Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 May 1950

Vol. 120 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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.

Mr. MacEntee

The point I wanted to put to the Minister last night was a very simple one. I think he exaggerated the difficulties in regard to the making of an actuarial valuation. The situation is now very different from what it was in 1943. That year, as the Minister is aware, was the height of the war period, when every British Government Department was engaged upon the war effort. For the purpose of having an actuarial valuation made as on the 31st December, 1943, it was necessary for us to have recourse to the British Actuary, as our predecessors had to have recourse before us in relation to the actuarial valuations which they made from time to time. In addition to that, every branch of our own administration was overburdened with the task of dealing with the particular problems thrown up by the war. Because of that it was difficult to procure the data necessary to enable an actuarial valuation to be made.

The position has changed completely since then. It has changed fundamentally. The Minister now has at his disposal in his own Department a qualified actuary; he was formerly an officer of the Department of Finance who, in his own time, qualified as an actuary, and was subsequently released for training in the Office of the British Actuary with a view to making his services available to the Government for the particular purpose provided in the Act of 1942. I suggest it is not really fair to the House or to the public, who will eventually evaluate the proposals the Minister will submit to them for a comprehensive insurance scheme on the basis of the information the Minister will give them and which, in fact, he ought to be supplying to them now.

I have said — and this touches the matter immediately — that the one thing that is lacking in the White Paper which the Minister has published dealing with social security is statistical data upon which an evaluation of that scheme can be made. One of the essential elements in that scheme is the actuarial position of the National Health Insurance Society. These essential facts the members of the Oireachtas and the general public should have before them when they are discussing and criticising the Minister's proposed social welfare scheme. I can see no reason whatsoever for dispensing with the actuarial valuation. On the contrary, I think it is more important than ever that we should have that information. Why was it considered necessary to have the actuarial valuation made in respect of the National Health Insurance Society itself except to demonstrate the fundamental soundness of the scheme originally? Does the Minister now take the view that it does not matter whether his scheme and his proposal are sound or unsound; he will steam-roll them through the Dáil with the support of those elements in the Coalition who are supposed to be business-men and who are supposed to look after the interests of the taxpayers of this country? Is that why he wants to dispense with this?

I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the position and decide that an actuarial valuation will be made as at the 31st December, 1948. That is a very convenient date. It marks, so to speak, the close of one administrative period and the opening of another one. If the actuarial valuation discloses that the position of the society is not as sound as it ought to be, the Minister's predecessors — I am sure he will be glad to hear this — will have to carry the major share of the blame for that. But we are not afraid of this investigation even if it shows us to have been bad administrators; we can be blamed and we are prepared to accept the blame. We want the people to know the truth and to have the facts. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why this essential information should be withheld from them. It is quite easy for the Minister to have that actuarial valuation made. It is essential that it should be made before he prepares a comprehensive social insurance scheme because the rates of contribution must inevitably be based upon the actuarial experience of the National Health Insurance Society. If he does not have that experience properly expressed in actuarial terms, I fail to see how he can prepare any proposals worth the consideration of his colleague, the Minister for Finance. For that reason, therefore, I would very strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment to Section 19 and to delete sub-section (1) as proposed.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

I do not know why Deputy MacEntee is making such a fuss over this amendment. I have explained the position to him. If it were necessary to make this actuarial investigation or if it were of any value for the purposes of the comprehensive scheme I would unhesitatingly assent to the making of such a valuation. But it will have no value whatever for the purposes of the comprehensive scheme because, in the first place, I hope the comprehensive scheme will be in operation long before any such actuarial valuation could be available. Deputy MacEntee is not an actuary, but, of course, he probably knows more about the business than does the actuary himself and he could no doubt regulate the tempo at which actuaries work. I am advised by those in a position to judge that it would take close on three years before such an actuarial examination would be completed. The last actuarial valuation took three years. I am informed by those in a position to judge that a similar examination now would take the same period, with the result that it will be a considerable time before any figures can be obtained as a result of a further actuarial examination. Even making the greatest possible haste, there is no likelihood of figures being available until the end of next year or probably until the following year. What, therefore, is to be gained by making an examination? One purpose perhaps might be to ascertain what is to be the position of the sum of money made available for additional benefits. We can look at that position as we see it to-day. At the moment all the indications are that the funds of the society are now in as good if not a slightly better position as when the last valuation was carried out. There is no reason, therefore, whatever to fear that moneys will not be available to finance the scheme of additional benefits. That scheme of additional benefits is covered in any case by the moneys made available from the last valuation which runs until 1952 and the indications are that, even if you still want it to finance the additional benefits scheme in the way which now operates, you have the money there but the intention is that there will not be a separate allocation of moneys for the additional benefits scheme under the comprehensive scheme. They will be made available but that will not depend upon the result of an actuarial valuation, even if an actuarial valuation would show that they were there. The only difference between us on this matter is that you think fit to spend a considerable sum of money on an actuarial valuation which will not be available for examination in connection with the comprehensive scheme because it will not be completed by then and, even if it is available, it will have nothing whatever to do with financing the additional benefits scheme in future.

Mention has been made of the fact that there is an actuary in my Department. I have not an actuary; the person indicated is not an actuary as such. He is an officer of the Department with responsibility not for acturial work but for administrative work. That is his function there. Even if the actuarial examination were undertaken, it would take the period I have mentioned. I put it, in all seriousness: is there anything to be gained in undergoing the expense of an actuarial examination when we do not need it for the purpose of the additional benefits scheme and when it will not be available in time for the comprehensive scheme? If it will satisfy the Deputy I shall undertake to do this:—When we come to consider the comprehensive scheme I undertake to put at the disposal of any Deputy, by a question or at his request, any and every piece of information that I have as to the funds of the society at a particular date and then Deputies, if they like, can compare the general position with the position at the last valuation. I do not think it wise that this should be pressed to the stage of forcing me to undertake what in the long run seems to me to be a fruitless investigation and one which the officers of my Department in a position to judge say is not required for the purposes of the comprehensive scheme. It is a matter of considering on which side wisdom lies. I say it does not lie in the direction of pressing for an investigation which is really of no value.

Dr. Ryan

I must say that I find it very difficult to understand the difficulties which the Minister is raising. Since I was relieved of the position of Minister for Social Welfare I have been engaged in a more remunerative and less onerous job, a job in which actuaries are usually employed, and I cannot see that an actuary would take anything like three years, or even three months, to carry out this actuarial examination. In the position in which I am now, we have to employ actuaries from time to time; we know what we have to pay and I do not think it would take more than two or three months of an actuary's time to do this job. I have an idea of how the particular individual to whom the Minister refers is paid. I may say, in passing, that I do not think he is paid enough but, in any case, he is not paid a princely salary. I refer to the actuary in the Department, and three months of his time is not going to cost a lot. I think the Minister is labouring this thing in an effort to give the impression to the Dáil that this is a very big problem. We, in the Opposition, would feel better briefed if an actuarial valuation were carried out before the comprehensive scheme comes along. I think this amendment is very reasonable, that we should have one more actuarial examination and then let it cease. The actuarial valuation would be carried out on the 1948 figures. I was always under the impression when I was Minister that the returns of the National Health Insurance Society are kept very much up to date. They have various mechanical apparatus for entering up various auditors' returns. They have had these mechanical appliances for a period and I imagine that they will have the different figures of the various age groups, occupational groups and, perhaps — I do not know if this is necessary — sickness experience. If these figures are available it should be a very easy matter for the actuary to give his report. I am just making the point that I think the Minister is exaggerating the difficulties in the matter. I do not think it would involve anything like a three years' wait.

Mr. Norton

I am assured that it will by people who take the trouble to assemble the data, but if I can find an actuary who can do this thing in three months, I shall look into the matter again. I put it to the Deputy that if I am informed by an outside actuary that it cannot be done under the period I have indicated, would the Deputy still press me to have an actuary?

Dr. Ryan

The actuary cannot do it unless the figures are there and unless the Society co-operates with him.

Mr. Norton

He will have the whole place available to him if it is possible to do it, but the information supplied to me by the people who are in a position to judge is to the effect that it is not. Is it reasonable then to press me to accept the amendment in view of that? If it is a physical possibility it is all right, but if it is not physically possible should we be asked to do it and to spend money on a fruitless investigation?

Dr. Ryan

I accept the Minister's offer, knowing he is making it in good faith, but I think it could be done.

Mr. Norton

I shall make another inquiry if you like.

Dr. Ryan

You will be able to say on Report Stage what can be done?

Mr. Norton

And, obversely, what cannot.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 18:—

In sub-section (1), line 39, to insert "or sub-section (3)" before "of".

This amendment is tied up with amendment No. 19, which provides that:—

"The Minister may by Order make such applications (whether with or without modifications) to national health insurance of any provisions of or made under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1948, or the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1948, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to this Part of this Act and any provisions so applied shall have effect notwithstanding any provisions of or made under the Acts."

I have put in this amendment for the purpose of endeavouring to meet points of view that were expressed on the Second Stage of the Bill namely, that at present you have appeals to the Minister under the national health insurance code, and that it was desirable, therefore, that the method of appeal to the Minister who is administering national health insurance affairs should be discontinued. This amendment seeks to apply to national health insurance appeals the same appeals procedure as operates in the case of unemployment insurance disputes and Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts disputes. This is a well-known line of country, and I take it that the amendment meets with the point of view that was expressed.

Mr. MacEntee

If the sole purpose of the amendment is to remedy a defect in the Bill which was pointed out to the Minister on Second Reading it is very acceptable to us, but it appears to be a very complicated way of doing it. It gives the Minister very much wider power. He can virtually bring into the national health insurance code any provision in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1948, or the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1948. That may be a good thing. It may be essential to make the change-over, but it is certainly a colossal acquisition of the power to legislate by Order which the Minister has so roundly condemned. I gather that, elsewhere, members of the Minister's Party have taken the initiative in setting up——

Mr. Norton

I will withdraw the amendment if the Deputy likes.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want the Minister to withdraw it. I would ask him to remember that the people who are concerned in securing that they will have some right of appeal to some independent authority are not the Deputies sitting on these benches but the 640,000 people who are members of the National Health Insurance Society who, as the Bill originally stood, were going to be placed in this extraordinary position that, whereas before they had the right of appeal to the Minister with an independent arbitrator between them and the committee of management of the society they are now — the committee of management and the society itself having been abolished — under the Minister's absolute control. He has absolute control over them, over their funds and over their rights. He can refuse to pay them benefit, and so they have no real ground of appeal.

I am taking this amendment for the want of something better. As far as the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts are concerned, the position there is very different from what it is under the national health insurance scheme. Under that Act you have a large number of pensioners who do not get their pensions as of right, so to speak, but by the grace of the Oireachtas, which votes the money to pay the non-contributory pensions. There you have a situation where questions of means arise. These questions are not investigated by the officers of the Minister for Social Welfare but by the officers of the Minister for Finance, and it is the Minister for Finance who indirectly, through the Revenue Commissioners, administers the non-contributory pension scheme.

Mr. Norton

What the Deputy has just said, as his colleague sitting beside him could have told him, is not the position. The entire investigation of means is carried out by social welfare officers attached to the Department of Social Welfare. Will the Deputy take that correction and not make that mistake again?

Mr. MacEntee

A change may have taken place. I do know this, in relation to old age pensioners, that it is the officers of the Revenue Commissioners who investigate questions of means.

Mr. Norton

I do not know why the the Deputy should be misrepresenting the position. The officers of the Revenue Commissioners do not investigate old age pension claims. They are investigated by social welfare officers attached to the Department of Social Welfare. Will the Deputy talk on something that he may know something about?

Mr. MacEntee

What I say was the position until the year 1947 when the investigation officers, who were previously officers of the Revenue Commissioners and indirectly of the Minister for Finance, were transferred to the Department of Social Welfare. Time did not permit what, I believe, would have been necessary and essential changes to preserve the rights of those people to have an independent appeal. That was one of the consequences of the transfer of these services from the Department of Industry and Commerce and from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners under whom they were previously administered. We had not time to rectify that before we were put out of office. The Minister has had time. He has been over two years in office, and I gather he has not yet restored to the people concerned rights which they had previously enjoyed.

Now, the whole gravamen of my case against the Minister for the manner in which he has brought in this Bill is that, in addition to depriving old age pensioners and claimants under the non-contributory scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions of the right of appeal, he is now doing the same in relation to the 640,000 people who are members of the National Health Insurance Society. That is the position, and the Minister cannot deny it. Where I was at fault was in not fully adverting to the change which had taken place since 1947, but that does not affect the argument and it does not affect the position. The position remains as I have said, that there is now no independent right of appeal. The Minister himself, I think, has become ashamed of the situation which he created and is now endeavouring to remedy it. That is a concession to the critics of this Bill to the extent that the Minister is now giving an added protection to the members of the National Health Insurance Society. That is what we were out to secure.

Mr. Norton

Most of what the Deputy stated is not worth dealing with. It is evident that he does not know what he is talking about, as he displayed in such a manifest fashion during his contribution. I only rise for the purpose of making one comment. The Deputy is worried about the appeals of old age pensioners. Let him absorb those-figures. There are to-day 15,000 more persons getting old age pensions and at a much higher rate than when the Deputy was sitting on these benches. It is that fact which will keep the Deputy a tenant of the benches opposite for many a year.

Mr. MacEntee

Again the Minister cannot produce any relevant argument. That has nothing to do with the case. If there are 15,000 more old age pensioners it is because changes have been made in the law, not because of any change in the Administration. I gather that the appeal officer is still there, that even now claimants for old age pensions find it necessary to appeal against decisions of old age pensions committees and that they go to the Minister for Social Welfare. Therefore, the Minister cannot claim any credit for that. After all, it is not he who is providing the money. If there are 15,000 more people drawing old age pensions, it is not the Minister who is paying them; it is the taxpayers who provide him with the funds. It is they have to pay them, and not the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 19:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) The Minister may by Order make such applications (whether with or without modifications) to national health insurance of any provisions of or made under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1948, or the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1948, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to this Part of this Act and any provisions so applied shall have effect notwithstanding any provisions of or made under the Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cowan

I am rising to continue the objection that I made on every Bill in which a section of this type is introduced. Sub-section (2) of this section gives the Minister power by Order to make "in respect of any provision of or made under the Acts"— that means the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1948 —"such modifications and adaptations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to this Part of this Act". In recent years that form of legislation has become quite common. There was a time when, if an Act of Parliament had to be amended, it had to be amended by another Act of Parliament. But this device has been introduced over a number of years to give Ministers power to make particular Orders modifying or adapting the provisions of these statutes. I have said before, I say it now, and I suppose I shall have to say it often in future, that that form of legislation is objectionable.

If an Act of Parliament has to be amended, it ought to be amended by Parliament and not by ministerial Order. It is no defence to say that such an Order made by the Minister will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that the Oireachtas may, if they wish, within 21 days after it has been tabled, pass a resolution annulling the Order. That is really no protection because, unfortunately, very few people bother about Orders laid on the Table and, from the point of view of persons whose duty it is to interpret and read Acts of Parliament, there may be difficulty in finding out what an Act of Parliament does mean, because the wording of an Act is apparently not sufficient and one has to search the statutory Orders to see what modifications and adaptations the Minister has made.

I should like to know who is the genius who invented this form of section. When it was invented, I am quite sure that it was passed through Parliament, whether this Parliament or the British Parliament, by means of a Government majority. I understand that objections have always been taken to it. The Ministers of the present Government when such a provision was introduced into Bills by the last Government violently and quite properly opposed it. In fact, it was through a pretty strenuous fight both in this House and in the Seanad that a sub-section such as sub-section (3) in regard to laying the Order on the Table of the House was accepted. Where a Bill has passed through both Houses in the ordinary way and has received its First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Readings, one would expect that any modification of it would go through the same procedure. Where this method of laying an Order on the Table of the House is followed, it means that a member in this House or in the Seanad may put down a motion to annual and that motion will be decided by a simple majority of either House. Unless some member is particularly vigilant, the 21 days may pass and there may be no opportunity of bringing the matter before either House for consideration.

If I could see the necessity for this form of procedure, I might be convinced that there was something in it, but I see no necessity for it. I have seen Ministers introduce such a provision as this and all they could say was that circumstances might arise in which it was necessary to make such a modification or adaptation. But, at the time the section is put in, the Minister or the official in his Department, or the draftsman has no idea as to what, in fact, it may cover or what it may enable to be done. Therefore, I think the section is objectionable and I rise now on this Bill to express my objection to it in principle.

Mr. Norton

As I explained on the last occasion, what we are doing is a procedure which has already been adopted by this House in respect of other Acts. I can see the objection anybody may make on principle in a matter of this kind. This is the most expeditious way of dealing with a problem which this Bill throws up, namely, that of making sure that the intentions of this part of the Bill are properly implemented. That can best be done, we think, by giving the Minister power to make any adaptations or modifications where necessary. If that power were not there it would be necessary to go through a variety of Acts and regulations in a detailed way to amend them in a Bill of this kind, giving you a Bill which would be quite unintelligible and, at the same time, committing you to a line of policy of making amendments in case you would need them under this Bill.

This is a simple procedure in as much as you make an amendment if you find it necessary to do so. If it should not prove necessary you need not make the amendment because of the possibility that at some time it might be necessary to make it through the medium of a Bill. I want to use the power only for the purpose of making quite sure that we can implement the provisions of the Bill which are being approved by this House. Any regulations so made will be laid on the Table of the House and the Dáil will have an opportunity of annulling these regulations. The House is familiar with that line of action. I can assure the Deputy and the House that it will not be used in any unreasonable way and that it will be used only for the purpose of doing whatever is barely necessary under this Bill. In any case, this Act will go its way before the end of next year. It is merely a device to do speedily the things that have to be done under this Bill in order to implement the purpose for which the Bill was introduced.

Mr. MacEntee

Before we part with this section I should like the Minister to disclose to the House the grounds for the statement he has just made to the effect that this Act will disappear before the end of next year. That would not appear to be clear from some of the sections in which a date later than the end of next year is mentioned — for instance, 1954. It is very interesting indeed to hear the Minister's statement in reply to Deputy Cowan and it will have a bearing, perhaps, on what we shall say later. Would the Minister indicate the grounds for his confidence that this Act will disappear by the end of next near? I cannot see any prospect of the Act being implemented—certainly the Minister for Finance does not see any — by the end of next year. In the discussion of the amendment which we have just disposed of the Minister said he hoped to put certain proposals before the House by the end of this year. The Minister for Finance has made no provision for those proposals in his Budget. I doubt whether he will be in a position to make them in his Budget for next year.

Mr. Norton

The general intention is that the main Act will absorb this.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister says that the main Act will absorb this. I would point out to him that the fulfilment of his intentions depends upon this House. There may be changes in the composition of this House before these good intentions of his are implemented.

Mr. Norton

It is a vain hope, Deputy.

Mr. MacEntee

It may be, but there it is. You know that a road to a certain place is paved with good intentions——

Mr. Norton

I have often recommended that motto to you.

Mr. MacEntee

——and particularly with the intentions of the Minister.

Section 20 put and agreed to, Deputy Cowan dissenting.

SECTION 21.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sweetman)

Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 appear to be cognate and amendment No. 26 appears to be consequential on these two amendments. I suggest we discuss the three of them together.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 20:—

In sub-section (2), line 9, to delete the words "on or after the 1st day of July, 1954".

I suppose the principal discussion ought to take place on amendment No. 26. Our view was that if amendment No. 26 were carried, amendments Nos. 20 and 25 would be accepted as consequential. We have put down amendment No. 26 because, so far as I know, there is no enactment of the Oireachtas which contains a provision of this nature. It is a provision which completely ousts the Minister from his normal position as constitutional guardian of the properties of the State. It is rather significant that when the discussion is opened upon this matter the Minister for Finance finds it so embarrassing that he takes up his papers and flees from the House.

Sub-section (7) of this particular section represents, to my mind, a complete overthrow of the Minister for Finance in his constitutional position. It is quite clear that there must have been a tremendous tussle going on in the Cabinet before this section was accepted. I notice that the Minister is blushing and smiling the satisfied smile of the victor——

Mr. Norton

I am admiring your imagination.

Mr. MacEntee

——at the fact that he has succeeded in defeating that great protagonist of financial rectitude, the present Minister for Finance. I am not a lawyer but I have, in various capacities, studied proposals for legislation from time to time and I do not recollect—my recollection may be at fault; I am not putting it any further than that—any provision similar to this appearing in any statute that has been enacted since the State came into operation. There may be such provisions but, if so, they are very obscure and they must have been introduced where the exception occurs. To the best of my ability I do not recollect that any Government ever had the hardihood to come before the Dáil with a proposal of this sort.

Let us consider what the position of the Minister for Finance is under the law and under the Constitution. The duties of the Minister for Finance will be found defined in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. Paragraph (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 1 of that Act contains the following:—

"The Department of Finance which shall comprise the administration and business generally of the public finance of Saorstát Éireann and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same, including in particular the collection and expenditure of the revenues of Saorstát Éireann from whatever source arising (save as may be otherwise provided by law), and the supervision and control of all purchases made for or on behalf of and all supplies of commodities and goods held by any Department of State and the disposal thereof, and also the business, powers, duties and functions of the branches and offices of the public service specified in the first part of the Schedule to this Act, and of which Department the head shall be, and shall be styled an t-Aire Airgid or (in English) the Minister for Finance."

That is the Department of Finance, of which the Minister for Finance is in charge. Let us go back on that section for a moment and see the responsibilities it imposes upon the Minister for Finance:

"and control of all purchases made for or on behalf of and all supplies of commodities and goods held by any Department of State."

There is one sub-section to which we take objection and which we wish to delete from the section. I may say that we have other objections to the section besides the provisions in sub-section (7). Sub-section (7), against which these particular amendments are directed says:

"In dealing at any time before the 1st day of July, 1954, with any matter arising out of any acquisition, construction or reconstruction pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section or arising out of any disposal pursuant to sub-section (5) of this section, it shall not be obligatory on the Minister to refer to any other Minister or obtain the consent or sanction of any other Minister."

Sub-section (2) of this section, by implication, points out against whom sub-section (7) is directed, because it says:

"A payment shall not be made under sub-section (1) of this section on or after the 1st day of July, 1954, save with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

So that it is clear that sub-section (7) relates to the Minister for Finance who, in fact, is the only other Minister who would be concerned with the acquisition or disposal of property.

What is the purpose of that? Why should the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare, desire to place himself in any different position vis-á-vis the Minister for Finance from any of his colleagues in the Cabinet? Why does he wish to do that and, above all things, why has the Minister for Finance consented to be ousted in this matter? And, if the Minister for Social Welfare succeeds in doing that, what is there to prevent the Minister for Education, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for External Affairs, who we know is a very generous spender, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and every other Minister in the Cabinet seeking to avail himself of the fundamental change in relationship which the Minister for Social Welfare has succeeded in making in the position of the Minister for Finance in the Government and saying: “I should be put in the same position as my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare”?

Can the Minister for Social Welfare answer that question? If he gets away with this, what is to prevent other Ministers claiming that they are just as important in the Government as the Minister for Social Welfare? They will be able to point to certain facts that will support their claim. They will say that everybody knows that the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Local Government are members of the Cabinet and that the Tánaiste is in the Government because they can bring ten votes to the Coalition. That is their importance, and it is their sole importance in the Government. The Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Health can say: "The Clann na Poblachta Party is as good as the Labour Party any day, and, if a Labour Party Minister can get away with this in this Bill for social welfare, why cannot our Ministers get away with it?" The Minister for Lands will say: "Well, I may not have ten votes, but I have six, and six votes are vital to the maintenance of the Government and I am entitled to be placed in exactly the same position vis-á-vis the Minister for Finance as the Minister for Social Welfare is.” Then we shall have the least and the littlest of them all, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, saying: “It is quite true I have not six votes or ten votes, but I have five, and five are enough to put the Government in and if the Government does not hold those five votes the Government will fall. I am just as important to the maintenance of this Coalition as the Minister for Social Welfare and, therefore, if the Minister for Social Welfare gets away with what is provided for in Section 21 of this Bill, I should get away with it also.”

Are not these the natural and logical consequences which will follow if the House accepts sub-section (7) of this section? And what, then, is going to be the position of the taxpayers? The position of the Minister for Finance is different from that of other Ministers. Other Ministers are anxious to carry on, to extend the public services, to extend their Departments; they want to make themselves more and more important and to loom larger and larger in the public eye day after day. Therefore, they are always coming along with schemes that will keep them in the public eye, schemes that involve the expenditure of public money, and the only Minister who can stand against that sort of thing and who can protect the taxpayers is the Minister for Finance. He is, from the point of view of the ordinary working-class people, the professional men and the business community generally, the most important man in the Cabinet. He may not, perhaps, carry his proper weight in the councils of the Government.

We had an example of that in the Budget introduced yesterday, but that is the fault of the man who holds the portfolio; it is not due to any defect in the original scheme of things, as the terms of the relevant section in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, which I have read out to the House, demonstrate beyond yea or nay.

Mr. Davin

When did you leave Finance?

Mr. Norton

That is secret history.

Mr. MacEntee

No it is not.

Acting-Chairman

In any event, it is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

The reason why I left Finance was that, having carried the burden for seven years, I was tired.

Mr. Davin

You were out-voted.

Mr. MacEntee

The position is as I have stated. The person who stands as the guardian of the public purse and the guardian of the taxpayers' interests in relation to public expenditure is the Minister for Finance and, if we accept sub-section (7) of this section, I cannot see how the Minister for Finance will continue to function effectively. This is a very dangerous procedure. It has not appeared in any other statute. If it is carried, it will mean that we shall inevitably have other Ministers coming along here and making similar claims. I think it is a very ill-advised section to put in the Bill and I am surprised that the Minister for Finance has consented to it, unless he said: "I want to wash my hands of this whole business; I am not in favour of using the national health insurance funds to buy Store Street; I am not in favour of taking over the funds of the society and utilising them in the way in which the Minister for Social Welfare proposes to utilise them; so far as I am concerned I will have nothing to do with it." He may then have voluntarily stepped down and walked out, leaving the Minister for Social Welfare solely responsible for the things which will be done under Section 21.

Mr. Norton

Deputy MacEntee opened by drawing on his rather vivid imagination to depict the struggle in the Cabinet room between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare over the provisions of this Bill. He tried to warm himself with the belief that that was what really happened. Then he finished by saying that was not what had happened at all; that what had happened was that the Minister for Finance did not agree with this business. He said there was, in fact, no battle; there was no quarrel; the Minister for Finance washed his hands of the whole business and gladly quit. Nothing exposes the duplicity of Deputy MacEntee more than the speech he has just made. He starts off with one premise and finishes on another; both premises are equally false.

This matter was approached in a reasonable and matter of fact way. This building in Store Street had been ordered by a bankrupt undertaking which could not pay for it; it had been ordered by a company that had in its safe at Kingsbridge cheques made out to people to whom they owed money but which they could not issue because there was no money to meet them. This was the illustrious institution, Córas Iompair Éireann, which decided they would build Store Street; this dream fantasy clamped down in the busiest part of the city was ordered by Córas Iompair Éireann, when in fact they were not able to pay their day to day expenses. Yet, they entered into a commitment of this nature. Any street arab could have done the same because he would have had as much possibility of paying for it as had Córas Iompair Éireann. These people were apparently aided and abetted to do things in this millionaire fashion.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Minister tell us why he is throwing the Minister for Finance out of the window? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Norton

I thought you said he washed his hands of it.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know.

Mr. Norton

We know the Deputy does not know. Why should we consider that on this section? You distinguished yourself——

Mr. MacEntee

Do not forget the guarantee fund.

Acting-Chairman

Let us come to the amendment.

Mr. Norton

Here was an institution, Córas Iompair Éireann, without a penny to its name, deciding to go in for a palatial bus depot in Store Street. Every conceivable device was to be provided, all, apparently, costing money. They entered into this knowing perfectly well that they were as poor as Lazarus and, when the time came to pay for it, they would not be able to pay for it. That confidence trick can go on for a while but one cannot get away with it for ever. Ultimately there came a day when they said: "We cannot go on with this; we do not want it; we cannot pay for it; we cannot even issue the cheques that are written in the safe because there is no money in the bank to meet them." It was in those circumstances they shed Store Street.

Mr. Davern

They should have borrowed, the same as the Government is doing.

Mr. Norton

That is exactly what they had to do, but your Government left them in such a position that nobody would lend them a bob.

Mr. Davern

It has become fashionable now to borrow.

Mr. Norton

Your Government left these people in such a state of penury nobody would lend them a bob. In those circumstances a streak of realism hit Córas Iompair Éireann. They said they could not pay for it and they did not want it. We then decided to buy it as a central headquarters which would enable us to shed the other offices throughout the city, thereby leaving them available either for other public purposes or for private dwellinghouses. I think it was preferable for us to do that rather than leave it there to be christened the "Córas Iompair Éireann folly" or the "Fianna Fáil folly", or turn it into a rookery.

Mr. MacEntee

This will now be the "Norton Nuisance."

Mr. Norton

That is better than making it the "MacEntee White Elephant." We decided to purchase it in its unfinished state. The building is still in course of construction. It has to be equipped. It has to be put in a condition to accommodate staff. If the ordinary procedure were adopted, it would be necessary to approach the various Departments concerned for sanction every time a new piece of equipment was required. The Government decided that the best thing to do in the circumstances was to take power to finish the job as quickly as possible so that it could be occupied by the departmental staff. They wanted to avoid another Santry Court monument such as Deputy MacEntee erected when he was in the Custom House.

Captain Cowan

Has any price been agreed on yet?

Mr. Norton

We are taking over the existing contracts and the cost will be the cost of the finished article.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a very relevant question.

Acting-Chairman

Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Norton

We decided, therefore, to purchase the building and, in order that it might be completed as quickly as possible, the Government gave authority to bring it to fruition without the necessity for frequent consultations and endless sanctions and approvals which would be involved if the ordinary procedure were adopted. It is for that reason this section is included in the Bill. We have to get it finished by that date. I believe it will be finished before that but, at all events, that is the latest date; if it is not finished by that date we must go back to the ordinary procedure. I am quite satisfied that our association with it will be finished in a capacity which will not involve consultation before that date but there is a safeguard in putting in the date. Bear in mind, the funds which are being used for the purchase of these premises are funds under the control of the Minister for Social Welfare on behalf of the society.

Mr. MacEntee

Not under his control.

Mr. Norton

Please get somebody who knows the position to explain the matter to the Deputy. I am getting tired of being schoolmaster to-day. The funds which are going to be utilised for this purpose are under the control of the Minister for Social Welfare on behalf of the society. Deputy Dr. Ryan will not deny that.

Dr. Ryan

I am not so sure.

Mr. Norton

Do not have a bet on it.

Dr. Ryan

I am not going to start betting with the Minister.

Acting-Chairman

Not in this House.

Mr. Norton

That is the fact; have no doubt about it whatever.

Dr. Ryan

I have still doubt.

Mr. Norton

I cannot argue with a prophet. All one can do is to deny what he says. I am satisfied with denying what the Deputy said. Already the funds of the society have been used for the purchase of buildings, as for example, Árus Brugha.

Dr. Ryan

By the society.

Mr. Norton

The funds of the society.

Dr. Ryan

And by the society.

Mr. Davern

Not by the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Norton

Thanks for that learned interruption. In this particular instance what we are doing is what has already been done—purchasing a building which is required by this Department. It is being purchased out of funds which are already invested in British securities. Does Deputy Dr. Ryan deny that? We are handing over funds which are invested in British securities. If the Deputy will put down a question I shall furnish him with a list of these securities. We are going to buy these premises out of the funds invested in British securities.

Mr. Davern

No objection to British money.

Mr. Norton

Your Party put them there and one way in which I can get them back is to buy Irish property with them. This building is going to be bought with moneys at the disposal of the Minister for Social Welfare, moneys invested, during the 16 years during which you were in office, in British securities. Portion of these funds is going to be used to buy these premises and the State will make good an annual sum which will not be less than the interest which these invested funds now yield. All that is being done in order to enable these buildings to be purchased and occupied as central offices for the accommodation of the Department of Social Welfare, the State at the same time and the public generally benefiting by the fact that the Department will have to vacate a number of other buildings.

Now we come to the question of whether anything like it was done before. It was done when the Hospitals' Trust Funds were passed into the Department of Local Government and were administered there solely by the Minister in charge of the Department without even any obligation after five years to consult any other member of the Government because the Minister for Local Government, bear in mind, during the entire period of office of the Fianna Fáil Government could write cheques every day for 16 years with the funds placed at his disposal from the Hospitals' Trust Funds and, in fact, did write cheques that way without the slightest restraint for 16 years. I hope that the Fianna Fáil members will not allow themselves to be taken in by the theatrical performances of Deputy MacEntee this evening because he wrote cheques himself as Minister for Local Government on these funds without any obligation to consult the Minister for Finance or the Government.

Take another example. In the Department of Industry and Commerce during Deputy MacEntee's short sojourn there, there was an arrangement to establish a civil aviation branch, which was set up in that Department and which in fact entered into contracts to buy land, to build airports at Shannon and elsewhere without consulting the Board of Works, it having complete authority to go ahead and do that work. That is what was happening when Deputy MacEntee was in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Now he comes in here like an injured innocent to pretend that this is something which has outraged his feelings of financial rectitude and, the gladiator that he is, rushes into the arena saying that the whole edifice of the Irish nation will collapse because we are going to repatriate the moneys invested during the Fianna Fáil régime in British securities and use them to buy a building in Dublin, a building ordered by a spendthrift transport undertaking when it had no money to pay for it. These are the cold facts.

Mr. MacEntee

Aithneann ciaróg ciaróg eile.

Mr. Norton

These are the cold facts of the situation. The public can judge whether the course upon which we have embarked is a wise one. I am quite satisfied that what we are proposing to do in this section represents a prudent course of action. Bear in mind that under this section we purport to hand over to the Minister for Finance for investment on behalf of the fund all moneys which are not required for the purpose of purchasing these premises so that he may hold these funds in the same way as he holds other funds on behalf of the nation. But the funds are at our disposal at the moment and they will be used for this purpose. They are being used for a meritorious project. In all the circumstances, I think it is much better to invest these funds in a building in the City of Dublin than to have them invested for us in the development of some part of the British Empire.

Mr. Davern

Give it back to the people whose money it is.

Mr. Norton

Your Government was in office for 16 years and it gave back precious little.

Mr. Davern

They increased disablement benefit by 100 per cent. and sickness benefit by 50 per cent.

Mr. Norton

Out of the Government's own pocket?

Mr. Davern

No. Out of this money that the Minister now proposes to invest in this terrible monstrosity at Store Street.

Mr. Norton

You will get a certificate for recklessness if you make many statements like that. They gave back to the people some of their own money. That is the highlight of their achievement.

Mr. MacEntee

And you are giving it to Córas Iompair Éireann?

Mr. Norton

I am going to take back the money that you invested in British securities. It is good business and it is still good business, even though it annoys you.

Dr. Ryan

I have been in this House for a good many years now, and while I always thought that the Minister held the record for "boloney" he has beaten his own record here to-night. I have never heard such nonsense as the Minister spoke here to-night. Take the last statement that was made. Fianna Fáil did increase benefits under national health insurance out of taxation, but when the Minister became a Minister he increased the contributions. That is his record as far as national health insurance is concerned. I think he should acknowledge that.

The Minister also told us that he is going to purchase the Córas Iompair Éireann premises. He does not know what the price will be, but he is going to purchase them. Did anybody ever hear of a purchaser making an announcement of that kind? He announces in public that he is going to purchase the premises, but he does not know what the price will be. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense from a person who is supposed to be responsible?

Mr. Norton

I said no such thing.

Dr. Ryan

You did say it.

Mr. Norton

We know what the liabilities of Coras Iompair Éireann are to date.

Dr. Ryan

You said to Deputy Cowan that you were going to purchase them, but that you did not know what the price was.

Mr. Norton

I do not know the final price for the reason that there are yet some contracts to be entered into. It is only when we know what these contracts will cost that we can say what the final price is. We know what Córas Iompair Éireann entered into, but we also know that there is a great deal of work to be done yet. It is only when tenders are accepted for that work that we will know what the final price will be.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister is now trying to cover his tracks. He was doing the big man and saying that he would purchase them, but did not know the price.

Mr. Davin

Did the Deputy ever hear of time and material?

Mr. Moran

Did Deputy Davin ever hear of a pig in a poke?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister for Social Welfare is the big man lecturing us, telling us all that he is going to do, but he does not want to consult the Minister for Finance. He is going to purchase a bankrupt concern, whatever it will cost, and he will pay for it because he controls the money of the society. That is what he said. Of course he is not too well up on these things. Deputy MacEntee caught him out badly yesterday—he tried to gloss over it to-day—when he pointed out that the Minister did not know the difference between the guarantee fund and the reserve fund. The Minister is a big man. He makes a good impression on people who do not know him. He is a pleasant man, and he makes a good impression, but he does not know the difference between the reserve fund and the guarantee fund. He tells us that he controls the fund.

In the memorandum sent out from his Department it says "these sums now amount to a total of £2,359,457 and are invested in securities having a nominal value of £2,349,461 which, at the request of the society, are held by the Minister for Social Welfare on behalf of the society." The Minister who is talking big tries to impress Deputy Davin. He should have done that before now, but turning to Deputy Davin he said "I control the funds". The memorandum was sent out by the Department, and we are to assume that it is correct. But the Minister says "I control the funds". Well now that is about as near to the truth as the Minister has ever gone in his life.

He comes in here and he talks this boloney, not only about the Córas Iompair Éireann premises and about this bankrupt concern but about what he is going to do, and without consulting the Minister for Finance or the Board of Works he is going to take over the premises. He is going to manage everything. He is requested by the members of the society to look after the funds on their behalf, but he tells us that he controls the funds. Now, I think the Minister should be a little better briefed before coming to the Dáil to discuss a matter of this kind. This is a very serious matter, the investment of the funds of the members of the National Health Insurance Society who have been paying their contributions over very many years. On that he should at least he able to give the Dáil the true facts and tell us who is in a position at the moment to control those funds, and what will the position be when this Bill is passed. Will he tell us what is the position in regard to the purchase of premises for the new Department of Social Welfare, and who will be in a position to make a decision on that? Information on all these matters is very necessary if the Dáil is to do its duty in a conscientious and reasonable way, and if it is to be in a position to advise the Minister as to the best solution for this problem. The Minister is not helpful to the Dáil because he is making statements here that are not true statements—they do not coincide with the facts. Unless we are in a position to consult the Bill and the memorandum issued by the Department of Social Welfare and to compare these documents with the Minister's statements, we cannot find out whether the Minister has been strictly sticking to the truth or form our own conclusions of what the truth is.

I do not know whether I would be in order at this stage in raising the question as to whether it is a good thing that the Minister should be permitted to purchase the Córas Iompair Éireann premises. Personally, I think it is a great pity that the Minister should be looking for premises in Dublin at all. I raised this matter on the Second Reading because I think this is a Department which should be shifted down to Cork or Galway. When I was Minister for Social Welfare I made certain moves in that direction. The Minister has not referred to it since. I do not know whether he is prepared to deal with it or not.

Mr. Norton

I was told it was impracticable by the people that you asked to make inquiries. Houses could not be got for the staff.

Dr. Ryan

It is strange that the people who told me it was practicable should have told the Minister that it was impracticable.

Mr. Norton

Where would we get houses for the staff?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister for External Affairs is sitting behind the Minister and he is the Leader of a Party which is very much in favour of decentralisation. Here is an excellent case for decentralisation. I do not think there is any other Department of the Government where it could be carried out so easily. The Department of Social Welfare is one that is run by ordinary administration. There are very few decisions that come up to ministerial or secretarial level. It is a Department that is run completely on ordinary routine administration, and in my opinion the Department could be run as well in Galway or Cork as in Dublin. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.