Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 May 1950

Vol. 121 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Report and Fifth Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, before Section 7 (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where a person is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service of the Government by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section such appointment shall be to a situation in a grade not less favourable as to salary scale as such person's existing grade in the service of the society.

It is hardly necessary to mention that an amendment similar to a large extent to this amendment was moved and divided upon in the Committee Stage and defeated. This amendment appeared in the name of Deputy C. Lehane on the amendment sheet for the Committee Stage and it was not moved. Accordingly I am moving it now. The only difference between the amendment which was defeated and this amendment is that the amendment which was defeated contained the words "existing rights" as well as "salaries". Certain Deputies objected to the words "existing rights", as they said it would hardly be practicable. The Minister said he had given ample assurances to the staff and he undertook on his own and the Government's behalf to honour these assurances. He said that any member of the staff who would be transferred would be no less favourably treated from the point of view of salary scales.

The arguments pro and con were gone into fairly fully. Many Deputies expressed the view that assurances given by the Minister were not sufficient to safeguard the interests of the staff, on the ground that the Minister might not always be Minister for Social Welfare and might not even be Minister when the transfer day comes round. It was also argued that the officials of the Department of Finance interpret statutes as they see them—this was Deputy Cowan's argument—and not in relation to the report of the debates here, and that they were quite entitled so to interpret the statutes. Deputy Con Lehane said: "My whole desire is to get the Minister to accept an amendment which will have statutory force". That is the desire of this Party in respect of this particular amendment.

I have not very many years' experience of the House, but during the debate on the Committee Stage I heard many members—including Deputies who support the Government—insist on having assurances given by Ministers during the consideration of Bills inserted in those Bills and not left to any interpretation which may later be put on them by Department of Finance officials or other people who will have a say in the administration of Acts of the Oireachtas.

The Minister said that when officials of the National Health Insurance Society are transferred to the Civil Service, there would be no doubt that whatever grade they were acting in in the society, and whatever salary scale they had, it would follow them into the Civil Service, and they would be no worse off from the point of view of remuneration. The Minister gave this assurance a long time before a delegation from the staff of the society came to see various Parties here. Fianna Fáil was the last Party that the deputation interviewed, and they were very much concerned about having some such provision as is contained in this amendment put into the Bill. Apparently, even though the Minister said they were satisfied with the assurance he had given them, they must have had some doubts in their minds when they asked our Party to submit an amendment such as this and, if possible, have it made part of the Bill.

There were other considerations that prompted the movers of the amendment, apart from what was put before them by the deputation. I pointed out several to the Minister. I indicated the difficulties there would be in the way of placing a member of the national health staff in a position in the Civil Service that would be on all fours with his position in the society, particularly from the point of view of right of promotion. I have no doubt it would be a simple matter to place a man from the society in the Civil Service in such a manner as he will not suffer from the remuneration point of view. I have not been convinced on this point, that difficulties will arise in relation to the man's chances of promotion. There are promotion bars within the Civil Service that do not exist in the National Health Insurance Society.

The amendment is exactly the same type of amendment as was moved by Deputy Con Lehane on the Committee Stage. Deputy Lehane said he was slow to accept the Minister's assurances at one stage, but later he said he was satisfied, even though, as he added, his whole desire was to get the Minister to accept an amendment that would have statutory force. Deputy Cowan was of a similar frame of mind.

I trust the Minister will accept the amendment in this form. He or nobody else can visualise what might happen on the transfer day. He cannot visualise when the transfer day will arise and what changes there may be in the Government. I feel sure that there are members of the Minister's own Party who are anxious that he should accept this amendment. From many points of view it is a desirable amendment.

It is hardly necessary for me to go through all the arguments that I advanced when a similar amendment in my name was submitted on the Committee Stage, and was defeated. The Minister resisted it. His argument was that he was doing as much for those people, and probably more, as we were asking in the amendment. That may be. The Minister has given certain assurances, but I cannot follow his reasoning when, having given these assurances, he says he is not prepared to adopt an amendment of this kind.

We have to remember that there are a certain number of people who hitherto worked with the National Health Insurance Society and who will now be considerably affected by this measure; in fact, their careers will be very deeply affected, and it is not surprising that these people are anxious about their future. They have been pressing various Parties here to have an amendment like this put into the Bill. The only real safeguard these people have is through legislation and I think they are perfectly right in their own interests when they press to have some amendment such as this put into the Bill because, whatever the Minister's assurances may be, those people would like to see them in black and white. That is why we have submitted this amendment again. We are anxious to see if the Minister has thought over the matter. Perhaps he will look at it now from a more reasonable and conciliatory point of view. We trust that he will agree to have the amendment put in. It will relieve the anxieties of the various staffs that will be coming over from the National Health Insurance Society.

I would like to support this amendment. The Minister has stated rather strongly that it is his intention to see that no person transferred will suffer by the transfer. Surely he should have no objection to incorporating this amendment in the Bill. We all have had the experience that statements made in the Dáil, while well meant, do not count much afterwards when they are not embodied in legislation. In justice to those people there should be a clause such as this put into the Bill in order to safeguard them. I cannot see why the Minister should have any objection to including it, in view of the strong statements which were made to that effect in this House on the Committee Stage.

I think there is no feeling whatever of insecurity on the part of the staff of the National Health Insurance Society in this matter. It is not good business for the Civil Service that statements should be made here calculated to disturb the security which these folk who will be transferred to the Department know they will get on transfer. You do the officers concerned no good—you do their nerves no good and you do the state of their minds no good—because the statements which are made here create a feeling of uneasiness for which there is no justification whatsoever. In this case. Deputies opposite are looking a gift horse in the mouth. I have made it clear that so far as this Government is concerned the staff of the National Health Insurance Society will be taken over on an assurance from me, given on behalf of the Government, that there will be no worsening of their conditions. In other words, there will be no reduction in their salary. Their prospects of promotion will be better than they are to-day. That is a mathematical fact which any Deputy can calculate if he gets particulars of the number of junior posts in the Department and the number of senior posts and relates one to the other—and the pensioned staff of the society will be immeasurably better off in the Department than they are at the moment. There is no fear whatever that there will be any reduction. In fact, a number of these officers, because they will be interlocked with the appropriate Civil Service grade, will get an increase in their salary on assimilation into the Civil Service. What, therefore, is the worry? Is it not merely a case of pursuing a point of view merely for the sake of pursuing it? I do not want to worsen the conditions of the officers concerned—I have said that on behalf of the Department. I take it that the Opposition do not want to do so either. Therefore, so far as the staff is concerned, from both sides of the House they have an assurance that nobody wants to worsen their conditions. Is there any other class of employee in this country that has a united assurance from the Government and the Opposition that their conditions of employment or salary will not be worsened? I do not know of any and, to that extent, the National Health Insurance Society are in a unique position. They are getting an assurance of fair treatment from the Government and what might be presumed to be an alternative Government says: "In any case, we do not intend to worsen their conditions, either."

If the Minister's argument is sound, why are we afraid to embody that principle in the Bill?

So far as the practical side of this matter is concerned, nobody is worried. Worry is felt only by certain Dáil Deputies. The staff are not worried. How can they be worried when they get such positive assurances from the Government and the Opposition? No other class of person in the community has that guarantee. We could accept Deputy Lynch's amendment, transfer the staff at their existing scale of salary, refuse to improve that scale of salary by one penny a year, and the Deputy would be satisfied. I do not propose to do that. Instead, I propose that their scale of salary will be raised in a number of instances when they are integrated into the appropriate Civil Service grade.

The Minister is misinterpreting the amendment.

No. Let us argue it reasonably. I do not think that, in fact, there is a lot between us in what we want to achieve. The words of the amendment are getting in the Deputy's own light. How does it read?

"In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, before Section 7 (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where a person is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service of the Government by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section such appointment shall be to a situation in a grade not less favourable as to salary scale as such person's existing grade in the service of the society."

I could take them over at their existing salary scale and this amendment would be satisfied. I could continue them on the existing scale and let them get increments as at present. Some people would lose under this amendment because on integration into the appropriate grades in the Civil Service they will get more than they would get if I were to continue them at the present grades. The Deputy would not wish that they should be tied down to that position. His amendment could be accepted. What I say could happen and they could be deprived of what I hope they will get on integration into the Department of Social Welfare. So far from opening up a vista of improved conditions, the Deputy's amendment is in fact an anchor to their existing conditions. I do not want to anchor them or to fetter them there. If they get an improvement by interlocking with the appropriate grade in the Civil Service I want to see that interlocking and I want to see them get the benefits which will flow from it. The Deputy should by now be convinced that, in the long run, taking the broad view and remembering the purposes he aims at achieving, my method will yield a better dividend to the people concerned.

In the Department of Social Welfare there are civil servants who, in so far as they are not transferred officers, have no statutory guarantee in respect of their existing salary scales. In other words, anybody who came into the Department of Social Welfare or into the entire Civil Service after 1st April, 1922, has no statutory rights to his existing salary. So, in the Department of Social Welfare we have persons with 28 years' service in various grades who have no statutory rights to their existing salary scales. Here is a proposition that persons who become civil servants for one day should have a statutory guarantee to certain salary scales. Why should we give a statutory guarantee to a person with one day's service in the Civil Service and not give it to persons who have 28 years' service in the Civil Service? I would put that point of view to Deputy Lynch and to Deputy Dr. Ryan. I am sure they will see the obvious incongruity which would arise.

I do not see it at all.

The Deputy is usually alert. If he does not see it now it is because it does not suit the argument.

The argument is wrong.

No. On transfer to the Department of Social Welfare the staff of the National Health Insurance Society will become civil servants. Let us take for example, and for the sake of simplicity, the case of persons who, because of their present grading in the society, become clerical officers in the Department of Social Welfare. They will then become members of the clerical class in the Civil Service. They are one of a large class. Their conditions will be the same as those of the rest of the clerical officers in the Civil Service. If they want improvements in that respect they will have to arrange, as a class, to try to get the improvements through organisational efforts and, now, through conciliation and arbitration—a procedure which is being made available. Therefore, they have that opportunity of improving their conditions and they will be one of a large class. Why should we have two classes of clerical officers—one class which has given, perhaps, upwards of 28 years' service with no statutory guarantees, and another class in for a day, or a week, or a month with a statutory guarantee to their existing salary? I do not think it is wise even from the Civil Service point of view that we should have two classes of clerical officers.

But the Minister does not intend to do any worse than this, does he?

I intend to do better if you will only let me. I object to being fettered in the matter.

You are going to do better, but you will not say so.

The Deputy knows the position perfectly well. I put again the simple question: is there any class in the community that has got from both the Government and the Opposition an assurance that nobody wants to worsen their conditions? Who else has got an assurance such as that from Parliament? Has the existing civil servant got it? If someone will say to the national Parliament: "We doubt you notwithstanding these assurances" then what we write into legislation does not matter in the slightest. The Government in the foreseeable future may swing from this side to that side, or from that side to this. Neither side wants to worsen the conditions of these people. Therefore, their conditions cannot be worsened. These assurances in themselves would be good enough if we never had a Bill. The Opposition is really chasing a phantom. The Deputies opposite have no grounds for their fears. Their fears are not shared by the people concerned, and it is not fair to play upon their nerves. They know perfectly well they will get a square deal from us. If they do not get it from us they will get it from the Deputies opposite. Where is the need to argue any further?

I think the Minister for Social Welfare must be a very simple man if he thinks the argument he has put forward now carries conviction to anybody. He says it should be sufficient for these transferred officers to have the assurance of Deputies on both sides of the House. If that were the case, and if we could rely entirely on assurances, there would be no need for legislation. We could come in here and give expressions to our opinions and desires in relation to any section of the people whom we might have under consideration, and nothing further would be necessary.

The Minister says that there is not much between us. I think there is a good deal between those who are standing for this amendment and the Minister who is resisting it. The fundamental difference between us is that the Minister relies apparently on the validity of an assurance. We do not rely on that because we consider that no validity can be attached to any assurance given here. We rely on sections inserted into the measure and on nothing else.

The Minister also states that nobody is worried; he says that the people in question are not worried. The point is that these people interviewed the Minister himself and, even after that interview, they still were not satisfied that there was a guarantee; they still were not satisfied that their position would be unassailable with regard to their transfer to the Civil Service and they deemed it necessary subsequently to interview members of other Parties. I think the Minister is being very unreasonable and he would be well advised for the sake of those people with whose welfare we are concerned in accepting the amendment. He mentioned that he might even do better than is proposed when these people are taken into the Civil Service. Would the acceptance of the amendment prevent him from doing better if he wanted to do better after this Bill becomes law? We can always do better.

Am I entitled to speak a second time?

In amendments on the Report Stage the mover of the amendment has the right to say a few words in conclusion.

There are two points made by the Minister to which I would like to reply. On a strict interpretation of my amendment the Minister says that members of the society on transfer can be put into a grade not less favourable. He interprets that as meaning that they will not be any better off. I think that is a very narrow interpretation and I suggest it is a fantastic one. He does not himself believe what he says in that respect. Surely, he does not think that a man being transferred from one place to another under a condition that such transfer will not be less favourable is not thereby precluded from advancing himself by his own ability to whatever promotion may be open to him. I think the Minister is entirely wrong in his interpretation there.

Secondly, the Minister says that this amendment would give to these transferred officers guarantees that members of the Civil Service have not got at the present time. The amendment seeks only to give to these transferred officers a guarantee that

"such appointment shall be to a situation in a grade not less favourable."

The grade must be not less favourable at the time of the assignment. I think that is quite clear from the wording of the amendment. The suggestion that they will be better off in the long run than their fellow civil servants is also without foundation inasmuch as civil servants have a full guarantee on becoming established officers that their appointments are permanent and pensionable. So far as I know, only the Government can remove or demote a civil servant.

And only the Government can remove these people once they are transferred.

Once the appointment is an accomplished fact they are, therefore, on an equal footing as regards security of tenure with all other civil servants. They are no better off. The Minister should appreciate that point. I am sure that he really does appreciate it and that it is merely for the purpose of argument and quibbling that he refuses to accept this amendment.

Question Put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 63.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • 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'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • 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.

The last line of amendment No. 2 reads: "Out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas." Hence this amendment involves a charge and must be recommitted.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 5, between lines 44 and 45, before Section 7 (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) Where a person who is appointed by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section to a situation in the Civil Service of the Government was, immediately before the transfer day, in receipt of a pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1949, the amount of any suspension (whether total or partial) to which the pension becomes liable from time to time as a result of the said appointment shall be recouped to such person by the Minister out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

On the Committee Stage of the Bill reference was made to the case of certain persons who are employed by the National Health Insurance Society and who in some instances have military service pensions. On transfer to the Department of Social Welfare, they will become civil servants and consequently would be liable to an abatement of portion of their military service pensions because of the fact that they were receiving moneys from public funds. I undertook to look into the matter with a view to ensuring that the persons concerned would be no worse off by reason of the fact that they were transferred to the service of the State, in other words, that they would not suffer any reduction in their military service pensions. Having examined the matter, I now submit the amendment which ensures that if there is some abatement of their military service pensions on becoming civil servants, the amount of the abatement will be made good out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. It meets the point raised on Committee Stage.

That is right.

I am very glad the Minister has seen his way to accept this amendment. I think it is the first time since the Government came in that the Old I.R.A. have got a proper deal, and I congratulate the Minister.

They are getting a better deal now than they ever got before.

Not a better deal than they were entitled to.

We were getting on excellently until the Deputy came in.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 7, line 37, Section 14, to insert "on behalf of the Fund" after "invested by him".

This amendment is to meet a point which was raised on the Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 7, between lines 41 and 42, to add to Section 14 the following sub-section:—

(2) Every regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House, within the next 21 days on which it sits after the regulation is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the regulation, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

This also is an amendment introduced to meet a point which was raised on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 cannot be moved because it would involve a charge.

I am not contesting the ruling of the Chair——

If the amendment is not in order it cannot be discussed. The Deputy can make a submission.

Can I be told exactly why it is being ruled out?

The compensation, I gather, would come from the administration portion of the fund. I understand that two-ninths of the cost would come from the Government subsidy. Therefore, the amendment would involve a charge.

I submit that it would not necessarily fall on the administration fund.

It would come out of the fund.

There are other funds, the guarantee fund, the reserve fund and a number of other funds. It certainly could become a charge on one of these.

In ordinary circumstances it would come out of the administration fund.

Is it not reasonable to expect that the reserve fund would be used for a matter of this kind?

I would not say so. It is a matter for the administration of the society.

The shortest way would be for the Minister to accept the amendment.

We had all this the other day. I think it is better to induce people to work than to induce them to look for compensation or pensions. I gather that this amendment has been ruled out.

It has been submitted to me that it might not come out of the administration expenses fund. If there is another fund not held by the Government, it would be in order.

The position is that the only fund available to the committee of management, in the sense that they have control over it, is the administration fund. If they have to pay, the only fund over which they have control is the administration fund.

And that is in this Bill?

On the construction of this Bill, it would have to come out of the administration expenses fund.

I understand the position to be that it has been represented to the Chair that this must become a charge on the administration fund. But there are other funds. The Minister should not try to hide away the fact that there are other funds against which this could be made a charge, if he were prepared to meet that position.

The society has only one fund. If the society is asked to pay it can only pay out of the one fund over which it has control.

But there are other funds on which it could be made a charge by an administrative act of the Minister.

No. There is only one fund over which the National Health Insurance Society will have control, and that is the administration fund. If the society were to pay out moneys it can only pay them out of that fund, and if they were to pay them out of that fund that would impose a charge on the Exchequer. That is the law.

Even in this Bill the Minister is taking power to amend in whole or in part the national health insurance code, and if he were prepared to amend the regulations this could be made a charge on the guarantee fund, if he wanted to.

A hypothetical case as to what the Minister might do, does not put the matter in order.

I realise the position in which the Chair has been put by the want of candour on the part of the Minister.

That is an insult to the Chair and to my honour. I take it that the Deputy will withdraw his implication against the Chair?

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

May I make one remark? There was an amendment debated on the Committee Stage which proposed to impose a charge on the Exchequer. It was amendment No. 8. It related to military service pensions which are not being abated, and so they become a charge.

A Minister can move an amendment to impose a charge, but a Deputy cannot.

The amendment was moved by a Deputy and was fully debated.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 10, to delete lines 9 to 30 (Section 23).

This amendment arises out of a discussion which we had on the Committee Stage. I explained that Section 23 was put in the Bill at an early stage lest it might be necessary to take over control of the management of the society before the transfer date. I explained then that these were powers which would only be used in an exceptional set of circumstances, and that normally, we intended that the society would be dissolved on the date of transfer and that there would be no interim take-over. I said on the Committee Stage that the Bill had progressed to a stage which would enable us to see the future sufficiently far ahead as probably to be able to dispense with the section. Consequently, the amendment is moved with that object in view.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 10, between lines 30 and 31, to insert before Section 24 a new section as follows:—

(1) Where, on the 1st day of August, 1950, an appointment of the transfer day either has not been made or, if it has been made, is an appointment of a day after the 1st day of August, 1950—

(a) the persons who, immediately before the 1st day of August, 1950, held office as employers' members, insured persons' (trade union nominees) members and insured persons' (local authorities' nominees) members of the committee of management shall, subject to any vacancies that may occur by reason of death, resignation or disqualification, continue to hold office as such members until the transfer day, and

(b) any vacancy which, on or after the 1st day of August, 1950, and before the transfer day, occurs among such members shall not be filled.

(2) The appointment of employers' members, nomination of insured persons' (trade union nominees) members and election of insured persons' (local authorities' nominees) members of the committee of management to hold office for the year beginning on the 1st day of August, 1950, shall not be carried out and, if any such appointment, nomination or election is carried out, it shall be void.

(3) Sub-section (2) of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1950.

Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On that question, I wish to say a few words. I am glad that the Minister has met us on some points that were raised on the Committee Stage though I am sorry he should have resisted us on other points where there was no obvious reason why he should hold out so persistently against us. I want to refer to one point—it was raised in the section—which gave rise to the amendment ruled out of order on the Report Stage. The Minister undertook to look into the matter as sympathetically as possible. If the Minister will look at column 247 of the Official Report of Wednesday, 17th May, he will see that he said:—

"I am prepared to look at that special matter to see to what extent it may be possible to meet that situation for a limited class of persons, namely, those who are in that position at the moment. I do not make any promise, but I will look into it to see what it would be possible to do to meet the point of view of Deputies opposite."

He did not produce the amendment I thought he would, because when a Minister promises to consider a matter sympathetically like that he usually manages to produce an amendment to meet the situation. I must presume that, in making this promise, he did it in good faith and, therefore, that he must have come across some very serious objections when he did not meet us as I thought he would. I know, of course, that it is not possible now, but I would like the Minister to say that he would go further into the matter and take the opportunity of considering it again before the Bill reaches the other House. If he comes back here with an amendment inserted in the Seanad to meet those people we had in mind, I think this House will be only too happy to agree with such an amendment. I should like the Minister, therefore, to give us some further hope that he has not entirely ruled this matter out of consideration.

I do not suppose we shall divide on this Bill, but I think that scarcely before in the whole history of this House has a piece of legislation been so cynically misrepresented by its title as this Bill is. The Bill is entitled a Social Welfare Bill. It has got nothing to do with social welfare. It does not propose to increase the social security benefits in any way. It does not propose to improve the position of the members of the National Health Insurance Society. It does not propose to provide any additional money for the benefit and advantage of insured persons. But it is described as a Social Welfare Bill, while the real purpose of the Bill is to get hold of the assets of the National Health Insurance Society and to use them for the purchase of property, the cost of which should be borne from Government funds. That is the real reason for the Bill. This is a Bill to throttle the society and to rifle its resources. It is a sorry commentary upon the depressed condition of the Government's finances that they should have to use the National Health Insurance Society's moneys for this purpose.

That will help the National Loan.

I am not bound to help the National Loan if there is an extravagant Government in office.

Or sabotage it, but that is what you are doing.

I am bound to point out what the financial position of the State is. Here is this society, which is perfectly solvent, which is well and capably administered, which might have to be brought under the control of the Department in due course after we had had the social security scheme before the country and when the Dáil had approved of it by legislation. But this society is to be throttled, as I said, out of existence, and the funds which were contributed for the purpose of providing insured persons with benefits to which they are entitled by law and in justice, by virtue of the contributions made by them and their employers, are going to be utilised for the purpose of buying a building, the construction of which the Government had stopped by a deliberate act of sabotage.

The title of this Bill is therefore just one cynical falsehood. It does not propose to enlarge the benefits to which those persons are entitled. On the contrary, by reason of the fact that the Government is now seizing the funds and proposes to devote them to particular purposes of the Government, it is probably endangering the benefits which the members of the society now enjoy. There is one thing certain—if the Government continues its present improvident policy of squandering public moneys, the day will come when the State will not be able to meet its obligations to its citizens and its obligations to those contributing now to the National Health Insurance Society's funds.

Cheers from Portadown.

That is the truth.

Deputies

It is not.

If anybody has any doubt about it, all he has to do is to contrast the existing charge on the taxpayers to meet the service of the public debt with what it was in 1948.

The Budget and the Finance Bill have already been before the House. Yesterday, the Finance Bill was before the House and there was an opportunity of discussing these matters. The question of taxation does not arise on this Bill.

I seldom appeal to the Chair against the interjections of Deputies opposite, but it has been alleged here that what I have said is untrue, and I merely referred to the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the charge for the service of public debt in order to refute the allegation that what I was saying was unfounded. However, I quite recognise that we cannot have a discussion on the state of the public finances on the Fifth Stage of this Bill, and I pass away from that.

Not only is this Bill unfair to the members of the National Health Insurance Society, but it is also grossly unfair to the officers and employees. Proof of that is to be found in the attitude which the Minister took up in regard to amendment No. 5 which you, Sir, ruled could not be moved by a private member. Embodied in amendment No. 5 was an obligation which should be properly assumed by the Government. The officers and employees of the society who are concerned under Section 7 of this Bill did not elect when they became officers and employees of the society to become civil servants.

Is it not a fact that on the Fifth Stage we discuss what is in the Bill?

I am proceeding to do that.

The Deputy is discussing a matter which the Chair refused. It is not in the Bill and therefore it is not in order.

Because it would impose a charge.

It is not in the Bill.

I am going to discuss what is in the Bill:—

"Where a person was, immediately before the transfer date, an officer or employee of the society, such person is hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, appointed to a situation in the Civil Service of the Government..."

That is to say that, whether he wills it or not, he is going to be translated from his present employment in the society which gives him a considerable amount of latitude in relation to participation in the public life of this country into a service where, at once, he must divest himself of certain of the rights which the ordinary citizen enjoys. That is what is in the Bill.

There ought to be a realisation on the part of the Government that when a person is being transferred perforce from one employment to another he should be given an option either to go into that service or to retire from the service of his existing employers upon terms which would be fair and just to him. Instead of that principle being accepted and admitted, we have the contrary principle accepted, that a man will be conscripted into the Civil Service, that he will be compelled to enter the Civil Service unless he is prepared to subject himself and his family to the hardship of unemployment.

I remember when the Tánaiste was Leader of the Labour Party, was Chairman of the Labour Party in this House, when he sat on these benches; I remember how he used to talk about people being coerced into employment at starvation wages because they had no alternative left to them. What does the Minister propose to insert in this Bill? What is he proposing to do in the Bill except to coerce the existing officers and employees of the society into the employment of the State——

At higher salaries.

It does not matter. He is coercing them to accept conditions which may be distasteful to them because he has left them no alternative except that of resigning from their positions and condemning themselves and their families to hardship and want. That is what is in the Bill. If the Fianna Fáil Government had proposed to do that the Tánaiste, whether in the position of equivocally supporting the Government, which he sometimes was, or equivocally in opposition to the Government, as he more often was, would undoubtedly have made himself vocal and we should have heard the House echo and re-echo his denunciations of the Government—the capitalist and pitiless Government— which would dare to compel a man to sell his labour because, if he did not sell it in this way, he would condemn himself and his family to starvation. That would have been the line which the Tánaiste would take up.

What do we see here? He tells them that if they come into the service of the Government they will get, perhaps, better terms. If a man is prepared to sell his liberty of action in relation to the public life of this country, he will get a bribe for doing it, but if he wants to retain the same freedom as he had when he was a servant of the society, he will have to get out on the streets.

We ought to have embodied in the Bill the same sort of provision that we have in other Acts—that is, where a person is compelled to enter the service of the State, because the State takes over the institution or society in which he labours, he ought to be permitted to retire from his original service and be suitably compensated. You will compensate a man if you compulsorily acquire his land. Why should he not be entitled to a certain element of compensation if you compulsorily acquire his labour? Are they not on all fours? The people who profess that it is a duty to place the rights and liberties of the individual on a high level, the people who are responsible for submitting legislation in this way, should see to it that the rights of every individual are justly regarded and protected.

There is another aspect of this Bill to which I would like to refer and that is the proposal contained in one of the sections which provides for the suppression of the actuarial valuation, which ought to have taken place in relation to this society at the close of the year 1948. What is the reason for the proposal in this Bill? What is the reason for withholding from the general public and the Legislature vital information as to the position of the society on the termination of the quinquennial period at the close of the year 1948? Surely the citizens of the country, the members of the society, and the representatives of the people in the Dáil are entitled to have the fullest possible information, if they desire it, about the financial condition of any institution which has been set up under legislation passed by the Oireachtas.

The National Health Insurance Society, which it is now proposed to take over, was set up under an Act of the Oireachtas. In the original Act and in the subsequent amending statutes, the last one being the Act of 1942, provision was made to ensure that there would be an independent inquiry into the actuarial position of the society at stated intervals. The reason was threefold, firstly, to let the public know the position of the society, secondly, to let the members of the society know, and thirdly, to let the members of the Legislature, to whom the Government is responsible for certain aspects of the administration of the society, know what the position is.

Why is this information being withheld? If those facts were important before, they are doubly important now; they are doubly important in view of the fact that the Minister for Social Welfare, the Tánaiste, has undertaken to produce a social security scheme, and an important element in the construction of that scheme will be the assets that will be taken over from the society. An important element in enabling the public, who will have to pay for the scheme—it will not be the Government; it is going to be paid for by direct taxation levied upon the contributors, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other —an important element in enabling these people, who will be coerced contributors, to evaluate the benefits that they will get under the scheme will be what they may hope to get out of the assets of the National Health Fund. Why is that information not going to be given? Why is the Minister taking steps in the Bill to prevent that information being made available to the public?

When this matter was discussed on the Second and the Committee Stages the Minister gave a flimsy excuse. He said the reason why he was asking the Dáil to rescind the provision compelling him to have an actuarial investigation was that it would be too expensive. This year's national expenditure will be £107,000,000, in round figures. How much would an actuarial valuation cost? Would it cost £500, £1,000 or would it cost £5,000? We know, at any rate, that by comparison with the amount of the assets which the Minister is going to take over, or by comparison with the cost of Store Street when the Minister has finished destroying that building architecturally, it would be a mere fleabite.

What will be the actuarial valuation cost? It certainly will not cost £10,000, nor will it cost £5,000. We do not know whether the Minister will spend £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 purchasing Store Street and moulding it to his heart's desire, making it a sort of dream palace in which he will sit and admire himself as Minister for Social Welfare. But what is the actuarial valuation going to cost in comparison with the total cost of the security scheme? I suggest it is going to be infinitesimal. Surely the Tánaiste realises the ridiculous position into which he puts himself when he argues that his principal ground for dispensing with the actuarial valuation is the ground of expense.

Of course, the Minister has a second leg to stand on. He knows how the hollowness of that contention could be exposed. Then he comes along and says that the amount of trouble involved in securing the actuarial valuation would be too great. During the war the due actuarial valuation was made, and prior to the war a previous actuarial valuation was made. I can assure him that the Departments were as hard pushed then as they are now. They managed to do the job and we managed to fulfil our obligations under the law and to the public. Though it was exceedingly difficult to do so during war-time, not merely by reason of the pressure upon our own Civil Service, but by reason of the fact that at that time the Actuary's Department of the British Government was exceptionally hard pressed, we got the actuarial valuation. It was not too much trouble for us to try to find out the facts for the benefit of the people, but it is too much trouble for this Minister. He professes to be concerned about the amount of trouble it is going to involve. But should it, in present circumstances, be such a laborious procedure? After all, the Minister has been in office since the beginning of 1948. He knew the provision of the statutes. If he were looking after the administration of his office, would he not have been pressing this matter long ago? Do we not know that once an actuarial valuation has been made and the lines laid down, it is only a matter of keeping the records up to date? Does everybody not know that insurance offices all over the world have actuarial valuations made at prescribed dates? Some of them have annual valuations made. It does not involve them in all that additional labour and expenditure which the Minister tells us about. Here we have a society which has been long established, with records which have been kept up to date, with the most modern recording system, I think, that is in existence so that it is able to produce, as I know, statistics in relation to any particular aspect of the society's activities almost on demand. The Minister now tries to fob off the House with the excuse that one of the reasons why he is asking the House to agree to dispense with the actuarial valuation is that it is going to cost too much money and too much trouble.

The third excuse the Minister gave was that it was going to take up too much time. I understand that, in general, when an actuarial valuation of an ordinary insurance company is being made—where the conditions are very much more complicated and the variables are very much more numerous than in the case of the National Health Insurance Society—it can be made within a few months. That, I understand, is the position. I do not see why it should be any different in relation to the valuation of the National Health Insurance Society. If an ordinary insurance company can have an actuarial valuation made in a matter of a few months, why can the National Health Insurance Society not do it? There is no use in the Minister's citing what happened during the war as justification for the arguments he has used here; because during the war circumstances were exceptional. We could not get the services of the actuary from time to time. Our own staffs were overburdened and overladen because they were dealing with special emergency problems which were cropping up from day to day. In ordinary peace time, the collection and collation of the data necessary to make an actuarial valuation should be done more expeditiously and more easily. Therefore, even on the ground that it might take an extended period, the Minister has no justification for dispensing with this actuarial valuation. Even if it were going to take a year or 18 months, surely, he does not, judging by the sort of nebulous outline he has thrown at the public and labelled the social security scheme, anticipate that that Bill will be before Dáil Éireann before this time 18 months? Do we not all know the gamut that scheme has still to run and do we not all know how it is dividing the Coalition Government from top to bottom and how they are at all sixes and sevens in relation to it?

How does that arise in connection with this Bill?

The Minister gave us the justification for dispensing with the actuarial valuation that he would have the scheme in operation before he would have the valuation.

It does not arise under this Bill.

One of the provisions of the Bill is to amend the existing law, which provides that an actuarial valuation of the assets of the National Health Insurance Society should be made in December, 1948.

What is to happen under the comprehensive scheme does not arise on any of the provisions of this measure, and especially now, on the Fifth Stage.

That is quite true. I am merely answering the arguments which the Minister made to justify his completely untenable position. The position, therefore, is that the cost of the valuation is going to be infinitesimal when judged in relation to other Government expenditure; that the amount of trouble which would be involved for the Department in securing the data on which the actuarial valuation would be based is, again, insignificant, and that the time which it would require to make the actuarial valuation is comparatively short. Why, then, in all these circumstances, is the Minister refusing to give to the public, to the members of the society and to the Dáil the information which, under the existing law, he is bound to give them? Why is he trying to wriggle out of that obligation and, in wriggling out of it, to describe it as a social welfare provision?

I cannot see any social benefits enuring to any man who is blinded in order that his pockets might be picked. That is what is really involved in this proposal to dispose of the actuarial valuation. The Minister does not want to let the insured persons see what he is taking from them. Is that not the real reason why he has this monstrous provision in the Bill? I can see no other justification for it. The title of this Bill, which is described as a Social Welfare Bill, is a cynical misrepresentation of what the Bill really proposes to do. It really proposes to take over the National Health Insurance Society in order that it may take over the assets of the society, in order that those assets may be utilised by the Government to purchase a building for the Government which should purchase it out of its own resources, and, finally, in order to prevent the general public from having access to the statistical data in relation to the National Health Insurance Society which will enable them to criticise fairly and with sound information the social security proposals which the Minister is going to submit to the Dáil some time or other this side of Tibb's Eve.

I regard this Bill as an essential step in the development of social services. Once the Department of Social Welfare was set up I think everybody was satisfied that a Bill such as this would be necessary and would have to be presented to the Dáil as soon as possible. In this Bill and in the guarantees the Minister has given during its progress through this House that no official or employee of the society will have his or her conditions worsened, ample safeguards have been given. I am satisfied, I think the House is satisfied, and the officials and employees concerned are satisfied that when this Bill becomes law their conditions will be substantially improved. The Minister has given that guarantee, and I think that guarantee is more valuable than the guarantees sought to be written into the Bill.

I do not accept Deputy MacEntee's description that these employees and officials are being conscripted into a service they do not want to join. They are quite happy at being taken into the Civil Service in the way it is proposed to bring them in under this measure. I have one objection to the Bill. I expressed that objection on the Second Stage, and on the Committee Stage to the extent of putting down amendments and challenging divisions on them. I object to the power that this Bill gives the Minister to purchase the premises in Store Street. I regret that this Bill, if it is implemented by the Minister, will, as it were, put an end to the idea of an up-to-date bus depot in Store Street, or, indeed, anywhere in the City of Dublin for a long time to come. During the Committee Stage I put forward the suggestion that he should come to some arrangement with Córas Iompair Éireann whereby he would be enabled to house his Department in the upper storeys of the Store Street building while leaving the ground floor and the basement available for the purpose for which it was erected. I have recently looked over that part of the building and I cannot see that either the ground floor or the basement will be of much use or value to the Minister. Even if these floors should prove of some value to him, that value and use will be very small in comparison with the value and service that part of the building would be to the general public if it were used as a bus depot. I ask the Minister again to try to find some rational arrangement into which he can enter with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann by which the basement and the ground floor will be used as a bus depot in the interests of the travelling public.

With the exception of that criticism, I think the Bill is a necessary one and a good one. It has been substantially improved by the guarantees given in relation to the employees of the society by the Minister.

I spoke on most of the amendments on the Committee Stage which were referred to by Deputy Cowan. These were the amendments put down to Section 21. At this stage the Bill has almost become law and the acquisition of the premises in Store Street is almost an accomplished fact. One could justifiably describe this stage of the Bill as the last shot in the battle of Store Street. Deputy Cowan referred to the ground floor and basement portion of the building as being unsuitable for Government offices. I did not know that there was a basement. I did not inspect the premises in detail but I did walk around them recently on the outside and, having regard to the height of the ground floor, I think it would be entirely impracticable for use as offices unless another floor were put in to make two floors out of what is now one floor. I think the ground floor should be used for the purpose for which it was intended. It is ideally suitable for double-decker buses and other modern transport. The Minister told me on the Committee Stage that he rather thought the premises would be too small to house his staff. I am inclined to think that the Minister is mistaken in estimating the size of the building. I think it will more than accommodate the entire Department in its upper storeys. Even at this stage surely some compromise might be reached in preserving the ground floor and the basement for the purposes for which they were originally intended. I am sure the Minister will give no guarantees in reply but, having regard to the character of the debate and the opinions expressed by disinterested outsiders, I would ask the Minister, when the reconstruction plan proper comes into effect, to have regard to representations made on both sides of the House during the final stages of the Bill.

Deputy Dr. Ryan raised the question of the position of certain agents who at present are members of local authorities and, on the Committee Stage, I undertook to look into that matter. I have done so, but my inquiries into the matter are not yet complete. However, even if I met the point that has been put up, and with which, as I indicated, I have a certain amount of sympathy, I do not think it necessary that I should submit an amendment to the Dáil, as whatever is necessary can be done by administrative action. I take it that if we are to achieve the object we both have in mind, it does not matter how it is done. As I stated, I undertook to examine the position of those who at present are members of local authorities with a view to allowing them to retain their membership. I am still examining the point, and if it is possible to meet it, it will not be necessary to submit an amendment to the Bill, as it can be done by administrative action.

Deputy MacEntee went out of the discussion on this Bill with the same characteristic irresponsibility as he came into it. As usual, of course, he indulged in all the misrepresentations he could of the Bill, and in abuse of the Government. These tactics are characteristic of Deputy MacEntee, so characteristic that intelligent people regard them just as the bleatings of the Deputy, and his utterances are valued accordingly. I do not intend in any way to minister to the Deputy's vanity when I say that it was a rather unkind fate for the nation, perhaps, and a great loss to the circuses of the world when the Deputy was whirled into public life in this country, because if he had not been whirled into public life, he would have gone down as one of the greatest actors in history, the difference being, of course, that in that event we need not go to see this actor. That torture need only be inflicted on us of our own choice. The Deputy was in one of his typical actor-like moods this evening. He started off by reflecting on the solvency of the Irish Government. Party politics have indeed come to a low ebb in this country when, on the eve of the launching of a loan, an ex-Minister for Finance and a Front Bench member of the Opposition engages in the dirty trick of misrepresenting before his own people and before the world the financial solvency of the State in which he lives and from which he draws his income. I should have thought, bad and all as the Deputy's record is for irresponsibility, that there was at least a line below which he would not descend, but apparently when it comes to abuse of his political opponents, the Deputy knows no belt or no line below which he may not go. There is no limit to the depths to which he is willing to descend if he thinks that he can score a political trick with that peculiar kind of mentality for which the Deputy is distinguished. Last year we had the Deputy championing an archpartitionist, Mr. Warnock, in this country, when we were trying to clarify the constitutional position of the country. To-day he is at the same old game, when this country is being traduced in Canada by itinerant politicians there. Deputy MacEntee is a janitor-like echo of the same itinerant politician, traducing his own Government before the people, and reflecting on the solvency of the Irish nation.

On a point of order, I should like the Tánaiste to tell me what a janitor-like echo is.

That is not a point of order.

The Deputy might like to look up the Encyclopaedia Britannica where his leader discovered what a republic was. No doubt his leader will lend him the dictionary.

Let us get back to the Bill.

What is a janitor-like echo?

It appears that the Encyclopaedia Britannica was right about the Republic anyway.

There is not a word in this measure about the Republic.

It is a good job the Deputy read the dictionary or he would not have known he had a Republic at all. He would not have known what kind of State he had only for the Encyclopaedia Britannica—a rather pitiable position to be in.

We are now discussing the Fifth Stage of the Social Welfare Bill and only what is in the Bill.

I think we can leave Deputy MacEntee's advent to the realms of high finance alone, feeling satisfied that his advice is not likely to be taken by anybody who has any intelligence or by anybody who wants any serious guidance or advice in the matter of the financial stability of the country. It is, of course, our rather sad fate that we are condemned to sit here and listen to him. I sympathise with his colleagues who have to bear more with his tactics than we do.

We are deserving of sympathy having to listen to you.

You will have to put up with more of it. In the discussion on this Bill, he has tried to indicate that he knew more about social welfare than you did.

The Chair now wants to hear something about the Bill.

Deputy MacEntee said that the effect of investing the national health insurance funds, which are at present invested in British securities, in an Irish building would be to endanger the benefits provided for under the scheme. That is sheer nonsense and a child could have told Deputy MacEntee why. Deputy MacEntee purposely misunderstands the Bill and no amount of effort to try to put him on the right path as to the purpose of the Bill is ever likely to succeed, because the Deputy has deliberately made up his mind to misrepresent the Bill. Anything that in any way impedes the Deputy in this irresponsible course is brushed aside and disregarded, because it interferes with the Deputy's campaign of misrepresentation. Of course, the investment of these moneys in the Store Street building will not endanger the benefits provided under the national health insurance scheme. They are guaranteed by legislation, and when the comprehensive social security scheme comes into operation, these benefits will be substantially increased. The steps which we are taking to-day are necessary steps, a prerequisite to the introduction of the comprehensive scheme. So far as the Store Street building is concerned, the moneys which at present are being invested because they are not wanted, will be utilised to finance the purchase of the Store Street building. Very likely the moneys which are invested in British securities will be utilised in order to purchase that building. I should like to ask some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, and particularly the fiscal experts: is it not a better proposition that we should invest our money in a building in the capital of the country rather than have it invested in British securities, our money being utilised to develop some other part of the world? Is it not obviously better that our money should be invested here? Why then the moan because we propose to utilise funds invested in British securities for the purpose of purchasing a building for the use of a Government Department in Ireland?

Why not build a building of your own?

This building was built in Ireland and the moneys which have been invested during the period of office of the Fianna Fáil Government in British securities will now be utilised for the purpose of purchasing a partly-completed building here and bringing it to completion for housing the staff of an Irish Government Department. Is it not better to use the money in that way than have it invested in growing peanuts or some other kind of nuts somewhere in Africa? If it is not, some of the Deputies opposite ought to say so here, or give a lecture outside, telling us why it is better to leave our money invested in British securities than to utilise it for investment in a building in the capital city of the country.

How much is invested in British securities?

£2.7 millions. We had Deputy MacEntee's misrepresentations on this Bill when he painted a rather agonising scene of folk being conscripted into the Civil Service. We have all read stories of the tortures which martyrs in the old days endured for the Faith and for principles which they held dear, but these were nothing to the agonising scene that is going to take place now when the staff of the National Health Insurance Society are asked to move from O'Connell Street to Store Street to work for the Government of this country. That is represented as conscription, as the press gang in operation, as a violence to liberty and as trampling on people's consciences. In fact, it is all nonsense and everybody knows it.

Would the Minister tell us if there is a proper title——

The Deputy should not ask questions until the Minister has concluded.

Do not get put out over me.

I think the Deputy should be allowed to ask a question.

Thousands of our people compete every year to get into the Civil Service and their grimmest moment probably is when they get the result of the examination to say that they, unfortunately, have failed. Now, apparently, those folk are mistaken; they are just mental defectives and ought to rejoice in the fact that they have not been conscripted into the Civil Service because they can never know the tortures which await them there according to Deputy MacEntee. Could even Deputy MacEntee's nonsense go further than that?

I come now to review the finances of the National Health Insurance Society. I do not know who has advised Deputy MacEntee on this, but I suggest that his mentor, whoever he is, ought to be summarily dismissed for the advice he has given. What is the fact about the valuation? The valuation for the years 1939-43 took place two years after December, 1943. We know who was in office at that date. The valuation was submitted to the actuary. It was about a year after before his report was available. That is three years. I am not saying that there was any delay in submitting the data or that two years was too long a period because of the work that was involved.

There was a war on then, but there is no war on now.

The staff of the National Health Insurance Society were not at war except with the Minister. Otherwise, it was not a sanguinary affair. The staff were in Árus Brugha, and for these two years they were working on the compilation of data. It takes a long time to gather data. It was then sent to the actuary, and he took approximately one year in the preparation of his report. I have made inquiries since this matter was discussed on the Committee Stage. I made an offer to Deputy Dr. Ryan to read the official report to him. I make it again. My information is that the data required for the 1948 valuation will not be available at the earliest, and then, in an unaudited way, until towards the end of this year.

You did nothing during the two years.

The National Health Insurance Society is the body dealing with it. The Deputy can insult the Committee, if he likes, as he did the chairman and the trustees on a previous occasion. There is no one better able to insult them than Deputy MacEntee.

You are making a fair effort yourself at insulting people.

Why interrupt when I am trying to explain? As I say, it will take two years. The officials who dealt with the 1943 valuation are, in the main, the people who are dealing with the 1948 valuation. It will take two years to assemble the data. It will then go to the actuary; that will take another year, so that it will be three years before the information is available. I am making an effort to get this over that you will not need the actuary's report of the society for the purpose of considering the comprehensive scheme for the reason that the comprehensive scheme has already been costed actuarially and that it does not depend on the experience of what the valuation of 1948 showed any more than on the 1943 report.

To check the actuary.

That is another rôle the Deputy is going to fill, to check the actuary. He ought to curb his modesty. Even that is too funny for Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Drop the comedian rôle now and get on.

That is the position with regard to the valuation, that it cannot be available until the end of next year at the earliest, and when available can be of no value whatever in considering the comprehensive scheme, the White Paper in respect of which has been actuarially costed. The scheme itself will be actuarially costed, and will not depend on the valuation.

Deputy MacEntee talked about the ease and the speed with which one can get a valuation from an ordinary assurance society as compared with the National Health Insurance Society. I imagine Deputy Dr. Ryan should be able to prevent Deputy MacEntee from going off the rails in that respect.

What did he say that was wrong?

What did he say that was right? You should proceed on the basis that he was all wrong.

Will the Minister go on with his speech?

If Deputy Dr. Ryan looks up what Deputy MacEntee said in connection with the valuation of ordinary assurance companies and compares that position with the National Health Insurance Society, he will discover, perhaps at a glance, but certainly if he consults anyone with any knowledge on the matter, that the two types of valuation are entirely dissimilar.

Of course they are.

Deputy MacEntee ranted for a quarter of an hour and said they were the same.

I did not.

The Official Report will show it. In the case of an ordinary assurance company it should be done in three months' time and in this case there is no definite time.

There is a difference but, if there is, is there any difficulty in one case or the other?

Ask an actuary about the matter, and see what he will tell you.

During the last two years nothing has been done to secure an actuarial valuation.

That is a typical libel on the staff and officers of the society. It has taken them the same time as it took them from 1943 to 1945. The only other point which has been raised is the matter of Store Street. We have discussed that at considerable length during the various stages of the Bill and I do not think there is anything new which can be said on the matter. The fact of the matter is that Córas Iompair Éireann set out to build a bus depot for which they could not pay. When they discovered that there was no money in the kitty to pay for it, they had to abandon it, just as they had to abandon the £1,000,000 hotel which they were going to build in Glengarriff. That had to go the same way. That was one of the consequences of the rake's progress. The £1,000,000 hotel in Glengarriff, on which £40,000 in architect's fees was paid, was abandoned. Store Street survived a little longer. But the rake became more impecunious and Store Street was abandoned also. Because it was abandoned, it was available and, as we required it for departmental offices, we decided to buy it. It was only bought by us after Córas Iompair Éireann had decided that they had no money to proceed with the building. In these circumstances, it was available for purchase and we decided to purchase it and that is what we are doing. If Córas Iompair Éireann wanted to retain it and pay for it, they could have kept it. We did not prevent them. There was nothing to prevent them retaining it, except the fact that their financial imprudence had reduced them to such a position that they could not afford to pay for what they had ordered. That was the position of the national transport undertaking. We decided to buy it for departmental offices. It is now in process of being bought and will be utilised in due course as departmental offices for the Department of Social Welfare, which will shed all the other offices under its control. So far as the provision of a bus depot is concerned, that is a matter for Córas Iompair Éireann and not for the Department of Social Welfare. We only came into the Store Street project because a bankrupt railway found it could not pay for what it ordered.

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share