Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Mar 1950

Vol. 120 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. MacEntee

Last night I reminded the House that the Deputies who now support the Government and the Parties which constitute the Coalition, having used the Dignan plan as a political blackthorn over a number of years, have now thrown it over the hedge—somewhat undignified treatment to give a prelate who has given considerable public service to the people of this country.

In the course of my remarks of that aspect of the matter, I think I was led to say something about the record of the Tánaiste and present Minister for Social Welfare in regard to the Department of Social Welfare. I think I may say at once that I went rather further than records which I have been able to put my hands on—I make that reservation—would justify, because the record of the Minister in respect of the Department of Social Welfare is like the curate's egg—it is not so bad in parts, nor so good either.

The House will remember the vehemence with which the Act to set up the Department of Social Welfare was attacked by certain Deputies who now constitute the major portion of the Government. Fianna Fáil was assailed on the grounds that it was setting up two new Departments, two new Ministries and that it was going to impose further burdens on the people. On that question a division was taken on the Second Stage of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill. In the division lobby, strange to say, the Minister for Social Welfare, whose heart had been bleeding for so long for the destitute people of this country, was not to be found on the side of the Bill; and neither was Deputy Davin nor Deputy Keyes nor any other member of Deputy Norton's Party. Not a single one of them voted against for this Bill on its Second Reading, and neither, of course, did they vote against it. They were walking the tight rope, trying to face both ways at once. Deputy Davin wanted to be able to go down the country and tell the farmers that he had not voted to set up this expensive Department, and Deputy Norton wanted to do likewise with the Kildare farmers, and so they were both absent with all their Party from the division. That is why I say that in respect of this matter of the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare the Tánaiste's record is like the curate's egg—not so bad in places— and that is about all one can say in his favour.

Now, Sir, to come, with your permission, to the principal purpose of the Bill——

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton

You forgot about it.

Mr. MacEntee

The principal purpose of the Bill, according to the statement of the Tánaiste, is to provide office accommodation for the sections of his Department which, we are told, are now housed in ten separate scattered buildings and by centralising the staff and administration in one building they hope to make for smoother administration. That, of course, is a condensation of what the Minister had to say on it. He expatiated at much greater length on the disadvantages which accrue to the public interest by reason of the manner in which the staffs of his Department are scattered all over the city. He said there was a lack of co-ordination, a lack of cooperation, a lack of that personal contact between the higher officers which makes for smooth and efficient working and a considerable loss of time whenever a conference of the higher officials had to be called by the Minister. But what applies to the Minister's Department applies to every other Department in this State. The Department of Finance is in the same position; the Department of Local Government is in the same position; its headquarters are in the Custom House, but some sections of the Department are housed in Harcourt Street. The same is true of every Department in the State. Its officers, its branches and its sections are scattered widespread over the city. What is true of the Department of Social Welfare, and what has necessitated the introduction of this Bill in the case of the Department of Social Welfare must also necessitate some comprehensive plan being undertaken to house Government Departments.

But, Sir, full justification of the foresight and long vision of the Fianna Fáil Administration has been furnished in this House by the statement made last night by the Minister for Social Welfare. In that same statement he condemned and refuted the contrary statement which his colleague, the Minister for Defence, made in the City of Cork a few weeks ago. We have now admitted, let me emphasise that again, the need to find better office accommodation for the Departments of State if we are going to have efficient administration. And it is not a question as to whether it is going to cost £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 or £11,000,000, as Deputy Con Lehane suggested; it is a question of trying to get the best possible accommodation we can for the most important work that can be done in this country, the efficient administration of the public services. It is not the size of the amount involved that should deter us, but it is whether the expenditure is absolutely essential and as to whether the money is going to be spent in the best possible way.

Captain Cowan

Will not Stormont ease the situation?

Mr. MacEntee

I wish the leader of Popski's private army would take himself off to Poland or somewhere else, where he would find considerable use and employment for his talents at the present moment.

Captain Cowan

We will ease that situation in a short time.

Mr. MacEntee

And bring Stalin over to help. It is quite clear that Deputy Cowan and other people who have been crying out about the alleged extravagance of Fianna Fáil do not want to hear the comments which I am making upon the admission of the Minister for Social Welfare. They do not want to let the public know what the public and the country should be told, and that, of course, is why they are trying to interrupt.

Arising out of what I have said, the need for a centralised block of offices to provide for the accommodation of the public administration is now recognised and admitted by the Government. We have introduced to us in this Bill a solution for an urgent problem in what I submit is the worst possible way. The main reason for introducing this Bill is, as the Tánaiste himself has admitted, to provide him with funds which are to be used to purchase and adapt for use as public offices a building which was designed for quite another purpose. That is why I say the solution proposed is the worst possible one.

There is an alternative solution to it, however. The plans for it exist, worked out in detail in the Office of Public Works. There is an alternative solution to the problem which confronts the Minister for Social Welfare, and I say that alternative solution ought to be adopted by the Dáil, instead of the proposal which this Bill is designed to facilitate, and which this Bill has been introduced in order that it may be given effect to.

The Tánaiste said, let me remind the House again, that the funds of the society which were at present invested in various remunerative investments are now to be used in the investment and equipment of premises to be used by his Department. The first question, therefore, that arises is, whether it is necessary to use these funds in this particular way, to purchase a building for use as offices by the Department of Social Welfare which was designed for quite another purpose. I say it is not. I base that contention on the fact that there exist now in the pigeon holes of the Office of Public Works fully-detailed plans for the erection of properly-designed Government offices on a site where they would not aggravate traffic problems in Dublin. There is a considerable amount of vacant space within the confines of Dublin Castle yard. Plans were prepared some years ago for the provision of suitable office accommodation upon the sites which were there available.

When this present Government came in, in order that they might attempt to justify the canards and the slanders which they had been spouting from all the political platforms during the general election, they shut down on the development of these plans in precisely the same way as they shut down on mineral development, Aer Lingus and the short-wave broadcasting station. But it was not long before they were driven to the conclusion, as the Tánaiste has been driven to the conclusion, that these plans should be proceeded with or some alternative to them adopted. What do we find? In order to retrace their steps and to cover up their own blunders—everybody knows it and there is no use in their trying to conceal it—they prohibited Córas Iompair Éireann from proceeding to complete the building almost completely erected which had been designed for the purposes and use of Córas Iompair Éireann and as a central bus station for the use, not merely of the people of Dublin, but the people of every part of Ireland.

What are the consequences? Córas Iompair Éireann has been hampered and hamstrung by having to endure the same sort of conditions in relation to its staff as the Tánaiste has found unbearable in relation to the staff of his Department. Córas Iompair Éireann has its officers and offices scattered all over the city. The Minister for Social Welfare admits that his Department could not be economically or efficiently run because he has his staffs and his offices scattered all over the city. But Córas Iompair Éireann, because the Government wanted to bankrupt it, because it wanted to discredit it with the public, was prohibited from proceeding with the construction of a modern office building adapted to meet not merely the needs of the railways but the needs of the growing bus traffic which is fast becoming the public transport system of the future.

The Minister for Social Welfare, in order to cover up that vindictive act of sabotage on the part of his colleague in the Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, comes along and says that he must have proper office accommodation and that he proposes to acquire the proposed central bus station in Store Street. Everybody knows, of course, that all this has followed from two things, the evil combination of two acts, the act of sabotage in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann by prohibiting the completion of the central bus station and the act of sabotage in relation to the public services of this State by refusing to permit the construction of the new office buildings in the Castle yard.

Now, what is the position? We are going not merely to have to occupy the congested centre of the City of Dublin with the building at Store Street originally designed for a bus terminal, but we are also going to have to utilise some more of the valuable ground and open spaces in the City of Dublin to provide an unsatisfactory alternative to that bus station, and the Minister for Social Welfare is going to utilise the funds of the society in order to buy a building that the Government is too nearly bankrupt to be able to purchase for itself. That is the reason why this Bill, which bears on its face every evidence of hasty and ill-considered drafting, has been introduced. That is the reason why this Bill, which the Minister could not explain to the Dáil when he was introducing it, has been introduced. That is the reason why we have this Bill without any explanatory memorandum, even though the Bill is full of cross-references to sections in British statutes which are most difficult to obtain access to, and which have been amended and revised by successive statutes, not merely of the British Parliament, but of the Oireachtas itself.

I said that that was the reason why this Bill has been hastily introduced, so hastily introduced that the Minister does not understand it himself, and I am going to prove that. Last night I drew attention to the fact that the Bill contained in its definition section a reference to certain funds, and I asked the Minister in charge of the Bill to tell the House and the public how the guarantee fund, which is going to disappear, I think, under Section 13 of the Bill, came to be set up. If Deputies will look at the definition section they will see that it should not have been necessary to put a question of that sort, that the Minister in introducing the Bill should at least have had the courtesy to explain to his colleagues in Dáil Eireann, to his fellow members in Dáil Eireann, who have the same sort of responsibilities as he has for considering legislation in this House, but who have not the same opportunities as he has of informing themselves in relation to these matters, what the guarantee fund was. As he did not do it, I, in discharge of my duty to the House and to the country, asked the Minister to tell me how this guarantee fund had been set up for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act of 1911. I got, of course, the sort of reply that one might expect to get from the Tánaiste. It began with a tirade of abuse. I was told—I am quoting from the Tánaiste's speech—

"In case the Deputy is not able to grasp the Bill, may I tell him...."

May I say that if a Deputy is not able to grasp the Bill or the contents of it, it is his public duty before he votes to try to make certain that someone does inform him what is in the Bill and what he is going to vote for? It may happen that there are Deputies who do not feel that obligation on them, but other Deputies, who do take their public duties seriously, are entitled for their own enlightenment and the enlightenment of their colleagues to make certain that they do understand what is in the Bill. Therefore, if a Deputy does ask a question, he should not be treated in this supercilious way by a Minister when replying. The Minister should assume that the question is a bona fide one and, without comment upon the querist's ignorance or otherwise, he should give a straight answer. Let me repeat:—

"In case the Deputy is not able to grasp the Bill may I tell him that the guarantee fund is a fund created by the 1911 Act, which he apparently administered for a long number of years without knowing anything about it?"

I have that Act here and if the Minister can show me where in the Act there is a reference to this guarantee fund I shall be very glad; because if it is there, then quite obviously, my eyesight must be failing, or my memory must be failing.

Mr. Norton

Both!

Mr. MacEntee

I can find no reference in the Act of 1911 to the setting up of a guarantee fund. However, the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for it, went on to enlighten my ignorance. He said:—

"The fund is designed to make good deficits in particular societies which then existed separately."

I am grateful, indeed, for the strenuous effort the Minister has made to enlighten my ignorance. It is a great pity, however, that by giving me inaccurate information he may have my confusion worse confounded.

Here is what Section 26 says about the guarantee fund. I will read it for the Minister:—

"Every approved society and every society desirous of becoming an approved society shall give such security as the insurance commissioners may consider sufficient to provide against any malversation or misappropriation by officers of the society of any funds coming to the hands of the society under this part of this Act and in determining the amount of the security to be required the commissioners shall have regard to the amount of the funds so coming into the hands of the society, provided that no security shall be required from any society which proves to the insurance commissioners that the only funds coming into the hands of the society under this part of this Act are such funds as are required for reimbursement to the society of sums previously expended by the society under this part of this Act;

(2) In the case of an approved society with branches having insured persons among their members, security shall be given in respect of each such branch by the society;

(3) The insurance commissioners may from time to time vary the amount of security to be given or maintained by an approved society as may be thought proper and where security is given by way of deposit of securities the society which made the deposit, may with the consent of the insurance commissioners, substitute other securities for the securities for the time being deposited. Any interest or dividends arising from the securities deposited by the approved society under this section shall be paid to the society."

Will any Deputy tell me that he heard me mention the words "guarantee fund" once while I recited the terms of that section under which the Minister tells us this fund was set up? The fund, perhaps, was set up under regulations made by the National Health Insurance Commissioners of Ireland, in the first place, and then subsequently modified and amended by the Minister for Local Government. It is quite clear that what the Minister had in mind when he was talking about this was not the guarantee fund to which I referred but a fund that was originally set up and called the central fund. That was a fund designed precisely for the purpose which he mentioned. I think that fund was set up under the Act of 1918. The purpose of the fund was to provide a sort of general reserve for all the approved societies from which, if the valuation of the assets of any society disclosed a deficit greater than the resources of the society, or the capacity of its members, would enable that to be liquidated within a reasonable term, the resources of the society could then be supplemented. I am afraid I am not quite as precise as I should be in making that statement, but the House will understand what I mean. There was a central fund established into which certain moneys, at one stage a sum of £150,000 a year plus the proceeds of what was known as unclaimed stamps, were paid, and out of these moneys a fund was built up which was available as a sort of last reserve to meet any society which had got into difficulty, no matter how that difficulty may have arisen; and that is the fund, I think, the Minister had in mind when he referred to the guarantee fund. Under the Act of 1942 that central fund became the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund.

I said that this hastily-drafted Bill is introduced so that the funds which have been subscribed by or on behalf of insured persons may be used to buy a building for Government offices that the Government itself is too nearly bankrupt to be able to provide for itself. In this Bill we have an exemplification of how the Minister for Finance proposes in future to deal with funds which are under his control. At column 274 of Volume 119 of Dáil Debates on 21st March last the Minister for Finance said:—

"The moneys will be found, first of all, from the American Loan Counterpart Fund, eventually by borrowing and possibly from certain other sources, in other words, Government funds which are at present ready for investment in some of these projects."

As the law stands at present the Minister could not invest these moneys, which are not his property but which he holds as a trustee for the people by whom they have been subscribed or on whose behalf they have been subscribed, so that they will in due course receive the benefits to which their subscriptions entitle them. The Minister for Finance should not be allowed to play ducks and drakes with those funds—to spend them now upon ill-considered projects such as the commandeering of a bus terminal building or in converting this country into the replica of a tank graveyard by dumping all sorts of heavy engineering machinery over it, as the Minister for Agriculture, apparently, is ambitious to do. He should find the money out of taxation and not take it out of the funds that have been subscribed to pay the benefits that insured persons are entitled to under the National Health Insurance Scheme.

We have been hearing a lot recently about capital investments. It has been indicated to us that we are even going to borrow in order to provide the yearly sums that are necessary to pay the housing subsidies.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

We are going to borrow because the Minister for Finance has indicated——

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill indicates only one sum to be expended.

Mr. MacEntee

But the reason it has been necessary to utilise these funds in this way, the reason it has become necessary to try and grab the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund and the Guaranteed Fund which, I think, amounts to perhaps £12,000 or £14,000— they must indeed be hard driven to do that—is that the general public have no faith in this Government. They will not subscribe to their loans, and the Minister for Finance has admitted that. Therefore, they have to go and take the money where they can find it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is a bit discursive.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy has his speech written out and he should be allowed to make it.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister for Social Welfare, in introducing this Bill, said that an important provision concerned the funds of the society which were, up to the present, invested in various investments and that these were now to be used for the purchase and equipment of premises to be used by his Department. If the Government proposes to provide itself with new buildings it should surely be done in one of two ways. If the buildings are to be constructed over a number of years then the resources should be provided in the ordinary way, as was done in the past, out of voted moneys itemised in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. On the other hand, if the expenditure is so great and the urgency is so great, then they ought to be provided out of borrowed moneys raised in the open market in the manner in which the Government has been accustomed to raise its loans in the past. But, because the Government cannot go to the open market, it has to adopt the procedure which it proposes to adopt under Part III of this Bill.

Since I have come, perhaps a little prematurely—because there were quite a number of other things that I had to say about other features of this Bill— to Part III, perhaps it might not be any harm if we saw precisely what was going to be done there. The Bill has been hastily drafted. If not, then certainly it has been drafted with the idea of making it is as difficult as it can possibly be made for a person of normal intelligence, as I hope I am, to grasp what it is proposed to do. In Part III of the Bill, Section 21 (1) provides:—

"Payments may be made out of the fund in respect of expenditure by the Minister on the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment or the construction or reconstruction of premises, and any such lands, premises, furniture or equipment shall be held by the Minister on behalf of the fund."

That looks all very well. It looks as if all the Minister is going to do is that if the building is going to cost £5,000,000—and it is going to cost a lot of money before they are finished with it—he takes the £5,000,000 and buys the building. Then you go to paragraph 3 and see a statement as follows:—

"There shall be an investment return in respect of payments made out of the fund under sub-section (1) of this section and such return shall be in the form of contributions to the fund in respect of the payments made out of the fund."

On that particular sub-section, may I say that I have never yet seen—of course, I am not a lawyer and I have not studied a great number of statutes —that phrase "an investment return" used in the precise way in which it is used here? I think it is obviously ambiguous. It might refer to a record or a report or a statement of investments. What it means, in fact, is that interest shall be paid as upon an investment. That, I think, is what it is intended to mean. Whether the courts would uphold that it does, in fact, mean that, is another matter. But there is some proof that this Bill has been hastily drafted because the Bill is not clear, because the intention is not clear, on the face of it. We have to guess what it means. I could argue that "investment return" means a record, a report or a schedule of investments. As against that, however, it could be argued that it meant an investment which would yield a return of interest. However, that is merely a minor point, anyhow, and only by the way.

Then we come to the second paragraph of sub-section (3). Remember that in sub-section (1) the Minister was empowered to acquire lands or premises. In the first paragraph of sub-section (3) there is an obligation which is not clear—but, as I am reading the section, I take it that it implies that there will be an obligation on the Minister to ensure that if he invests the funds of the society in the acquisition of premises or lands, or for the reconstruction of premises, the society would secure an adequate return from those premises. But, if that is the purpose, we find that all that purpose is going to be defeated by the second paragraph of sub-section (3). It reads as follows:—

"For the purposes of this sub-section, the payments made out of the fund under sub-section (1) of this section shall, on the former staff of the society being transferred to any premises acquired pursuant to that sub-section, be regarded as being reduced by the value (as agreed upon between the Minister and the Minister for Finance) of the part of those premises that are occupied by the former staff of the society."

So, at once, under the second paragraph of this sub-section, the assets of the society are going to be written down by the value of the premises acquired. We have here a building to be acquired for the purpose of housing a Government Department. Instead of the Government Department financing that building out of the Central Fund, it goes and robs the National Health Insurance Fund. Why all the urgency for the Bill except to conceal that fact? The Government is so hard driven to meet its commitments that it rushes in this Bill in this form. This is what you might describe as a smash-and-grab raid—and the Minister has become the particular smash-and-grab agent of the Minister for Finance. He is going to smash the National Health Insurance Society and he is going to grab its funds. That is the principal purpose, as the Minister himself has admitted, of the Bill.

There is something else happening in Part III, Section 21 of the Bill. There are some other rather curious provisions in this Part of the Bill which are even more startling than that. Sub-section (7) of Section 21 reads:—

"In dealing at any time before the 1st day of July, 1954...."

I wonder why the 1st July, 1954, was selected? Is it because that by that period the Minister for Finance hopes he will have been elevated to the Bench—I am told he has ambitions in that direction—and that his angry constituents in Dublin North Central, who have been pressing him regarding the disposal of Store Street, will no longer be a menace to him? However, passing away from 1st July, 1954, and coming to what is a much more important aspect of the sub-section, we read:—

"...with any matter arising out of any acquisition, construction or reconstruction pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section or arising out of any disposal pursuant to sub-section (5) of this section, it shall not be obligatory on the Minister to refer to any other Minister or obtain the consent or sanction of any other Minister."

What does that mean, except that under that sub-section the Minister for Finance is being ousted from his constitutional function? I say "constitutional function" advisedly because the Minister for Finance under our Constitution holds a special place. He must be a member of Dáil Éireann because he must be a Minister responsible to Dáil Éireann for the disposal of public moneys. Here we have in this Bill—I doubt if the Bill is not repugnant to the Constitution—a proposal to oust the Minister from his position as the Minister responsible to Dáil Éireann for the management of public moneys and public properties. What is going to be the position? Under this Bill, the Minister for Social Welfare may buy from whom he likes, what he likes and for as much as he likes. He may sell to whom he likes what he likes to buy under this Bill, and for as much as he likes to ask. I think that is a very unsound principle to accept. I hope that even the ranks of the Coalition will rebel against it if they have any regard for their responsibility to the taxpayers of this country. It is a very sound principle that a Minister cannot dispose of public moneys in that way except with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Quite obviously this is intended to oust the responsibility of the Minister for Finance to Dáil Éireann in respect to the user of the funds which the Minister for Social Welfare is going to get under this Bill and in respect of the power to purchase or acquire premises.

Then what do we have at the end as a finale to this particular section? We have this:—

"This section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of July, 1949."

Why is it necessary that the particular section relating to the acquisition of property should come into operation on 1st July, 1949? Why did the Minister not tell us the reason when he was introducing this Bill? Why should he try to keep it from the public? Why should he endeavour to conceal it? Surely there is some explanation, something that apparently the Minister is not anxious to disclose to the Dáil. It is a most peculiar situation. The Minister is presumed not to have had power to acquire these premises. He is only attempting to take the power now, but we are to back-date the power for almost 12 months, back to 1st July, 1949.

Deputies will have noticed that Deputy Lemass has been putting a series of questions down in relation to the Store Street building which the Minister for Social Welfare has told us he proposes to acquire under this section. Deputy Lemass put those questions first to the Taoiseach, asking whether the Government had agreed to purchase Store Street station; whether, if it purchased Store Street station, it yet knew how much it would have to spend to adapt the Store Street building to the needs of the Department of Social Welfare; whether, if it had not yet purchased Store Street station, it had entered into any negotiations in relation to the purchase, and whether, if it had entered into any negotiations in relation to the purchase, plans were being prepared for the adaptation of these buildings to the use of the Department of Social Welfare. A whole series of other questions of the same nature were put, trying to obtain for the benefit and information of the public the facts as to the relationships between the Government, Córas Iompair Éireann and the Department of Social Welfare in regard to this building about which there has been so much controversy. The Taoiseach refused to answer him and fobbed him off on the Minister for Finance. The same questions were put down to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Finance refused to answer them and fobbed them off on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to answer them, and Deputy Lemass was sent to the Minister for Social Welfare; but no Minister has given to the public the information which Deputy Lemass has asked for. Yet here is the proof in this section that some negotiations have been going on, that some indication had been furnished to someone that Store Street station was going to be acquired and that there must have been some discussion as to the terms upon which it is going to be acquired, the responsibility for adapting it and the cost to the public of adapting for the use of the Department of Social Welfare a building which was designed for quite another purpose.

I pass on from Section 21, or, perhaps, instead of passing on, I should retrace my steps to show the nature of the legislative proposal which is being submitted to the Dáil. I go back, as an example of the manner in which this Bill has been drafted to sub-section (2) of Section 2—what is commonly called the definition section. Here we find this phrase:—

"A reference in this Act to performance of functions includes, as respects powers, a reference to exercise of powers."

The craze for economy has gone to such lengths that the Government, rather than make its definition clear, tries to concertina what should be two separate statements into one sentence.

Let us see how that works out when we come to apply this reservation—it is not, in fact, a reservation, but this extension of meaning—to one of the sections of the Bill. Remember that we are told a reference in this Act to performance of functions includes, as respects powers, a reference to the exercise of powers, and then we come to Section 5 (2) and we read this:—

"The functions which the society had immediately before the transfer day are hereby transferred to the Minister and shall be performed by him."

Could somebody tell me, if you try to construe that statement in the light of what is said in Section 2 (2), what precisely it means in regard to powers? It is clear enough in relation to functions, but if we try to substitute the word "powers" for the word "functions" what do we get?

"The powers which the society had immediately before the transfer day are hereby transferred to the Minister and shall be performed by him."

There is no other way in which that section can be read. One can exercise, use, or avail of powers, but I have never yet known it to be common English usage, and I doubt if it is used in law, to say that you can perform powers. But there it is, and it shows you the manner in which this Bill has been drafted.

If one wishes to read through this Bill, there are a number of other examples of clumsy and hasty drafting. I come, however, to what is perhaps, from the point of view of the general mass of the people, a much more serious aspect of the proposal than any I have yet touched upon. It has not been mentioned by the Tánaiste in introducing the Bill. He was mainly concerned with smashing the society as rapidly as possible, and grabbing its assets with equal alacrity. But there are others than the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Social Welfare, and the staff of a Department which has to be housed in a suitable building, who ought to be considered. Deputies know that under the national health code insured persons have certain rights vis-a-vis the society, and certain rights of appeal from the society to the Minister. Section 5 (3) says:—

"Nothing in this section shall affect the rights or obligations under the Acts of insured persons or of employers."

Under the Act of 1911 there was a provision made for the settlement or the determination of disputes. Briefly it meant this originally, that if a person was aggrieved by the action of an approved society in refusing to pay benefits which he claimed to be entitled to, he had an appeal to the National Health Insurance Commissioners. After the passage of the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924 the National Health Insurance Commissioners for Ireland disappeared and their place was taken by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Ever since, whenever a person was denied the benefits to which he was properly entitled, by any of the approved societies, before the passage of the 1933 Act, or by the unified society after the passage of the 1933 Act, he had an appeal to the Minister.

Of what avail is that going to be to him now? Deputies who have been in touch with national health insurance matters know that that was a very important right. It is going to disappear under this Bill despite Section 5 (3). The Minister will now become the society. He will have all the powers of the society and you will be appealing from Satan to Beelzebub, if you are appealing from the Minister for Social Welfare to the Minister for Social Welfare in a matter of this sort. He is going to be the big end of the stick. The rights of insured persons are not going to be the same after the passage of this Bill, whatever Section 5 (3) says. They will become radically altered, because there is no right of independent appeal left to them and there is no provision in this Bill for it. The Minister for Social Welfare becomes the sole arbiter of their destinies; he can pay them what he likes, or refuse to pay them if he likes, and the only satisfaction they will have, after the passage of this Bill, is that they will know he has collared their funds and will use them for the purpose of meeting charges that ought to be charges on the Central Fund.

There are a number of other matters that will arise for consideration in the course of the Committee Stage. What is going to happen to the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund? I have some interest in that fund. I was responsible for setting it up. What will happen to that fund and to the benefit fund? They are going to be placed at the disposal of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare to do virtually what they like with—the Minister for Social Welfare between now and 1st July, 1954, and after that date both Ministers if they agree together can do what they like with the money. They can buy land for Government purposes, they can buy property to house more Government Departments, and as the Department for Social Welfare grows more and more, the whole fund which was originally designed to provide benefits, and which was called the benefit fund, can be disposed of in the manner in which the Minister for Social Welfare proposes to dispose of part of it in this Bill.

What did we say in 1942 about the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund? It is the only buffer that stands between the national health insured person and the difficulties which their society might have got into if abnormal conditions were to arise. The benefit fund similarly is the fund which was accumulated over the years by the surplus contributions of insured persons, and it was the source and the basis of the stability of the society, and out of the surplus income of which the additional benefits were being provided.

We do not know what the position of the benefit fund is to-day. We do not know what the position of the National Health Insurance Fund—"the fund" it is called in the Bill— is to-day, and we do not know what the position of the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund is to-day. The Minister did not tell us, but we are entitled to know that. I think he ought to have told us that when he was introducing this Bill. What is more, so far as the Minister is concerned this Dáil is not going to get any further information on that matter. The reason I say that is this. If Deputies will turn to Section 19—may I say, incidentally, that here we have an example of the hasty printing and drafting of the Bill—they will see it deals with two more or less different matters. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 deals with Section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1942. That provided that there should be quin-quennial valuations which would indicate the position of the assets of the society, whether they were sufficient to cover the existing and future liabilities of the society at the date upon which the valuation was made. Under sub-section (1) of Section 19 these valuations are no longer going to be made, and with the repeal of that section there disappears the obligation on the part of the Minister to lay a copy of the actuary's report of his valuation before the House. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 deals with something quite different. It provides that in sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1942, certain words will be substituted. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1942, provided:—

"In this Act references to the amount made available for additional benefits in any year of an additional benefit period shall be construed as references to the amount determined by the Minister under this section in relation to such year."

For that sub-section it is proposed to substitute:—

"such amount (not being less, in the case of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, and of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, than £300,000) as may be fixed with respect to the year in question by the Minister for Social Welfare with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

I only quote sub-section (19) (2) to prove my contention that this Bill has been hastily drafted, because it provides for something entirely different from what is proposed in sub-section (1) of the section. There should have been, as is the custom when a specific matter is being dealt with in a Bill, a new section to cover it and a separate marginal note. However, I say that only on the general question of the haste with which this Bill and the carelessness, if I may put it that way, with which the Bill has been submitted to the Dáil by the Minister.

To come back to Section 19 of the Bill, perhaps I should point out again that Section 2 of the Act of 1942 obliged the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, after the expiration of each financial period (other than the first financial period) to appoint an actuary whose duty would include the making of a comprehensive review of the finances of the National Health Insurance Society at the end of such financial period. Now, it is an extraordinary thing that the last relevant financial period in this matter should have been the 31st day of December, 1948. We are now approaching the middle of 1950. There was a review of the actuarial position. I think, in the year 1943. The report was published and is available to the House. What has the Minister done in regard to the obligation to have an actuarial valuation made of the society's position as at the end of 31st December, 1948? Has he had the valuation, is he afraid to disclose it or what has happened to it? Why was it necessary to put that provision in the Bill?

I have commented elsewhere, in dealing with this question of the alleged social security scheme which the Minister is going to produce, about the paucity of the statistical information supplied in the White Paper. Surely if we are going to have a social security service upon a sound financial basis, we ought to have an actuarial valuation made of the existing liabilities under existing social services. Why is it necessary to put Section 19 in the Bill? What is the Minister afraid to disclose? Is it that he does not want to admit to the public that he has been so careless about the financial implications of his truseeship over a public Department that he has not even bothered to take steps to have an actuarial valuation made, or has the actuarial valuation been made and does he not want to disclose the result? Does he, instead, want to bury it deep in his files? Is he afraid, for instance, that it would afford too much ammunition for critics of further forthcoming legislative proposals of his?

I think the Minister ought to have told us why it is proposed to repeal Section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act of 1944. Mind you, there are not many provisions of the national health insurance code which the Minister proposes to repeal. He has selected only a few. Why does he select this particular one? There is an obligation on him under that particular section to have an actuarial valuation made, and there is an obligation on him to lay the report of the actuary before the Oireachtas. Is that why Section 19 is in the Bill—in order to relieve him of that obligation?

There are a lot of other things which I could say on this Bill. There is scarcely a section in it to which objection, and serious objection, could not be taken. The principal objection that I have is to the fact that, first of all, it proposes to take the property of other people because, remember, these funds do not belong, and have never been held to belong, to the Government. They belong to the insured persons. They were built up for their use and benefit. If the Government proposes to appropriate private property, because that is what it is, trustee property, because that is what it is in this case, it will not be long before it turns its attention, as the Minister for Lands has shown, to private property more intimately associated with private individuals in this country.

Mr. Larkin

It is a great pity that Deputy MacEntee did not warn Deputy Dr. Ryan that he was going to make this speech. He is placing Deputy Dr. Ryan in a most embarrassing position. Having listened to Deputy MacEntee, I am sure he is going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill; I do not see any alternative for him. In his view, the Bill is an outrageous attempt to grab private property, to take the property of insured persons in this society, to put over a very quick deal in regard to the Store Street premises. He said that the Bill is, from every point of view, badly and hastily drafted, a complete concoction of incompletely thought-out plans, deliberate evasions, and various other objectionable features.

Last night we heard the main purpose of the Bill commended by Deputy Dr. Ryan. He agreed in principle. Possibly he may have had criticism in regard to the details of the Bill, the ordinary criticism that many Deputies will direct towards a Bill on the Committee Stage, even though they support the Bill in principle on the Second Reading. Deputy Lynch and Deputy Davern took the same view. Repeatedly now we find on important issues coming before the House this diversity of opinion, not between back benchers of Fianna Fáil, but between former members of the Cabinet displaying itself in this House.

Mr. Gilbride

Bad example.

Mr. Larkin

The example we have before us now. One could understand such difficulties as that arising amongst such an ill-assorted group as supports the inter-Party Government, but for a homogeneous Party like Fianna Fáil, with many years' record behind it acting as Government of the country and inspired and imbued by a Leader who has exercised a very considerable sway over the Party, it is a most peculiar manifestation to find, after being only two years out of office, that that diversity and the heterogeneous character of the Party are now its main characteristic. Of course, one could take that view if one were to take Deputy MacEntee seriously. He has gone to great lengths to give the House a very learned and erudite criticism of the Bill based on one particular assumption— that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is going to operate indefinitely; that what we are facing here is the decision of the Minister to amalgamate the functions of the National Health Insurance Society with the Department of Social Welfare and that, henceforth, we shall have the Department of Social Welfare performing and carrying out the functions now carried out by this society. All Deputy MacEntee's criticisms and bellowings would merit serious attention if that actually were the position. But we have been already informed that the main purpose of the Bill is to lay the preliminary groundwork on which to base a very comprehensive scheme in relation to social services as a whole and that, as a first step towards such a scheme, it is thought advisable to bring within the scope and under the control of the Department associated with the general social services this society which, up to the present, retained a semi-independent position based on a membership of contributing members and operating, in general, a kind of collective machinery in the name of and on behalf of its members.

One may object to the purpose of the Bill from that point of view. One may quite readily say that it is preferable to leave the society as it is, not to merge it completely with a Government Department, and to rely on the contribution basis on which the society has operated for many years. But, if one accepts the principle and the purpose of the Bill, then it is quite ridiculous to do, as Deputy MacEntee has seemed to do, to regard the Bill as intended for long-term operation, something that will be a permanent feature in the exercise of departmental activities in this country over a very considerable period.

Many of the peculiarities which the Deputy has discovered in the Bill become somewhat clearer when it is realised that the provisions embodied in the various National Health Insurance Acts no longer require to be preserved if, instead of a society based not merely on the membership of insured persons, but based actuarially on their contributions, we have a system of social service, including sickness benefit, which, instead of being secured by an actuarial fund, is secured on the basis of the credit and the financial substance of the State as a whole, the same as any other form of social service. From that point of view, many of the criticisms of the Bill by Deputy MacEntee lack any foundation.

Nevertheless, Deputy MacEntee would be entitled to make many of his criticisms if he had the courtesy and the good sense to inform the first speaker of his Party in this debate who, presumably, was indicating what was going to be the viewpoint of the Party in regard to the Bill as a whole. From that point of view it is clear that Deputy MacEntee was not concerned with the purposes or with the principle of the Bill. He was not even concerned with whether the Bill was an effective instrument to give effect to the purpose of it. But he was concerned, as he has been on many occasions, with giving a display of verbal and mental fireworks which may entertain many people of the same type as himself, but which seem to fall a bit flat of late years both in this House and in the country. I suggest that the matters which he raised should not be settled as between Deputy MacEntee and the Minister but between Deputy MacEntee and his Party, from whom he seems to be travelling a different road.

So far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, I think it is to be welcomed. One of the difficulties which has existed in regard to the National Health Insurance Society for a number of years, even though it has had many valuable features, has been that the members of the society came into violent collision, when Deputy MacEntee was the responsible Minister, with the fact that the benefits provided by the society, tied down as they were by this old and outdated actuarial basis, had, for a long number of years, become completely absurd and impotent in regard to the actual needs of sick people. An overhaul of the whole system of sick benefit in this country is long overdue. Now that it is to be overhauled as part of a general scheme, it is even more acceptable. But to suggest that we could introduce in any form a comprehensive social system with various forms of cash payments and leave outside the scope of that system such a very important channel of social assistance as payment and sustenance during periods of sickness, of course would make the whole scheme not only unworkable, but completely ridiculous. From that point of view, whatever may be our views on the type of social security system we should introduce in this country, anyone who accepts the principle must agree that the first step towards the application of that principle in real life is the bringing together within one Department and under the one machine of all the activities relating to social services.

I still think that eventually we shall have to go even further than is contemplated at the moment in the White Paper because, outside the activities of the National Health Insurance Society, there are other forms of social services which so far are not in contemplation under the comprehensive scheme. We are making progress, though it is somewhat slow. From the assurances of Fianna Fáil in 1947, when they had no pattern, not even in the collection of statistics within the Department, we have now arrived in 1950 to find ourselves dealing with the first piece of legislation in relation to a comprehensive social service scheme. Many of us wish that progress might be quicker. Progress will certainly not be assisted by the type of contribution we had this afternoon from Deputy MacEntee.

With regard to the purpose to which the funds taken over from the society by the Minister for Finance will be applied, I am quite sure that the men and women who will have to have recourse to sickness benefit will not be very much concerned about the funds being taken over by the Minister for Finance. What they will be interested in is the guarantee of the continuity of the benefits to which they are entitled, the amount of those benefits and the regulations governing their payment. It is no particular satisfaction to a sick man or woman to know that £5,000,000, £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 is lying in the National Health Insurance Society when their benefit is limited to 22/6 per week. I am quite sure they will be more than satisfied to have that sum increased to what might be regarded as a reasonable figure on which a sick man or woman could maintain himself or herself and to have that increased benefit guaranteed by the financial security of the State rather than by some remote sum lying under the control of the National Health Insurance Society and under the even more rigid control of the Minister for Local Government, especially a Minister with the approach that Deputy MacEntee had when he was in office.

Deputy Lynch made some references to the staff at present employed by the National Health Insurance Society. He seemed to be nervous as to the manner in which the interests of that staff would be safeguarded under the Bill. He made the understandable mistake of not realising that the staff is made up of two sections, the permanent clerical staff and the agents throughout the country. Nobody suggests that there should be any different approach towards the claims of these two sections. As far as I can understand from the Bill, no distinction is made and I think that is an indication of the approach made by the Government and the Minister towards what might be regarded as the legitimate claims of the staff. Under a different type of Government and under other circumstances I could visualise that those who are employed as agents by this society might find themselves in a peculiar and awkward situation if a measure like this was introduced and they were dependent on other people for their protection. They have the good fortune, however, not to see their employment change under the Minister who would have very little sympathy for them.

There has been a suggestion that the Bill does not provide adequate protection for the staff in regard to certain rights and privileges they enjoy at the moment. I am speaking now as a member of the House and not as one having any connection with the staff. It seems to me that where we have a clerical staff employed by a society of this type given an assurance by statute that they will be absorbed into the Civil Service, with all the protection that implies with relation to their employment and their future prospects, they are there getting protection of a very high order. I have no doubt that that particular assurance more than meets the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the staff concerned.

Reference have been made to certain difficulties that may arise in regard to their expectation of promotion. Nobody would like any member of the staff to suffer in respect of his expectation of promotion. The matter has been examined very carefully and I am aware of the approach both by the staff and the Minister in the matter; and it does seem to me that any fears that might exist in relation to the question of the expectation of promotion are largely nebulous and are unlikely to give rise to any real difficulty. There may be individuals or small groups in respect of which there may be minor difficulties in regard to absorption. Under the Bill there is an assurance given in relation to absorption, in relation to pension rights and also in relation to grievances that may arise. Such assurances as have been given have satisfied the responsible members of the staff and do meet their wishes in general in this matter.

I think the Bill is to be commended. It is an indication of the first step towards something for which many of us have been looking for a long time. We hope it will have a rapid passage through the House and we hope that, immediately following upon it, we shall deal with that wider system of social security which can be built upon the collective and homogeneous machinery established under this Bill.

Mr. Derrig

I am afraid I have not much sympathy with the last speaker in the disappointment he has expressed because members of the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil appear to hold views, which, in his interpretation, show a certain divergence of opinion. This is a democratic Assembly. The responsibility for national policy rests upon the Government. It is for the Opposition to criticise as best they can the proposals that are put before them. I do not think there is anything unusual in the fact that an ex-Minister for Social Welfare should express a particular interest in a measure of this kind and in the general question of social security, with which it is connected, in the way in which Deputy Dr. Ryan has done. On the other hand, when a former Minister for Finance, such as Deputy MacEntee, puts questions which are extremely relevant, I think answers ought to be given. If we were to go into the question of an apparent difference of views or an expression of different viewpoints on this measure, I suggest that it is really on the Government side that one might expect to find the difference of opinion. Was it not by Ministers of the Government which has now put this Bill before the House that we were told not to-day nor yesterday but years past, before this scheme saw the light—it has not yet seen the light but we have heard a good deal about it—that such schemes were reducing the country to the position of being a servile State; that the recipients of social assistance or those who benefit were merely serfs; that the continuation of such policy would bring us back to conditions which existed in the days of the final dissolution of the old Roman Empire?

Were we not told by the present Taoiseach that social services were a symptom of disease in the body politic —medicine bottles in the chest which ought not to be there if the State were in a proper condition of health? We were told something very similar by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. He practically said, in joining in the objurgations of the present Minister for Finance and others, that social services were a malignant growth; that the very fact of their existence is a proof that there was something sadly wrong with the condition of affairs in this State. No doubt it was because the Minister for Finance pointed out last year that the proposals at present under consideration, termed social security, and which have been published in the form of a White Paper, should be very carefully scrutinised and examined that Deputy Larkin found it necessary to come forward and say that, so far as he and those for whom he spoke were concerned, they were going to see that they were going to have their social security scheme no matter—as far as I can remember his words—what the cost was likely to be. Surely there was a greater difference of opinion between the Minister for Finance, who had been taking advantage of many opportunities to express to the public his serious doubts about this whole question of social security and whether it was worth the cost to the country, and the view expressed by Deputy Larkin to the effect that very strong pressure might have to be brought by the Deputy to enable this scheme to see the light of day. If there is any examination of conscience with regard to conflicting statements—I do not want to weary the House but really there are pages and pages of statements which I could quote from Ministers of the present Government condemning this whole idea of social services. They condemned the past Administration for extravagance and for appealing to the lowest instincts of the people. They practically suggested that one of the reasons why the Fianna Fáil Administration was spending more upon the services was in an endeavour to bribe the electorate.

Whoever said the Minister for Finance controls the old age pensions books and the ration books apparently saw no difference between the régime that might exist east of the Iron Curtain and one where a democratic Government would be responsible for the administration of rationing or of social services. It simply meant, in his opinion, buying over the entire community which receives services under this heading. We know that in Russia and in some of these other countries ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going very far away. He has not spoken about the Bill yet.

Mr. Derrig

I think I am entitled to refer to the philosophy behind this Bill. Not alone in this country but in many other countries, well-informed thinkers—and I hope there are some in the Oireachtas—wonder whether it is a good thing that there should be this concentration of services in the hands of a central administration. In other countries you have these welfare schemes carried out by the particular industries. In this country in the past they were carried out by the National Health Insurance Society and, prior to that, by the approved societies. I have no doubt that it can be argued that it is a good thing and that the State, as expressing its opinion through the Oireachtas, will have more direct control over these services by having all the services concentrated in one particular headquarters. I have no doubt that it can be argued that it leads to a more direct control, to a more direct review and to more ready access by this House to information through having the Minister in control of all the services. But others would regret that it has become necessary to do away with all these societies and organisations which carry on voluntary schemes. I think we have to admit that when you bring schemes which necessitate a good deal of administration and investigation under State control, you will, of course, have to face the costs of the administration on the same level as other administrative costs for which the State bears responsibility.

According to Sir William Beveridge not alone does the success of these schemes depend upon certain factors such as the amount of regular and full-time employment that is being given, but it depends also on administrative costs. If these costs are very high and very severe, if there is waste, in his opinion that is very bad for the scheme. If the costs of administration are to come from the funds to which the contributors and beneficiaries are paying, then it means that the amounts that are going to be available for the extension of benefits must be reduced. It is well known that in the past the benefits under these schemes left much to be desired. I do not think anybody would claim that as far as institutional treatment in particular is concerned, we could be satisfied that beneficiaries are getting the type of treatment to which, having regard to the advances in other directions and the payments which are being made, they would be entitled. Therefore, I suggest that the House was entitled — as Deputy MacEntee and other speakers suggested —when we got this Bill, to have a White Paper, the usual explanatory memorandum, and, in addition, I think we might have had a statement showing the position of the funds at this particular time—the funds that are referred to, the reserve fund and the general fund—so that the House would know what exactly is being done.

We are told here that certain funds are being handed over to the Minister for Finance. We may argue about that but what we do not know is the amount of the funds. No statistical information is given either in the Bill itself or in any document accompanying it as to the nature of these transactions. The Minister simply comes into the House and says: "We are taking over these funds." Surely we are entitled to know if this is a preliminary step? Even if we accept it as a necessary foundation of some structure that has to be built on it later on, we are entitled to ask what exactly is the precise meaning of the transaction.

The Minister has not given us any information, so far as I know, about the cost of administration. Very little information was given in the White Paper which has been published. I think it is legitimate and proper to ensure—in fact I think we would not be doing our duty unless we did everything possible while seeing that fair play and proper wages and conditions are given to the employees—that there is no waste and that the costs of administration are reduced to the minimum. As I have said if that is not secured, it is not alone the taxpayer who will suffer but probably the contributors themselves.

We have had no information as to the advantage the Minister expects to achieve. I can see, as I have said, that there will be certain advantages in bringing the organisation under the more direct control and supervision of this House but, side by side with that, I think it is the duty of the House to ask exactly what are the obligations we are taking on ourselves and what the advantages are going to be. Can the Minister give us any figures showing the present cost of administration under this scheme? What is the percentage of cost to income and what does he expect to achieve in the way of reducing that figure under this scheme? It may be that the answers to these questions would be largely hypothetical but, nevertheless, I think that unless the House has some definite information as to the ratios of which the Department has experience in its working we are taking a leap in the dark.

The Minister has been asked what is the extent of the pensions fund that is being taken over. I think he should give the House the benefit of his information as to what the liabilities are. "Every existing liability and every contingent liability of the pension fund shall become a liability of the Minister for Lands and shall be discharged by him out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas." It may be that the Minister may not be able to tell us exactly what these liabilities are.

Mr. Norton

The liability is to pay pensions to the employees when they retire as civil servants.

Mr. Derrig

I want to know in black and white what are the figures at the present time. I think if we are to take these measures seriously, do our duty and examine them as we should, the Minister ought to give us that information. It ought not to be necessary for Deputies to have to go to the accounts of the National Health Insurance Committee which, in any case, would not be available for the past year. May I ask the Minister if the National Health Insurance Committee's accounts for the year 1948-49 have been published?

Mr. Norton

Are you referring to the valuation?

Mr. Derrig

I am referring to the accounts published in the form of a Blue Book or a White Paper—the usual paper laid on the Table of the Dáil.

Mr. Norton

The last accounts, I am informed, were published in 1947.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think it reasonable that the only information we can get about the matter is that given in the White Paper, where we have a lot of verbiage and very little solid material to go on. The only published accounts are those available for 1947-48. If we are taking over this organisation and taking over certain responsibilities with it, surely we are entitled to get fuller information as to what exactly the liabilities are going to be. We should be told what is the total wage bill, the number of employees and the present value of the pension liability in so far as that can be ascertained. After this wonderful discovery of the Minister for Finance that he could transfer some of the responsibilities, which should seem proper to be carried by the taxpayer, to borrowed moneys, at a time when he is boasting of the millions of pounds which he proposes to spend—a sum of £12,500,000 in the Book of Estimates and another £12,500,000 in capital issues for State or semi-State undertakings—and when he has, so far as the latest returns show, issued well over £13,000,000 in the financial year concluded for capital issues, I think it rather hard that the provision of proper accommodation for the Ministry of Social Welfare should not be treated as capital expenditure.

If the provision of schools or the provision of minor relief schemes is to be treated as capital expenditure it seems to me extraordinary that it could be suggested that the provision of buildings for the housing and proper accommodation of important Departments of State should not fall within the realm of capital expenditure. I do not commit myself to the opinion as to whether it does or does not, but I say it is very hard on the Tánaiste when all these millions, some £30,000,000, are floating about—the only question is that if there is a slight inflationary tendency because of that expenditure during the coming 12 months, the Minister for Finance may have to curtail it and devise a system of priorities—that buildings for this Department should not be treated as capital expenditure. Is it possible that the Minister has put the Tánaiste down at the end of the priority list or excluded him completely from consideration? It seems to me that the fund which is here should be retained. Whatever the method of administration may be in the future, this fund has been built up from contributions from different sources to cover the benefits that are to be paid. It may be regarded as good financing to do away with all these funds and to throw all the liabilities, like the liability for superannuation and various other things, on the annual Estimates, but I doubt if it is a very good policy to wipe out these funds. I think that in so far as it is possible where they are hypothecated for a particular purpose and where the surplus is a very large one, running into millions of pounds and the assets are very substantial, the House ought to get a very definite assurance that these funds will be preserved.

It is all very well in a period of inflation, such as we have at present, that everything should be paid for out of this very buoyant revenue that we are enjoying; but we may not always be in that position. In all these undertakings we are not taking over liabilities or responsibilities merely for next year or the year after; when we take over responsibilities like this particular one, we are taking over a big responsibility—with a very large number of people, some hundreds of thousands of them—of a permanent nature. Therefore, we ought to make quite sure that any assets that are there are preserved, that any funds that are there are not interfered with, that they are safeguarded and, if possible, strengthened. That would be a much safer and more secure way to face the future than to have the position that you are putting increasing obligations on your annual Estimates.

Mr. Davin

What will you do with the money—lock it up?

Mr. Derrig

We are talking of bringing back our assets. We are talking of the paucity of opportunities and avenues for investment at home. It seems an extraordinary thing, therefore, if we want to build up an investment, if we want to strengthen what is called the rentier class and build up a large volume of investment here, that we should approach that possibly by dissipating funds. It would seem to be an analogy to the creation of that particular class of people—building them up in the State—that you should have funds and resources into which their moneys would be absorbed.

With regard to the location of the headquarters of the Department of Social Welfare, I agree with Deputy MacEntee that the Department should have up-to-date offices constructed for that particular purpose, but it would be a great mistake that a building which was designed, and which architects and persons in a position to give fairly objective and independent views on the matter regard as a great addition to the city, not alone from a utilitarian point of view, but from the point of view of an addition to our architectural features, should be diverted from its purpose and turned into Government offices.

My experience is that if you attempt to reconstruct a building which is already substantially built, it will cost a sum out of all proportion to what you would normally require. I had experience of turning a college which was originally intended for a particular type of student into a college for another type of student. It still remained a college, but the money necessary for the internal rearrangement, even in pre-war days—I think it must be nearly 20 years ago—was out of all proportion. I think the Minister will agree that it is simply absurd to suggest that huge additional sums taken out of this fund should be spent upon an investment of that kind.

I do not know what the explanation of the expression "investment return" may be. I do not know what "investment return" may mean, whether it is some new accountancy device or something which has emerged in the process of these researches about capital expenditure which have been going on. It will be very interesting to ascertain the nature of the investment return which the Tánaiste assured us was going to be at a higher yield than investment returns in the past. An investment return on securities or on a fund of assets which can be realised is at any rate calculable; we know by the state of the market what the investment return is going to be, but apparently some peculiar arbitrary type of investment return has been devised and we are told that this is going to represent the return, presumably in the way of a yield of profit or a return to the State on the moneys which will be put into the Store Street building.

The Tánaiste really ought to be more frank with the House and he should explain what exactly number three and the whole of Section 21 mean. If large sums are going to be spent upon this building, the work surely ought to be undertaken by the State in the ordinary way in connection with its capital programme. I disagree, however; I think it is very bad policy and I am sorry the Tánaiste has been coerced—I presume it has been coercion—into agreeing that Store Street should be turned into buildings for the Department of Social Welfare.

Whether it is popular or unpopular to say it, this is a capital city. It is the capital of the Irish Republic. Is there any reason why we should not have proper offices, designed as such, for our Government Departments? Is it not, as Deputy MacEntee said, a worthwhile idea that we should think of some period in the future when public works may be necessary. I hope they will be in the position that they will have substantially solved the building problem in the City of Dublin. But, when you have the housing problem out of your way, and all your operatives there and all your forces of unskilled labour, it is not easy to devise public works which will absorb them. Any attention we gave to that matter was for the purpose of providing employment. I see no reason why we should apologise for considering the establishment of a building worthy of this city, and which we were satisfied was necessary, giving the required accommodation.

When the Custom House was built there were riots in the City of Dublin because the business of the city at that time was congregated around Capel Street. It was felt that that area, which was Dublin proper at the time, was going to be ruined by the taking away of business to the Custom House, and old John Beresford, who was responsible for it, was very lucky to escape with his life in the riots that took place.

Only yesterday, in the other House, reference was made to the scandalous condition of some of our public institutions—of science and art. Is there any reason why we should run away if somebody says that the expenditure of some millions of pounds is thoughtless, extravagant and unnecessary when we know very well that these are things which will have to be faced in the future? When the Tánaiste has spent large sums on the reconstruction and readaptation of Store Street for a different purpose altogether from that for which it was originally designed, he may find that the money has been very largely misspent.

I have given my views on the Bill. I hope that the Tánaiste will try to give us more information on later stages of the Bill as to what exactly has been done in connection with the funds that I have referred to, and that he will try to give the House particulars in black and white. If other proposals are to come along later, I think it will be all to the good if we know exactly where we stand at this particular juncture and what the balance sheet in regard to the present proposal is.

Mr. C. Lehane

At the risk of being considered dense and obscure, I must confess to a difficulty in understanding the strict relevance of many of the observations to which we have had to listen in this debate. As I say, I may be dense, but to me this Bill appears to be a piece of legislation which is necessary to cover the transition from the administration of the existing benefits operated by the National Health Insurance Society to the new proposed system which will operate when the new social welfare scheme is introduced. If I am wrong in that conception of the Bill, I am open to correction.

Mr. Norton

You are perfectly right.

Mr. C. Lehane

To my mind, that appears to be the purpose of the Bill. I do not think it can be seriously contended, nor was there, as far as I am aware, any attempt to assert, that the existing structure of the National Health Insurance Society could be so expanded as to enable it to administer and operate the broader scheme envisaged in the White Paper published by the Tánaiste.

I think I heard the greater portion of what was advanced by the four or five Deputies who spoke from the opposite benches. I hope I do not do an injustice to any of them if I say that I did not understand any of them to advance that contention. That being so, some measure, such as this, is essential, and the House, I think, is coerced, or should be coerced, into the support of the general principle of the Bill. Naturally enough, Deputies will be entitled, and would be quite logical, in putting down drastic and far-reaching amendments on the Committee Stage, but I fail to discover the logic of the position of Deputies in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.

Deputy Dr. Ryan in his speech yesterday evoked a responsive chord in my breast. He adverted to what he considered minor flaws in the Bill. He made a criticism with which I find myself in complete agreement. He made a criticism of the failure of the Tánaiste to provide, for the assistance of Deputies, some explanatory memorandum. I hope the Tánaiste will not take it amiss if I suggest to him that that was an unfortunate omission. I think that, perhaps, if there had been some such explanatory memorandum, we might have been saved some of the time that has been wasted on this Bill in the House.

But Deputy Dr. Ryan's approach did not satisfy his colleague, Deputy MacEntee, who came into the House playing a completely different tune from that of his colleague, Deputy Dr. Ryan. Deputy MacEntee characterised the Bill as a smash and grab raid on the funds of the National Health Insurance Society. Deputy MacEntee is never noted for the moderation of his language, but relating his language to the measure we are discussing, I think he succeeded in creating a new all time high in hyperbole. He made reference to the attitude of the Parties on this side of the House who support the Government to this measure and sought to draw from their support of the measure a conclusion of illogicality inasmuch as many Deputies occupying benches on this side of the House had in the past extolled some, or all, of the provisions of Dr. Dignan's plan for social security.

Mr. de Valera

That is not how it was put, I think.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not think I have time to develop that as I understand I have to move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.