 1938 the actual amount paid out in non-contributory pensions amounted to £380,000, to which, again, we must add the cost of administering the non-contributory scheme. In that connection let me say that the cost of administering that non-contributory scheme is very high, because the non-contributory scheme carries a means test with it and the cost of investigating the means and of satisfying oneself that the applicant is properly entitled by virtue of necessity to a non-contributory pension sends up the cost of administrative expenses. In the year 1939 the actual amount paid out in non-contributory pensions amounted to £457,000; the subvention of the State was £450,000. The cost of administering the non-contributory scheme for that year may be taken to be something about £55,000 or £60,000. £55,000 added to £457,000 makes £512,000, and in that year it is clear that the total cost of the non-contributory scheme was more than £450,000. However, in 1937 the non-contributory pensions scheme had cost £254,000, plus the cost of administration—say £300,000 in all— leaving for the year 1937 a surplus of about £150,000 which more than compensated for the extra expenditure on the non-contributory side of the scheme in the year 1939. In the year 1939 non-contributory pensions had reached a peak and for the succeeding years the cost of these non-contributory pensions began to fall. That is exactly the reverse of what happened in regard to the contributory pensions.

As I have already said, the cost of the contributory pensions began to rise and has been rising ever since this scheme was initiated and will reach perhaps a maximum in the year 1961. On the other hand, the cost of the non-contributory pensions had begun to fall and in 1940 the cost had fallen to £453,000; in 1941, to £447,000; in 1943, to £424,000. In each case—as I have already, I think, emphasised—the cost of administering the schemes has to be added.

Let us see what is going to be the future of the non-contributory schemes. The actuary estimated that in the year 1946—and I have not yet got the figures for that year from the Minister for Social Services——

Mr. Norton

If they are available the Deputy may have them.

Mr. MacEntee

I requested them, but I did not get them. In the year 1946, the actuary estimated that the cost of the non-contributory pensions should be £402,000. The administration expenses he estimated at £80,000, covering both sides of the scheme but, in fact, the total cost of administering the contributory and the non-contributory schemes was more than £80,000. We can take it at £90,000 and we can ascribe of that figure £60,000 to the non-contributory pensions scheme. So, in the year 1961 the total cost of the non-contributory pensions will amount to £462,000—just £12,000 more than the £450,000 which had been provided for by the Exchequer. In 1951, £374,000 will be paid out to non-contributory pensioners and, again, if we take the £60,000 as being the cost of administering the scheme, we get a total payment for non-contributory pensions of £434,000, against which we ought to get, in the year 1951, at least £450,000 from the Exchequer if the rates at which the non-contributory pensions are being paid remain unchanged.

There are proposals in this Bill to increase substantially the rates and what we are entitled to know now from the Minister for Social Welfare is where the additional cost of these increased benefits is going to come from in order to defray the cost of the existing non-contributory pensions in this year. We know that he has taken £450,000 that belongs to the contributors—it ought to come out of the Exchequer but he has taken it from the contributors. If the State is going to provide these non-contributory pensions and if the Minister for Social Welfare and his Government are going to claim credit for them and are going to pretend to be generous and considerate to necessitous widows and their orphan children then this House is entitled to know before this resolution goes through whether the State is going to bear the expense of its own generosity or whether it is going, as it has done in this year, to make the insured contributors pay. It is important that we should be clear on that. Under this Bill one of the things that is going to happen is that the contributions of the insured contributors under the widows' and orphans' pension scheme are going to be increased by no less than 50 per cent. That is a very substantial increase. I know that, as a matter of fact, if the Minister for Social Welfare were just to the contributors and gave them what is properly their due he could give the same benefits as he proposes in this Bill for the increase in contributions of only 1d. per week but he is taking more than 1d. per week from them. He is taking 50 per cent. more than the present contribution.

Why is he doing that? He is doing that, I believe, because he intends to make the insured persons—the industrial workers in the towns and the agricultural workers in the country who happen to be insured under this scheme—and those who employ them pay for the cost of the non-contributory pensions scheme. That is the only justification there can be for fixing the rates of contribution in this Bill at the excessive figure at which they have been put. It is quite clear to anybody who has examined the position that the increases in these benefits which are going to be paid under the contributory scheme could be provided at very much less cost to the contributors than the Minister proposes. I know, of course, that the Minister will turn to one of the last paragraphs in the report of the actuary to try to justify his action on the basis of what the actuary there says. This scheme has never been taken as a whole; the whole structure of the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme indicates that; there has always been a contributory side of the scheme and a non-contributory side. The State heretofore has always paid the cost of non-contributory pensions. The full cost on the contributory side has always been borne by the contributors themselves without any subvention from the State. Thus the widows' and orphans' contributory pensions scheme differs from the national health scheme and the unemployment insurance scheme in that respect.

The State does not give a penny piece to help in any way the contributory widows' and orphans' pension scheme. That scheme has been financed solely by the contributions which have been made by the workers and by their employers. There is no 2/9ths contribution given by the State to the widows' and orphans' contributory pension scheme in the same way as there is to the national health insurance scheme. The actuary, in his report, pointed out that if you are "taking the scheme as a whole"—but the scheme has never been taken as a whole. Instead of that, we have had this State subvention of £450,000 to pay the cost of the non-contributory pensions.

What would have been said if a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance, or a Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare, had come in here and said in the Budget: "In order that I may be able to balance my Budget and in order that I may be able to reduce, in fact, the price of the pint and the price of tobacco, I propose to discontinue the payment of the 2/9ths which is paid by the State to the National Health Insurance Fund and I propose likewise to discontinue the 2/9ths which is paid to the Unemployment Insurance Fund". I wonder what Deputy Keyes, Deputy Hickey, Deputy Cowan and Deputy O'Leary would have said if, say, Deputy Aiken, Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly or Deputy MacEntee had in the past come in with a proposal of that sort. Yet, a proposal of that sort is the proposal which was made in the Budget and accepted by the Minister for Social Welfare and accepted by this House. I am asking the House now to ensure that that sort of thing will not happen again and again. As I said, before this Bill goes through and before this resolution is passed, the House should have some guarantee from the Minister for Social Welfare —the Tánaiste—that the moneys which he collects from insured persons and their employers under the widows' and orphans' contributory pensions scheme will be kept and invested and utilised solely for their use and benefit.

If the House is not prepared to exact that undertaking from the Minister for Social Welfare and the Tánaiste, then I tell them that those who are not prepared to get that guarantee from the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare are going to hear a great deal about it when they go down the country and make the speeches they used to make in other years. Those speeches are now going to be used as evidence against them and we are going to make these gentlemen prove whether they were sincere or not when they wept lavish tears here in this House over the plight of the widow and the orphan.

Mr. Keyes

I have only heard the latter portion of Deputy MacEntee's speech. If the only evidence produced against Deputies down the country is the evidence of Deputy MacEntee, I think we shall be perfectly safe in going to the country. Deputy MacEntee's evidence does not carry much weight and it certainly does not cut any ice. Only last week the Deputy made a ten-minute hurried attack quoting from a report which was 12 months out of date. He left the House then, having quoted from the auditor's report of 1943 instead of the report of 1944.

Mr. MacEntee

Does Deputy Keyes think there is a report for 1944?

Mr. Keyes

I am in possession. You can contradict me if you like, but you quoted from a report that is 12 months out of date.

Mr. MacEntee

No, I used the report of 1944.

Mr. Keyes

In the Irish Press the following day a misleading statement was published in connection with the whole position. If there is to be no criticism made against Deputies on this side of the House when they go to the country except the “MacEntee” facts we shall have no cause for anxiety in meeting our constituents.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he would indicate now, on this stage of the Bill, as to whether or not the moneys now being authorised are for a temporary adjustment pending a complete and general social service scheme or whether the present money is regarded as a final contribution. That is not the impression created in to-day's Irish Press. I am perfectly satisfied myself of the temporary nature and character of what we are now dealing with and I hope that it is only a prelude to a big advance in social services generally. In justice to the Government, I think the Minister should state now unequivocally if my interpretation is the correct one because, as I have said, a different interpretation is given by that famous Dáil reporter in the Irish Press, who is supposed to be the hallmark of truth and who evidently has inner sources of information. I am satisfied that the people are now sufficiently alive to events to realise that such is misrepresentation and fully cognisant of the fact that the present Bill is a step of a temporary character and merely points the way to what will be done in the future. It is a big step in the right direction considering the short time in which the Government has been in office and it is an indication of the direction in which the Government means to go.

It is salutary for the Opposition to realise that this is not being done by Fianna Fáil, particularly as they voted against a proposal for a mild adjustment in the means test last October. I am glad of this latter-day conversion and I fully support the ex-Minister, Dr. Ryan, in his view that the opportunity now presents itself of going further. We are moving now in the direction in which we promised to move. We are giving the people proof of what we mean to do. I think the present measure is a fair contribution by the Minister in the short time at his disposal. I hope the Deputies on the Opposition Benches will be as enthusiastic when the comprehensive scheme is introduced in the course of the next few months.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Keyes might be reminded of the salient fact that when we were in office during our 16 years we increased social services from £4,000,000 to £12,000,000. We are not a bit ashamed of that record.

Mr. MacEntee

And without any help from Deputy Keyes.

Mr. Allen

If Deputy Keyes and his satellites increase social services in the same proportion during their term in office, no one will be better pleased than we will. I can assure the Deputy of that. The Government balances the Budget at the expense of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. I am sure the Tánaiste does not stand for that principle. He will tell us it is a temporary measure and it is only because of the straitjacket that the Minister for Finance has put on him in the present year that he tolerates the situation and sits in the Front Bench as Tánaiste. In years to come possibly he will not sit with a Government that will, for the purpose of balancing the Budget, raid the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. If that principle is adopted by future Governments it will have a serious effect on this State in many ways. If every fund that has been accumulated under different headings by the previous Government and its predecessor is to be robbed, if the cupboard is to be raked bare by this conglomeration that is in office in order to justify its existence in one year, I suggest it is nearly time to call a halt.

The Tánaiste will tell us about the White Paper he will issue in September or October. Deputy Keyes is pining to see it and Deputy Hickey's heart will bleed for all the great things that are to come. The Minister for Finance informed Deputy Hickey, when he was introducing the Budget, that he proposed to take £450.000 from the contributors to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. The Minister is taking the hard-earned pennies and "tuppences" from these people because it is their contributions helped to build the fund. He will balance the Budget this year in order that a few people may have cheap beer and cheap cinema seats.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Money Resolution.

Mr. Allen

I suggest it does arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy and I differ, it will be bad for the Deputy.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And not for the first time.

Mr. Allen

I suppose I will have to agree when the Ceann Comhairle says it does not arise and that I cannot introduce it.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not a debate on the Budget; it arises on the Money Resolution connected with this Bill.

Mr. Allen

If I had more time at my disposal I believe I could bring proof to satisfy the Chair that it is relevant, and has its origin in the Budget. The Tánaiste has promised us a White Paper and says that a great scheme will be brought into operation. This scheme will apply for the present year and perhaps for some years to come. We all would like to see Utopia in our time; it is the desire of every human being. A better position could be established if the resources of this country were properly utilised by the Government. There can be no excuse at all for taking this money from the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund.

Dr. Ryan

I cannot understand what Deputy Keyes was referring to when he mentioned the actuary's report. The only report I can find is the one issued in 1944, from which Deputy MacEntee was quoting. If Deputy Keyes was told that there is a later report, he must have been told stories to salve his conscience in getting over this matter. We are not aware of any other published report. Whoever told stories to Deputy Keyes should tell them to us as well.

There were some references made by Deputy Keyes and the Minister to our attitude on the means test that was mentioned here last year. If the Ceann Comhairle will allow us latitude to discuss that, we might be able to make our position perfectly clear and help Deputies when they are voting on this Bill to make their positions clear. Perhaps some further reference to this matter can be made on a later stage.

Deputy Keyes said there would be a full scheme coming along in a few months. The Minister said this Bill took a certain amount of time to prepare and when it is out of the way he will proceed with the full scheme. If the full scheme can be prepared within a few months, it is quite obvious that it could equally have been prepared if the Minister had not bothered to go ahead with this Bill. I do not see why he could not have developed the full scheme and left aside this interim arrangement. Deputy Keyes was speaking from the horse's mouth, as it were, when he said that the full scheme will be ready within a few months. I hope he is right.

I want the Tánaiste to give us some information. It is obvious he would not have brought in this Bill unless he had at his disposal the information I am about to ask from him. I am quite sure no Minister would bring in such a Bill unless he knew exactly what the increase for old age pensioners will be for the remainder of this year and for a full year. I should also like him to give us the total expenditure on old age pensions, excluding blind pensions, and perhaps he might give us the blind pensions separately so that we will know the position from the financial point of view.

I am sure he also knows what the change in the situation will be with regard to national health insurance, unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' pensions, both contributory and non-contributory. Under various headings he might inform us whether there will be an increase and, if so, how much, for the remainder of this financial year and for a full year. That will include his estimate of the receipts from the increased contributions in the case of national health, unemployment insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions. I do not think we are asking for too much when we seek this information. I know that in accordance with the ordinary practice no Government Department could get sanction unless the Minister is in a position to answer those questions. On other occasions, when motions of this kind were introduced, the Minister had that kind of information.

I am sure the Minister recognises that there is an honest attempt being made by all Parties to do their best in regard to this Bill, but how can Deputies do their best on a Bill of this kind unless they know all the facts and figures? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the Minister should give us those figures before we come to discuss the Committee Stage. Take this £450,000. The fact of that being removed will make a difference to the finances, because the produce of that £450,000 would be there to help the Widows' and Orphans' Non-Contributory Fund. If it were there, then there would not be the need for the same amount of money being voted each year. It is within the competence of the Minister to give us all these things, and I ask him to do so before we go on to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Norton

I am sorry that on a sultry evening like this Deputy MacEntee should have over-heated himself in a mass of figures, the meaning of which he clearly did not comprehend. I would suggest to the Deputy that, for the sake of his own reputation, he should get rid of this malady of firing figures at the House in this machine-gun fashion. Clearly he does not understand the figures and the House does not know what he is talking about. The Deputy did not know the significance of the figures which he was using. Deputy MacEntee has got some kink in respect of financial rectitude on this Bill which has now assumed alarming proportions.

Let me take the Deputy back to the Department of Local Government, which he was administering in 1945 and which was then responsible for the administration of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. He should know the method of financing the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I want to quote now for the Deputy information which was in his Department in 1945. Is it a fair test to expect that the Deputy would know what the actuary advised his Department in 1945?

Mr. MacEntee

The actuary did not advise my Department. The actuary advised the Department of Finance. My quarrel with you is that you accept the Finance approach in this matter.

Mr. Norton

I do not know what the actuary said to the Department of Finance.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Minister has read the report, he must know that the actuary made his report to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Norton

I am not talking about the actuary's report at all. I shall come to that in a moment. Let me put this in its proper setting. Deputy MacEntee said in the course of his statement that under Fianna Fáil the State paid the full cost of the non-contributory pensions. That was Deputy MacEntee's view of what happened under Fianna Fáil. Deputy MacEntee will hardly be egregious enough to claim that in financial matters he has the same standing as the actuary who examined the figures. The actuary on the 8th December, 1945, said:—

"It appears, therefore, that not only has the contributory section so far derived no benefit from the State subvention but it has, in fact, subsidised the non-contributory section during the last four years of the period."

Deputy MacEntee says that under Fianna Fáil we paid all the cost of the non-contributory pensions, but the actuary, the man who examined the accounts, the British Government actuary appointed by the Fianna Fáil Government——

Mr. MacEntee

What does he say about the previous years?

Mr. Norton

I shall give you the rest of it and you will be sick by the time I am finished with this document. That is why I took such a malicious delight in seeing you tie yourself up and choke yourself with figures in the last half-hour. Deputy MacEntee says that they paid all the cost of the non-contributory pensions. The actuary says you did no such thing. He says that for the last your years the contributory side subsidised the non-contributory side.

Mr. MacEntee

Go ahead.

Mr. Norton

I shall go ahead and without a permit. Here is another portion: "The amount in the combined Pension Fund"—that is, the Contributory and Non-Contributory Fund—"which is estimated to amount to £3,900,000 by the 31st March, 1945, is in effect the result of the operation of the contributory section and would have been larger by a sum of £300,000 but for the non-contributory section which, in recent years, has been under-financed even after allowance for the assistance of the whole of the annual State subvention of £450,000". That is rather a long way of telling Deputy MacEntee in 1948 that he was talking through his hat when he was quoting figures this evening. Now, is the mockery and the nonsense about Fianna Fáil financing non-contributory pensions at an end?

Here is the actuary, when Fianna Fáil was in office in December, 1945, saying that, not only were you not paying the non-contributory pensions, but that you were taking some portion of the contributory pensions and that the Pension Fund would have been £300,000 more in funds were it not for the fact that, under Fianna Fáil, the contributory side was financing the non-contributory side. I hope that ghost has been duly laid and that in future when Deputy MacEntee wants to talk about the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund he will let his more sagacious colleage, Deputy Dr. Ryan, intervene in the matter for him. It is quite clear that Deputy MacEntee did not know what was happening in 1945 when he was supposed to be administering the widows' and orphans' pensions in this State.

What I want to get into Deputy MacEntee's head, if it is not a vain effort, is that, under this Bill, the State is making available £1,000,000 per year extra for widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. Deputy MacEntee may try to misrepresent it as much as he likes, but the fact remains that after this Bill has been passed, each year an extra £1,000,000 will find its way into the pockets of the non-contributory widows and orphans of this country. Under this Bill, some people, instead of getting a non-contributory pension of 20/-, will get one of 34/-. Deputy MacEntee may fulminate as much as he likes in this House, but that will not prevent the widows and orphans from enjoying the pensions given them by this Bill. No amount of propaganda from the Fianna Fáil Benches will disguise the fact that the people are getting these increases under the Bill.

We had a long sermon about the pensions fund and what the money in the pensions fund is going to do. Deputy Dr. Ryan, I noticed, did not attach the same importance to the pensions fund as Deputy MacEntee did. What is going to happen the fund? Deputy Dr. Ryan has an idea what is going to happen the fund and his ideas, I am sure, are much the same as mine in this matter, that when we introduce the comprehensive scheme of social services there will be one fund—a complete national fund.

Mr. MacEntee was worried as to what was going to happen in 1961; I hope that the fund will have gone long before 1961; I hope that it will not last many more years; I hope, in fact, that the fund will be merged with the national fund and that the one fund will finance all the State's activities in respect to the comprehensive scheme of social legislation. Talking about what is going to happen to this fund in 1960, as Deputy MacEntee did, seems to me just as intelligent as crying over last year's melted snowballs. This fund will not be there in 1960. I hope it will not, but whatever is in the fund at the time the amalgamation of all these funds takes place will be made available to finance the new scheme of social security.

Every widow and orphan in the country will get at least the pensions they have to-day, and those who are in receipt of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions will get, under this Bill, more than they would have got if Deputy MacEntee had any responsibility for introducing a Bill of this kind. The non-contributory widows and orphans are going to get substantial benefits under the Bill and they will be lifted from the pittances which they have received up to the present and get better rates. Those who have contributed to the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund will receive assured pensions guaranteed to them by the State. The use of bogeyman words such as "robbing the fund", as used by Deputy MacEntee, will deceive nobody who knows the exaggeration Deputy MacEntee is capable of. Having said what I have, I do not think it is necessary to waste any more time assuring the House that Deputy MacEntee's speech this evening was just a financial rave and no intelligent contribution to the problems we are trying to deal with here. One thing is clear, that under Fianna Fáil administration, the contribution side of the account was used to finance the non-contributory side. We actually told Fianna Fáil that three years ago, but nothing was done and Deputy MacEntee forgot the advice, as otherwise he would not have expressed himself in such terms as he did in the House this evening.

Deputy Dr. Ryan asked the cost of the old age pensions and blind pensions. The only information I can give him on that is that I said on the Second Reading that the additional cost of the widows' and orphans' pensions is £1,000,000 and the additional cost of the old age pensions is £1,500,000 under this Bill, making in all £2,500,000. I have not got the segregation between the old age pensions and the blind pensions. I probably could get the information for the Deputy and if it is available during the course of the afternoon I will try to let him have it.

I think that what I said in reply to Deputy MacEntee fully answers the points raised by Deputy Allen. Deputy Keyes, however, raised the question of an article which appeared in the Irish Press to-day. For a paper which advertises itself as “Truth in the News”, some of the statements which have appeared from the gentleman who describes himself as “Dáil Reporter” are, to say the least, rather startling.

Mr. MacEntee

And in the Independent as well.

Mr. Norton

I will discuss any paper that tells lies, but so far the only one in that category is the Irish Press. The suggestion here in column 1 of this article is a tissue of the most brazen lies any newspaper could be capable of publishing. It says, for instance, that my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill was ruthlessly censored by my Cabinet colleagues. What is the truth of the matter? I am quite sure that Deputy Dr. Ryan had not anything to do with this reporter; if he had, he would have advised him off this line. My speech was prepared by myself in conjunction and consultation with the higher officials of my Department, every one of whom knows when it was finally finished. Not a single member of the Cabinet ever saw my speech; not a single member had any idea of what was likely to appear in my speech; not a single member had any idea even of the structure of the speech. The speech was not submitted to the Government. Seeing that it was not seen by the Government until it was delivered here, is it not a mean and contemptible suggestion for the Irish Press to make that the speech was censored by the Cabinet, who never, in fact, saw it? That is the type of lie which is worthy of the best traditions of the Irish Press when it comes to write on matters political. The paper tries to suggest that the Government tried to pare down the provisions of the Bill. They did no such thing. The Government decided to make £2,500,000 available for the old age pensions and the non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, and every penny of that £2,500,000 is going into this Bill. Not a single member of the Government, including the Minister for Finance, sought to whittle it down by 1d.; £2,500,000, in our view, fits in with the Bill. The Government knew that it was committed to £2,500,000 expenditure and the Government never sought to reduce it by 1d. Any statements in the Irish Press are plain, flat-footed untruths.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister has made one significant confession at any rate, that he knew, apparently, that the non-contributory pensions had been financed from the contributory pensions fund, and, with the knowledge of what the actuary had said, that over a number of years past £300,000 was taken from the contributory side of the fund to finance the non-contributory pensions. The Minister for Social Welfare, who is so concerned about financial rectitude, allowed the Minister for Finance to take an additional £450,000 to pay the non-contributory pensions in that year. That is the admission that we have at last extracted from the Minister. It was never contended—and I was careful to point to figures in the course of my speech to make it quite certain that it was never contended—that in every year the £450,000 subvention would have been sufficient to cover the expenditure of that particular year upon the non-contributory pensions. What we did say and what the actuary's report shows to have been well founded was that, taking one year with another over a prolonged term of years, the annual subvention of £450,000 would have been sufficient, actuarially speaking, to pay the full cost of the non-contributory pensions. We did not say—and I made it quite clear from the very outset—that it would pay the full cost of the non-contributory pensions. I pointed to the figures for 1941 for instance and for 1939 for instance and pointed out that the amount paid out in non-contributory pensions was no less than £457,000, to which, as I reminded the House, one had to add the cost of administering the non-contributory pensions scheme. In 1951, however, according to the actuary's estimates, the position would begin to be such that whatever had been taken out of the fund would be paid back into it— as long as the Government honoured its bond and paid in an annual sum of £450,000.

That is the position as I disclosed it to the House. That is the position I had in mind when I said that we felt all the time that the non-contributory pensions should be a charge upon the Central Fund and the whole of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts were based on that principle. We bound ourselves originally for a period of ten years to pay a sum of £250,000 per annum. As soon as it was clear under the extended scheme brought in in 1937 that that would be insufficient, we increased that sum to £450,000 and we continued to pay that for eight years, until the year 1945. Then the position was being examined and it was contended that in that year, 1945, a subvention of £250,000 would be sufficient. That was accepted for that year, but the following year it was increased to £450,000, pending a fuller examination of the position. The Minister will find that in the year 1946 proposals were put up to increase that sum of £450,000 to £650,000. That was what we had intended to do, dealing solely with the widows' and orphans' pension scheme. Then the Department of Social Welfare was set up to coordinate all these social services and a general comprehensive scheme of social security was being formulated and worked out and this other widows' and orphans' pension scheme, as it heretofore existed, was carried on purely ad interim until the new social security scheme was ready to be put before the House.

In any event, the House must bear in mind that the Minister for Social Welfare, who permitted the Minister for Finance in this year to withhold £450,000 which had been paid every year heretofore since 1937, with one exception, into the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund, knew at the time he was permitting that to be done that the non-contributory side of the scheme owed £300,000 to the contributory side of the scheme. What would a Minister for Social Welfare do who was concerned about the position of the contributors? He would have done what I would have done, and there are records there to show it, if the Minister wishes to quote them. He would have insisted that, as soon as circumstances permitted it, the £300,000 would have been paid back into the contributors' fund, and, instead of there being in this year a subvention of £450,000, it would have been raised to £750,000. That is what he would have done. Of course the trick which is being played is quite clear. We hear a lot about the £2,500,000 which is now being devoted to social services. What about the £2,500,000 that ought to have been paid in this year in order to keep the people's bread cheap, but which is not being paid, which instead of being paid out of the proceeds of taxation in this year has been put on the long finger?

Mr. Norton

I take it I will be allowed to reply to this.

Mr. MacEntee

That is where the £2,500,000 came from, together with the £450,000 which belongs to the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund and the £300,000 which the Minister for Social Welfare admitted he knew was owing to the contributory fund. It is easy to say that you are going to provide £1,000,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions next year—because this scheme only begins in the next calendar year—it is easy to say: "I am going to spend £1,000,000 non-contributory pensions next year if I rob the widows and orphans this year of £450,000 and refuse to pay the £300,000 which I know is owing to the contributory side of the scheme." Then, of course, you can put all the goods in the shop window. It is like the cheap bargains we have where the goods are marked up before they are marked down, only it is in reverse. In this case the money was withheld from the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund and it is not going to be put up at once. This year's contribution of £450,000, plus next year's contribution of £450,000, are all going into the scheme in 1949. Is not that the dodge? Then we are going to be told that they are providing £1,000,000 worth of new money for widows' and orphans' pensions. What is being provided—let us be clear about it—is the £450,000, which would have been provided in any event and which had always been provided, plus the £450,000 which the Minister for Finance withheld this year. Those two sums of £450,000 make £900,000, which is as near as may be to the £1,000,000 about which the Minister for Social Welfare has been bragging.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy's efforts to rescue himself from the mess into which he got because of his inability to read the simple English in the actuary's report have not enhanced his reputation either for explanation or for accuracy. In a desperate effort, apparently, to try to find some kind of argument, we had the Deputy going into the question of the bread subsidy. Could there be any greater indication of the rather disorderly mental approach by the Deputy to this whole problem with which we are faced? The Deputy is trying to tell the House and the country that some appalling catastrophe has happened. It is the most unique catastrophe that anybody ever heard of. Nobody feels injured by this catastrophe which, apparently, overwhelms Deputy MacEntee. Not a single widow or orphan in the country is losing a penny. Instead, they are going to get better pensions under this Bill than they ever got under the Fianna Fáil Government. It is because of that Deputy MacEntee is annoyed. Candidly and frankly, he is annoyed because he knows that this Bill is going to give £2,500,000 to people who would not have got that if the Deputy was on this side of the House.

Deputy MacEntee says that I knew that the contributory side of the fund was subsidising the non-contributory side. What I said before and what I say now is that, in the course of my examination of this whole question, I got this file in which the actuary appointed by the Fianna Fáil Government wrote on the 8th December, 1945, and stated that the contributory side of the fund was financing to some extent the non-contributory section. That was in 1945. Nothing was done then to remedy that situation, if it called for remedy. Nothing was done in 1946 to remedy it. Nothing was done in 1947 to remedy it, and there were no proposals that I can discover in the Department for remedying it in 1948. Therefore, in 1945 Deputy MacEntee, who was then in charge of the administration of widows' and orphans' pensions, ought to have known that the contributory side was to some extent subsidising the non-contributory side. Notwithstanding the fact that that information was available to him, he comes in here and delivers himself of this exhibition speech in which he worked himself up into a fury and announced to the House that under Fianna Fáil the State paid the full cost of the non-contributory pensions. In 1945, the actuary stated that they were not doing it then and that they had not been doing it for the previous four years. Yet nothing was done by the Fianna Fáil Government.

I do not think it is a terribly serious matter, any more than I think the £450,000 is serious. If money is required for the fund at any time, the money can be put into the fund quite easily. But, in fact, under any comprehensive scheme of social service this Widows' and Orphans' Investment Fund will go and it will be part of a bigger national fund. That will probably happen within the next two years. It is just wasting time worrying about what the position of the fund will be ten or 15 years hence. It will not be there ten or 15 years hence. It will be replaced by another fund. Even if it were there, sufficient allocations could be made to it, either next year or the year after or in ten years' time, to make good whatever might be declared to be the actuarial deficit on the fund. Again I have to quote the actuary so that whenever anybody reads this report he will hear the actuary talking and Deputy MacEntee talking. I am satisfied to let those who read the report judge between the professional qualifications of the actuary who examined these accounts and the assumed qualifications of Deputy MacEntee as an actuary in the realm of widows' and orphans' pensions finance. I quote from a report dated 16th November, 1944.

"Under the Acts the amount of the Exchequer grants is prescribed until 31st March, 1945, and thereafter is to be such sums as the Oireachtas may determine. As indicated in paragraph 16, the sum paid during the last eight years, viz. £450,000 per annum, is substantially larger than will be needed in the future, and an equalised annual grant, during the next decennium, commencing on 1st April, 1945, of about one-half of this sum, say £220,000, is estimated to be sufficient, together with the contributions at their present rates and the interest on the accumulated assets, to meet all expenditure out of the fund for contributory and non-contributory pensions and the cost of administration thereof, and to secure that in ten years' time the invested reserves of the scheme will then be substantially equal to the present balance, viz £3,900,000."

The figure of £3,900,000 was what the actuary considered to be the target of reserves to be aimed at. The fund now has in it £4,500,000, which is £600,000 above the sum which the actuary considered necessary as a safe reserve. The actuary said in this report that we were putting into the fund £450,000 per annum, but that we were putting in too much and that, for the next ten years, a sum of £220,000 would be sufficient. It is really more than sufficient. In other words what the actuary said was: "The fund is safe. If you put in, not £450,000 per annum, but £220,000 per annum—or, in short, if you put in £450,000 every second year—you will satisfy my requirements as an actuary." We do not propose to go that far in the matter, but the fund at present has more in it than is needed and, notwithstanding Deputy MacEntee's fulminations, will remain healthy and prosperous and available to pay pensions at at least the present rates to every person entitled to these pensions.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister accuses Deputy MacEntee of confusing himself while in the House. I am afraid we are all confused now. The second last time the Minister stood up he did so for the purpose of explaining to the House that Fianna Fáil had robbed the fund of £300,000 or, at any rate that the fund had not got it.

Mr. Norton

I said no such thing and I did not imply it either.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister pointed out that under the Fianna Fáil administration the fund was £300,000 short. He points out that we put far too much into it. The Minister may use one argument or the other, but surely he cannot use both arguments. Let him tell us before this controversy ends whether Fianna Fáil was, in fact, too-generous in regard to the fund or not. We will then know where we are. There is no point in the Minister's answering one argument by Deputy MacEntee by saying that Fianna Fáil left the fund short, and answering another argument by saying that we were too generous in regard to it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Obviously the Deputy is confused as to what the Minister has said. I am not.

Dr. Ryan

I resent the Minister's pointing out that we are annoyed about this social welfare scheme. We are not. Before the Committee Stage is over the Minister will find that I will make him give more, if I can. What we are annoyed about is that the Minister states over and over again that he is spending £2,500,000 on social services. What is he doing this year? I have asked for the figures, but somebody has said that the Minister has not got all of them. The figures are very simple—anybody could give them—but the Minister would not do so, because it would not suit his publicity at the moment. He is, this year, waiting until the 1st January to pay out the increased sums, and it will cost him, as estimated by the Minister for Finance, £600,000 extra this financial year over last year. He is taking £950,000 by making the members of the national health insurance, the unemployment insurance and the widows' and orphan's insurance pay their contributions from the middle of the financial year. He is not waiting until the 1st of January for that. So, he collects or saves £950,000 this financial year and pays out £600,000.

Mr. Norton

That figure of yours must be grotesque.

Dr. Ryan

I am quoting the Minister for Finance—£450,000 Widows' and Orphans' Fund, and £500,000 for contributions.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy said contributions.

Dr. Ryan

The Exchequer saves £950,000 and pays out £600,000. The Exchequer, therefore, as far as social services are concerned, makes £350,000. I admit that certain people will be much better off for the last quarter of the year, but we want the Minister to explain the figures. We do not know what the Government will do next year, if they are still in office. They may raise funds, and so forth. We can only deal with this year.

Mr. S. Collins

You may rest assured that the Government will be here next year.

Mr. Smith

That assurance is worth something.

Dr. Ryan

I ask the Minister to face this matter realistically. We will give him all credit for increasing the old age pensions and the widows' and orphans' pensions, but he should tell us how the Exchequer stands in relation to this particular year—and when we come to next year we will deal with next year.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Ryan asks for information as to the increased cost of the old age pensions as distinct from widows' and orphans' pensions.

Dr. Ryan

In this year.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy will have to do a sum of division. The estimated annual additional cost of old age pensions and blind pensions under this Bill is approximately £1,500,000. Of that sum approximately £70,000 is in respect of additional blind pensions. On the question of what the cost of the contribution is, Deputy MacEntee has submitted a question on that, and the information will be available to him in the reply which will be given to-morrow.

Dr. Ryan

But the Budget was balanced on a certain figure.

Money Resolution put and agreed to.

Money Resolution reported and agreed to.