Speaking some time ago in Cork and defending the present measure, the Tánaiste informed us that the Government could not take out of the national kitty something that was not in it and that intelligence demanded that any scheme of social security must be based on the realities of life in Ireland. A good many people think that it is based, perhaps, on some idea of a fool's paradise rather than on the realities of life as they confront a great many of our people at the present time. Whether that be so or not, the fact is that even the Tánaiste, now that he has acquired some sense of responsibility, realises that there is a limit to what you can do in the way of providing for extra services. There is, first, the limit of what the country as a whole can afford. Different people will have different ideas but, last year, when the total bill for national and local taxation came to some 25 per cent. of the national income, the Minister for Finance suggested that that was about the limit that should be reached. This year, the figure seems to be about 35 per cent. That is on the existing services.
There are other services clamouring for attention. We have not had the problem of rearmament in this country and, in that way, we have escaped heavy obligations which, if we had to face them, would create serious upsets and call for very serious adjustments in our economy. There is then the normal expenditure of the State which goes ahead by leaps and bounds. There is the demand for educational reform, for the raising of the school-leaving age, an extension of education, free secondary education and even free university education. We used to hear a great deal of that. There are also the health services. I do not know what the cost of these might be eventually but the figure of £12,000,000 has been mentioned as being the total cost of the scheme that has been envisaged. It seems to me that as well as keeping an eye on the proportion of the national income and of the citizen's wage or salary which is going to be appropriated for State services, there is also the important question of the priority in which the money will be spent. Is it going to be spent on the basis of dealing first with the claims of those who are in a position to organise and compel attention to their claims? Is it to be on the basis of these organised groups or sections securing what they have in mind, perhaps at the expense of the rest of the community, or are priorities to be determined on the basis of the needs of particular classes?
The old poor law system, whatever its defects may have been, was at any rate based on the idea of need—the needs of individuals. Now it is the needs of particular classes and sections that are in question and it is forgotten that in some of these sections, classes and groups there are very many individuals, perhaps the majority, who do not require to have these services provided for them, who have not asked for them and who might very well say that they could make better arrangements if left to their own devices—arrangements, for example, for their old age.
The Minister told us in his Second Reading speech that there was no necessity for a scheme of social security "if a living wage were a reality but the day of the living wage has not arrived." What is a living wage and how far have we succeeded in reaching the goal of a living wage? Is it that we are perpetually chasing something that eludes us, something that we shall never attain or that is not, in fact, attainable? Has it been attained in nationalised industry, in Great Britain for example? We were told that all the defects of private ownership and so on, would be rectified under public ownership. Does anybody now believe that under public ownership alone, in contradistinction to private ownership, you are going to arrive at a position, just by nationalising industry, where you will be able to pay a living wage?
Social economists recognise, whether in Great Britain or in any other country, that you have to gear up the productivity of the country and the productive level in order to be able to pay higher wages and that, in the long run, the incentives you give by way of higher wages or otherwise will have to be met by a consciousness on the part of the workers that the higher wage can only be got through greater production. That consciousness may in due course, in this new shape of society that we now seem to be faced with, eventually lead to a sense of responsibility in these matters, which unfortunately has been very often lacking up to the present.
It is generally accepted, I think, that workers' wages should be sufficient to satisfy their everyday living needs, sufficient to support the worker and his family. The State has done a certain amount by way of various measures, in particular in regard to the provision of houses, so that it cannot be said that, even long before our time, there was not a realisation that the lower-paid workers and those in need of protection and assistance, should get such assistance. In our time also you have the organisation of workers carried on, on a great scale. You have tremendous organisations containing thousands of members and you have machinery available by which, through arbitration, conciliation or some State machinery such as the Labour Court, you have processes of wage-fixing. On the whole there has been an advance, a steady advance all the time, sometimes somewhat slow perhaps, but at other times operating with greater speed. In other countries, while recognising that a fair wage was the ideal, the position was that the wage that industry could pay was not sufficient to provide for the workers' family needs, and you had a system of family allowances. In France, this started through endowment by groups of employers of mutual aid societies. There were contributions to these societies based on earnings. It was fairly typical that to the funds of these mutual aid societies the employer contributed 10 per cent. and the employee 6 per cent. and out of these funds the workers were paid a certain amount. If the wage was not sufficient for a worker with several children, these funds served the admirable purpose of providing him with an increase in his wages. He might get 5 per cent. on his wages for the first child, 10 per cent. on the second child and 15 per cent. on the third child. I think there was a certain advantage in that, as in every scheme formulated by workers and employers in a particular industry you get a co-operation that you would not get in a State scheme. I think you will get a sense of responsibility among all concerned that you may not get under a State scheme. I think it could be claimed for such a scheme that it would be managed at least as efficiently, having regard to the fact that the numbers would be smaller, that all concerned and contributing to it would be au fait with the circumstances and would take an active part in it in much the same way as the suppliers to an Irish creamery organisation society meet regularly and know what is going on.
We have examples of these schemes in this country. In some of the Scandinavian countries some amelioration was made in the case of large families of wage earners either by way of a rent reduction or otherwise. I think that in Sweden, for example, they had a system by which the larger the family the larger was the reduction in the rent. That is one of the weaknesses of this system which came from Germany to England and which has gone on ever since Mr. Lloyd George established it. When he did that, he pretended that the people were getting 9d. for 4d. In fact, we all realise now that we are paying pound for pound, and that if the beneficiaries do not pay, then the contributors or the State and the taxpayer, or both combined, will have to provide the finances. That seems to me to be in line with the tradition that we should think in these matters in terms of the individual. It is a bad old legacy which seems to have come in here from Britain, where the idea of family endowment was only taken up very late in the day, and that the Minister and the Government are subscribing to it. Instead of helping the family and of trying to endow it more generously than it has been endowed up to the present, we might really call this Bill a family disendowment measure. Except for the family of two children, where allowances are made in case of sickness and unemployment, there is no provision for the larger family. In fact, I think it can be shown that the larger it is the more unfavourable is its position under these proposals relative to the family of one or two children.
It is a well-known fact that poverty is generally associated with the larger families just as the worst occupations are generally associated with the larger families. The people with more children are worse off. During the period when children are going to school there is a very heavy burden thrown upon the family, particularly in times like the present, when food and clothing are very expensive. It may be that people expect a little more now than they used to long years ago. Habits have changed. Fruit and other things that were very rare then are perhaps in more general use now. But, on the other hand, we see from the nutritional report, to which reference has already been made in the House, that in the City of Dublin, for example, the consumption of milk is not satisfactory. Two classes of families, the larger family in what is called the slum area and the larger family in the lower-paid artisan class—even that class which many would describe as having had its position substantially improved —are quoted as examples where, in the case, I think, of three children, the consumption of milk is insufficient. In that report, too, fault was found with the monotony of the diet.
We all know that milk and fruit, if they possibly can be obtained, are necessary for children, but unfortunately they cannot be. It seems extraordinary that, at this hour of the day, we should talk about social security and ignore completely the family which is the foundation of society, the family which, under the Constitution, is described as receiving special protection from the State, and the mother of the family who is described as the person who must receive special consideration and special assistance from the State so that she may not find it necessary to leave her home and children to go out and seek employment in order to find money to provide for them.
The falling value of money certainly has pressed hardest on these, the very poorest, as well as the largest, families. I cannot understand why, if we are so much interested in the welfare of the people, we should ignore completely the growing generation. After all, they are the real asset of the nation. They are what we have to depend upon in the future. There is no reference good, bad or indifferent in these proposals to the children's allowance scheme, and from the very beginning there has been no suggestion of doing anything. The Minister has not even considered it necessary, or worth while, to pay any lip service to the idea of additional allowances for large families. Therefore, we are going to be faced with the position in the future that we have had in the past, that those people who have four, five or more children will know that for every additional child they have, certainly above the third, the cost of bringing up that child is going to be so serious that there is going to be a question as to whether they can afford it. Surely we ought to revise our attitude in this matter considering that the numbers of larger families in question is not very great. According to the figures which the Minister supplied to me, two-fifths of the families seem to have three children, one-fourth have four children, one-sixth have five children and one-fifth have six or more children. With the increase which the Government proposes to give, by way of amending the means test for old age pensioners, we shall be spending nearly £8,500,000 upon old age pensions, which is nearly four times as much as we are spending on children's allowances—but then, as was mentioned, these children have no votes. If they had votes, of course, the boot might be on the other foot.
I come now to the aged. I think there is a definite distinction which should be drawn between those who are living alone in rooms with nobody to look after them and those who are still in the fortunate position that they are living with their families and can, therefore, have the family attention and care that that means for them. We know that there is a class of old age pensioner who is living alone and who, perhaps, has no friends. If we could do more for them I think we ought to do it. I do not necessarily mean that it is entirely a cash question: it is a question of care. It is a question of having visitors of the type of hospital almoners—trained workers who are in a position to discuss their problems with people who are afflicted or aged, who can try to help them, to secure some little comfort and, above all, who can give them the support they require morally by their sympathy and their understanding. It has to be said, with regard to that class, that the rents they have to pay are a considerable item in their meagre housekeeping allowances. Under the system that we have, no special arrangements can be made to deal with that problem unless it is being done by way of home assistance.
Deputy Dunne takes us to task because more was not done in our Administration but, according to the Minister, we are to have more Social Welfare Bills so that it is doubtful if any of us here present, whatever our views about the immediate measure may be, will see the day when we will be able to find everybody satisfied with what, in fact, is being done. Before we left office there was 15/- all round, and 2/6 for those special cases of people in need, through the home assistance authority. This matter is important because of the very large size of the provision for retirement pensions in these proposals—leaving aside for one moment the £8,500,000 for old age pensions and looking at this question of persons who reach the age of 65. We find that from 1901 to 1946 the number of persons between 15 and 64 years of age decreased by 10 per cent.: we lost 222,000. Of the number under 14 years of age, the school-going population, we lost 150,000: the number in that class went down by 15 per cent. That means a fairly substantial decline in the population of educational age or of working age in a small country such as this. Every man and every woman who reaches maturity should count, and we ought to try to get the most out of them.
However, with regard to the class over 65 years of age there was an increase of over 50 per cent. They increased by 105,000—and the increase will be even greater in the future because, as has been pointed out—unless some catastrophe occurs—with the spread of medical science and the improved standards, the expectation of life has increased. It is calculated that in Britain they will have double the numbers they had when the Government introduced the proposals based on the Beveridge Scheme there. Here, it seems to me that the number who reach 65 will be double in ten years. According to the figures, you will have 25,000 in receipt of the retirement pension in the first year. In 20 years you will have 74.3 thousand. You will have three times as many in 20 years in receipt of the retirement pension as you had at the beginning. Of course, the cost rises rapidly and steeply on account of that—while the children's allowances, presumably, will remain at the figure of £2,250,000 unless this Government or whatever Government may be there changes its mind about this fundamental matter. In the first year we are going to pay £2.1 million in retirement pensions. In the fifth year it will be £3.65 million. In the tenth year it will be £4.95 million—nearly £5,000,000. In the twentieth year the figure will be £6,750,000. Therefore, this element of retirement pensions is by far the biggest factor in the very heavy expenditure which is necessitated by the present scheme. The total cost of this scheme is to be £10,500,000 in the first year; £12,600,000 in the fifth year; £14,250,000 in the tenth year, and £16.6 million in the twentieth year. I do not know whether that is the maximum figure or not because the Minister has not answered the question I put him.
When I say "ultimate cost" I mean the ultimate cost on the basis of the present benefits and the present scheme and if the actuary can tell the cost in 20 years' time he can certainly give some idea of what the ultimate cost will be. I hope I am not wronging the actuary. People like Deputy Keane find fault with me because I point out the heavy expenditure and additional taxation which will be involved but I am only repeating what the Minister for Finance has stated very frequently and I consider it my duty to do so and the duty of every Deputy here. It is not merely a question of adding on millions; the millions have to be found and as I said in the beginning there is a limit to the total amount that can be found. If, as Deputy Lemass said, the House were left to determine the issues freely and fairly from the point of view of what was best for the country, would they spend the money in the way proposed under the present measure? An important consideration is whether the money should be spent in that way and whether the country would approve of it.
If you believe that you will ultimately get value by way of incentives from expenditure on a scheme of this type, if it will be worth the money involved by getting from the workers more co-operation, better returns, higher productivity and a great addition to the national wealth, then it is surely necessary to make it clear to them since they are the people who must pay for it that they are not getting something for nothing and that in some cases such as unemployment benefit only 10 per cent. will ever draw benefit. In the case of national health insurance the number is higher and will go higher with the higher benefits. Then you have the problem of malingering. There are 20 per cent. who at one time or another may draw national health benefit but generally speaking you must have at least four or five workers who will not draw any benefit at all until they reach retirement age. Those who are now entering employment will pay 3/6 a week until they reach that age and they may not draw any benefit for unemployment or sickness during that whole period.
The question is whether those people consider that it is worth the contributions because not alone will they have to pay the contributions but a proportion, and a larger proportion if we lump in assistance services with the insurance services proper, will have to pay when old age pensions, education or anything else demands additional expenditure. They may have to pay if the wide net which has now been spread over industrial workers for income-tax reaches them. I venture to say that the single man who may look forward to a benefit of 24/- a week as against 22/6 at the present time will wonder whether it is worth the extra 3/6 contribution he will have to pay. I cannot say at the moment whether a man with £3 10s. a week would have to pay income-tax; probably not even if he were a single man, but certainly if he is in the £4 10s. or £5 10s. class, he will have to pay something. As well as that, as well as the contributions and the income-tax, he will have to pay unless he is a non-smoker, a nondrinker and a non-dancer and does not attend race meetings or greyhound races. Even if he only smokes a few packets of cigarettes every week he will have to contribute substantially to meet the additional expenditure. To the extent that it cannot be raised through his direct contributions and the contributions of his employer it will have to be made good by the State and that can only be done through taxation.
As everyone knows the demands of a population that seems to be ageing are higher. When the numbers in the upper age groups tend to be greater than those in the lower age groups you are not replacing your working population and with the diminishing population you must provide extra amounts for the older people who are in a very strong position politically as we see from their attempts to get something more than they have been getting.
Before I leave the question of cost which, let us not deceive ourselves, must be met in some way or other, I would quote the British Government actuary reporting on the Beveridge scheme (paragraph 13, page 180):
"If the actual rates of mortality experienced in the future are substantially below those on the standard taken, more particularly at the older ages, the population of pensionable age may be materially in excess of my estimates. But the future is obviously very speculative, and after consideration of the statistics of the last 30 years, and in view of the uncertainties due to the war I have thought it premature, for the present purpose, to modify the relatively light rates of mortality disclosed in recent years in such a way as to incorporate a loading on the Estimates."
Further on he says:—
"As regards disability benefits, I have assumed that an appreciably higher claim rate will be experienced than that now prevailing in the national health insurance scheme, inter alia, on account of the substantial increases proposed in the rates of benefit.... Moreover, these benefits are payable without reduction in cases of prolonged disability. They are thus much greater than the present health insurance rates.”
He goes on to give the figures:—
"Past experience of sickness insurance—both State and voluntary —leads to the conclusion that, even with the support of a satisfactory system of medical certification and adequate measures of control by sick visiting and by medical referees, these high benefits will result in materially increased claim rates, especially in respect of prolonged incapacity.
"While it is true that as a result of the comprehensive health and rehabilitation service which is to be provided in case of the more limited existing medical benefit, a substantial improvement in the health of the community should be secured in due course, it does not necessarily follow that the cost of benefit will be correspondingly abated."
So we are in the position that while we are spending millions on health services, perhaps having a State medical service costing £12,000,000 a year, we have no proof that we shall not have to pay increased sums by way of sickness and disablement benefit under the scheme. The British actuary says:
"This is due to the fact that under the altered arrangements there may be a tendency on the part of doctors to require longer periods off work in order to secure complete recovery from the effects of an illness, and there will also be less incentive than in the past to return to work owing to loss of income."
Perhaps there will not be sufficient accommodation in the hospitals and the doctor will have to rush them out in order to find room for others waiting; but in that case he may not consider it appropriate to ask them to report for work.
Before I leave this report—seeing that I have to depend on it to a great extent, when we cannot get copies of a similiar report which ought to have been provided—I would quote further:
"Position after 1965.—I have not carried my estimates beyond the year 1965. There is no doubt, however, that estimates of the position after that year would show a further growth in the proportion of social security expenditure to be provided from the Exchequer as compared with the proportions met from the contributions of insured persons and their employers, for the following reasons. First, the cost of the scheme will still be increasing substantially, mainly on account of pensions, because (1) the aged population will be increasing, and (2) the average rate of pension will be rising as pensioners then existing and receiving a reduced transitional rate are replaced by others receiving the full rate. Second, the contributing population will probably be stationary or declining. Thus, for many years at least, the whole of the additional expenditure, i.e., a growing proportion of the total expenditure, will fall to be met from the Exchequer under the method of finance envisaged in the plan.”
Now, no matter how many questions I put down to the Tánaiste I dare say I could never get him to say what the British actuary has said in an official publication, of which I suppose millions of copies have been sold and which is there for everybody to read. If we are not to have the same position in this country, then let us know on what the hypotheses are based that we are not going to have it.
The question then arises: "Are we to compel those who have made other and suitable provision for themselves to participate in these schemes?" They may consider that the superannuation schemes into which they have entered, or whatever provision they have made for themselves individually, are superior. As well as asking ourselves that question, why we should compel these people to come into the State scheme when they feel that their own scheme is better, we must ask ourselves why we should find it necessary to have the position that those reaching 65 must be deemed to be persons who must retire from work. In view of the figures I have read out and which everyone who has looked at this population question knows, in view of the shortage of the labour corps, in view of the possibility of a decline in the numbers of the working population, would it not be advisable to keep on those who have been trained and experienced and who have spent their lives at particular occupations, and let them continue as long as they can? It has been accepted in Britain that they should be left at work as long as possible.
An organisation over there which cannot be said to be in any way backward in propagating Socialist views— because it is a pioneer of Socialism in Britain—the Fabian Society, giving evidence before a commission dealing with this matter, recommended that an allowance should be paid to persons who reached the age of 65 to continue at work, that it would be better to do that, in view of the need for keeping the largest numbers possible on at work instead of retiring them. Though the Fabian Society had no doubts about where this retirement pension scheme should come in the general scheme of things, they thought that it should rank behind other social services and even behind the educational service. They agreed—and I think we can all agree—that at the age of 65, or earlier, if there be a case of need or disability or loss of capacity to work, there should be full provision made for the person concerned. I think that is what Deputy Dr. Ryan had in mind in his scheme, and I think we could accept the view that, if our circumstances permitted, such persons should not be treated less favourably than those who remain on.
The British were daunted by this problem of retirement pensions and the formidable expenditure of hundreds of millions — in 1945, retirement pensions, £120,000,000 and in 1965, £300,000,000. Daunted by those figures, they determined to see whether they could reconcile them with the principle which the Beveridge Report had laid down of making the scheme comprehensive for all citizens. "In respect of both the persons covered and their needs, the plan covers all citizens." That was the promise and that was the principle that was laid down, but modifications had to be made. If you set out to do something that you cannot do in the long run, you may find yourself in the position that the ex-President of the United States found himself in, when he said recently: "You can have social security—and a ration with it." It was not possible to do it and a compromise had to be effected over a transitional period of stages, over 20 years. It was determined that eventually those who reached the age of 65 should be brought on to the full plan, the full pension, but it would take 20 years to do it.
In an Act passed in 1946, provision was made by which a weekly bonus of 1/- would be paid to workers reaching the age of 65 for every half-year they continued to remain gainfully occupied up to a total bonus of 10/- per week after five years' additional work beyond the age of 65 for men and 60 for women.
It seems clear to me that the complete ignoring of the recipients of children's allowances and of the members of larger and poorer families in the present scheme is a proof that there are and must be other classes that will suffer if you go ahead and spend more than is necessary, certainly more than seems to be right if a proper balance is to be kept in the scheme between the claims of the family and the claims of the aged. Perhaps a scheme will be utimately devised which will cater fairly for all classes, including both the aged and the young. But, at the present time, however the aged may be doing under these proposals, it is quite clear that the family is being completely ignored.
I cannot allow this important occasion to pass without dealing with the point of view that this scheme is unfair and unbalanced in that it does not benefit all sections of the community. When we remember that the contribution from the employees will be declining, contrary to what Deputy Sweetman has stated in the Press— during the first year, as I calculate, employees will be paying 30 per cent. and that, over a 20-year period on the figures available, will be reduced to 20 per cent.—there will be a deficiency, because the Tánaiste to-day in reply to a parliamentary question reminded me that, according to the White Paper, the total amount that will be got from contributions will be £7,250,000. But, as I have shown, the cost of the scheme is to go up from £10,500,000 to £12.6 million in five years, £14,250,000 in ten years and £16.6 million in 20 years. Of that £16.6 million, £7,500,000 will be by way of contribution. The remaining £9.4 million will have to be got from the State. Therefore, even on the present basis of the scheme with contributions being paid, in 20 years you will be asking the general taxpayer to contribute £9 for every £7 that both the employee and employer combined are contributing towards the scheme.
That is a clear proof that the general taxpayer, apart from the old age pensions, would be paying the lion's share and it is wrong to suggest that there is an even one-third. Of course some of our friends think that £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 does not mean anything one way or the other. But let us try to be accurate. In the first year, the figures would be £3,250,000 from the employees, £4,000,000 from the employers and £4,000,000 from the State, and, as I have shown, while the combined contributions would remain at the figure of £7,250,000, there would be a deficit. The Tánaiste could not tell me what the deficit would be. That deficit has to be got from the Exchequer, from the taxpayer. As in a general scheme like old age pensions it seems reasonable that it should be paid from general taxation since everybody is benefiting, in the same way it would seem to follow that, if much the greater proportion of the cost is coming from the State as against that coming from the contributors, there ought to be an effort to bring in the remainder of the community, whether you give them the same benefits or lesser benefits. At any rate, the community as a whole is paying the major share and why should any section therefore be omitted?
The Tánaiste told us in his speech that the employer does not benefit from employing persons at a lower rate of wages than £3 10s. No doubt, it would be a greater virtue in the Tánaiste's eyes if the employer could pay £4, £5, £6 or £7. But is there not the question in regard to the individual employer, as in regard to the State, of how far he can go, how much he can pay? The Tánaiste tells us through the White Paper that the farmer who employs a few men, if he is paying them less than £3 10s., and that may not continue very long, should not get away with anything, that it is his moral duty to pay the 3/6 a week whether the sum is under £3 10s. or over £3 10s.
Although the Tánaiste represents a rural constituency, he told us that the farmer was a factory owner. We used to hear a great deal about those miserable factories that were started under the Fianna Fáil régime in the back streets and laneways and so on. But think of all these factories, think of the tractors, the combined harvesters and the thousands of pounds invested in capital equipment. Perhaps the Tánaiste, like the Minister for Agriculture, dreams of the prairies of America. But, if we come down to figures, we find that the position is not anything like that. We have 378,000 holdings; 165,000 are in the congested districts; 31 per cent. of these are under £4 valuation; 32 per cent. are from £4 to £10 valuation. In other words, in the congested districts 63 per cent. of the farms are under £10 valuation. But take the districts that are not congested. You have 212,000 holdings, 28 per cent. under £4 valuation, 26 per cent. between £4 and £10, and 52 per cent. under £10 valuation, or, taking the country as a whole, we have about 53 per cent. of all our holdings under £10 valuation and we have 60 per cent., or thereabouts, of uneconomic holdings. There then is the farmer, a property owner with an agricultural factory; he may be a plutocrat, one of these gentlemen with a gold watch chain swinging across his capacious paunch, as compared with the toiling masses—the toiling masses that the Minister has so often told us must be provided with full security against all the hazards of life.
The farmers are a very important section of our people. There are about 500,000 altogether engaged in agriculture. A certain number of them, stated to be about 120,000 paid agricultural workers, are expected to pay up to 3/6 per week. They will be no more able to pay up than will the employer who is sometimes not very much better off so far as cash resources are concerned than the men who are working for him.
This land of ours is producing the wealth upon which our future depends and all our progress and all our schemes; 80 per cent. of our exports are based upon the land. Nevertheless, the net agricultural output per male engaged in farm work in 1948 was not very much more than half that of the industrial worker, £210 as against £378. The Minister has told us that it is necessary to have schemes like this because they prevent the growth of conditions which would encourage the spread of Communism. Perhaps the United States of America has a different view and we depend a good deal upon the United States of America, not alone we but a number of other people who talk a great deal about social services and social security. It would be interesting to know how far social security would go without Marshall Aid. It seems to me to be a kind of Maginot Line which it would not be very hard to pierce should some cataclysm descend upon us or some depression such as we have had experience of in the past. From where will all these £ millions of deficiency come? If there is a depression, one cannot increase the contributions even if one wishes to do so. Will taxation be increased in those circumstances to provide for these £ millions of deficiency in the scheme?
The Minister tries to put us off by telling us that such things will not arise for five years. If we have a proper idea of our responsibility in looking after the national housekeeping we will not wait for these troubles to arise five or ten years hence. We will look at them in advance and try to make provision for them. If we do not do that, as I have tried to stress, we will simply retard progress and hold up our advance because we are mortgaging the future finances and revenues of the country to a particular scheme. One can do that for a certain length of time but ultimately one finds one has to call a halt. The question then is, who will suffer? What part of the scheme will feel the axe?
It is a very extraordinary thing that in Great Britain they have been able to cover persons who are gainfully self-employed. I think it is a very important principle. If we believe in the doctrine that property ought to be more widely distributed and if we want to combine that idea with the idea of improved social benefits, we certainly ought not to allow those who are in possession of some little property, and we have stated that principle in regard to old age pensions where we have tried to meet the position of those who, through their own thrift, have built up some reserves and some resources for the evening of their lives, suffer through lack of provision for them. If we recognise that principle in regard to old age pensions, why should we not recognise it with regard to other benefits such as sickness and disability? It has been done in Great Britain. There, there are 2,500,000 independent workers who are insured. They have contribution cards. Their insurance is higher. Perhaps that would not be possible of achievement as Deputy Dr. Ryan, who knows more about these matters than I do, believes. If that be the case, then the only alternative seems to be to provide corresponding benefits. In Great Britain, at any rate, there is insurance against disability for persons who are gainfully self-employed, so apparently it has been capable of accomplishment over there. Sickness benefit is available to the self-employed on the same basis as to the employed contributors. As regards the technical difficulty of dealing with disability and long sickness and as to estimating whether or not they are bona fide, if provision can be made in the case of the ordinary insured worker there seems to be no reason why it should not be done in the case of those who are working for themselves.
It is recognised in the White Paper that the principle of contributions is really a form of taxation. It is recognised in the social security White Paper that it is merely a question as to whether what we call contributions should be raised either by a tax on the individual employed and the person who employs him or should be raised through general taxation. In the Government White Paper on income and expenditure insurance contributions are now regarded as part of the general total of taxation. There is no doubt whatever but that in wage bargaining in the future, if the employee cannot make the employer responsible for his contribution he will at least try to compel him to increase his wage to meet the level of the contribution. That issue will certainly arise in future industrial relations between employer and employee.
It has been pointed out frequently in the debate that these contributions will ultimately be passed on. If the employer has to pay, he will not pay out of his own pocket. He will pass on the cost by way of an increase in prices. There will be an automatic increase which will pass on through costs into prices and ultimately on to the cost of living. If something is saved in one direction there will be a loss in another direction. Whether it will be perceptible or not, there must be some reduction in the standard of living.
Taxation, if it is to be equal and fair, must rise gradually, and the people with the higher incomes should pay a larger proportion, as in the case of super-tax and income-tax and so on. Here in these contributions we are making the man at the bottom of the ladder pay proportionately a higher percentage of his income in the form of a contribution.
