Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1950

Vol. 120 No. 11

Financial Resolutions. - Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment to Section 7:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where an officer or an employee of the society is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service, pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, he shall be appointed within a grade at least as favourable, having regard to existing rights and salary scale, as his or her existing grade in the society's service.—(Dr. Ryan.)

Mr. Davern

To my mind, this amendment is the most important of the many amendments to this Bill. On its acceptance by the Minister or its rejection by the House will depend the security of many of the people who have, for many years past, been employees of the National Health Insurance Society. The Minister appeared to be sympathetic, or at least he put a veneer of sympathy on his many statements, but when he discovered that Deputy C. Lehane was in sympathy with the amendment — not his own amendment, but the amendment in the name of Deputy Ryan, which he said was preferable — he became rather uneasy, because, at that particular stage Deputy Dr. Ryan was not agreeable to withdraw the amendment nor had Deputy Con Lehane given any indication that he would withdraw his amendment. The Minister saw that defeat was staring him in the face and he deserves congratulation for the astute way in which he got his forces together again to agree on a matter on which, a few moments before, I thought agreement could not be reached. He raised the old bogey of politics. I can safely say that, as far as the Deputies on these benches are concerned, politics is the remotest thing from their minds. I can assure Deputies who may have the slightest suspicion that, unquestionably, politics was the remotest, and should be the remotest, thing from the mind of any Deputy who wanted to see that the 600 persons concerned would get security in future employment. Politics do not enter into this matter and should not enter into it.

This House has to decide whether a Minister's word, no matter how sincerely given, will cover the position in the future. Assuming that the present Minister is sincere and anxious as to the security of the people concerned, he will not occupy that position for ever. He will not live for ever, any more than anybody else. We know full well that those who handle the purse strings in this country are of a conservative nature and must be of a conservative nature. In that knowledge, we must all bear in mind the conservative interpretation that they will put on every section of this Bill in its application to the security of the future employment of the employees of the National Health Insurance Society.

Candidly, I was amazed that Deputy Con Lehane took the cue from the Minister because I was sure that Deputy Con Lehane would stand firm on that matter and, by doing so, would see the amendment implemented in the Bill and so put the matter beyond yea or nay. If Deputy Con Lehane had remained firm on that matter, the Minister, of necessity, would have agreed either to Deputy Dr. Ryan's amendment or Deputy Lehane's amendment, or would himself, as both of these Deputies suggested, have drafted a somewhat similar amendment that would be acceptable to everybody.

Unfortunately, the old bogey of politics was drawn in. Never have I heard Deputy MacEntee as mild as he was last night. Never for a moment did I, or anybody else in this House, even Deputy Con Lehane, dream that Deputy MacEntee was playing politics in this matter. Of course, he was not. Nobody knows that better than the Minister and Deputy Con Lehane but, when you want to do something or to find an excuse for not doing something, you always put the blame on the other fellow and that is what Deputy Con Lehane has done. Nobody is going to believe Deputy Con Lehane now. Deputy Con Lehane has run away from the employees of the National Health Insurance Society that he has been pretending up to now to be favouring so much.

Mr. C. Lehane

I have not been repudiated by them yet, anyhow, as one of your speakers was.

Mr. Davern

Time will tell. The time that has elapsed has been rather short and many of these people are not very vocal but, in their own good way, I am certain that, if they do not repudiate Deputy Con Lehane——

Mr. C. Lehane

They have already repudiated one of your Deputies in a letter to the Minister.

Mr. Davern

——they certainly will repudiate at the next election that for which Deputy Con Lehane stands. As I said, the time has been short.

Mr. Norton

Is this an incitement to civil servants to attack members of this House?

Mr. Davern

The Minister tried to put a different interpretation on Deputy MacEntee's statement last night and, if he can, he is going to put a different interpretation on what I am saying, but I am speaking plain, honest to God English, the King's English, which ought to be understood by the Minister for Social Welfare. What security does the ministerial statement really give? None whatever. The Minister assures us verbally that he will do certain things, that he is more or less in agreement, but he has failed hopelessly to give any reason to the House for not accepting one or other of the amendments. I do not know if Deputy Lehane's amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. C. Lehane

We are not even discussing it yet.

Mr. Davern

He was rather afraid, I suggest, that he would have to support it.

Mr. C. Lehane

The amendment standing in my name has not been reached or discussed by the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understood that both amendments were being discussed together, because they are both the same. They are both under discussion at the moment.

Mr. C. Lehane

Is that your ruling?

Mr. Davern

That is what I thought, too.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope they will be discussed.

Mr. Davern

I understood that, both amendments being more or less the same, they were being discussed together. If I am not in order in mentioning Deputy Lehane's amendment, he certainly now admits that he himself was not in order last night, because he mentioned it rather freely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us forget Deputy Lehane and Deputy MacEntee and come to the amendment.

Mr. Davern

He was more or less anxious, I think, to have that amendment accepted. However, the Minister has given no real concrete reason for refusing to accept it and it is obvious that he wants to bring the unfortunate employees of the National Health Insurance Society into a fool's paradise. He knows, of course, that unless he says some soft words now they may, as Deputy Lehane suggested, become vocal. He knows full well that unless some hope is held out to them they may become obstreperous and, perhaps, cause uneasiness to the Minister or even to the Coalition. Many of them belong to trade unions and I think it would appear rather bad for the leaders of the trade union organisations if they allowed their members to be badly treated.

Mr. Hickey

We do not stand for any privileged class in the Civil Service or elsewhere.

Mr. Davern

There is no question of a privileged class. This amendment asks for guarantees to be inserted in the Bill. I cannot understand why practically every Deputy who spoke up to a certain point last evening was in full agreement with this amendment and thought that it was necessary. If it were necessary at 8 o'clock last night I fail to understand why it ceased to be necessary at 8.30 last night or at 7 o'clock this evening. Even at this late hour, despite any alleged ruffling of feathers or under-the-skin speeches the Minister may imagine were made, I hope he will reconsider this in the interests of fair play and in the interests of providing himself with a contented staff. Nothing is so essential in employment than contentment, if that section of the community is to give what every man is expected to give in this country, value for the money he receives.

Mr. Desmond

I had no intention of intervening in this debate and would not have done so were it not for one statement made by Deputy MacEntee. I wonder would Deputy Davern and others have spoken in the way they did had Deputy MacEntee been the Minister introducing this Bill. Do these people realise the implication of what Deputy MacEntee said last night? I am sorry that he is not in the House at the moment. He mentioned that he had been Minister in various Departments, including the Department of Finance. He also said that he understood the position of the Minister for Social Welfare in moving this when he stated that he presumed the Minister was in favour of having something included on the lines of this amendment but for the fact that the Minister for Finance would be opposed to it. When Deputy MacEntee said the Minister for Finance would oppose it he was quite clearly stating that he himself, if he were Minister for Finance, would take that line. Is not that most illuminating? Is there not a touch of Jekyll and Hyde about that? As Deputy MacEntee, he stands up here demanding that this amendment should be included and Deputy Davern supports him. If he were Minister MacEntee he would not agree to its inclusion. I think that shows what is behind this amendment. I think that shows how much there is of sincerity in it and how much nonsense.

Mr. Lynch

This amendment was discussed ad nauseam last evening. Some acrimony was introduced into the debate, in my opinion, initially by the Minister. This Party was accused of playing politics. I can assure the Minister that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the members of my Party are concerned, we are acting in good faith in insisting on the inclusion of the provision sought by Deputy Dr. Ryan. The Minister, in the course of one of his replies last night, assured us that the unions catering for the people affected by this amendment and their representatives came to see him and were in no way apprehensive of their status on their transfer into the Civil Service. He told us that they accepted unreservedly the assurances given by him. Reference was made also to the deputation that visited the Minister and the other political Parties, including the Fianna Fáil Party, during the Second Reading. It is rather odd that the deputation met the Fianna Fáil Party last of all. They met that Party after they had met the Minister and after they had got his assurances. I can assure the Minister that some members of that deputation, at any rate, were very concerned about this particular provision, and it was as a result of our interview with that deputation that this amendment was inserted. It comes somewhat queerly from the Minister at this stage to assure us that in the light of the statement made by the spokesmen of this deputation the employees are in no way apprehensive. The Minister gave them the assurances before they met our Party. Nevertheless, it was as a result of what was said at that interview that this amendment was inserted.

During the Committee Stage on another Bill recently dealing with semi-State employees I submitted an amendment to the Minister in charge of the Bill. In the light of an assurance given me by the Minister I agreed to withdraw the amendment. I was assured by him that these employees would receive special consideration and that my amendment was unnecessary. Subsequently I accompanied representatives of these employees to the particular Minister's Department. I am not now referring to the Minister for Social Welfare. I was told by an official that any benefits that would accrue to these particular employees were entirely a matter for their unions and the Minister was in no way responsible either by legislation or otherwise. That is a concrete fact. In the light of that experience I feel apprehensive about any assurance given by a Minister here.

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy appreciate that I will have to deal with people transferred as members of the staff of the Department? They will be in a position to seek implementation of any assurances given to them. The Deputy can put down questions here every day in the week and he can raise the matter on the Adjournment any night he likes if I do not carry out my promise. Could the Deputy get more than that?

Mr. Gilbride

You may not be there.

Mr. Norton

If you read Deputy Boland last night you would know what he said about that.

Mr. Lynch

We have no guarantee the Minister will be in charge of the Department.

Mr. Sweetman

This has all to be done in two months.

Mr. Lynch

There is no playing of politics in respect of this amendment. The Minister has admitted that there are only 600 in all affected and it would be ludicrous to suggest that our Party could achieve anything through this 600. We are interested in what we think right. We are interested in having inserted in the Bill what we think should be inserted in it merely for the sake of right and not for the sake of playing politics.

Mr. McGrath

I think this is a very reasonable amendment and I cannot understand the Minister charged with responsibility for the Department of Social Welfare opposing an amendment of this kind. The National Health Insurance Society is a solvent institution. It is not in liquidation. It is being taken over by the Minister and his Department. Surely it is only fair that the employees should be given guarantees. This institution accumulated a good deal of money in the past. Surely it is only fair that these people's interest should be safeguarded. I cannot understand a Minister who talks so much about the welfare of the people refusing to accept an amendment of this kind. It is very hard to understand it. Surely if these men are going to be transferred from this good, solvent organisation, their conditions of employment should not in any way be impaired. There is no use in the Minister saying that he will do this and that he will do that. If it is not provided for in the Bill, his assurance will not be binding on his successor and it will not be binding on himself, if he wants to go back on his word, and that is not an unusual thing. The Minister will find plenty of means of repudiating the promises made to these men if he wishes to do so. He may say: "Well, it was not in that light I said it." I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider his position, to ensure that these men are safeguarded properly and that they will enjoy the same rights as they had in the society.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene,
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Brennan, Joseph P.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that the decision on amendment No. 4 governs amendment No. 5.

Mr. C. Lehane

Amendment No. 5 was tabled by me in order to safeguard, as far as possible, the position of the employees of the National Health Insurance Society. I think it is a pity that the Minister does not see his way, as he has already indicated, to write into the Bill the assurances that he has given. However, in view of the very specific nature of the assurances given by the Minister in the course of the debate yesterday, I think I would not be justified in pressing this. I would say to the Minister that I think, from the point of view of putting these people's minds at ease, it would be preferable to write the assurances into the Bill. However, if the Minister takes a strong line on that, I would not feel justified in pressing him. I should, however, like to have from him a definite assurance that the work on which the established outside agents will be employed, when transferred, will be the same as the work upon which they are now employed. If he can satisfy me on that point, I am satisfied.

Mr. Norton

Let us regularise the position of this amendment. It has not been moved.

Mr. MacEntee

It has.

Mr. Norton

I take it the Chair will decide whether it has and not Deputy MacEntee. I submit that the amendment has not been moved by the Deputy who has spoken.

Mr. C. Lehane

It was not moved. I spoke of explanation.

Mr. Norton

Are we discussing the amendment or the section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understood that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would be discussed together inasmuch as they were of the same nature and had the same objective. So far as the moving of the amendment is concerned, Deputy Lehane would be quite entitled to move it, but the Chair would be very anxious that there would not be a duplication of discussion because, clearly, it is possible that a duplication of discussion could occur on two amendments having a similar objective.

Mr. C. Lehane

My point in rising to speak was merely to explain the reason why I did not think it necessary to move the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Is it customary to permit a Deputy to speak without speaking to a motion? It seems to me that, since Deputy Lehane rose and opened this question, the matter is now before the House and should be discussed by the House in the normal way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment is before the House — there is no question about that — if Deputy Lehane moves it.

Mr. C. Lehane

It is not moved.

Mr. Davern

I formally move the amendment.

Mr. C. Lehane

As far as I am concerned, the amendment was withdrawn. That was the whole purpose of what I said.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy would have to get the permission of the House to withdraw it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the amendment was not moved, clearly it is not before the House, and clearly it cannot be withdrawn. Deputy Lehane has not moved it, and so does not want the permission of the House to withdraw it.

Mr. MacEntee

I want the position made clear in relation to this amendment. I assume that I can now give due notice that we will put down for the Report Stage the type of amendment which Deputy Lehane has put down and has run away from.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That can be considered if the situation arises.

Mr. de Valera

If there are two amendments on the Order Paper and the Chair announces that the two are open for discussion and have, in fact, been discussed, there is clearly the assumption that the two amendments have been moved and are before the House. Otherwise, the position seems to me to be ridiculous.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. Two amendments cannot be moved at the same time. One is moved, and if the other is of a like nature it can be discussed with it but not moved.

Mr. de Valera

Would it not be ridiculous for us to be discussing an amendment which was not going to be moved? It seems ridiculous to be talking about an amendment that is not going to be moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has given a general ruling with respect to that.

Dr. Maguire

The two amendments were not discussed on this occasion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment was not before the House at all.

Mr. de Valera

If that be the case, I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Lehane made some comment when I suggested moving it.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (2), line 19, to add at the end "and in the assessment of his superannuation, he shall not be less favourably treated than he would have been if this Act had not been passed".

When these officials — officers and employees of the National Health Insurance Society — are transferred, they will be transferred into certain grades in the Civil Service. It is possible that the superannuation rights which they acquire by going into these grades will give them the same or at least as good a position in reference to superannuation as they have at the moment. But there is always a fear that some individual or another may not fare as well as he would have fared if he remained where he was for superannuation purposes. There is very often a section of this kind put into a Bill to make sure that there would not be anyone overlooked, as it were, or anyone who would suffer as a consequence of transfer. Perhaps the Minister has considered it and he might let us know what his views are.

Mr. Norton

I can assure the Deputy that the position is fully safeguarded under Section 7 (2). The officers are being taken over on substantially better terms than the pension terms they have at the moment. The officers concerned and the whole staff can have the Deputy's amendment if they like but, if they prefer that, they cannot have Section 7 (2). If you want to put into the Bill a section whereby you say that they "shall not be less favourably treated than they would have been if this Act had not been passed," it might be possible to allow them to carry their existing pension rights, but it will not pay them to do so. I am offering them something better. They can have the existing one if they like. I will have the matter examined to see if there is any difficulty in giving it to them and let them carry on with that. Against that, I am offering them something better. I think the Deputy has every reason to be satisfied that they are fully safeguarded in this respect.

What is the position? At present a woman in the National Health Insurance Society has a pension calculated on 1/60th for each year of service. In the Civil Service, a woman has a pension calculated on the basis of 1/60th for each year of service. For a long number of years women in the Civil Service have tried to have their pensions calculated, not under the Act of 1859, which provides for 1/60th as the basis of computation, but under the 1909 Act which provides 1/80th as the basis of computation, plus a lump sum based on 1/30th of salary for each year of service, subject to a limit of 45/30ths. Under this scheme it is proposed to bring a woman on the staff of the society into the Civil Service on terms under which she would enjoy the benefits of the 1909 Superannuation Act, which will give her in future a pension based on 1/80th of salary for each year of service, plus a lump sum based on 1/30th of salary for each year of service, subject to a limit of 45/30ths and, in the event of death while in the service, a lump sum will be payable if that person has as much as ten years' service. Therefore, the female staff of the society will be much better off under the superannuation terms of the Civil Service than they are at present. Those of the female staff who get married will be entitled in future to a marriage gratuity which will be based on 1/12th instead of 1/16th. So far as the men are concerned, they are getting the provisions of the 1909 Superannuation Act, namely, 1/80th as the basis of computation, plus a lump sum, plus a death gratuity.

I think the Deputy may rest satisfied that that is a substantial improvement on the present superannuation code. In any case, it would be impossible to ascertain whether a person transferred from the society to the Department and serving in the Department for 30 years was or was not getting less favourable treatment than if this Act had not been passed. How can you ascertain what would happen if this Act had not been passed or attempt to go into the realm of prophecy as to what might or might not have happened if this Act had not been passed? What is happening is that these people are coming into the Department and, in so far as they are pensionable officers, they are getting the Civil Service terms of superannuation. These terms are vastly better than their present terms. They are in black and white in Acts of Parliament and Acts of Parliament were considered very precious when discussing the last amendment. They can read all about their pension rights in Acts of Parliament, in the 1909 Act and the 1914 Act. There is no doubt, whatever, that they are doing very well by getting Civil Service terms which, as I have said, are vastly better than what they have at present.

Dr. Ryan

If I understand the Minister, he told me at the beginning they would be better treated. He said then that in 25 or 30 years' time you would not know whether they were as well treated or not.

Mr. Norton

I said that there is a physical difficulty here in either you or I or anybody else determining whether people have been "not less favourably treated than they would have been if this Act had not been passed." If this Bill were not passed, something might happen or might not happen about which you or I know nothing. How could we decide such a thing?

Dr. Ryan

I think the Minister is not fair in that argument. When he used that expression, I think he meant as conditions exist at the moment. He did not go further.

Mr. Norton

I can assure the Deputy that they are doing very much better than they hoped to do in the matter.

Dr. Ryan

I think the Minister believes that, but still he has a doubt——

Mr. Norton

Not the slightest doubt.

Dr. Ryan

——that in 25 years' time a person might prove that he was not as well treated.

Mr. Norton

It is the physical impossibility of determining the thing by the reference which the Deputy gives me. What would happen if this Act had not been passed I do not know. My legal advisers say that they do not know what construction to put on it. Here is clear evidence of substantial benefits on transfer. I do not know why the Deputy wants to look a gift-horse in the mouth.

Dr. Maguire

In other words, their future is problematical.

Mr. Norton

It is clear they are better off than they ever would be in the society. There is a substantial number of resignations of the female staff in the society on marriage. If they resign on marriage while in the society they get 1/16th for each year of service; they will get 1/12th in the Civil Service. Is not that a clear gain?

Mr. MacEntee

Is it quite clear that the section, as drafted, will apply to everybody who comes in? There is a very comprehensive superannuation code cited in this section. It began in the year 1834 and, to date at any rate, is defined by the 1947 Act. How do we know what snag there may not be embodied in that vast corpus of superannuation law? The purpose of the amendment, as was the purpose of amendment No. 4, is to try to make sure that no person in the service of the State will be worse off than if the society had been permitted to continue and he or she had been permitted to remain an officer of the society. Is not that a fair and just thing to try to do? The Minister, like other Ministers, and like his predecessors and, presumably, his successors, may be a bird of passage. Anything he will say does not bind anyone.

We have seen things done even since the institution of this Government which indicate that plainly. There were people who were taken into the service of semi-State bodies and who were trained for the special purpose of that service and the Government came in and shut down the service for which they were trained. They were scattered to the four winds of the earth. When they were employed first, they were certainly given a tacit assurance of permanent employment by the Minister's predecessor in the office of Tánaiste. But it did not bind the Minister or any member of this Government. What the Minister is saying now in relation to the people he is going to bring into the service of the State will not bind any of his successors. That is clear. Surely we are justified, therefore, in these circumstances, in asking that they should be given a definite assurance that in no circumstances, provided they discharge their duties competently and conscientiously, will their position be worsened. The Minister says it is not possible to operate the amendment in the form in which it is on the Order Paper. It is not beyond the competency of the draftsmen to amend Deputy Dr. Ryan's proposal if the Minister is prepared to accept it in principle. I know that there are many statutes which embody a similar principle that people will not be less favourably treated when their employer changes than they would have been if they had remained in the continuous employment of one person. There are many precedents for this formula. If it merely means the amending of the phraseology which follows the words "less favourably treated" surely the Minister can address himself to the task and say: "He (or she) shall not be less favourably treated than he (or she) would have been had this Act not been passed and he (or she) remained in the continuous employment of the society". I think that is what we are trying to get at.

Mr. Norton

I wish the Deputy would discuss the matter with the National Health Insurance Society staff in this connection and try to get some advice from people before speaking, apparently, in their interest and making such statements as he has made this evening. This matter was discussed with the staffs of the society. They know that this is a substantial improvement on their present position. Their present pensions are based on a fund. There is no statutory guarantee that the fund must be solvent. There is no obligation on the State to keep it solvent. It is purely a fund which may go insolvent at any time. They are being transferred to the State now with a guarantee that their pensions will be carried on voted moneys in the same way as the pension of every other State employee is carried. I know that the Deputy has read sub-section (2). It is as follows:—

"Where a person who is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service of the Government by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section was, immediately before the transfer day, a member of the pension fund, such situation shall be a permanent situation and such of his service under the society and of his previous service (if any) under any approved society as, but for this Part of this Act, would be reckonable as pensionable service for the purposes of the pension scheme shall be treated as established service for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1947."

In the first place they are going to have their pension carried by the State in the same way as that of every other pensioner in the State service. At present it is carried by a fund, the solvency of which is not guaranteed. They are getting very substantial benefits. If Deputy MacEntee wants these people to be given a guarantee in relation to their existing pensions, we shall look into that matter and see if it cannot be incorporated in the section and give them a guarantee on their existing pensions. I shall examine that. I would point out, however, that that is going to be substantially less than what they are getting. The Deputy might well, therefore, take further advice in this matter.

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot understand——

Mr. Norton

You cannot understand the section.

Mr. MacEntee

——the manner in which the Minister approaches this matter. Every time a person tries to discuss it reasonably with him, he is asked if he represents the staff. Does the Minister represent the staff or the Government — which — or is he one of these dual purpose hens that the Minister for Agriculture is trying to propagate?

Mr. Norton

What about your white elephant?

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister is representing the State. We represent the private individuals to be affected by the legislation which the Dáil is asked to pass. Our position is quite simple. Let us be quite clear about this. We do not ask the Minister to accept the principle which is embodied in amendment No. 6 as an alternative to sub-section (2) of Section 7 but as an additional safeguard to remedy any defect there may be in the existing law by reason of which a person coming from the service of the National Health Insurance Society into the service of the State might not secure what the Minister professes to give him or her, as the case may be. That is what we want. We do not know whether the Minister speaks for these officers or not. I do not think he ought to. I think it would be quite contrary to his constitutional position that he should hold himself out here in this House as the spokesman of these persons who are coming into State employment. The Minister has said that if the individuals concerned in this sub-section want to see what their position may be they can go back and look up the Act of 1909. Will the Tánaiste tell me where they are going to get it, where that Act is of easy access?

Mr. Norton

I will furnish them with copies to-morrow.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Tánaiste will find that he has some difficulty in doing that, in finding copies of the Superannuation Act of 1909 to-morrow.

Mr. Norton

I bet the Deputy I will do it. Will he take the bet?

Mr. MacEntee

This is not a pitch and toss school, but a legislature. We are not playing poker or spoil five, but discussing a proposal. We should not open a betting ring, employing tick-tack men in order that the general public may know what odds the Tánaiste is offering to the Opposition in regard to any matter. For an ordinary individual, it is very difficult to procure a copy of British statutes of early date. We have found that difficulty here in relation to this Bill, as it is exceedingly difficult to get copies—I think only one copy is extant in the House — of the 1911 Insurance Act. There are other statutes, even of this Dáil, which are not available at the Government Publications Office. I doubt whether it would be very easy for these people to get hold of the 1909 Act and satisfy themselves as to what is in it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Ryan

In regard to amendment No. 7, I have found out since putting it down that those on probation are a very small number. My idea was that it might be a better safeguard to say that the Minister would have to certify a person as unsatisfactory through inefficiency or misconduct, rather than that he should do nothing and not certify them at all. I have learned, however, that the number at present is small and that there may be no one in the probation class.

Mr. Norton

In any case, they require a certificate of this kind in the society at present. I do not propose to make things any more onerous for them.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Mr. Colley

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, no officer or employee of the society, who is in receipt of a military service pension will have such pension suspended or abated as a result of his transfer to the Civil Service.

Deputies are aware that any man in receipt of a military service pension who receives his pay out of public funds is subject to an abatement and, in some cases, complete suspension of his pension, on a scale graded according to his salary. There are some men in the society who are in receipt of such pensions and if they are transferred now, that scaled reduction will take place, though no deduction ever took place before in the society. In that respect, they will suffer an injury. In his statements previously, the Minister seemed to think that this particular staff were very anxious to go into the Civil Service. I do not know whether that is true about the whole of them. Certainly, these I.R.A. men, unless this amendment is passed, will suffer a definite injury and it is to avoid this injury I put down this amendment.

The previous amendments were concerned with just securing that men transferred would not suffer in their salary and other rights. This is something that will happen even if this is effected, as the Minister says it will be. When these men get their first pay order for military service pension, they will find a deduction on it, because they are being paid now from public funds. To my mind that is an obvious wrong which should be remedied. There is no reason on earth why those few men should be the only sufferers. If this amendment is not passed, and taking the Minister's statement as right, they will be the only sufferers. They are being put into the Civil Service whether they like it or not: they have no option, unless they throw up their job which, of course, nobody can afford to do, due to economic stress. As they would indirectly suffer this loss of pay, it is only common justice that this amendment should be accepted. There is no reason why Old I.R.A. men, of all people, should be picked out as the only class that will suffer. That will be the case, even though their pay remains the same, unless this amendment is passed.

This deduction from pension on people in public employment is inequitable at any time, but it is a grave injustice if it is forced on men who are being put into the Civil Service without any personal say on their own part, men who do not go in from choice just to get a job, but who have been transferred. I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. McGrath

I would like to support Deputy Colley's amendment and I think he has reasoned it very clearly. These people in their present employment have the privileges of the rest of the staff and also have the full pension awarded for their services to this country that put the State in the position it is in at present. I cannot see why they should be placed now in the position that anything they earn over £250 per annum will be abated to a certain degree. We all know that £250 at present is a very low rate. It is entirely wrong and unjust and I am sure the Minister will give consideration to this point and see that those men are put in the same position as regards their pensions as they were in under the society. They are not a very big body, the number will be diminishing year by year, but it is wrong that those who did so much and made such sacrifices should be the only people in the national health organisation to be penalised in this way. I appeal to the Minister to look into it. It will not involve much money and he may reconsider his decision and admit this amendment.

Mr. C. Lehane

At the risk of leaving myself open again to the charge of blowing hot and cold, I say that I am in complete agreement with what is sought to be achieved by this amendment; but again, subject to what the Minister has to say, I still am faced with the same difficulty as when we discussed amendment No. 4, namely, the creation of different conditions for one set of civil servants inside the Civil Service. I agree with Deputy Colley that it could be described as inequitable at any time to make these deductions from civil servants who are in receipt of service pensions. Deputy Colley was here for a considerable number of years when these deductions were being made and this is the first occasion that reference has been made to that inequity.

It would appear to me that this is a situation which flows naturally from the inclusion of these people in the general State service. What I would suggest to the Minister, if I am right in assuming that he cannot accept this amendment, is that he is bound to find some other method whereby they will be compensated. That may be by a lump sum payment, by payment of a capital sum in respect of what they will lose, or by some other method. The Minister should bring some proposal before the House to ensure that those in receipt of service pensions, and going into the service of the State from the society, will not lose. I do not know what method would commend itself to the Minister as the best to achieve that purpose. Frankly — and I am being perfectly honest in this——

Mr. MacEntee

Do not strain yourself.

Mr. C. Lehane

I would not attempt to convince Deputy MacEntee of that but there is, perhaps, a latent honesty in the other Deputies in his Party that I can recognise with my honest qualities. I say quite sincerely that I do not think the amendment could achieve what the Deputy hopes to achieve by it. In the first place, I see the difficulties in which the Minister would find himself if he accepted it. Perhaps Deputies would join with me in getting the Minister to meet the point by some other method, by a lump sum or an alteration of the regulation. I suggest commutation by way of a lump sum would be the best method. The Minister must see to it that these people will not suffer. Perhaps he could tell us how many people are affected.

Mr. Norton

I investigated this matter when the amendment was submitted and, so far as I can gather, there are not many persons affected by it. I have a certain sympathy with the amendment. This whole Bill has been framed on the basis that I do not want to do any conscious injustice to anybody who is transferred from the society into the Department. I take it the object of the amendment is to ensure that any persons so transferred will not lose by reason of the transfer. It is possible to get adjustment in that direction so as to avoid any loss.

If Deputy Colley, Deputy Lehane and Deputy McGrath are concerned with making sure that the person who is transferred from the society to the Department will not suffer any monetary loss by reason of the abatement of his pension, I will undertake to look into that matter between now and the Report Stage in order to see if it is possible to provide compensation in some other way. I take it the Deputies are mainly concerned that the man gets his compensation and if he gets it Deputies do not mind in what particular way it is done. If that is agreeable, perhaps the Deputy will withdraw his amendment. I will look into the matter before the Report Stage and if I do not submit an amendment designed to give him compensation for what he may lose, I will give the Deputy an opportunity of resubmitting his amendment.

Captain Cowan

The Minister might consider placing the number who are affected — I do not think there are very many — in the Civil Service at a higher incremental point. That probably would be a way out. I understand that when some of these people were introduced into the society they were introduced at a wage——

Mr. Norton

If I did what the Deputy has suggested, the pension would be abated still further.

Captain Cowan

——leaving him in a position that he will draw weekly or monthly the same amount of money, or perhaps a little more. I understand when certain Old I.R.A. men were taken into the society as employees their pensions at the time were taken into account. That was some years ago. Then they paid them a scale of wages which, added to their pensions, left them with a small weekly wage. There was one man taken in at a wage of 34/- a week which, added to his pension, left him with a certain small weekly wage. That case was fought for a long period of years before it was corrected.

So far as Deputy Colley is concerned, he has achieved his purpose in the promise of the Minister to consider how he can best reconcile the position of these particular people in the Civil Service with their National Health Insurance Society income and their pension combined. I suppose it is too much to hope that this whole matter of abatement and deduction from military service pensions will be considered by the Government, but, if the Government were to take the broad policy of ending these abatements, it would solve this particular problem. I do not agree that it is a dear way. I understand the amount involved in all the deductions would not be very considerable. I understand that something in the nature of £20,000 would cover the entire figure.

Mr. MacEntee

Less than that, I am certain.

Captain Cowan

Or perhaps less than that. We did hope last year that certain representations made to the Government and to the Minister for Defence would result in this problem being settled and these abatements or deductions done away with. This amendment may bring the matter to light again, and perhaps the Minister might offer as a solution a recommendation to the Government that as far as the Civil Service is concerned these abatements or deductions should be stopped.

Mr. Briscoe

When Deputy Colley moved this amendment he made a forthright case and it was interesting to hear Deputy Lehane, who again gave us an exhibition of acrobatics. He said he was in favour of the amendment.

Mr. C. Lehane

Of what it sought to achieve.

Mr. Briscoe

Then he put forward every conceivable argument why it should not be accepted and next he proceeded to tell us how sincere and honest he was in spite of the peculiar situation. The Minister made what we on this side of the House are quite prepared to accept as a reasonable gesture. We recognise the difficulties. The Minister quite reasonably said that he would examine the whole matter and if he cannot find a way of meeting Deputy Colley the amendment can be put down again for the Report Stage. We accept that. Does Deputy Lehane not now realise that if he supported amendment No. 4 he would be supporting what this amendment purports to do?

Mr. C. Lehane

We spent a long time on amendment No. 4. I listened to Deputy Briscoe's arguments already and I should not be expected to listen to them again.

Mr. Norton

Will this offer of mine be accepted or are we to have acrimony plus the offer?

Mr. MacEntee

Wait just a minute.

Mr. Norton

I will not wait too long.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

The Opposition have agreed to accept this offer?

Mr. Briscoe

We were prepared to agree in response to the Minister's gesture. At the time, it looked as if the Minister were about to give a certain reconsideration to the matter and then we had Deputy Cowan getting away from the whole idea at the back of this proposal. What we are concerned with is the fact that a certain limited number of people are being transferred into the State service, not because they desire it and not because they made any request for it, but because an Act of Parliament is being passed. We have all the time tried to argue that their conditions should not be worsened. We discussed on amendment No. 4 ways and means of calculating their entry into the Civil Service so that they would not be worse off ultimately or immediately, and we discussed on the amendment previous to this the pension which would accrue to an individual as a result of his service. Deputy Cowan argues against the sense of this amendment by saying that the National Health Insurance Society calculated a person's military service pension for the purpose of giving him an appointment at a lower rate of pay.

Captain Cowan

That is correct.

Mr. C. Lehane

He was merely showing what you did when you had the power.

Mr. Larkin

I had to make the case to get him an increase of wages and I was told that his pension was taken into consideration.

Mr. C. Lehane

Deputy Cowan put you in the dock.

Mr. Briscoe

He has made the case that when the society appointed people——

Captain Cowan

I said an individual — one I can stand over.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know of that case, but I do know that persons of that type, persons enjoying a military service pension, will, the moment they are taken in, have to suffer an abatement. We feel that their conditions should not be worsened and the Minister has said all along that he has taken every care to examine the matter to ensure that in no circumstances will any individual, so far as he can avoid it, be any worse off now or in the future. Here are people who are going to be immediately worse off and I rather feel that, when Deputy Lehane gets up and says he agrees with the principle of the amendment but that for this and that reason he does not think the Minister could accept it, he is putting himself back into the position he was in at the end of the discussion on his own amendment.

Mr. C. Lehane

Is the Deputy annoyed because Deputy Lehane made a suggestion which the Minister could consider?

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Lehane got up here——

Mr. C. Lehane

Because that would appear to be the case.

Mr. Briscoe

——and, although not moving his own amendment, said that subject to the Minister's giving him a satisfactory answer about the type of person I mentioned, he would consider not moving or withdrawing his amendment, but, not having got that assurance from the Minister, he nevertheless did not move his amendment.

Mr. C. Lehane

He did get an assurance.

Mr. Briscoe

He got no assurance.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

It does not arise now.

Mr. Briscoe

I am discussing the approach to this matter because it is one about which we are serious.

Acting-Chairman

Let us get back to amendment No. 8.

Mr. C. Lehane

Would I be in order in asking the Deputy if he is accepting the offer made by the Minister or not?

Acting-Chairman

Deputy Briscoe will please get back to amendment No. 8.

Mr. Briscoe

Amendment No. 8 makes a specific request, that a certain limited number of individuals at present in the employment of the society will be taken over and established in the Government service as civil servants on the basis of their present salary and status and that the military service pension will not be taken into account, so that if Deputy Cowan and Deputy Larkin are correct in saying that, when they were appointed to the society, their military service pensions were calculated as part of their earnings, they are very definitely going to suffer an even greater injustice than was envisaged by the mover of the amendment.

Mr. Larkin

You are going around in circles.

Mr. Briscoe

That is all the more reason why, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment because of the existing situation, they should be moved up to the level of their existing salary, plus pension, for the purpose of being taken in.

Mr. Davern

I regret that the Minister is unable to accept the amendment, but I appreciate his approach to the matter and the assurance he has given. I hope he will be able to find a way out which will satisfy everybody concerned that Old I.R.A. men who are fortunate enough to be in positions of this kind will not lose any money. I feel certain that if the Minister has difficulties in the matter, the Old I.R.A. men who are Deputies will stand behind him. If they do not, they ought to forget about talking of ever having been in the Irish Republican Army.

Mention was made here of a privileged class. I say that the Minister would be fully entitled, and nobody in this country could dare to question his right, to make the Old I.R.A. men who are in this service a privileged class because they deserve it. But for them, this House would not be discussing a proposal of this kind. All this matter would be under discussion in the British Parliament, were it not for the Old I.R.A. men to whom this amendment refers. I regret that I cannot agree with Deputy Cowan that sane sensible and Christian men in the National Health Insurance Society ever took into consideration the Old I.R.A. man's pension. They did not think Deputy Cowan believed in fairy tales, but it strikes me that he does. Again, I want to say that I appreciate the Minister's approach to this matter.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to be a little clearer about this matter. I do not know precisely why Deputy Lehane should be so anxious that it should be withdrawn and that we should not have a more explicit understanding than we have had so far as to what the Minister intends to do. Some suggestions have been thrown across the House, one of them by Deputy Cowan, and Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Davern have pointed out that there were certain difficulties which would be created by the adoption of Deputy Cowan's proposal, and the Minister himself has pointed out that, so far from helping the situation, his proposal would in fact probably make it worse for the person concerned. There is no doubt whatever that if a servant or officer of the society who is in receipt of a military service pension is brought into the service of the State, his position, so far from being improved, as the Minister told us, will be definitely worsened. Of that there is no doubt. It will be worsened to the extent that his pension which he now enjoys in full will be substantially abated. That is the problem. It is not a question of whether we are going to embarrass the Minister or not but whether we are going to do something practical to ensure that his position will not be worsened and what is practical is embodied in the amendment. Deputy Lehane shakes his head. The Deputy is a neophyte in this House. He has been three years in it. There are members here who have been Ministers and there are members who are Ministers and they know that this amendment could be accepted. If Deputy Lehane has the courage of his convictions and Deputy Cowan has the courage of his and the Labour Party are prepared to do what they were always pretending they wanted to do, there would be no difficulty; the Minister would have no difficulty in impressing his colleagues with the fact that he must accept the amendment.

It does not depend on us whether this amendment is accepted or not. We are a minority. You are the gentlemen who keep the Government in power. You are the gentlemen who can write the law and if you really believe that it is unjust that a man in receipt of a military service pension in the service of the National Health Insurance Society will have that pension abated when he comes into the service of the State, you are the gentlemen who can ensure that that injustice will not be done. It is on your heads that that injustice will rest, if it is perpetrated.

It is all very well for Deputies to get up and talk about sympathy. You are the people who are in a position to call the tune. It is your votes that are paying the piper. Every Old I.R.A. man who is in the service of the National Health Insurance Society and who is brought into the service of the State and who suffers in consequence — if he should suffer, and I hope he will not — can place the responsibility squarely on your shoulders.

Deputy Lehane has said that this matter was not dealt with before in this House. It was dealt with in this House before. It was dealt with in an amendment to the Military Service Pensions Act and the hardship which was embodied in the 1924 Pensions Act was mitigated to some extent in this House and there is no use twitting Deputy Colley or myself or any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party that we did not abolish the injustice altogether.

Mr. C. Lehane

You had a majority.

Mr. MacEntee

We tried to do it but we know that when we brought in the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, we were told by the gentlemen whom Deputy Lehane is now supporting that we were bringing in that Act to compensate murderers, looters and bank robbers.

Mr. C. Lehane

The Deputy obviously is not interested in the Old I.R.A. men. He is interested in scoring political points.

Dr. Maguire

In view of the fact that civil servants have their salaries abated in respect of I.R.A. pensions, I was rather surprised that that matter was not taken into account in the drafting of this Bill dealing with employees of the National Health Insurance Society who are in receipt of Old I.R.A. pensions. One must admit that there will have to be a departure in legislation. In my opinion, those people in the employment of the National Health Insurance Society who have had this privilege should continue to have it even though they are transferred to the Civil Service, and I am very glad we have had an indication of the Minister's future approach to the matter.

Dr. Ryan

There was a suggestion made by Deputy Cowan that the person might be brought in at a point in the salary scale an increment or two higher than he otherwise would get. At first sight, that might look good. But, take that person four or five years later, when he reaches the maximum. Then, of course, he has no further advantage. In addition, when he reaches the maximum, there will be a bigger reduction, so that it will only be a temporary advantage.

Captain Cowan

The more salary you give, the greater the abatement.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite true.

Captain Cowan

It depends on the amount of the pension.

Dr. Ryan

It will only cover the matter for four or five years.

Mr. Norton

I want to try to avoid any hardship arising in a case of this kind and I will look at the matter to see what it is possible to do. I take it I am correctly interpreting the wishes of the House in saying that what we want to aim at is to prevent the person suffering any cash loss.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Norton

If that can be done, it does not matter what way it will be done. I will look at it from that angle.

Captain Cowan

When I made the suggestion of a person coming in at a higher incremental point, I regarded that as a possible means of solving this particular question. I understand that the average of military service pensions is less than £50.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know what the average is.

Captain Cowan

Let us look at it from that point of view. I think Deputy Dr. Ryan's observations are concerned with persons with a much higher pension.

Dr. Ryan

It does not matter about the height of the pension. It is the height of the salary that makes the difference.

Mr. Briscoe

Some of these men may have more than that.

Captain Cowan

There is hardly any necessity to say it, but what the Minister would really want to know is how many persons are involved and what the amounts of their pensions are. Probably, if we had that information before us, we would have no trouble in arriving at some equitable solution.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps so.

Captain Cowan

To some extent we are in the dark. There may be ten, 20 or 25 persons concerned.

Dr. Maguire

I do not think the number matters.

Mr. C. Lehane

Could the Minister give us that information?

Mr. Norton

The only information we have so far is that we can trace three people who will be affected by it in varying degrees. They become affected, not because of the amount of their service pension, but because of the amount of their official remuneration. I take it, in any case, that if we admit the principle of compensating them, it does not matter whether we have to deal with ten or 20. It is the principle I am concerned about.

Mr. Briscoe

Quite right.

Mr. Norton

Somebody at a later date may get a pension.

Captain Cowan

It is unlikely.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Ryan

When I put down amendment No. 9, I thought that the Dáil would be wise enough to accept amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. As the section stands now, all these amendments having been rejected, more or less, I do not think there is very much that can arise for arbitration.

Mr. Norton

In fact, there will not be any difficulty in any case.

Dr. Ryan

If I were dealing with the section as it is, I would have worded my amendment somewhat differently. On that account, I would like to withdraw the amendment, to consider whether it would be necessary to put in a somewhat similar amendment or not.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cowan

I mentioned last night cases of part-time or temporary outdoor agents in the country and I set out, from the communication I received, a list of duties performed by these individuals. Apparently, the average remuneration is £5 per week, out of which they have to pay rent, fire and light of office, postage and travelling expenses. This may be an opportunity for the Minister to say whether there will be an improvement in the conditions of employment of these particular agents and whether or not the responsibility for office accommodation and postage will be a charge on the Department of Social Welfare or on the wages and salary of these outdoor agents. Notwithstanding what Deputy Davern said about the Christian gentlemen who control the National Health Insurance Society, I think the terms and conditions under which some of these people have to serve, if the information given to me by the Connaught provincial committee of rural agents is correct, are neither very good nor very Christian. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that matter.

Mr. Lynch

Last night I mentioned specifically the question of the promotion bar within the Civil Service. I appreciated then, and still appreciate, that the Minister will have some difficulty in overcoming that problem when transferring these officers from the society to the Civil Service. The Minister is aware that there are promotion bars between the clerical grade, the executive grade and the administrative grade in the Civil Service. The Minister has assured us that these officers will not suffer financially on transfer. That can easily be understood. I mentioned earlier a deputation that visited the various political Parties. That deputation put before our Party the problem of promotion and I thought, having personal knowledge of the position, that this would create considerable difficulty for the Minister. The Minister told us last night there would be no difficulty from the financial point of view, but he made no attempt to explain how the problem of promotion would be overcome.

The members of the staff of the society are apprehensive and I presume there will be a corresponding apprehension within the Civil Service itself in case society employees on transfer may enjoy any special privileges in regard to the promotion bar. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate, now or at a later stage, how he proposes to overcome that difficulty.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Cowan has raised the position of the provincial agents with special reference to the agents in Connaught. The conditions of agents in Connaught are substantially similar in general practice to those of agents appointed elsewhere. I do not for a moment accept the computations made by the individual who corresponded with Deputy Cowan. What I said on the Second Stage and during the discussions on the Committee Stage still stands. Their conditions of employment and their wages will not be worsened on transfer to the Civil Service.

Captain Cowan

They could not very well be worsened.

Mr. Norton

I am not responsible for their present conditions. On transfer, I take it that whatever the Deputy's correspondent spent on postage, and he made a fairly substantial tot when he went about it, will become the responsibility of the Department. I imagine the same will be true as regards accommodation. There is probably some prospect there that he may get relief from the impost he put on himself by letter, at all events, when he was communicating with the Deputy. I do not think this provides an occasion for any dismal foreboding on his part and he may reasonably look forward to some improvement under both these headings.

Deputy Lynch dealt with the promotion problem as it affects the staff of the National Health Insurance Society. I do not know where the Deputy got the information that has bewildered him so completely in this matter. For the benefit of the Deputy, I shall make another disadvantageous tot from my point of view. If we throw into one pool the junior clerical and the clerical staff of the society, men and women, and throw into the other pool the higher posts for which they would be eligible for promotion we get a situation in which the prospects of promotion are at present one in six in the National Health Insurance Society while, in the Department of Social Welfare, the prospects of promotion for a clerical officer are now one in four and, when the employment branch staff are included, the prospects of promotion will be one in three. There is nothing to prevent a clerical officer being promoted to the rank of minor staff officer, staff officer and junior executive officer. Once the staff of the National Health Insurance Society qualify for promotion in accordance with conditions of service and ability there is nothing to prevent their being promoted.

Mr. Lynch

There are examinations in the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

In some cases there are examinations and in others there are not.

Mr. Lynch

One in 1,000 may be promoted directly from clerical to executive.

Mr. Norton

In the last seven or eight years 178 persons were appointed as a result of examination. Here I am comparing the prospects of promotion for clerical officers in the Department with clerical officers in the National Health Insurance Society; you have one in four in the Department and one in six in the society. Which is better? It is as clear as daylight that the opportunities for promotion are better in the Department than they are in the society. Remember, too, that the Department is taking over the posts in the society to which these people are now eligible for promotion and they will remain eligible for promotion to them in the future. You could not have less from the point of view of opportunities for promotion. How are their prospects curtailed in any way? Bear in mind, too, that this is an expanding Department. In face of these figures, I invite the Deputy to tell me in what way their opportunities are worsened.

Mr. Lynch

I do not think we are arguing on all-fours. I agree that the prospects of promotion may be better but as the Minister is aware, once an employee comes into the staff of the National Health Insurance Society he can be promoted on merit right through to the top. Once he is transferred into the general service clerical officer grade, as is apparently now envisaged, he will go into a much larger pool than merely a pool within the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Norton

With much greater opportunities for promotion.

Mr. Lynch

As I pointed out last night, serving civil servants up to the age of 25 have the same rights as new entrants up to the age of 19 or 20 in the open competitive examination for appointment to the junior executive grade. Over and above that, there are limited examinations within the Civil Service, by means of which clerical officers can be promoted to the junior executive grade. These examinations, as I said last night, are run in two heats. First of all, there is the departmental qualifying examination which is by way of interview. These candidates are selected by the departmental board and are then put forward to take their chance with the over-all Civil Service Board who again examine all the candidates put forward by the various Departments and only a limited number of the successful ones are appointed to the junior executive grade. It does not necessarily mean that a clerical officer who comes from the Department of Social Welfare will be appointed a junior executive officer in his own Department.

Mr. Norton

The type of examination through which he is brought is held only for vacancies within the Department. These other vacancies occur outside the Department.

Mr. Lynch

I do not think the Minister is quite right in that.

Mr. Norton

All right. Check it up.

Mr. Lynch

I can check it up. The successful candidate in these limited examinations may be appointed to any Department. I put it to the Minister, and I put it confidently, that there would be no limited examinations for promotions within the Department of Social Welfare. I never heard of it and I spent some time in the Civil Service. The reason I am insistent on that is that I should like again to refer to the deputation which came to all Parties. The Minister said that these members of the National Health Insurance Society staff were reassured by whatever guarantees he gave them. Nevertheless, our Party being the last Party before whom these people came, the members of that deputation expressed their concern about the promotion bar and it is as a result of that concern that I am raising this question. I do not think, with all respect to the Minister, that he is quite right in his approach to the question.

Mr. Norton

You can check up between the one in three and the one in six.

Mr. MacEntee

I was rather astonished at the flippancy with which the Minister disposed of the representations which Deputy Cowan made on behalf of rural agents. Listening to him when he protested that he was not responsible for the salaries which they now enjoy, it rather reminded me of a historical hand-washing operation because, after all, the Tánaiste is the Minister who is responsible for the National Health Insurance Society. When I was speaking last night on Deputy Dr. Ryan's amendment No. 4, he endeavoured to make the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health for the administration of the society very specific and very definite. He asked me if I would not go to the people who had come to me and asked me to make their case, and ask them whether they did not prefer his method of dealing with it to my method. I see in that an admission that the Tánaiste, had he wished to improve the conditions of any officer or servant of the National Health Society, could have done so by personal interference on his part. That is the suggestion he was making last night. To-day, however, when Deputy Cowan draws his attention to the position of certain outdoor servants of the society who operate in Connaught, he disclaims responsibility. He treats the matter with a jocoseness that ill becomes the Tánaiste, who was at one time the chairman of the Labour Party and who is supposed to be concerned with the position of the under-privileged classes, as he would probably describe them, in the State. To-day they were the subject of fun for the Tánaiste. He was able to speak of their condition with a great deal of complacency, and apparently with some amusement and enjoyment, when he was discussing the matter with Deputy Cowan. What a change has come over the Tánaiste since he was translated from these benches to the opposite benches! When he was here, how his poor heart used to bleed for the temporary postmen who enjoy possibly better conditions than these men!

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And who are not mentioned in this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

No, Sir, but I am merely contrasting the changed attitude of Deputy Norton as Tánaiste with the attitude of Deputy Norton as Leader of the Labour Party. I seldom have seen such a cold, callous exhibition, such cynical indifference.

Mr. Norton

Has Barnum finished now?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Norton

Barnum is like Tennyson's brook.

Mr. MacEntee

No, I am not. I merely smile at the air of resignation with which the Tánaiste was listening to what I had to say. Let me get back to the aspect of the matter which the Tánaiste apparently wishes the House to ignore and forget. If this statement is true and I have not had an opportunity of checking up on it — I will accept it at its face value — the position appears to be that a rural agent engaged upon what would appear to be——

Mr. Norton

May I put this point of order? I have no responsibility for the recruitment or payment of staff employed by the National Health Insurance Society except the secretary and the assistant secretary and I cannot be made responsible in this House for whatever wages they get to-day or whatever conditions they enjoy to-day. These are matters entirely reserved by an Act passed by the Fianna Fáil Government to the committee of management of the National Health Insurance Society. This is all buffoonery.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps it is but it has served its purpose. It has wrung an admission from the Tánaiste in this House and it is now on record and can be contrasted with what he said last night. Last night he endeavoured to mislead the members of the National Health Insurance Society as to what my responsibility in relation to the affairs of the society was in the past.

Mr. Norton

I did not want to put this point in this manner. Deputy MacEntee accuses me of treating lightly the representations which were made by Deputy Cowan. Deputy Cowan read a letter last night in which certain statements were made which I do not think accurately represent the conditions of the people so employed. I have no responsibility for the conditions of employment of that staff. They are quite entitled to be in a trade union and to bring their case before the committee of management and to bring their case before the Labour Court. If they do, unlike Deputy MacEntee when he was Minister for Local Government, I will not send an officer of my Department down to justify the sweated conditions as I told the staff of the National Health Insurance Society when they asked me to intervene and ask for increased wages.

I said: "The Labour Court is open to you. Go to the Labour Court and make your case there." They said: "If we do, the Department will send down an officer to plead that the Department has no money because it has exceeded its administrative expenses. Deputy MacEntee when he was Minister for Local Government did that." I said: "I will not do it. If you make your case before the Labour Court and the Labour Court makes an award, we will find the money to meet that award." That is a contrast to that high priest of low wages over there. The Deputy should be ashamed.

Mr. MacEntee

Now we are getting the Minister out of his hole. What he said was quite true. I had my duty as Minister for Local Government and Public Health responsible to ensure that the funds provided by the beneficiaries would be managed and expended for their benefit. There are 640,000 persons who are compelled by law to pay into the funds of that society. I said to the officers of the society who I thought were going to deflect from their duty in relation to the members of the society that I felt that if the Labour Court is there, they could not allow any claims before that Labour Court to go by default, and so far as claims were made which would entrench upon the funds of the society, in my opinion, the committee of management were bound to go there and as representatives of the members of the society adduce arguments which would protect the funds of the beneficiaries. That is what I did and I did not, in order to curry favour with the members of the society or of the general public, fail to do my duty as the Minister failed to do his duty in that case.

Mr. Davern

I am afraid that Deputy Cowan was trying to get me on the wrong foot when I stated in this House when previous amendments were being discussed that I did not believe in fairy tales and that I thought Deputy Cowan did not believe in fairy tales. I was speaking with perfect knowledge that nobody could have truthfully told Deputy Cowan that he had 34/- a week pension and because of that the society said that they would only give him so much. That, in effect, is the story which was told to Deputy Cowan and I would like to disabuse his mind of that. I would like to tell him also that I was not defending the society for the wages paid. I am not concerned about whether they pay high or low wages, I am concerned about correcting Deputy Cowan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is the transfer of officers and employees of the society. What happened before is surely not relevant and we should confine the discussion to what is in the section.

Mr. Davern

It really deals with the transfer of employees and the conditions of employment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not deal with the conditions of employment.

Mr. Davern

It does deal with conditions. I was making clear to the House that the statement made was not correct because no inspector of the society could have gone to anybody in this country and said: "Because you have 34/- a week you will only get so much." Agents are paid fees per card at a flat rate and are not paid a salary.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 10 may not be moved as it is contrary to the terms of the Money Resolution.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Question —"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11 may not be moved as it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Question —"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

SECTION 12

Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacEntee

Section 12 is a section which, if you remember, relates to the reserve fund. I asked for information about the guarantee fund, as to what it was, and I was given an explanation by the Minister which appears in columns 246-7 in Volume 120, No. 2, of the Official Debates and is as follows:

"The Deputy is a very knowledgeable person and, no doubt, reading a Bill presents no difficulty to him."

It does not.

"If he reads the remainder of the Bill before him he will see what the guarantee fund is."

I read the remainder of the Bill and I could not see what the guarantee fund was and neither could any Deputy in this House see what the guarantee fund was. The Minister went on:

"In case the Deputy is not able to grasp the Bill, may I tell him that the guarantee fund is a fund created by the 1911 Act, which he apparently administered for a long number of years without knowing anything about it? The fund is designed to make good deficits in particular societies which then existed separately. I shall endeavour to have this written for the Deputy in simpler language, and submit it to him well in advance of the Committee Stage, so that he can discuss it to his heart's content."

The reason I raise that matter is to show that if I did administer the Act for a long number of years I knew something about it and I would at least have had the good manners, if I were Minister and were asked a question, to reply to it more politely than the Minister has done. On the following day I pointed out what, in fact, the fund was to which the Minister had referred in the passage I have just quoted. I now quote from column 360 of Volume 120, No. 3, of the Official Debates. I said:

"It is quite clear that what the Minister had in mind when he was talking about this was not the guarantee fund to which I referred, but a fund that was originally set up and called the central fund. That was a fund designed precisely for the purpose which he mentioned. I think that fund was set up under the Act of 1918. The purpose of the fund was to provide a sort of general reserve for all the approved societies from which, if the valuation of the assets of any society disclosed a deficit greater than the resources of the society, or the capacity of its members, would enable that to be liquidated within a reasonable term, the resources of the society could then be supplemented."

My purpose then, in dealing with a somewhat complicated matter, was to put it in simple language. I now come to the document which the Tánaiste, apparently at my insistence, has had written out in simple language and submitted to me well in advance of the Committee Stage. I find from it this reference to Section 12 of the Bill:

"There are also invested moneys under the National Health Insurance Acts held by the Minister for Finance on behalf of the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund set up under Section 6 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1942. This fund was the successor to the National Health Insurance Central Fund set up by the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, for the purpose of making good deficiencies arising in individual societies on the quinquennial valuation of their assets and liabilities. On the dissolution of the National Health Insurance Society no purpose would be achieved by maintaining the National Health Insurance Reserve Fund as a separate entity and, accordingly, Section 12 of the Bill provides for the merging of its investments with those of the National Health Insurance Fund under the control of the Minister for Finance."

Now all I have to say about that is that, I think I have conclusively proved that, in administering this Act, I knew a little bit about it, something more than the Tánaiste knew at any rate.

Mr. Norton

I doubt if you knew it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacEntee

On Section 13, I wish to deal with a remark of the Tánaiste so that we may have it on record that the reflection which he cast upon my knowledge and information on this matter was without any sound foundation. It is an animadversion upon myself, and as it appears in the Official Report, I think I am entitled to say that I did know what I was talking about and that it was the Tánaiste who did not know what he was talking about. Having recited Section 26 of the Act of 1911 which is. I think, referred to in the interpretation section of the Bill, I am reported at column 359 of the Dáil debates for the 30th March last as saying:

"Will any Deputy tell me that he heard me mention the words "guarantee fund" once while I recited the terms of that section under which the Minister tells us this fund was set up? The fund, perhaps, was set up under regulations made by the National Health Insurance Commissioners of Ireland, in the first place, and then subsequently modified and amended by the Minister for Local Government."

Now, there was just one slight inaccuracy in what I said. I said, if I remember, that the fund was set up by regulation. The fund originally, according to the memorandum which the Tánaiste has circulated, "was not set up by regulation but was set up by an administrative act of the commissioners. The provisions regarding the fund appear, however, in the National Health Insurance (Approved Societies) Consolidated Regulations, 1918." I did know a little about this Act when I was speaking on the Second Stage, and the lesson in zoology which the Tánaiste gave to the House when he was concluding the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill was a little bit misplaced. I see here, because I asked him a question, that he had the graciousness to characterise me as an elephant.

Mr. Norton

No, I said you had not the qualifications of the elephant: that he did not forget but that you did.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, now, it appears that I had the qualifications of the elephant because I did not forget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Elephants are not in order on this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

The thing about elephants is that they are rotund, corpulent and have got a head of ivory.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 12:—

After "him" where it firstly occurs in line 37 to insert "for the benefit of the fund".

I am not so certain, looking at the section, that the draftsmanship is not ambiguous because it says:—

"Notwithstanding any other provision of the Acts, all sums standing to the credit of the fund and not required to meet current expenditure shall be paid over to the Minister for Finance and retained by him until they are so required, and while such moneys are retained by the Minister for Finance, they shall be invested by him..."

My difficulty is this: If the society is transferred to the Minister, as it will be under this Bill and if all the officers of the society become civil servants, surely all the salaries and charges of the society will become charges on voted moneys. Therefore, all that it would appear could happen would be that all the moneys collected by way of weekly contributions from the members must be paid into the fund in the first place, and must remain there with the Minister in order to meet the demands of the beneficiaries of the society and to meet the salaries and wages of the society. That would appear to be the position, but whether it is or is not, what we want to ensure is that, where the society has a surplus income over and above current expenditure, howsoever that current expenditure is to be provided, these moneys will be invested by the Minister for the benefit of the fund. It is not clear from the section as it stands that the Minister will in fact invest the moneys for the benefit of the fund. He can invest them for the general benefit of the State, I think, as the section stands. We want to ensure that that will not happen and that a position will be created analogous to that of the Teachers' Pensions Fund where the moneys are invested and the income is used as an Appropriation-in-Aid towards meeting the cost of teachers' pensions.

Mr. Moran

I want to know whether a proportion of these funds is going to be used for the purpose of dealing with claims of Irish workmen in Great Britain who may have met with an accident and come under the British code, where there is no workmen's compensation now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not get in by a side-wind what was ruled out in the amendment which he submitted. We are dealing with amendment No. 12.

Mr. Moran

Surely I am entitled to inquire what portion of these funds——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Moran allow the Chair to speak? We are dealing with the amendment and only with the amendment and I will not allow any Deputy to get in by a side-wind anything which was ruled out.

Mr. Norton

I think it is clear what the section means. The intention is, and I think the phrasing of the section implements the intention, that the Minister for Finance is to invest for the benefit of the fund, under regulations to be made by him, whatever surplus is not required for the purpose of paying benefit under the fund. If, however, there should be any doubt in the matter, we could put in a phrase such as "on behalf of the funds" so as to make it clear beyond all possible doubt that the Minister was required to invest the money on behalf of the fund. A somewhat similar reference occurs in Sections 9 and 10, and we can carry it into this section if there should be any doubt as to the intention with reference to the investment. What is being done here is what is being done at present under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, namely, whatever moneys are not required for the payment of benefit are switched to the Minister for Finance to invest these surplus moneys on behalf of the fund. That is done under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act and it is proposed to bring the National Health Insurance Fund into line.

Mr. MacEntee

I am grateful to the Minister for going so far to meet me. Will he be good enough to say if this is the phraseology used in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act —"on behalf of the fund"?

Mr. Norton

I am not quite sure whether that is exactly the phrase used, but it is used in Sections 9 and 10 of this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

As it is for the sake of getting uniformity of expression, I will agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norton

Will the House agree to the words "on behalf of the fund" being put in now or shall I move an amendment on the Report Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Minister had better move it on the Report Stage.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 13:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Any regulation made by the Minister for Finance under the foregoing sub-section shall be laid on the Table of the Dáil and shall become operative if not rescinded by a resolution of the Dáil within 21 days.

I think it is only natural that this amendment, which provides for the tabling of any regulations made by the Minister under Section 14, should be accepted. It is a fairly general proviso. It does not cause any great difficulty, but it enables the House to keep these matters under supervision.

Mr. Norton

It is against our normal pattern. What we do is to give the Minister authority to do certain things subject to the making of a regulation which has to be laid on the Table of the House and may be annulled within 21 days. The Deputy wants to put that in reverse and no case has been made for putting it in reverse.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Minister will agree that that is the favourite approach of the Opposition. We will defer to him and accept the other one.

Mr. Norton

Then I will move an amendment on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Moran

I want to inquire from the Minister what portions of these funds will be devoted to claims arising from people being injured in Great Britain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I warned Deputy Moran before that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with rates of benefit. He was written to and told that his amendment was out of order because of that. Now he is endeavouring to get in on the section, which does not contain a word about benefits, the subject matter of the amendment which was ruled out of order. I will not hear the Deputy on that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 14:—

To delete paragraph (a), lines 48 and 49, and to substitute:—

(a) a sum not exceeding the average yearly net expenditure on the administration of the society for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948.

This is to ensure that, instead of the fixed sum of £215,000, we shall take the average expenditure of the society for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 as the basic figure. I do not know how the sum of £215,000 was arrived at, but I think it is reasonable that we should have regard to the average for the three years, 1946, 1947 and 1948. I think the sum of £215,000 is the lowest sum which has been provided under the Act of 1947.

Mr. Norton

I am afraid the Deputy must not have given the amendment very serious thought. He complains that £215,000 is the lowest sum which has been spent on administration, but, if I accept the amendment, the sum that will appear here is not £215,000 but £175,000 odd. Why he drags it in I do not know.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the point — £175,000.

Mr. Norton

£215,000 is better, because the State pays two-ninths of the £215,000, whereas it will only pay two-ninths of the £175,000.

Mr. MacEntee

The other side of that is that the amount that can be charged against the administration of the Act is £175,000.

Mr. Norton

The sum of £215,000 is put down here because it is the amount actually expended in administration by the society for the year ended 31st March, 1950. There is no question about its being any guess sum. It is actually expended. It goes out on the one hand: it goes in on the other hand. It is an "as-you-were" relationship between the fund and Exchequer until such time as all the funds come into the Department under the comprehensive scheme.

Mr. MacEntee

Is it not the position that when the Minister takes over the society he has to provide for its due and proper administration? Wheresoever he may get the money from, is that not the position? I must say I was a little thrown out of gear at the start. It seldom happens but I think the Minister's simile of the elephant still rankles.

Mr. Norton

Old friends are hard to part with. Remember your white elephants.

Mr. MacEntee

I forgot precisely what I was trying to get at. I am grateful to the Minister because he has now brought the whole thing into proper focus. What I was saying is that under this Bill, as soon as the society is taken over, the Minister for Social Welfare becomes responsible for administering the affairs of the scheme. The society will disappear but he will be responsible for administering the National Health Insurance scheme. He will have to administer it properly and efficiently. The question that arises is this: can we reduce the amount of recoupment which he will secure for the administrative expenses that will inure to the benefit of the fund? We hope, naturally, that this will not be desiccated. We hope it will increase. Therefore, the smaller the liabilities we impose on it for administrative purposes the greater the security the existence of the fund will afford to the people brought into the scheme. For that reason we looked at the three years mentioned here — 1946, 1947 and 1948. We thought that instead of taking the £215,000 as a fixed sum and taking it as the basic amount which must be charged against the fund for the administration of benefits, it would be better to take the average over these years. Some years may be more expensive than others. It is quite a possibility, despite everything, that administrative costs might come down. If they fall below £215,000 then the fund will be carrying an undue debit — it will have to meet an undue debit. For that reason I think it would be rather unfair. Therefore, on the principle that matters should be evened out, taking one year with another, we put down this amendment which provides that the average figure for the three years should be taken.

Mr. Norton

I assure the Deputy that this is only a stop-gap arrangement. When the society comes into the Department it will not be possible to ascertain what sum of money it costs to administer the society in the Department. Costs of administration can be ascertained in the society because the society is doing only National Health Insurance work. When it comes into the Department it will be taken over by the Department and we will not be able to get the figures with that kind of precision. Officers may be doing different classes of work. You will not be able to calculate what percentage of time they will spend on National Health Insurance work and on other work. The best way, therefore, is to find out what it cost the society to run itself in the last ascertainable year, namely, the year ending 31st March, 1950. That figure is going in there. The figure on which the State will pay its 2/9ths grant is the figure for the year ending 31st March, 1950. That was the cost of expenditure last year and we think it is the most reliable index as to what administrative costs will be this year.

At all events, next year this whole business will go by the board. It will all be integrated in an entirely new organisational and financial set-up. This is a device to keep things, as it were, separate until the main scheme comes along. I suggest to the Deputy who, I know, loves to frolic on every possible occasion, to let this amendment go, there being nothing in it one way or the other.

Mr. MacEntee

I am a man open to conviction. In the light of the persuasive words of the Minister I prefer to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy would only be reasonable we would be home at that rate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 15 put and agreed to.

SECTION 16

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

I think amendment No. 15 is consequential on amendment No. 14.

Mr. MacEntee

I will give the Minister his pound of flesh.

Mr. Norton

In any case it is out of order.

Section 16 put and agreed to.

Sections 17 and 18 put and agreed to.

SECTION 19

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 16:—

To delete sub-section (1), lines 27 and 28, and substitute:—

(1) As soon as the next actuarial valuation of the Society has been completed section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1942 (No. 5 of 1942), will cease to have effect.

Before the Minister brings in his full scheme in regard to Social Welfare I think we should have a very fair idea of how all the various funds stand. I think he should allow an actuarial valuation to take place and let us have the benefit of it. Possibly the Minister had a good reason for drafting this section as it is drafted but perhaps he might reconsider the decision and see the value of having one more actuarial valuation before closing down the concern.

Mr. Norton

Let me put some practical considerations to the Deputy. I would recommend that he refer to paragraph 18 of the memorandum which I sent him. The position here is that an actuarial review of the finances of the society on the 31st December, 1940, would not be available until December, 1951, and would not affect the amount to be made available for additional benefits until the year commencing April, 1952—by which time the new scheme would be in operation and special provisions made with regard to what the additional scheme is likely to be. Therefore, even if an actuarial review were held it could not be available until next December twelve months. It would involve a considerable sum of money to have an actuarial review.

I do not know whether the Deputy thinks it would be worth while to undertake an actuarial review which would probably not be available until after the discussion of the main scheme. If it is any help to the Deputy I will undertake, when we get to that stage, to make available to him any information regarding the actuarial position of the society that is available to myself. Perhaps that would meet his point? An actuarial examination undertaken now will not give us figures until December, 1951, but I undertake to ensure that the Deputy will get all the mathematical statistics he wants when we come to discuss the main Bill.

Dr. Ryan

Looking at this explanatory memorandum, it appears that the last actuarial examination was made for the year 1943. That is a long time back. We have no good idea as to how the funds stand, whether the members should be getting a higher rate of benefit or not.

Mr. Norton

I understand the last was 1943. It is over five years. The next is at 1948.

Dr. Ryan

It is useful information to any Minister preparing a comprehensive scheme to know whether the members are getting as high benefits as they are entitled to get, considering the contributions they have been paying. In preparing this scheme it would help the Minister to have an actuarial examination at a later date than 1943. I cannot understand how it could be such a long time. I am sure an actuary could do the job in three or four months and give the result to the Minister. As the Bill stands, these additional benefits will cease after three years—two years from now. The Minister may answer by saying he will have his comprehensive scheme in operation before the expiry of that time. Supposing, however, he has not, if we pass this Bill the additional benefit stops then.

Mr. Norton

What will happen is that there will be another review of the position and money made available. I am sure the Deputy does not want us to expend money for an actuarial examination which may be of no use to us.

Dr. Ryan

It does not cost that much.

Mr. Norton

We might not get it in time. If the Deputy withdraws his amendment, I will look into the matter, to see how far I can meet it, having regard to what he has in mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could we dispose of this before the Adjournment?

Mr. MacEntee

No, as I would like to say a word in relation to what the Tánaiste has said about actuarial valuation. I think the circumstances are different from those of 1943. The valuation referred to there was made by a British actuary. We now have a number of actuaries in the Government service, one of them in the Tánaiste's own Department.

Mr. Norton

And smothered with work. You cannot get him to do more than is physically possible.

Mr. Moran

There will be plenty of time before the new Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again later.