Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 1950

Vol. 120 No. 4

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

Mr. C. Lehane

When I moved the adjournment of the debate on this Bill when it was last before the House for consideration I was dealing with the suggestion made by Deputy MacEntee that the Clann na Poblachta and Labour Party Deputies were open to a charge of illogicality in supporting this Bill, inasmuch as they had some two or three years ago publicly approved of the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan's proposals for raising and extending the level and scope of the existing benefits available to the sick, aged, unemployed, blind, widows and orphans, and other necessitous sections of the community. The approval that was expressed was an approval of the proposals to raise, extend and amplify existing benefits or confer additional benefits. That approval was not concerned with what one might call the machinery of administration, but with the good intent to which the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan so nobly and in such a public-spirited way gave expression. It is because this measure is a necessary preliminary to the giving of effect to that good intention that we support the Second Reading of the Bill. If it is not proposed in the White Paper to provide national health and other social services on as widespread a scale as was envisaged by the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, that is a matter which we in Clann na Poblachta regret. But at least we recognise that the White Paper proposals, for the implementation of which this Bill is the necessary preliminary, are a substantial step in the right direction, and I think to accuse us of illogicality because we support the Bill is in itself so demonstrably illogical as scarcely to need refutation.

After reading and listening to Deputy MacEntee over what is now quite a considerable period, I have discovered that the ideal method of answer to the Deputy is simply to requote him in quiet, sober and restraint tones and let the lack of restraint which Deputy MacEntee evinces and the irresponsible immoderation which he displays in his language refute themselves. A Deputy who was capable of making the statement made by Deputy MacEntee in a speech in this House on the 29th March last—I quote from the Official Report, Volume 120, column 248— requires, in my submission, no answer. He said of this Bill:—

"If this Bill represents anything it represents a slap in the face, if one might so describe it, to a member of the Hierarchy who had almost been elected as a patron saint by the members of the political Parties now forming the Government."

Ignoring completely the impropriety and the gross discourtesy implicit in the scandalous suggestion that a member of the Hierarchy would permit himself, in the elegant phrase so typical of this particular Deputy, to be elected as a patron saint by any political Party, is it not obvious that the man who brings that immoderate mental temper to bear on any question is unworthy of being answered by reasoned criticism?

Mr. Hickey

Are you surprised?

Mr. C. Lehane

I am not surprised, but I always believe in hoping for the best and my hopes have always been dashed to the ground. Questions were posed by, I think, Deputy Derrig, Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Lynch which, in my submission, do not present any insuperable difficulty in answering. These points merit, at any rate, an answer and reasoned consideration because they were reasonably and sanely put. But whatever degree of reasonableness there was in Deputy MacEntee's contribution to this debate was completely vitiated by the irresponsible attitude of unbridled vituperativeness in which his observations were set. I do not want to weary the House with quotations from what he said, but before coming to the House I did waste an hour this morning rereading Deputy MacEntee and I should like to refer the House to one or two particular gems of Deputy MacEntee at his best or at his worst, according to the point of view. Again, as reported in column 248, he said:—

"The Bill is an interesting example of the unprincipled political somersaults to which the various Parties in the Coalition have made us accustomed. Public life under them has degenerated to the level of the circus arena."

Coming from the "white elephantine" Deputy MacEntee, that is particularly rich.

Again, as reported in column 249, he inferred that the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan had allowed himself to be used—

"as a political weapon in order to try to damage the Government of the day"

—a pretty type of statement to come from the principal red herring heresy-hunter in the benches opposite. Further on, as reported in column 252, he overlooked the fact that the Tánaiste's memory is a little longer, or at least as long, as his own, and accused the Tánaiste, who is in charge of the Bill, of having voted against the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare in the first instance, a statement which he had to withdraw on the following day. Later on—I quote from column 357—he said that the reason for the Bill was that the Government was nearly bankrupt. Further, as reported in column 364, he said:—

"The Bill is an instance of a Government Department which 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."

That is reasoned, constructive and sensible criticism from a gentleman who for many years had ministerial responsibility. Again, at column 365, Deputy MacEntee is warming to his subject and he—

"doubts seriously if the Bill is not repugnant to the Constitution."

In passing, I do not think I can be blamed if I make the comment that there are some of the much-maligned lawyer Deputies on this side of the House who taught the Deputy and some of his colleagues a little bit about Bills which were repugnant to the Constitution.

I do not want to multiply these examples, but I have a particular reason for quoting them and refreshing the memory of the House on them. I am not going to go through the whole gamut from his statement where he dragged in Satan and Beelzebub by the hair or the horns of the head down to the final discovery that the Bill was—

"the thin end of the wedge being inserted in a general all-out drive by the Government to confiscate all private property."

Mr. Hickey

That is very interesting, coming from an ex-Minister.

Mr. C. Lehane

The interesting thing about these statements is that they were made by Deputy MacEntee, a colleague of Deputy Dr. Ryan, who summed up his attitude to this Bill by saying:—

"I think everybody in the House will approve of the Bill in principle, but there are certain aspects of it on which we must at least get more information."

Surely we on this side of the House are entitled to ask, which is the authentic voice of the Party opposite? Deputies opposite considered that this Bill gave them an opportunity of orchestrating a new movement in the Store Street symphony. I do not blame them for that. They are perfectly entitled to do that. Following on that, however, we are told that Fianna Fáil had a plan to spend something in the region of £11,500,000 on office accommodation for the Civil Service and that, until such time as that plan is restored to its priority pigeon-hole, no alteration should be made in the office accommodation for the Department of Social Welfare. That is the effect of the arguments advanced by the Opposition. I do not know what particular spurs that particular gamecock is supposed to wear, but it is a gamecock that will not fight.

Deputy de Valera interjected some observation, the exact wording of which I have not got at the moment, with reference to this proposed expenditure on Government offices. Let me say to Deputy de Valera that we are not one bit ashamed on the Government Benches of having given priority to housing the people in the slums and to the provision of proper accommodation for them over and above the provision of sumptuous offices for Civil Service departments. Many of the arguments to which we were treated, particularly those coming from Deputy MacEntee and some of his colleagues, were trotted out with a very definite purpose in view. The idea was to confuse the issue, and make this Bill appear to be something other than what it really is. I suggest that the Minister correctly described this Bill when he said it was a Bill to clear the way for the implementation of the wider social security scheme. The Bill proposes to achieve that purpose by absorbing into the Department of Social Welfare the staff of the present National Health Insurance Society. Under the provisions of the Bill the machinery and personnel which heretofore administered national health schemes will be brought under the direct control of the Minister for Social Welfare. To my mind that is the only principle in issue. One either subscribes to the view that it is both wise and desirable that control should be so unified or one takes the contrary view, and is thereupon entitled to oppose the Bill on that particular ground.

Some of the criticisms advanced on Section 7, Section 20 and Section 21 appear to me to have some degree of validity. Be they as well founded as one would wish, however, they yet give no excuse for opposing the Bill since all such criticisms relate to matters that can more easily and properly be dealt with on the Committee Stage. It might be no harm at this stage, however, to take time by the forelock and give the Minister some idea of matters with which he may find it necessary to deal on the Committee Stage of this measure. It seems to me that sub-section (2) of Section 20 requires some greater degree of justification than has so far been vouchsafed to the House. It appears to me to go exceptionally far, and I do not think that the safeguard in the succeeding sub-section is as adequate as it might be. If the Minister wishes to retain sub-section (2) he will have to make a more special case for it than he has made up to this.

Mr. Norton

It is a well beaten track. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 is a well beaten track over which this House has walked for more than 25 years.

Mr. C. Lehane

It is a track, if I may say so, to the perils of which the Minister directed the attention of the House when he was in opposition.

Mr. Norton

I do not think I ever did.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not want to be dogmatic because I cannot give the exact reference, but I have the impression that the Minister did direct the attention of the House when he was in opposition to the dangers of that track. I do not want to be unduly critical, but I think he will have to advance fairly cogent and forceful reasons to the House for the retention of this sub-section. I do not agree that the safeguard in sub-section (3) is a real safeguard. Theoretically it may appear to be so, but for all practical purposes it is useless.

With reference to Section 21, I think the House is entitled to some explanation of sub-section (8). If negotiations have taken place in connection with the acquisition of the Store Street premises, or any other premises, and if a preliminary contract has been entered into or a preliminary agreement initiated I think that both the Government and the Minister should have been more open with the House. I do not want the Minister to take this as barbed or pointed criticism. I think it is no harm that these things should be said. Any anticipation there has been of the approval of this House in the case of the Store Street premises would not trouble me per se, but I think it is a bad headline to rely on the insertion of what appears to be superficially an innocuous little sub-section like sub-section (8) in order to achieve what it is hoped it will achieve. I submit, however, that the Minister should not come to the House for ex post facto approval of a decision taken on a matter which, rightly or wrongly, has occasioned considerable political controversy and widespread public interest. That is by way of general observation. I do not think the Minister will take the observation amiss since I am dealing only with the general principle.

Mr. Norton

May I say that it has not the meaning the Deputy has given to it? Sub-section (8) can more properly be read in connection with sub-section (7). However, I shall deal with it on the Committee Stage.

Mr. C. Lehane

I can only deal with it as I find it, and there is nothing in the sub-section at the moment which relates it merely to sub-section (7). It refers to the whole of Section 21. Possibly it is a matter of draftsmanship, but I think it would be unfair to the Minister if I did not indicate to him that some of us have considerable difficulty with Section 7 in so far as it falls short of giving to those hitherto employed in the National Health Insurance Society that statutory protection to which they are entitled. I understand that the Minister has given his personal assurance that so far as he is concerned he will see to it that the position of the employees in relation to remuneration and superannuation will not be worsened.

I think the employees accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given. However, they feel, and I can sympathise with their view, that they are entitled to have statutory force given to the Minister's assurance and that Section 7 should be amended so that their rights could be written into the section. I would ask the Minister to be particularly patient and tolerant of this criticism. I think it is an important matter and one deserving of very full consideration by him. There is far more involved in this than the interests of the officials concerned. That is one aspect of it, and no doubt it is a very important aspect of it, but there is a more urgent reason than that why the Minister should solve the problems which Section 7 in its present form raises. I would suggest to the Minister that the reason I adduce is an urgent one. The success or failure of the social welfare scheme, particularly in its initial stages, will be influenced to a very great extent by the smoothness with which the administrative machine works, by the judgment and the discretion and the tact displayed by those responsible for its operation, and by the confidence which they will be able to awaken both in workers and in employers. My submission is that if we are to have that smoothness of administration, if we are to have that tact and sensibility and judgment displayed by the staff in dealing with the public—by the administrative personnel in their administration of the scheme—then what I ask for is essential to the proper working of the scheme. Does the Minister believe that if he has a discontented staff or if even a section of his staff is disgruntled, feeling that they have been badly treated, feeling that they have a grievance about salary, status or conditions of employment, it will augur well for the future of the scheme? After all, if any substantial number of these people are labouring under that sense of grievance it will be impossible to achieve with this, for us, new and novel departure the things we want to achieve.

I am not suggesting for a minute that the problem facing the Minister in respect of Section 7 is an easy one. I do not think it is. However, I do not think it is a problem that will defeat his ingenuity. The Minister can always display considerable ingenuity when ingenuity is necessary. I would suggest to him that Section 7 should contain a guarantee to the staff which is to be transferred to or absorbed in the Department of Social Welfare that the situations offered to them will be offered to them in grades of the Civil Service at least as favourable, having regard to status and salary, as the grades which they held in the service of the National Health Insurance Society. I do not believe that that should present an insuperable difficulty to the Minister. I do not conceive it to be part of my function to suggest to him what the comparable grades are. He is in a better position to know that than I am. From some inquiries which I have made, it would appear that the grades in the National Health Insurance Society have their corresponding grades in the general body of the Civil Service. I understand that the junior clerical grade in the society corresponds almost exactly, in so far as salary and conditions are concerned, with the writing assistant grade in the general service. I understand that what is described as the clerical grade in the society corresponds with the clerical grade on the married scale, scale B, in the general service. I understand that the supervisory clerical grade corresponds with the general service minor staff officer grade.

Again, I think that comparison must be made between the male supervisory clerical officer in the society and the married minor staff officer, scale B, in the Civil Service. I understand that the deputy staff officer grade corresponds roughly with the junior executive officer grade in the Civil Service and that the staff officer of the society is on almost comparable salary terms with the higher executive officer in the general service. I do not think any real problem is presented to the Minister in that aspect. I would suggest either that he accept an amendment, or bring in an amendment himself, to Section 7, making it possible to correlate these grades—guaranteeing to officers and employees of the society a grade at least as favourable, having regard to status and salary, as that which the officer held in the society's service, taking into account years of service and so forth.

The big problem, under Section 7, which the Minister will have to face is that created by the outdoor agents. Inasmuch as they are the least well paid of all the employees in the service of the society, I would urge very strongly on the Minister that in dealing with them he will ensure that at any rate their conditions are not worsened either as to status or salary. I think the House would be anxious to see, certainly Deputies who have any idea of the salaries which are paid to many of these men—I speak of the established men—not alone that we had an assurance that their conditions would not be worsened but that their salaries would be improved. In many instances the salaries received by them are not sufficient to enable married men to maintain a wife and family. If the Minister realises that there is more at stake in Section 7 and in the observations which I have made concerning it —and which I think were made by other Deputies, for instance, Deputy Lynch—than purely the employees' end of it, if he realises that there are other considerations involved, for instance, the smooth working of this scheme, he will agree that it is necessary to bring in some amendment which will give statutory effect to the assurances which he has given to these employees and which will ensure that this Bill will provide efficient machinery which will enable the social welfare scheme to be effectively, properly and smoothly administered.

Mr. Kissane

I have listened to Deputy Lehane lecturing us on what our attitude should be towards this Bill. He severely criticised Deputy MacEntee for having referred to the transfer of the fund by the Minister in the way it is being done. I must say that I see an amount of justification for the criticism that Deputy MacEntee levelled at this Bill in connection with the transfer of the fund. It is a very serious thing, in my opinion, to interfere with the funds of any company and especially to do anything with such funds which may not be in accordance with the wishes or the anticipations of the contributors to the fund.

Mr. Hickey

Are they not being used for the same purpose?

Mr. Kissane

I do not think so. For instance, I would say that those who contributed to this fund never had any expectation that some of it would be utilised for the purchase of a building here in Dublin.

Mr. Norton

Was it not already used under the Administration of your Party for the purchase of Árus Brugha? You have not read the Bill.

Mr. Kissane

I have read it.

Mr. Norton

Then you do not understand it.

Mr. Kissane

I am sure that if the contributors to this fund were consulted they would not be in favour of the purchase of the Store Street building for the Department of Social Welfare. I imagine that the money for the purchase of that building should be got out of the Exchequer and that there should be no interference with the fund in question. I think it is a matter of principle to try, so far as possible, to give effect to the wishes of the contributors to any fund of the kind.

Mr. Norton

So you would sooner leave them invested in Britain than bring them home to Ireland and invest them in an Irish building?

Mr. Kissane

There are many ways in which the fund could be invested for the benefit of the contributors. It is problematical, in fact I would say it is hardly likely, whether those who contributed to this fund will derive any benefit from the investment of portion of the fund in the building I have referred to, or that the Minister is justified in doing it, especially having regard to the circumstances surrounding the taking over of the building.

Mr. C. Lehane

What have the circumstances to do with it?

Mr. Kissane

The Deputy knows the controversy that has raged around the taking over of that building.

Mr. C. Lehane

It does not affect the security of the investment.

Mr. Kissane

The question is, in spite of the transfer that is going to take place, what will be the benefit in the long run to the contributors to the scheme? Are national health benefits going to be raised for those who are taking part in the scheme? I think that is a question with which people down the country would be more concerned than anything else. Are they going to get any additional benefits from this measure when it is passed into law? The Minister has not told us. The Minister has not told us even what the present state of the fund is, so far as I know. I think at this stage it would be helpful if he would give the House that information. The Minister, under this measure, is taking over the duties and functions of the National Health Insurance Society— Cumann an Árachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte. I think it is appropriate at this stage to say that the gratitude of the House and the country should be extended to those who carried on the work for a number of years without fee or reward, as far as I know. I think it must be said they have done their work well as the National Health Insurance Society. No doubt, they had many difficulties to grapple with, and they have left a very solvent concern behind them for the Minister to take over.

Mr. Hickey

There was not much appreciation shown the late chairman for what he has done.

Mr. Kissane

I am not concerned with what has been said by anybody in the past. I am giving expression to my own view. My own view is that that society did their very best to make the scheme a success, while they were in charge and administering the affairs of the society. As I said, they did it without any compensation or reward whatsoever, and they have, I repeat, left a solvent concern behind them.

Reference has been made by Deputy C. Lehane to the outdoor agents. I think that is a very important matter and I should like to know from the Minister what he proposes to do in connection with them. How many of them are to be absorbed under the scheme and given the status and rights of civil servants and how many of them are not?

Mr. Hickey

What was done for them for the last 12 years?

Mr. Kissane

The point is that this is supposed to be a new departure. Because it is a new departure the status quo of certain employees who operated under the old society will be interfered with, I understand. If the status quo is to be interfered with, I would like to know from the Minister in what way? How many of the outdoor agents will be retained in the service of the Minister for Social Welfare, and how many will be made redundant?

Mr. Norton

The Deputy should read the Dáil Report of the introductory speech; it makes it all clear.

Mr. Kissane

What does it make clear?

Mr. Norton

The very point the Deputy is muddled about.

Mr. Kissane

I am not muddled about anything.

Mr. Norton

I give you up, so.

Mr. Kissane

I want to know, then, if the services of all the agents who are at present operating the National Health Insurance Scheme all over the country are going to be retained?

Mr. Norton

That was stated three weeks ago.

Mr. Derrig

Cannot the Tánaiste answer the question?

Mr. Kissane

Then no member of the staff will be declared redundant—am I to understand that from the Tánaiste?

Mr. Norton

Everybody knows that except the Deputy.

Mr. Kissane

No such thing, and it is as well that the House would be made clear on it.

Mr. Norton

Everybody is clear on it with the exception of the Deputy.

Mr. Kissane

Then I must be very stupid entirely.

Mr. Norton

Well, it is your own valuation.

Mr. Kissane

Stupid or otherwise, I am glad to know from the Minister that the services of no agent in any part of the country are to be dispensed with.

Mr. Norton

You do not know how good this Bill is until you read it.

Mr. Kissane

I hope it will work out all right. I am not against the principle of it—I must tell the Minister that.

Mr. Norton

You were a bit slow in coming to that point.

Mr. Kissane

As I have said, I am not against the principle of this measure.

Mr. Norton

Good—I am glad to know that.

Mr. Kissane

If it will make for the more efficient administration of national health insurance affairs, well and good, it has my benediction, but of course that remains to be seen. I would like to refer to the projected comprehensive social security scheme. The Minister stated that he wanted to have the affairs of the National Health Insurance Society brought directly under his control so as to enable him to go ahead with the comprehensive measure. Would the Minister now tell us when it is proposed to bring in this comprehensive social security measure?

Mr. Norton

I do not know whether we will be allowed to discuss that point on this Bill, but I hope the Deputy will be with me and will give every support to the Bill this year—I know he will.

Mr. Kissane

This year?

Mr. Norton

I hope I will find the Deputy close behind me if it is found necessary to enter the Division Lobbies when that Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Kissane

The Minister does not expect me to commit myself before seeing the provisions of the Bill. That is all I have to say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Suppose we confine ourselves to the Social Welfare Bill on this occasion?

Captain Cowan

This Bill in a general way has my support. I believe it is an essential, a necessary step towards the comprehensive social security scheme. I have some difficulty in following the lines of criticism of this Bill by some Deputies. I think it must be clear to every person who has studied the social security scheme White Paper, the statements made in regard to it, and the intentions expressed when the Department of Social Welfare was established, that this Bill would be introduced as a necessary part of the general scheme.

References have been made to certain sections and sub-sections of this Bill, and I do not want to be guilty of repetition. On other measures I have expressed my objection to the modification of statutes by ministerial Orders. On general principles I am opposed to that. I am opposed to it in this Bill, just as I have been opposed to it in other Bills to which I have taken exception.

The principal matter that should concern Deputies in regard to this measure is protection for the staff, when they become part of the civil service. I appreciate that in bringing the staff within the Civil Service in the way the Minister is doing here the intention is to improve the conditions of the staff. I think every member of the staff is satisfied that so far as the Minister personally is concerned the operation of this Bill will not lead to any worsening of conditions. The staff have much to be thankful for to the Minister. When he assumed responsibility for the Department one of his first duties was to solve—and with satisfaction to the staff—a strike that was then in operation. There is among the staff a consensus of opinion that the Minister's intentions are that the staff will not lose by the operation of this measure.

However, there are difficulties in the way and there are matters which the staff feel ought to be clarified. When this Bill receives the support of this House and the Seanad, and when its machinery is put into operation, making the staff civil servants, difficulties will undoubtedly be encountered in regard to grading. I think the Minister will appreciate this, that when that step is to be taken the Department of Finance will have a considerable say. It is for the purpose of removing difficulties that may be put in the way of the Minister by the Department of Finance that the suggestion has been advanced that within this Bill there ought to be prescribed and set out very clearly and fully the grade in the Civil Service to which each particular type in the present staff will be appointed. I think the Tánaiste and every Deputy in the House knows that no matter how well intentioned a person may be, he or she can never provide against all the points and difficulties that can be raised by the Department of Finance.

What we are all concerned about is that when this measure becomes law there will be no trouble whatsoever; the staff will know exactly to what grade in the Civil Service they will be appointed, and they will be appointed to that grade with the protection that is, in fact, in the Bill at the moment and the rights of promotion that would naturally apply to civil servants in those categories. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that on the Committee Stage he ought to introduce an amendment setting out clearly and specifically the grades in the Civil Service to which the present members of the staff will be appointed. That will give the staff an opportunity of considering the matter, of seeing where exactly they stand, whether their conditions will be improved, whether they will be left as they are or whether they will be disimproved by the Bill.

I, personally, over a period of 25 years have had experience of the interpretation of laws and of the interpretation of financial regulations by the Department of Finance, and with that experience, I do not like to leave to their tender mercies any appointment such as we find within the scope of this measure. I think the Minister himself would be satisfied, if what I suggest were done, and if it receives the support of the House, that he had done everything he humanly could do to carry out his guarantees to the staff.

I do not know what period of time will elapse for the operation of this transfer, whether it will just happen on the appointed day or whether there will be a period during which the operation of transfer will take effect; but whether it is to operate on a particular day or over a period, I would request the Minister to introduce the type of amendment that I suggest. I have some doubt as to whether an amendment on those lines, introduced by a private Deputy, would be accepted, since it may be contended that it involves a charge on public funds and is not admissible. That is all the more reason why I suggest the Minister himself should introduce that particular amendment. If an amendment were set down by a Deputy, or a number of Deputies, which endeavoured to give effect in a statutory way to the guarantees of the Minister and it was held to involve a charge on public funds, I think that does establish the point that has been made, that, unless there is that particular statutory provision, the Department of Finance may succeed in providing worse conditions for the staff than the Minister himself intended.

I do not wish to say anything further in regard to the measure. There are matters in it to which, and in respect of which I propose to put down amendments for the Committee Stage. Naturally, as the Minister will appreciate, I cannot be taken as accepting the provision in this Bill whereby the funds of the society will be utilised for the purpose of purchasing a building which ought to be used as a bus station and not as an office for the Department of Social Welfare. I am giving notice to the Minister that an amendment on those lines will be put down for the Committee Stage.

Mr. Cogan

Listening to the members on the Front Opposition Bench on this Bill, it was rather difficult to know what was their attitude towards it. It was difficult, listening to Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Dr. Ryan and comparing their speeches, to know whether Fianna Fáil is accepting or opposing this Bill. Personally, I must say that I view this Bill with very considerable apprehension. I think we are passing hurriedly along in a direction which leads inevitably to a completely socialised society, with centralised control of that society, with everyone eating out of the Government's hands and the Government with their hand in everybody's pocket.

I do not think this whole idea of nationalising the National Health Insurance Society has received full and careful consideration by all sections of the House. We have had over a period of years a process by which a number of approved insurance societies were first wiped out or combined together in a central society. Now we have followed that up to its apparent logical conclusion by taking over the centralised society and putting it under the direct control of the State. The same process was adopted in regard to transport, and apparently, the same process is going to be adopted in regard to every other aspect of our national life. Was it absolutely necessary to nationalise the National Health Insurance Society? As far as we can gather, this society was doing quite well; it was paying its way, and there were no complaints that it was being mismanaged or maladministered in any way.

Deputy MacEntee, with that peculiar, heavy sense of humour which he indulges in in this House, referred to this Bill as a slap in the face to the Most Reverend Dr. Dignan. Of course, I am sure his Lordship would hardly worry at the present stage about such an insult, having regard to what he received in the past; but I think that this Bill is something more than a slap in the face to any independent churchman. As far as the administration of insurance is concerned, it definitely excludes such people from real, active and effective control in the administration of this social service to which, I think, they are entitled, by reason of the nature of their training and the exalted position which they hold. The ex-Minister for Local Government may have given the Bishop a serious rebuff. He may have excluded him from control of the National Health Insurance Society, but this Bill definitely closes the door for all time against any such exalted and independent person coming in and controlling the administration of such a service.

From now on, these services will be administered by a very close ring of professional politicians and permanent officials. I think this is centralisation gone mad and in regard to social welfare and social services generally, we should aim at decentralisation. Instead of bringing this society under the control of a Government Department and making its servants and officials civil servants, we should be seeking to travel in the opposite direction, and to place the control of health insurance and similar social services in the hands of local bodies financed by the contributions paid directly by the members of the society, and in that way reverse the process of complete socialisation and centralisation. However, it seems that, owing to the division in the Opposition Front Bench, there is no effective opposition to this proposal, and while the Store Street building may, as it has been, be described as a white elephant, it looks as if it is likely to become, under this Bill, a pink elephant, and may even deepen its colour as time goes on.

Mr. C. Lehane

The Trojan horse.

Mr. Cogan

I hope that, before this type of legislation proceeds further, Deputies will give the matter serious consideration. There is no reason why everything our people need should be provided by a few higher civil servants. There is no reason why everything they need should be provided for them by the official machine, and by that machine alone, and there is no reason why the tendency to exclude people of independent thought from all effective control should be persisted in. That is the only contribution I desire to make to the Bill. So far as the provisions of the Bill in regard to carrying out the transfer of the present society to the Minister's Department are concerned, I do not intend to express any opinion at the moment, but I think the general principle is rather dangerous, and one which ought to be given careful consideration before it is persisted in further.

Mr. Norton

On the whole, and with the usual exception of the rather egregious Deputy MacEntee, this Bill has had quite a sympathetic reception from the House. Most of the time spent on the Bill was spent in dealing with matters which perhaps might more appropriately be raised on the Committee Stage, but I appreciate that on a Bill of this character, a Bill which is very largely a machinery Bill, there is always a temptation to Deputies to get into the details to a greater extent than would be the case on a Bill in which more principles were enumerated and less machinery provided. Perhaps it will simplify the discussion when we come to the Committee Stage.

Deputy Ryan asked for some clarification of the references in the Bill to the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, and I undertook to supply him with a memorandum which would explain these references. I will arrange to do that so that the Deputy will have the explanation before the Committee Stage, and may thereby be enabled to adjust his point of view, if he so desires. The Deputy asked why the Bill was being introduced at this stage. I should like to explain that the Bill is being introduced at this stage so that, before the comprehensive scheme is in operation, we will have the national health insurance benefit and the associated sickness benefits brought within the scope of the Department of Social Welfare, and so that, before we approach the introduction of the comprehensive scheme of social security, all these different services, covering the general pattern of social welfare, will be within the Department and we can rear on that structure the larger superstructure envisaged by the comprehensive scheme.

Administratively, there is everything to be said in favour of introducing this Bill at this stage, and if I had any doubts on that point, they were removed by Deputy Ryan when he said at column 1341 of the Official Debates of 23rd June last that it would be better to bring the society into the Department before introducing the comprehensive scheme, because it would be easier to start off on an approach to the comprehensive scheme from the new point of having absorbed the society. Deputy Ryan will realise that, perhaps in a fresher state of mind last year, he took the same point of view as I take this year.

Deputy MacEntee went completely off the rails about the Bill. He wanted to know why it was being introduced at all and why it was being introduced now. I suppose the best thing to do is to let Deputy Ryan answer him, and, in the opinion of Deputy Ryan, who knows something about social welfare, whereas Deputy MacEntee apparently knows nothing——

Mr. Derrig

According to the Minister, he knows nothing.

Mr. Norton

I do not know whether the Deputy listened to Deputy MacEntee's exhibition a fortnight ago, but we will come to that exhibition in a few minutes and make a few comments on it. The answer to Deputy MacEntee's queries is furnished by Deputy Ryan, who says that, in his view, it is much better to introduce this Bill at this stage and much better to absorb the society at this stage, because we can then build on a much safer foundation than we could build on if we had only some of the services within the Department and a very essential service, covering perhaps a larger number of persons, without the Department, not within departmental control or available for departmental management in a manner suited to the comprehensive scheme.

Deputy Ryan, Deputy Cowan and, I think, Deputy Lehane referred to Section 20, which deals with the modification of enactments and appeared to be worried at the prospect that modifications might be introduced under the section which would have the effect of altering, frustrating or in some occult way defeating the intentions of the Legislature. This is not a new provision. It has been in our legislation for the past 25 years. There are similar provisions in the Local Government (Dublin) Act of 1930 and in the County Management Act, 1940. I am sure that a closer examination of other Acts would produce equally convincing evidence that this is nothing new.

The main concern in the matter is to do whatever is necessary to make this Act work. I am not wedded to the provisions of this section or to the nomenclature in it. I want to get the job done. This has been the recognised parliamentary way of doing it, but if there is any other democratic way which will not cause delay or impede the administration of the Bill, I will be only too happy to examine the matter sympathetically. I think we should not push this to the extent of making a doctrinaire objection if, in fact, there is no foundation for the fears and suspicions which, I agree, it is easy to conjure up when wording of this kind is before us. However, this is a well beaten track and there should be no difficulties about it. At any rate, I can give the House an assurance that, in my interpretation of the section, I will not seek to do anything that is not being done for the purpose of promoting the aims and objects enshrined in the Bill. If anyone knows a better method, I will be happy to examine it sympathetically. I suggest to Deputy Lehane and those who think like him, that they ought not be afraid of the section because it is the first time it has come up. It has been there in previous Acts and I never heard in this House a complaint that such a section was used to undo what the Dáil desired or to frustrate the intentions of the Dáil in any way.

Deputy Ryan referred to the transfer to the Department of certain persons who by reason of their conditions of employment in the National Health Insurance Society are obliged to serve in the society a probationary period. He referred in particular to the provisions in the Bill which require the Minister to certify that a person is a suitable person for appointment as a civil servant. The section in the Bill simply transfers the person to the Department on precisely the same terms and conditions as the person has in the society at present. A civil servant has to serve a probationary period and before the appointment is confirmed there has to be a certificate from the head of the Department that the probationary period has been satisfactory and before the person can receive an established appointment, that certificate must be forthcoming. The Bill recognises that whatever rights the person had in the society will be recognised on transfer and the normal procedure of certification will operate for the future as it operates at present.

Deputy Ryan referred to pension rights of the staff of the society and asked that I should compare their pension rights at present with those they will receive on transfer to the Department. This is a matter which may be raised again on the Committee Stage and it may be unwise to deal with it now. However, in the hope that it may provide information for Deputies, which would short-circuit the discussion on the Committee Stage, I prefer to give the information now. A woman employed in the society at present is entitled to a pension based on a 1/60th for each year of service, with a maximum pension of 40/60ths or, in other words, two-thirds. If that person dies while she is in the employment of the society, there is a death gratuity of a year's salary where her service is of not less than eight years. If she retires on marriage, after six years' service, she receives a gratuity at the rate of 6 per cent. of salary for each year of service, up to a maximum of a year's salary.

At present a woman in the Civil Service receives the same basic rate of pension as a woman in the society, namely, her pension is calculated on the basis of 60ths and the maximum is 40, or two-thirds. On retirement through marriage, she receives a gratuity, after six years' service, of 1/12th for each year, up to a maximum of a year's salary.

So far as men are concerned, at present in the society their pension is also based on 60ths, that is, the maximum is 40/60ths. There is a death gratuity of a year's salary where the service is not less than eight years. In the Civil Service, however, a man receives a pension based on 80ths; in other words, he can receive a pension of 40/80ths, or half pension, but he also qualifies for a lump sum based on a 30th of his salary for each year of service, subject to the overriding maximum of 45/30ths or one and a half years' salary. The contrast is roughly this, that the man in the society can receives a pension based on half salary salary, whereas in the Civil Service he receives a pension based on half salary with a lump sum which must not exceed a maximum of one and a half years' salary. In the case of the man in the Civil Service, who dies while in the service, there is a death gratuity of a year's salary after five years' service, whereas in the case of the society, the gratuity is not payable unless the man has had eight years' service.

The proposal in the Bill is to give men and women in the society the same superannuation conditions as men have in the Civil Service—that is, half pension with a lump sum calculated on the basis of 1/30th for each year of service, subject to a maximum of 45/30ths or 1½ years' salary; and to give the women on transfer a marriage gratuity on the same basis as a woman receives in the Civil Service. When you remember that women in the Civil Service are not yet eligible for the provisions of the Superannuation Acts which apply to men—although they have agitated for inclusion in the Superannuation Act, the Act of 1909, almost since it was passed—you can realise that women now employed in the National Health Insurance Society who are being transferred to the Department of Social Welfare are getting a very substantial advantage, inasmuch as they are being given the benefit of opting for the provisions of the Superannuation Act which has not been applied yet to women generally in the Civil Service. I hope, however, that it is only a matter of time until women in the Civil Service will be given that option. At all events, nobody will deny that, so far as pension provisions are concerned, the staff of the National Health Insurance Society, which is pensionable to-day, are being transferred to what, on the whole, is a much better superannuation scheme.

Mr. Hickey

I hope they will not forget the temporary staff.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Dr. Ryan referred to decentralisation and thought that it ought to be possible to push the Department of Social Welfare out into some provincial area where he thought the climate would most conduce to its progressive growth and which he thought would be a contribution to the relief of the various problems which inevitably arise in a large and fast-growing city. I understand that this matter was discussed some years ago with a view to seeing whether it was possible to push either the whole Department or sections of it out into some provincial area. I understand that the results were gloomy in the extreme and that nobody found an easy solution of the difficulties which were then thrown up. There is no difficulty in the world in getting a site in the country for the erection of a building, but you do not solve the problem when you put up a building. You bring yourself nearer to the kernel of the problem, which is to find houses for all the members of the staff who must work in the building. Nor do you solve the problem when you have houses for them. Many of these people are married men and women and have sons and daughters in employment in the city. Is it suggested that, merely to satisfy what is, after all, to some extent an ideal to-day, these families should be completely uprooted, that father, mother, school-going children, adolescent boys and girls who are in employment, perhaps serving apprenticeship, are to be taken up and pushed into a house and told: "There is a house; it is near your office; cheer up, what complaint have you?" There is a human problem there and it is no use disregarding it.

If it were possible to implement a scheme of this kind, I would like to see the matter dealt with, not on the basis of men on a draughtboard or pieces on a chessboard, but on the basis of a frank recognition that we are dealing with human material which has to be dealt with in a very sympathetic way.

Mr. de Valera

May I interrupt the Minister by asking, if it is the ideal, if that is the thing to be aimed at, could it not be aimed at piecemeal?

Could you not make up your mind that this is going to be the ultimate location and try to do it step by step, doing the things that were easier first and that would cause least hardship?

Mr. Norton

I have no objection to having the whole problem examined and dealt with sympathetically. The first requisite is that it should be dealt with on the basis that we know we are dealing with human beings——

Mr. de Valera

Yes.

Mr. Norton

——who have rights, self-expression and a personality, that we are not dealing with typewriters, adding machines or duplicating machines. I want to say to Deputy de Valera that he will frankly realise, as I and everybody else will realise, that before you can put a scheme of this kind into operation, it necessarily involves a considerable amount of survey, a considerable amount of weighing up the pros and cons of the situation, a considerable examination of the benefits and the disadvantages that would flow from it. All that would take a considerable amount of time. Because of that, I do not want to see the Department of Social Welfare selected as the medium for this experiment. We might consider patriarchal Departments like the Land Commission as an appropriate medium for——

Mr. Derrig

Rejuvenation.

Mr. Norton

——examinations of that kind. Even the process of rejuvenation might be grafted on to the other processes. I want to see a comprehensive scheme of social security operated with the minimum delay and I would be appalled, as the country would be appalled, if it were to be postponed until we got down to deal with the problem of decentralisation. Many people would say with me that, if you have a bee in your bonnet about decentralisation, you had better start with some other Department, but we are not prepared, having regard to the present inadequate social services, to wait until you survey that wide prairie before a comprehensive social scheme is introduced. It is because I want to see a comprehensive social security scheme introduced with minimum delay and to build up our social services to a decent level that I have, unfortunately, to be stony-hearted about accepting a suggestion that decentralisation should be tried on a thriving and growing Department like the Department of Social Welfare. There are other more suitable media for the trial of the virtues of decentralisation.

Deputy Davern regretted that we are taking over the National Health Insurance Society. He said it was a body that was there and he did not like anything that was there to disappear, even though Deputy Davern clearly realises that it was essential to take over the society if we were to have a comprehensive scheme of social security in operation. At all events, Deputy Dr. Ryan, with his closer appraisal of the situation, said that in his view the taking over of the society was necessary and he saw no alternative to the absorption of the society in the Department.

Deputy Lynch referred to the outlets for promotion for persons taken over from the society and absorbed in the Department and appeared to have some fears that their opportunities for promotion would not be as great. I cannot understand Deputy Lynch's fears in that respect, because those who are being transferred are being transferred to a very much larger Department than the organisation in which they work. It is an expanding Department and is likely to continue to expand according as we build up a more radical approach to our social problems. I cannot understand why Deputy Lynch should fear that transfer to a bigger Department was likely in any way to curtail opportunities for promotion. I should rather think that the opportunities for promotion on transfer to the Department of Social Welfare were widened rather than contracted. I do not think there are any grounds whatever for the fears of Deputy Lynch or anyone else in that respect.

Deputy Lynch asked what is going to happen to a person who refuses to transfer from the National Health Insurance Society to the Department of Social Welfare. Our approach to the problem of the National Health Insurance Society's staff, that is, the entire staff, pensionable and non-pensionable, as indicated in this Bill, is a radical and sympathetic approach. We say to the staff of the National Health Insurance Society, whether they are indoor or outdoor staff: "You are human beings. We propose to take you over to the Department of Social Welfare and, on transfer to the Department of Social Welfare, your conditions will not be worsened". We are taking over to the Department of Social Welfare a number of National Health Insurance Society agents whose tenure at present with the society is that their services can be dispensed with at one week's notice. Every one of these agents will be taken over, provided he elects to be taken over. Every member of the staff of the National Health Insurance Society will be taken over on terms not less satisfactory than they have at the moment. If there is any person on the staff who does not want to be absorbed into the Civil Service, who does not want the security he has in the Civil Service, who does not want the improved pension rights he will have in the Civil Service or who does not want the greater opportunities of promotion he will have on transfer to the Civil Service, frankly I cannot plumb his mentality. If there is such a person it is more the problem of the person who declines the offer than of the person who makes it. However, I do not imagine that we have simple folk of that kind careering around the country in 1950, and I think that, on reflection, they will be all glad to accept the offer that is being made to them.

Deputy Dr. Ryan's approach to the Bill was the approach of a Deputy who was acquainted with the problem. He knew what the difficulties were and did his best within Party limits to face up to the problems created by the Bill and to what the introduction of the Bill envisaged in a larger field. His approach was a sensible and realistic one to the problems which must be dealt with. I rather thought that it was to set a headline for the Fianna Fáil contribution to the discussion on the Bill and in the main I am bound to say that the tone of Deputy Dr. Ryan's speech did set the headline for the Party opposite with one notable exception. Deputy MacEntee came in to show that Deputy Dr. Ryan knew nothing of social welfare, that he was the merest amateur, that he could not read the Bill and could not see the sinister plots that unfolded themselves by the million to Deputy MacEntee's analytical eye. Deputy MacEntee regaled the House for one and a half hours talking, not of what is in the Bill, but of what he thought was in the Bill. Deputy MacEntee's entry into this Bill was characterised by all the graciousness of an elephant, but without one of the characteristics of an elephant inasmuch as that gentleman is characterised by not forgetting. He came in with none of the elephant's virtues and succeeded in distinguishing himself inasmuch as he managed to misunderstand and misinterpret every section to which he adverted. It was a pitiable attempt of a person who at one time had some responsibility for social services. It was pitiable to see him leaping through section after section, misunderstanding them and seeing conspiracies everywhere which no one on his own bench discovered and which Deputy Dr. Ryan with his greater knowledge of the problem could not discover. Deputy MacEntee told the House that the Bill was an effort to confiscate private property. The Bishop of Clonfert was brought into the Bill as if his Lordship had anything to do with it. He brought us for an excursion into Eastern Europe and no less a person than Mr. Stalin was relevant when Deputy MacEntee was talking. One would have thought that Deputy MacEntee at this stage would have reached maturity. Whatever influence the Dáil has on the Deputy it is certainly a mesmerising one and he is incapable of using temperate or responsible language when he is asked to deal with serious problems in the House. I suppose that Deputy MacEntee will continue the rôle over which he now has title deeds, the rôle of irresponsibility. We must look on the Deputy's contribution to this debate as to every other as the contribution of what is to the Dáil a problem child and I suppose he is a problem child to his own Party as well. I will try to clear some of his misconceptions on the Bill, not in the hope of convincing him, but in the hope of removing some of the vicious misstatements he has made lest others who do not know him as well as we do should think him in any way wise when he speaks on legislation of this kind.

He said that this was a smash and grab raid on the funds of the National Health Insurance Society by a bankrupt Government. Could anybody understand that kind of irresponsible language from an ex-Minister and a Front Bench member of the Opposition? That was one of the delicacies of his speech. There were other statements which were not couched in such courteous and considerate language. This Bill represents an effort to do two things. It proposes to clear the way for the absorption of the National Health Insurance Society in the Department for a wider scheme of social welfare and it proposes to acquire a building, for which Córas Iompair Éireann is unable to pay having commissioned architects and workmen to build it, as the headquarters of the Department of Social Welfare and make available for Government or civil use other buildings now occupied by the Department of Social Welfare thus contributing to some extent to the arrest of the growing practice of the occupation of private buildings by Government Departments for office purposes. We are not doing anything new in purchasing a building with the funds of the National Health Insurance Society. The present building, Árus Brugha, was purchased with moneys which belonged to the society. It was a very wise investment at the time and proved to be even wiser with the effluxion of time because the property increased considerably in value. The building or its value is now an asset in the funds of the society. Here in the Bill there is a proposal to buy another building which is considered to be a suitable headquarters for a large Department such as the Department of Social Welfare. Money investments will be realised for the purpose of purchasing the premises, a thing which it is perfectly legitimate to do. The precedent is already there and there is an assurance in the Bill that at least the same amount as the income that money now invested earns will be earned when the money is diverted for the purchase of the building. It is very likely that we will realise moneys which are at present, and which have been for a very long time, invested in British securities for the purpose of purchasing the Store Street premises. I think it will be a very good asset from the point of view of the National Health Insurance Society and from the point of view of the society's members.

I would far sooner see £1,000,000 of Irish money invested in a building in the centre of the city than see it financing a colonial development fund, as it probably is at present, by being invested in British securities. There is no need for alarm because that has been done. I think it is a sensible approach to the problem. There is no loss to insurance funds, there is a repatriation of Irish assets at present invested in Great Britain, or likely will be. It is much better to have our moneys invested in bricks and mortar in the capital of Ireland than have them spent on our behalf, if you do not mind, subject all the time to devaluation or to depreciation on the stock market, in some place in the Middle East or in South Africa. Therefore, Deputy MacEntee's attempt to scare the public when we are going to make a prudent investment of this kind is only going to recoil on himself. Somebody with more influence on him than I have ought to tell him that even from a Party point of view those statements are irresponsible and that they recoil to his own disadvantage. When made before strangers who do not know him they are rather apt to give the Deputy a reputation much worse than, on reconsideration, he deserves. That is the complete story about Store Street. It seems to me a story which will stand any test. I do not think anybody is going to wreck the national nerves by trying to rear a bogeyman story on the simple facts which I have outlined.

Deputy MacEntee went after the guarantee fund. The guarantee fund intrigued him so much that, when he intervened in the debate on the second occasion, he brought tomes into the Dáil and quoted sections of the Act of 1911 and said: "You are talking about the guarantee fund. There is no reference to the guarantee fund in the 1911 Act and therefore you are misleading the House." The fact of the matter is that the section to which the Deputy referred in the 1911 Act did not in fact make any reference to the guarantee fund. The section in question was a section inserted in the 1911 Act for the purpose of ensuring that officers of societies were to give security for their honesty when administering the affairs of the separate National Health Insurance Societies and a fund was created under the section, called the guarantee fund, to enable that security to be given. That is the simple story of the guarantee fund, but for nearly half an hour Deputy MacEntee ranted about it and stated we were suggesting that there was a guarantee fund in the 1911 Act when in fact there was no guarantee fund in the Act as framed. But what he forgot to say was that on many occasions since then, even in regulations administered by the Department of Local Government when he was Minister for Local Government, there was reference to the guarantee fund in the 1911 Act. He must have known that if he was familiar with the work of his Department, but, notwithstanding the fact that as Minister for Local Government he was administering regulations referring to the guarantee fund in the 1911 Act, he still persisted in saying here on the last occasion on which he spoke that there was no guarantee fund in that Act and that I was endeavouring to mislead the House. Again, these are the simple facts, and Deputy MacEntee will find it hard to mislead the House. The only thing he succeeded in doing so far as I am concerned is establishing beyond all doubt that he knows nothing about the construction of the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, or of any Act dealing with national health insurance, because he displayed lamentable incompetence in trying to interpret any of the Acts.

Then he came to the question of appeals. He said that at present there is an appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare by an aggrieved person who is a member of the National Health Insurance Society, but if the society is transferred to the Department, the Minister for Social Welfare will be the Minister administering the funds and consequently he will be hearing appeals against decisions of his own officers. In Deputy MacEntee's view, that meant that the scales were always going to be weighted against an aggrieved person. A moment's reflection would have convinced anybody who had any memory or knowledge that the method of appeal in the case of the National Health Insurance Society's members is unique and has never been repeated in the case of any subsequent legislation. Under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and, I think, under the Children's Allowances Act, if there is an appeal it is to an independent referee who happens to be a civil servant and who is a statutory officer. If there is an appeal by an aggrieved person, it goes to that referee and the matter is decided by the referee as a statutory officer without any reference whatever to the Minister. Every day in the week cases are decided by the referee and I do not even know that the cases are before him. He is a statutory officer and exercises that function. I think it is very much better that there should be a statutory officer to decide appeals of that kind rather than that the Minister, who has political affiliations, should be called upon to decide these appeals. At all events, the type of appeal for the continuance of which Deputy MacEntee was pleading is a type of appeal which has not been copied in any subsequent social legislation.

When the Bill becomes law and the society is transferred to the Department of Social Welfare, I propose to let aggrieved people avail of machinery similar to that in operation under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, namely, to appeal to an independent referee and to keep the appeal away from the Minister altogether. Although that was contemplated, although it was obvious to anybody reflecting on the matter for a moment that that would be done, Deputy MacEntee saw in that a deep conspiracy to cheat the aggrieved person out of whatever rights he had. It was, again, a foolish contribution by the Deputy, but, apparently, you cannot stop the Deputy from making contributions of that character.

Deputy MacEntee talked also about the reserve fund and the central fund and of these being handed over to the Minister for Finance. As to a reserve fund or a central fund or a guarantee fund or any type of fund, once this society ceases to exist there is no need for these separate funds, and it is proposed therefore to merge them all in one fund and to use that one fund for the benefit of the National Health Insurance Society members. In accordance with the customary practice, the Minister for Finance, who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as national funds are concerned, will hold these moneys, but he will hold them as a trustee for the persons who have an interest in them, in the same way as he holds and always has held the deposits of persons in the savings bank and every other type of money which is put in trust of the Government. All we are doing in this matter is merely regularising the procedure by giving to the Minister for Finance to hold in trust the separated funds brought together in one fund. He will hold these as a national trustee. They cannot be used in any way for revenue purposes. They cannot be made available for expenditure. They will be held in the same way and with the same trustee responsibility as every other security held by the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Dr. Ryan raised a question on Section 6, which is a rather short but complicated section and reads:—

"The provisions of or made under the Acts which would, if this part of this Act had not come into operation, apply only to insured persons being members of the society shall apply to all insured persons."

I agree that that is not a model of simplification, but its simple meaning is this. At present a person must pay contributions under the National Health Insurance Acts because that is the law. He must, therefore, insure himself by paying contributions under that Act, but he can only get benefit for those contributions if he joins the National Health Insurance Society. Strange as it may appear, there are still some persons who pay contributions under the Act and who are not members of the society and they can never get benefit until they become members of the society.

Probably that anomaly arises because of the fact that the State imposes an obligation to pay contributions whereas a private, or semi-private, society insists that one must be a member of the society before one can get benefit since only the society pays benefit and not the State. It is the simple intention of this section that a person who pays national health insurance contributions will be treated in the same way as he is treated to-day for unemployment insurance purposes. If one pays unemployment insurance contributions one must, provided one complies with the contribution conditions, get benefit from the State. This will put everybody on the same basis as that which operates in the case of unemployment insurance. It is quite obviously an improvement on the present position.

Deputy Dr. Ryan raised a question on Section 7, sub-section (2). Here, again, the technical phrasing does not perhaps leave itself capable of a facile interpretation. I can assure the Deputy, however, that the phrase to which he referred is purely a draftsman's phrase. It merely means that, as the pension fund of the society will be transferred to the Minister for Finance and he will in future be liable for the pensions of the staff of the society, it is desired to count past service on the staff of the society for Civil Service pension purposes. The section has no other meaning but that.

Deputy Dr. Ryan raised a question on Section 8 as to the transfer of the society's pension fund to the Minister for Finance. What is happening here is quite obvious and quite simple to explain. The staff of the society will be taken over by the Department of Social Welfare. Those who are pensionable will become established and pensionable officers of the Civil Service. The Minister for Finance will in future be responsible for their pensions. The present pension fund, therefore, will be taken over by the Minister to meet the ultimate liability which will devolve upon him in relation to the pensions of these officers if and when they become entitled to such pensions.

Deputy Dr. Ryan also raised a question on Section 17. He referred to the unclaimed stamp account of the National Health Insurance Society. The present position is that if there is a sum of money in that fund which exceeds £15,000, the first £15,000 of that sum goes to the Exchequer and the balance to the National Health Insurance Society. Deputy Dr. Ryan appeared to think that the reverse was the position. With the dissolution of the society it will not be necessary in future to ascertain the amount of the unclaimed stamp account each year. It is proposed under this Bill to give the State a fixed contribution of £15,000 per annum. Only in one year since 1942 did the State fail to receive £15,000 from the unclaimed stamp account fund. What we propose to do here, therefore, is to stabilise the position in so far as we could ascertain it since 1942. That position will remain until the comprehensive scheme comes into operation when the matter will be further reviewed.

Deputy MacEntee concerned himself largely with sub-section (2) of Section 19. He thought he saw there some scheme to deprive insured persons of the additional sickness benefit provided under the National Health Insurance Acts. At present a sum of £300,000 may be made available by the Minister for certain additional benefits. The sum made available is dependent upon the surplus ascertained as a result of a valuation which takes place every five years. There is no obligation on the Minister to make available the sum that is now made available but, so far as this Bill is concerned, we are guaranteeing the continuance of the additional benefits. We say that the sum cannot be less than £300,000 and it may, in fact, be more. To that extent insured persons now have a statutory guarantee that the amount made available will not be less than £300,000. Under the position as it stands at present the amount could be substantially less. There are no grounds, therefore, for the fears expressed by Deputy MacEntee.

Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Con Lehane raised a question about the date 1st July, 1949, in sub-section (8) of Section 21. The sub-section reads:—

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

In the main this sub-section refers to sub-section (7), which immediately precedes it and which gives the Minister certain powers to do certain things in respect of acquisition, construction or reconstruction without the obligation to consult any other Minister for a period which commenced on 1st July, 1949, and runs for five years until 1st July, 1954. The object is to enable this work to be put in hands with the utmost expedition in order to ensure that nothing will delay the implementation of the scheme envisaged therein. The 1st July, 1949, was taken because it was the date on which we got general Government authority to do this for a period of five years. I hope it will be possible to do all these things in a much shorter period and I hope that 1954 will have nothing more than an academic significance in the course of the next couple of years. That is the explanation for the 1st July, 1949, and that sub-section must be construed by reference to the previous sub-section and substantially it has no other meaning except in reference to sub-section (7).

Deputy Derrig asked what was the position of the society's pension fund. The position at the moment is that it amounts to about £120,000. It is not only paying about six existing pensions but it is liable to meet, with the growing produce thereof and such additions as may be made to the fund itself, the pensions of the staff when they retire. I explained that I use the fund as an asset to meet whatever liabilities subsequently devolve on me in connection with the claims of the present National Health Insurance Society staff when they come to retire.

Deputy Lehane raised a number of points in connection with Sections 20 and 21. I have already dealt with the position so far as it relates to Section 20 (2), namely, the modification of the Acts, and I hope I have convinced the Deputy that it is a reasonable provision. Let me say, however, that I keep my mind open. If the Deputy thinks that something else works equally well or better he will not find me tied as to matters of dogma with regard to Section 20. I have explained the position to Deputy Lehane in connection with Section 21 (8).

Now we come to the question of staff. This matter was raised by Deputy Larkin, Deputy Cowan and Deputy Lehane. I should like to explain my approach. Before this Bill was introduced I sent for the trade unions catering for the National Health Insurance Society staff, though I have no responsibility for their wages and conditions. I was prepared to meet the union people to discuss this matter with them, to see what problems they were worried about and to see whether any misconceptions and doubts and fears could be removed. I think none of the unions will deny that I gave them a long and sympathetic hearing. Their recorded views in writing confirm that. I decided, instead of dealing with the question of compensation to people who are able to work in their present employment, and work satisfactorily, but who cannot probably find another job if you push them out on small compensation, that this was a human problem and ought to be dealt with in the way human beings ought to regulate their relations one with another. I decided, therefore, to take over the whole indoor staff of the National Health Insurance Society. That left me then with the problem of the agents, most of them part-time agents, on the outdoor side. There again you are dealing with human material. It might be urged and I could make a case myself that I would not need all these people. However, I did not like the idea of pushing a man out, with short service, if he is 45, 50, 55 or 60 years of age. I realised the considerable difficulty of men, especially in rural areas, who are agents, getting any other kind of alternative employment and I realised that any compensation they would get would, on the whole, be so microscopic as not to be able to provide for them for the rest of their lives. Bear in mind that they are not pensionable. They are not even full-time officers. I decided, therefore, that I would take over all the agents, about 300 in number; that I would continue for the present the existing method of payment of National Health Insurance benefit, and that I would allow these people to continue in that capacity.

If wastage occurred by deaths, resignations or retirements in the ordinary way, well and good. That would be something that would accrue ultimately to the society. In the meantime, however, I was going to keep these people in employment on at least their existing wage and allow them to remain in the employment which they had been following for many years. I think nobody will deny that that was a new approach to the problem. I must say that I thought it was sympathetic.

I say to all the staff of the National Health Insurance Society, whether indoor or outdoor, that they will be taken over by the Department of Social Welfare. I do not think they can be given the statutory guarantees for which Deputy Cowan and Deputy Lehane sought and I shall give the House the reason in a few moments. However, I feel the staff ought to feel satisfied that a person who approached the problem as sympathetically as I approached it is not likely to try any tricks on them and to try to cheat them out of any rights which they have and that such a person is not likely to turn an unsympathetic ear to any grievances which they may have. When these staff organisations came to see me on this matter I was pressed, as Deputy Lehane and Deputy Cowan have done this afternoon, to give them the statutory guarantees that their rights on transfer to the Civil Service would be at least the rights which they had and that if, at any time in the future, ten, 15, 20 or 30 years hence, anything happened during their evolution down the Department which might not have happened had they remained in the society, a tribunal would be set up and that its function would be to hear and adjudicate on their grievances and to permit them to retire with compensation. I felt that that was a perfectly unreasonable proposition. Bear in mind that these people were not being transferred to any doubtful kind of employment. They were being transferred to the State. They were to be transferred to secure employment. They were being converted from private employees into civil servants. I pointed out that when they come into the Civil Service not only do they get the security of a civil servant but they have to line up with the rest of the civil servants and take what is coming to the class and the grade as a whole. I pointed out to them that where there is in the Civil Service a grade known as the clerical officer grade with, say, 3,000 members in that grade, it would be wholly improper and anomalous that the grade itself had none of the guarantees which a rather relatively small number of national health insurance officials were looking for on assimilation to the clerical officer grade.

Let us take an example. Let us assume that the whole indoor staff of the National Health Insurance Society are made clerical officers. They are then made members of a grade which already numbers 3,000 in all. The suggestion made to me was that 300 people who are not yet civil servants but are being made civil servants and getting credit for their past service in private employment—getting Civil Service conditions generally, Civil Service pensions, Civil Service rights and Civil Service prospects—could come into the Civil Service and get there guarantees and the right of access to a special tribunal which the existing civil servant has not got even though he may have more years of service in the Civil Service than the other person has years of age to his credit.

Mr. C. Lehane

I should like to point out to the Minister that the existing civil servant went in of his own volition. These people have to go in willy-nilly.

Mr. Norton

I wish we could all go to such good places willy-nilly. If there is any worry about "willy-nilly" I shall examine the "willy-nilly" and see that nobody is pushed in if he does not want to go and see if anything can be done about a separate class, although I do not think that would be good for them. I think they are playing with fire. Is it reasonable to expect that you should pick out a small handful of people who are being well-treated and give them special rights, although they belong to the same class as other civil servants, which are not given to the class as a whole? I think that that is unreasonable and that it shows a kind of playing for one's own hand. I think it would be much better for those who come in from the National Health Insurance Society, and whom I hope to assimilate in the appropriate Civil Service grade, to recognise for good or for evil—I hope for good—that their destiny is cast in that grade for the time being. It is their job, with that of the rest of the grade and the organisation which caters for them, to make conditions as good as possible for the grade and to prevent any deterioration in conditions in the grade.

At all events, they must develop from their own point of view and from the trade union point of view a sense of oneness with their colleagues in the grade and they ought not to try to be a special little class within a very much bigger grade. I think from their own point of view it would be better to get away from the mentality of 2½d. looking down on 2¼., to realise that they are all one, that they have got to swim together and to battle together. The sooner they can be inculcated with that philosophy, the better it will be for themselves and maybe it would not be a bad thing for the Civil Service grades as a whole.

Mr. C. Lehane

I think the Minister is attributing desires and aims to the officials to be transferred and absorbed that they have not got. I think the genesis or the basis of the complaint is the lack of guarantee in the Bill itself that their conditions will not be worsened.

Mr. Norton

Their position on transfer to the Civil Service will be this. In so far as those who will come in and be graded as writing assistants, they will be writing assistants and their hopes will be the hopes of the whole writing assistants' class. In so far as they come in as clerical officers, their hopes and aspirations will be bound up with the destinies of the clerical officer class. Bear in mind that when they do come into the Civil Service they will come into a service which now enjoys something which they have not got— an arbitration board. If they have grievances of a substantial kind, their grievances can come before the arbitration board but over and above that they have the assurances which I have given them. I said: "Look here, if there is one haunting fear, that you will not be fairly treated, I shall make the Assistant Secretary of the Department who is chairman of the National Health Insurance Society, whom you know well and with whom you negotiated in the past, available to you by easy access; you can go to him and you can discuss the matter with him. He will discuss the matter with the Secretary of the Department and try to adjust whatever difficulties arise. If you are not satisfied that these two officers will do justice to you, I shall intervene myself and hear whatever case you have to make."

Mr. C. Lehane

I think they have no fears while the Tánaiste is in his present position.

Mr. Norton

Remember the old Scriptural text: "Oh, ye of little faith." This Government will be in office——

Mr. C. Lehane

The Tánaiste misunderstands me. I said that I thought they would have no fears while the Tánaiste is in charge of the Department. The Tánaiste referred to 15 or 20 years hence.

Mr. Norton

Prophecies were made at one time that this Government would not last three weeks. These prophecies had to be revised and then somebody said that they would not last more than three months. The last recorded utterance of that kind was made by a member of the Opposition Benches: "This Government is no joke; it is going to last for a long time."

Mr. de Valera

It is a joke. That is the trouble.

Mr. Norton

It is a very painful joke to the Opposition.

Mr. de Valera

It is not painful at all.

Mr. Norton

We were not all in such good form after the West Donegal election or the West Cork election. What I say to our friends in the National Health Insurance Society is that there is no reason to fear that this Government is going to go out in a short time. They will be well stabilised in the Civil Service before this Government goes to the country. I suggest to Deputy Lehane, to Deputy Cowan and to Deputy Larkin to get in touch with these people in the National Health Society and say to them that I offered my explanation that they are being treated very fairly, that there has been a new approach, an almost revolutionary approach to the matter of transfer and that their conditions will be improved on transfer to the Department. I do not want to worsen their conditions in any way and I think they may rest assured that their conditions will not be worsened in any way. Their salary conditions will not be worsened. What they have been offered represents a substantial improvement and they should not be crying "wolf" until at least they see the form of the wolf on the horizon. However, I cannot give them the statutory guarantees suggested by Deputy Cowan and Deputy Lehane, and I do not think it is fair to ask me, but my assurance will be entered on the records of the House that I do not want to see them unfairly treated and that, so far as I can, I shall do my best to remove any misunderstandings or grievances which may arise, firstly because they deserve it as human beings and, secondly, because I know the successful administration of this Department depends on the merged staffs working together in a spirit of harmony and co-operation.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister touched on the necessity for decentralisation. May I ask how many of the existing staff are stationed in Dublin?

Mr. Norton

The Store Street premises will be required to house 1,100 to 1,200 when it is taken over by the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. de Valera

How many are in the existing society as it stands at the moment?

Mr. Norton

That number.

Mr. de Valera

Eleven hundred?

Mr. Norton

We shall have to provide——

Mr. de Valera

I am not asking what we shall have to provide. I am asking what is the number of the existing staff stationed in Dublin at the moment.

Mr. Norton

About 290 of the society staff are stationed in Dublin.

Mr. de Valera

Is it not clear that if there is to be decentralisation it has to be done carefully and the best time is when the Department is being set up? It is at the beginning obviously that steps in this direction should be taken. You cannot uproot an old organisation. You have to approach it from the beginning if there is to be development in a Department. I, of course, agree with the Tánaiste with regard to the human element.

Mr. Norton

Let me say this to the Deputy. One of the virtues of a comprehensive social security scheme, the weaving of separate schemes into a common whole, is that it enables you to simplify your administration. You can do it in a variety of ways. Two of the ways which will be adopted are as follows: in the first place we shall have a common record card which will record all the particulars of a person for social security purposes. One card will be used for the national health insurance record, for the unemployment insurance record, for widows' and orphans' benefits, for retirement benefits and for every other class of benefit. Clearly you cannot draw away the sections from easy access to the place where the records are kept.

Another matter which makes for simplification and efficiency is the adoption of the scheme of one staff instead of two or three staffs as at the moment. There again there is an obvious advantage. In a Department, like that of Social Welfare, where a whole lot of separate sections revolve around close and easy access to central records, the difficulty of drawing your staff further away is much greater than in the case of Departments where that closely knitted scheme of organisation is not so necessary and, in fact, in many cases is not present at all.

Mr. Hickey

Take the City of Cork. Would it be possible to increase the staff in Cork at the moment because much of the work being sent to Dublin could be done in a centre like Cork, Limerick or Waterford?

Mr. Norton

What sort of staff has the Deputy in mind?

Mr. Hickey

Every application that is made in the Cork area must come to Dublin.

Mr. Norton

Is the Deputy referring to a claim for unemployment benefit?

Mr. Hickey

Yes, and for national health benefit. All these claims have to be sanctioned in the Dublin area before they are paid in Cork. I am suggesting that larger staffs could be employed in Cork, Limerick, and Waterford. In other words you could start decentralisation in a small way.

Mr. Norton

We have a staff of about 80 in Cork at present.

Mr. Hickey

Yes, but if I seek benefit for sickness in Cork, why should it be necessary for it to come to Dublin?

Mr. Norton

There are certain questions sent for determination to Dublin before benefit can be obtained. I am having the matter examined to see whether we cannot devolve greater responsibility on people in the outlying places commensurate with their rank and status.

Question agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. Norton

Could we take it this day week?

Mr. Derrig

There will be some amendments and they will require some time because, as regards these matters relating to funds and so on, it is rather difficult to deal with them. We think next week would not give enough time to consider those points. We have no desire to hold up the Bill.

Mr. Norton

In connection with the question raised by Deputy Ryan on the Second Reading, when he asked for information as to the position under the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, I promised him I would supply a memorandum explaining the position under that Act. Since then we have expanded the memorandum in order to explain the financial provisions of the Bill. If that is helpful to Deputies, I will be glad to let them have a copy; it may help them in approaching the Committee Stage.

Mr. Derrig

If we had a few copies it would be helpful.

Mr. Norton

I will arrange to have copies circulated.

Mr. de Valera

We could take the Committee Stage in a fortnight's time.

Mr. Norton

Could it be taken some day next week?

Mr. de Valera

We feel there would be a fortnight required to deal with some matters which seem rather intricate

Mr. Norton

Could we fix it for some day next week and if that day is not found suitable we could postpone it further?

An Ceann Comhairle

Say, next Thursday week?

Mr. Norton

Yes, that would be suitable.

Mr. de Valera

That is on the understanding——

Mr. Norton

If you do not like it then, it can go to the following week.

Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 27th April.