Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Apr 1951

Vol. 125 No. 4

Social Welfare (Insurance) (No. 2) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I stated at the beginning of my speech that the attitude of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Seán Lemass, towards this measure, and towards the Government, would well bear examination. As we have now an opportunity of reading the official report of what he said, it becomes, in my opinion, even more important that we should examine the viewpoint expressed by him. His contribution to the measure was, as would be expected from a man of his calibre, of first-class importance and the attitude of the House as a whole could be seriously affected by the statement he made in regard to this Bill.

His first approach is one that is very difficult to understand. It represents, as far as I can see, a sort of somersault of reasoning. He states, in column 61 of the parliamentary debates, that if this Bill is accepted by the Dáil without a division, the public will be led to believe that the Bill represents the best that the combined wisdom of the members of the Dáil could produce, and it would make the implementation subsequently of a better scheme more difficult. This viewpoint seems to be contrary to the usual practice of any assembly dealing with legislation, particularly in democratic countries, where we are accustomed to the principle of broadening down from precedent. It does not provide, I think, any valid reason for opposition to this Bill.

No case is made that the public would be differently minded if the Bill were allowed to go through without a division, than they would be if it went through with a division. Therefore, it appears to me that we could dismiss that contention of the ex-Minister when he tries very valiantly, but at great expense to his own reasoning powers, to make a case for the Opposition not accepting the Bill. He describes the attitude of the Opposition to the Bill as being affected by the tone of the speeches made by members of the Government and their supporters. He says that there appears to be among them a desire that Fianna Fáil Deputies should vote against the Bill so that they can be represented as being opposed to the principle of improving social services.

There is no evidence whatsoever given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition on this point. We do not know to whom he refers. He has not cited any Deputy as having expressed a wish that Fianna Fáil should vote against this Bill, and allow me to disabuse the mind of the deputy Leader of the Opposition that there is any such desire on the part of any member of the Labour Party, whatever may be the desire, hidden or overt, on the part of other Parties for whom we cannot speak. Our attitude is that, in the present state of the development of the country and of our Party, we are only too pleased and too anxious to have every major Party socially conscious. We are only too pleased, if it is necessary to state our belief, that the Fianna Fáil Party, as one of the major Parties in the House, has in general, despite fluctuations and despite contradictions in their attitude from time to time, supported the idea of improvement in the social services of this country.

Naturally, as a Party linked to the idea of inter-Party Government, who seek allies in different parts of the House, we are extremely anxious that Fianna Fáil Deputies, instead of voting against the Bill, should vote for the Bill, should show their agreement with us on the principles of social welfare, the necessity for it at this stage, whatever differences there are, and there have been differences, which I need not refer to, cited by Deputy Lemass, in regard to the details of the Bill, in regard to some of the minor as well as some of the major matters in the Bill, such as the question of whether there should be increased contributions or not, whether there should be a retention of the age limit at 70 or its recession to 65. Such matters, to my mind, would be more correctly assessed and discussed on the Committee Stage. At this stage of the Bill, in opposition to the hard core of conservative opposition outside the House, by those who support privilege and profit, who have very little regard for the under-privileged in our community, we want to present all the major Parties in this House as agreeing to the principle of an extension of social welfare.

Despite the fact that many members of my own Party, from time to time, have made suggestions in regard to Fascist and dictatorial tendencies and the leadership principle of the Fianna Fáil Party, I have always maintained the view that Fianna Fáil is a democratic Party. I do not think that any arrangements that are made at the present time, which may have given colour to the type of Government we have now, are by any means or necessarily immutable. Having regard to the allies we may seek in future, it is just as well that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other major Party in the House should be of one mind in regard to this question, that there should be common ground between all the Parties in regard to the necessity to secure the welfare of the State by providing social security and the necessity to provide the under-privileged with the benefits which are intended for them in this Bill.

Having said that, it would appear that I agree with the deputy Leader of the Opposition on the question of taking out of Party polities these questions of social welfare. The deputy Leader of the Opposition said at column 77:—

"But, if the Minister would intimate the willingness of the Government to accept our proposals as an alternative to the Bill, not merely would he get the advantage of putting the question outside the limits of Party controversy, but we could, I think, expedite its enactment, nor do I think that the Minister, by doing so, would damage either his own reputation or political prospects. I think it is very undesirable, from every point of view, that the political Parties of this State should appear to be bidding against each other in matters bearing on social welfare."

We, too, are of that opinion, despite the fact that certain people will be rather cynical when they hear a professed politician talking about a subject such as this being taken out of the realms of Party controversy. We admit the correct intent of the deputy Leader of the Opposition in regard to this, but would like to submit to him that the method which he suggests is by no means feasible and would not be correct.

We know perfectly well the tenor of political life in this country. We know that, if the Minister were to accede to this request and withdraw the Bill, then the irresponsible members of the Opposition, if not the responsible, would trumpet abroad that Fianna Fáil had compelled the Government to throw over its own measures for social welfare and accept instead those proposed by Deputy Dr. Ryan on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. Everyone will admit that in such circumstances, if the matter were arranged in that fashion, it would be disastrous to the Minister and his reputation, whether he cared for it or not; it would be disastrous to the political prospects of the Government for which he should have a care. Therefore, it is not as simple as the deputy Leader of the Opposition puts it.

It is hardly likely that any Government, having devoted nearly three years to this question, having had it debated from every point of view, thoroughly threshed out in the inner circles and in the Parties that compose the Government, having had it discussed in extenso over that period, would, at this critical stage of the proceedings, withdraw the Bill in favour of an outline scheme—and no more than an outline scheme—proposed here rather hurriedly, it appeared to us, by Deputy Dr. Ryan. The alternative proposals would require very serious examination and would appear to me to be in a better position to obtain that serious consideration at a later stage in the proceedings. I am certain that there is no other Minister in the House who would so like to accommodate the Opposition as the present Minister in charge of this Bill would be, no Minister who would, more than he, like to make certain that throughout the country it is thoroughly established by all Parties that there is a need for and a recognition of the principle of social welfare but, accommodating as he would be, he could not, I submit, without serious damage to the prospects of those whom it is intended to benefit, suddenly throw over a scheme like that and grasp at and accept another proposition.

If there is any serious intent behind this suggestion of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, there are other means of approaching the Minister than across the floor of the House. I suggest that the Second Reading should be granted to the Minister, and that by conference between the Minister, Deputy Dr. Ryan and those who are competent to judge this question, it might be possible to hammer out an agreed measure which would redound to the credit of the Minister, the Government and the Opposition. I submit it would not be done in the manner suggested by Deputy Lemass.

On the Adjournment, I was dealing with the question of the low-wage group. I propose now to refer briefly to some constructive aspects of the scheme which are of importance. I was discussing whether the level of the low-wage group was correct in accordance with the ruling economic circumstances of the time. I submit to the Minister that, with the rapid raising of wage rates, scales, and so on, it might be necessary to re-examine this question. It is a very difficult question, I know, and it was suggested by Deputy Lemass that it might provide a great deal of trouble in working it out. That is not an aspect that concerns me. That administrative aspect, I feel sure, will be worked out as correctly and as efficiently as other aspects of the Bill. It is the actual level that would appear to me to require further consideration. It appears to me that the answer to the Opposition point of view, as to whether there was any need for the creation of such a group, is fairly simple. The new scheme provides much larger benefits than were previously available and the contributions had to be substantially increased to do so, as it was primarily an insurance scheme. If there was no departure from the flat rate contribution system, the Government would be faced with two irreconcilable points of view. Firstly, the contribution would have to be sufficiently low to enable the lower paid worker to pay it and, secondly, the contribution would have to be sufficiently high to maintain the insurance fund out of which these new benefits have to be paid.

On examination, it becomes clear that if the contribution is pitched at a sufficiently high level to guarantee benefits at the new rate, it will impose an unbearable strain on the resources of the poorer sections of the community who fall within the scope of the low wage group. At the same time, the Government was unwilling evidently to introduce a scheme of lower benefits than those contemplated at present. In these circumstances, the only solution appeared to have been a compromise. Contributions have been made lower, very considerably lower for members of the low wage group but apart from disability and unemployment benefits, all the other benefits will be available to the members of that group at the full normal rate. As an illustration of what that means let me say that the normal contribution for a man is 3/6 a week. For the man in the low wage group, this contribution is reduced by 1/- or almost 30 per cent. For a woman, the normal contribution is 2/2 a week but the same cut of 1/- operates again for a woman in the lower wage group with the result that her contribution, as compared with the normal contribution, is being reduced by more than 45 per cent. For these reductions in the contribution rates, the benefit rates for disability and unemployment are being reduced only by 25 per cent. and the benefits under all other heads are being paid at the full normal rate. In other words, the members of the lower wage groups will receive the other benefits—maternity, death, etc. —at the full normal rate so the new scheme is a much better proposition for the members of the low wage group than for the other classes.

Socially considered, and I think the Opposition will agree as is evident from several of their speeches, the lower wage members of the community are those who should be most favourably considered in any legislation of this type. In the case of a man who is at present insured under the three schemes of national health, unemployment and widows' and orphans' pensions, the increase under the new scheme for a member of this low wage group will be only about 1d. a day. In the case of a woman—and it is very important to remember this—there is no increase whatsoever. That appears to me to be most equitable and most in accordance with social teaching, having regard to the nature and the economic stature of these different types of workers. The woman's new contribution rate of 1/2 a week is exactly the same as the contribution which she pays at the moment for which she has no hope of obtaining a retirement pension.

The final point on this question of the value of the scheme to the low wage group is that, in the case of an unmarried man, and in the more unusual case of a married woman, not dependent on her husband's earnings and herself working, the rates of unemployment and disability benefit are slightly below the existing rates but that is not the whole story. It is not sufficient merely to compare rates of benefit. One must also compare the qualifying conditions under which benefit is received. I think such a comparison will show beyond question that the new scheme represents a considerable advance for those two classes to which I refer. Thus, under the National Health Insurance scheme at present, the full rate of sickness benefit is payable only for 26 weeks after which it is substantially reduced. Under the new scheme there will be no such reduction. A person fully qualified for sickness benefit will continue to receive benefit after that period.

Now, take the case of unemployment benefit. At the present moment each unemployment stamp entitles a person to one day's benefit. Under the new scheme, after the payment of 26 contributions, he will be entitled to six months' unemployment benefit. After the payment of a further 13 contributions he becomes entitled to another six months' unemployment benefit; in other words, the 39 stamps—26 and 13 —will carry with them title to a full year's unemployment benefit as against the present system where 39 similar stamps would carry title for only 39 days' benefit.

While on this question of the unemployment benefit, a further point should be borne in mind and it is a very important point. It is stated in the White Paper that for one reason or another the present unemployment insurance scheme operates in such a fashion that benefit is paid only in respect of about half the unemployment that occurs among insured persons. This means, in fact, that for practical purposes we can regard the present rate of unemployment benefit as being halved, because, needless to remark, the worker has more interest in the actual money which he receives than in any theoretical rate of benefit to which he may be said to be entitled under the Act. The fact is, as is shown in the White Paper, that the theoretical rates under the present existing Acts are halved and the position of the worker therefore is much improved under the present Bill owing to that fact. If we take into account that the true rate of the present unemployment benefit is only about half the theoretical rate set out in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and if we also take into account the fact that the new scheme will bring into being the far greater proportion of unemployed among insured persons, we see that even in the case of the slightly lower rate for members of the low wage group, the new scheme still represents a very substantial improvement.

There is one point on which I am not quite clear in regard to this extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the lower wage group which, as I conceive it, will mainly operate among agricultural workers. Under the present Acts, these agricultural workers did not come under any insurance benefit. They were provided for by unemployment assistance at certain periods only. At other periods there were what were known as employment period Orders, which rendered ineligible for unemployment assistance any worker in a rural area during certain seasons in the year when it was held, owing to the structure of our economy, that any worker in those areas could easily obtain work. It was held that there was no shortage of work. In fact, there were cases, however, that we are all aware of, where even workers with the best intentions could not find employers in those areas. This is a matter on which I should like some guidance and assistance from the Minister. As I conceive it, those particular workers in the low wage group who will come under this unemployment benefit as insured persons, once they qualify according to the conditions, will, even during a period when normally an employment period Order operates, be eligible to receive unemployment insurance. I take it that the actual fact is, even though the Minister has not stated it and even though it is not in any document I have seen, that this Act will abolish the employment period Orders. Would I be right in contending that that is a fact?

The employment period Orders are dealt with under the Unemployment Assistance Act. They do not come into our insurance code at all, but if we do bring them into this Bill for the purposes of the insurance classes who are at present covered only by the Unemployment Assistance Act, then we will have to look at the situation anew, in the light of all who are likely to be affected by an employment period Order if made in the future under the Unemployment Assistance Act.

This is a very important question for rural workers as I had occasion to find out. It is a very important matter for them to know whether, if they now become eligible under the Insurance Act, where previously they were ineligible, that eligibility will confer on them the right to participate in benefits during such periods as were heretofore characterised as employment periods. If they have paid their contributions up to that time, and should such an Order be made, are they than eligible despite that Order to receive unemployment insurance benefits in relation to the number of stamps they have on their cards?

That would be a matter for examination. It would change their category because they would be insurable. If their category is changed from that of receiving unemployment assistance, which is uncovenanted benefit, we will have to look at the situation anew if they are now contributors.

It would appear to me that there would be very few who could possibly be covered by an employment period Order. As the Minister says, the matter will have to be examined. I not only urge but I trust and hope that this question of employment period Orders will be examined with the view to their abolition. They were never very popular in the countryside. The Minister himself has given evidence of that on previous occasions. They were restricted, when this Government came into power, to a narrow period. If we can embrace a large mass of the low wage group under this new insurance scheme, then it would appear that they would qualify. If they were genuinely seeking work and could not obtain it in the rural areas during such periods as the harvest, then I think they should be entitled to benefit under the unemployment insurance scheme.

I propose to conclude with a few words on the criticisms which have been made against the Bill in a general fashion. There is, first of all, the complaint that the Bill is too limited in its scope and does not include everybody. There is also the criticism, to which I adverted previously, that it represents a revolutionary departure from what might be termed normal State provision. We have been warned that it is a dangerous step on the road to totalitarianism. To take the first criticism that it does not go far enough, it is true that everybody in the country is not covered. The reason for that is not far to seek. The scheme, as the Minister has propounded it, is an insurance scheme because the consensus of opinion throughout the world generally, and of economists and sociologists, is that insurance is the best way to make provision for social security. Even though that is so, it has its own limitations. It cannot be applied to all people in all circumstances. For instance, the first requirement of an insurance scheme is that the persons insured should have a fairly regular cash income from which their contributions can be met, or in the case of voluntary insurance, where the contribution can be deducted by the employer. That is generally the case under compulsory insurance. The unfortunate fact that must be faced here, is that the economic position is such that a large number of our people are not in receipt of such weekly incomes as will enable them to pay these contributions. In these circumstances the normal means of collecting the insurance levy cannot be applied to them. This imposes one of the administrative limitations on this insurance scheme. I submit that any Government will have to recognise that limitation. That does not mean that the people outside the operation of the limitations in this insurance scheme are being, or will be, ignored by the Government. As the Minister indicated, an earnest has already been given to the extent of over £2,000,000 a year since 1948 of the Government's intention to do everything to alleviate the position of old age pensioners, widows and orphans and similar sections in the community who cannot be covered by insurance.

Even in the present Bill—it has been a matter of comment by the Opposition —although it is primarily an insurance Bill, there is a further amendment of the old age pension code to make it possible for the small farmer with a holding valued at less than £30 to transfer that holding to one or more of his children without the feeling of its being counted or assessed against him when he applies for his old age pension. I heartily congratulate the Minister on that provision, and I am sure many Deputies will agree with me when I say that I believe that the social effect, apart from any question of economic or other effect, of that section of the Bill will be of great importance. There is one thing which is much to be desired and which has been advocated by every economist and politician of repute in this country and that is that it will bring about a somewhat lower marrying age in the country districts. That is to the good. Therefore, we can commend the Bill as in some way relieving the pressure on certain sections of the community amongst the small farmers to flee from the rural areas, to adventure into the economic life of the cities and to avail of emigration more than anything else as their outlet in society. By these means I think it will soften the antagonism between the age groups, between the old farmers and the young sons who are anxious to get married and who are entitled to the farm. From many aspects such as these the far-reaching importance of that section cannot be fully envisaged at present.

To return to the insurance aspect of the scheme, it has been already said that there is general agreement that a system of insurance is the best way of providing social security. Such a system cannot be extended to all the people of this community. In these circumstances, I submit that the Government did the only sensible thing. They utilised the insurance scheme as far as it can be utilised, feeling that it would be unjust to those for whom an insurance scheme is suitable if they were deprived of these advantages simply because these advantages cannot be extended to the country as a whole. On the other hand, recognising the limits of insurance, they have taken steps to see that the contingencies which do not recognise the operations and the limits of insurance will be covered for the non-insured population by that means. There is, and it has been commented upon, a new and daring departure in this scheme. It is a daring departure in its efforts to extend the advantages of insurance to a class which was never before covered by such a scheme. I refer to the power given to make provision for farmers who are members of local co-operative societies and this, I hope, is just the beginning, is just one step on the road to extending the advantages of social insurance and social security to ever-widening sections among the agricultural community.

As to the second criticism of the scheme, that it goes too far, the first comment which occurs to anyone is that, in a democratic country, these two criticisms cancel one another out. The Government are quite correct in gauging the temper of the people and steering a via media between two extremes of partisanship. Those who say that the scheme does not go far enough and those who say it goes much too far naturally balance one another out. If we have any further thought for this criticism, it means that it can be construed in this way: that this scheme represents an unheard-of interference with the rights of individuals and plants the tentacles of the State more firmly than ever round the throats of the citizens. If the criticism is true, it means that totalitarianism has come to Ireland. Is there any real substance in a criticism of this kind? At nearly every action of the Dáil some interested section loudly exclaim that the State is interfering too much. But the whole trend of modern endeavour has been in this direction of State interference in ways unheard of from the point of view of 50 years ago but now, by constant repetition and application, considered to be quite the normal thing.

If we strip down those criticisms, there is a surprising residue left. The criticism is directed against the idea of efficiency. That is a fair summary of the idea underlying this type of criticism. We have in this country, as in every other civilised country, State schemes to help people during sickness, unemployment, maternity, old age and so on. These schemes date as far back as 1908, as the Minister showed, and during all these intervening years we heard very little about the danger of these schemes to the morals of our people. We heard very little about the ethical drawbacks of these schemes, very little about the approach of totalitarianism in the extension of these schemes. In fact, from the initiation of these schemes, the main emphasis was to get successive Governments to extend and improve them. In the final result of all these endeavours the social security law upon that subject has multiplied a hundredfold and the benefits extended to different classes of the community under one or other of these sections of that law have been also multiplied a hundredfold.

The present Bill wipes out about 27 different Acts, hundreds of regulations and Orders. So long as there were these many different schemes, so long as there were these many different Orders, so long as we retained the haphazard form in which all these schemes operated independent of one another, there was no criticism of these schemes. There was no criticism of these schemes so long as they were inefficient.

Now, a Labour Minister, coming along the normal path of progress, is attempting to rationalise the whole principle of social security and social welfare. He is attempting simultaneously to improve and simplify; instead of having three separate Acts and hundreds of regulations made thereunder, he hopes, under this measure, to wipe out the anomalies, solve the apparent contradictions and fill up the gaps. He hopes to simplify procedure so that those who are entitled to benefit will know that they are so entitled and the extent of the benefit to be applied to them. Even lawyers find it very difficult to discover to what a man is entitled at the present time and finding out how he will procure his benefit is an even more onerous task. Under the provisions of this Bill there will be the one stamp and the one card. There will be the one basic benefit. That will help to cut down the unnecessary wasteful expenditure in the past and thereby make more money available for social welfare purposes. Summing up the position, it seems to me that constructive criticism has fallen to a very low level indeed when responsible people can here equate waste with freedom and efficiency with totalitarianism. I believe the House will cordially approve of the Minister's efforts to introduce efficiency into social welfare and will endorse his action in that direction by speedily giving him the Second Reading of this Bill.

Before Deputy Connolly leaves the House, as I am sure he will, after the great effort he has made, I would like to point out that it is absolutely essential that an Opposition should divide on a measure where there is a definite difference in principle. We hold there is a very definite difference in principle in our attitude towards the Bill and in the attitude of the present Government. We feel our attitude is national. It is widespread. It is our idea to give to a large section of the community, a section which has been referred to already, consisting principally of small farmers, small shopkeepers, fishermen, independent tradesmen, handymen and all the selfemployed, certain benefits which are not being accorded to them under this measure.

Would you let us into the secret of why you did not do that when you had power to do it?

I think there is a considerable difference in the attitude of mind of Deputies like Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, Deputy Connolly and Deputy Davin from that of other Deputies on the Government Benches. They were fair inasmuch as they did attribute a certain attitude to Fianna Fáil and described them as being reasonably democratic. But it is very discouraging to find a propaganda of falsehood to the effect that Fianna Fáil is always reactionary and has never done anything. That is done by the suppression of truth, the truth of what we really did achieve during our period in office. The result is that we are compelled to emphasise to the best of our ability by division the difference between our attitude and that attitude. Truth is essential to democracy. We have daily papers which represent a false attitude in relation to Fianna Fáil. People who read only one paper become the victims of that false propaganda.

What about the readers of the Irish Press? Do they get the truth?

Those people who form their views through the medium of only one paper get a completely false attitude towards Fianna Fáil. They are led to believe that Fianna Fáil never did anything during its 16 years in office.

Does that also work in reverse?

If a litigant misleads a court of law that litigant commits a very serious offence; so, too, if facts are not put before the public, who are the judge and jury in deciding questions of public policy, democracy falls to the ground. Democracy is destroyed unless there is fair comment. Furthermore, that type of insidious propaganda creates bitterness between Parties and vitiates any attempt at creating an atmosphere of fair play. One Party may differ vehemently on principles from another Party but, unless there is a common ground of truth, the bottom is knocked out of democracy and we only achieve the result of playing into the hands of those people who want dictatorship of one kind or another. Those who really cherish democracy should be anxious at all times to ensure that truth is put before the people. It would raise the standard of public life enormously if we could get that principle of fair appreciation of facts firmly established on all sides.

What are the facts with relation to Fianna Fáil? Let us examine the mentality of Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil at all times adhered firmly to the ideals of 1916, to the Proclamation of Easter Week and to the democratic programme of the First Dáil. These principles are embedded deeply in the mind of Fianna Fáil right through to the present day. In the Proclamation of Easter Week it was laid down:—

"The Republic guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation, cherishing all the children of the nation equally."

Does the Deputy suggest that is something which belongs solely to Fianna Fáil?

I am pointing out that every step taken by Fianna Fáil has demonstrated that mentality. If the Deputy does not like quotations from documents like the Proclamation of Easter Week it would be better for him to keep quiet.

That is not the private property of any Party in this State. Men on both sides of this House fought in 1916.

I am pointing out that these are the principles to which we have been faithful all along the line. I am indicating our mentality all along the line.

Swallowing the Oath.

Apparently the Deputy does not like this.

Deputy Little should address the Chair and these interruptions should be avoided.

The democratic programme of the First Dáil was adopted unanimously. That programme stipulated that it should be the first duty of the Government to secure that no child should suffer hunger or cold through lack of food or clothing or shelter. It stipulated for the care of the aged and infirm and stated that they were entitled to the nation's gratitude; it points out that it is the duty of the State to safeguard the health of the people and refers finally to the effort to determine improved standards in industrial legislation. That was further extended in the Constitution of 1938 by Fianna Fáil. In the Constitution will be seen specific articles dealing with the fundamental rights of the citizens and the directives of social policy enunciated therein are merely an elaboration of the quotations I have already cited from the Proclamation.

In Article 40 we find:—

"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not by its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity."

The State further guarantees to defend personal rights and affirms the right to form associations and unions.

Article 41 protects the family as the fundamental group of society. Article 45 directs the State to promote the welfare of the community by securing a social order in which justice and charity will inform the national institutions. This article further lays down the right of every citizen to an adequate means of livelihood through which may be found an adequate means of securing reasonable provision for domestic needs. Further:—

"The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphans and the aged."

I am quoting this to show that when we did get the opportunity of laying down principles and amplifying those already foreshadowed, we did it as soon as we could.

I have mentioned them before, but I feel it well to put these things again on record. Up to 1932 there was no measure of social welfare except the reduction of the old age pensions. In 1933 there was the Unemployment Assistance Act, in which we were the first to assert the right of the unemployed to a reasonable condition of existence. Many of us can remember what was said by the members of the previous Government, when they repudiated any responsibility for care for the unemployed. In 1935 we passed the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. In 1936 we passed the Conditions of Employment Act. We had the Holidays with Pay Act in 1939, and in 1941 we had measures dealing with emergency food centres, home assistance and food vouchers. In 1942 we passed the Wet Time Insurance Act for building workers, and we also adopted the cheap fuel scheme. In 1944 we had the Children's Allowances Act and we also had the supplementary cash allowances and the free footwear schemes. All these things were done under the Fianna Fáil Government.

What was the year of the standstill Order?

Why stop at 1944? You reduced the old age pensions in 1947.

There was a constantly changing cost of living to which Governments had to adapt themselves from time to time. It is no good arguing that, because we did not put up the pensions to a certain figure at that time, we were wrong. The cost of living has changed considerably.

But you put up your own pensions.

I believe, no matter what Government are in power, they would be forced to do what the present Government are doing in raising these pensions, and we would be the last in the world to stop that. We would like to see co-operation between both sides in order that we would be able to keep a proper check, so that the relationship between what we can afford as a nation and what we can give to the weaker classes would be properly looked after. The Minister asked us why we did not do more with relation to the welfare services.

I did not suggest that. What I said was that I was really anxious to get information on a certain aspect. The Deputy wants to extend this scheme to everybody. Now, will he let me into the secret of why, when they could have done that when they were in office, they did not plan to do it? If that is an embarrassing question, I withdraw it.

I am not in a position to give a detailed or a technical answer to that. I will say that Deputy Dr. Ryan reorganised two Departments and it was clear to our minds at the time, as a Government, that we wanted to unify the services, to rationalise them as far as possible, to have the system of the one stamp, which has been referred to. Further than that, Deputy Dr. Ryan was going into the details and into the figures as to what his scheme was going to be. He went out of office before he could get to the stage of reaching down to details. Deputy Dr. Ryan could never have produced a scheme, like taking a rabbit out of a hat; he could not have produced, immediately after the Minister had made his speech, the scheme which he did produce, unless it had been the subject-matter of very considerable thought on his part. Again, he was relying upon his experience both as a Minister in the Government, as a medical man and because of his knowledge of insurance. All these things helped to contribute to Deputy Dr. Ryan being in a position to think the scheme out. He could not have improvised.

You know he was millions out in his calculation.

The Minister will have his opportunity to point out defects when he comes to speak again in this debate. We do not pretend we know all the answers, but we suggest that the Dáil should go as far as ever it can to cater for those classes of the community which have not been dealt with in this Bill, namely, the self-employed, the small farmers and the rest.

The Minister might be in a position to explain one matter to me. As regards retiring pensions, an insured person and his wife will get 36/- a week but, if the husband and wife are not insured and if they are getting the old age pension, they will receive £2 between them.

At 70 they will get more than £2 under this scheme by reason of the modification in the means test.

Perhaps the Minister would explain that point later. Anyhow, what Deputy Dr. Ryan has put before the House and what we would like to see the Minister embodying in his scheme—I do not know whether he could go so far as to accept the suggestion made by Deputy Lemass— is that it would be better that we should rely on taxation, to spread the cost by taxation rather than by forcing the employer and the employed to pay 3/6 a week. That will be a very severe hardship on a great many of the smaller employers and farmers. As everybody knows from experience in the past, in many cases the employer has to pay both for himself and his employees. It is a very serious problem, one in regard to which I think public opinion would be very definitely against the Government's scheme.

Again, we think that instead of making the position such that it would be inevitable that men will be forced to give up working at 65, owing to the fact that the period of life has been increased and that men are quite capable of working up to 70, we should meet that situation by paying only sickness and unemployment benefit to those who go out at that age. That would meet Deputy Martin O'Sullivan's argument. From his experience he knows the fear from which these men suffer during that period. If they were certain they were going to get unemployment and sickness benefit during that period, or otherwise that they were free to continue in their employment, it would go a long way to meet the difficulty. However, that is our suggestion.

Judges work up to 70.

That is a little bit outside the matter but I have always maintained, reviewing the career of certain judges like Chief Baron Palles and Lord Halsbury and men like that, that they were best after 70—even Gladstone.

You would not suggest that it was a healthy age for men working on a building scheme, though?

No, I would not suggest that.

I thought not.

If men are able to work, I think everyone agrees that they are happier working than to be put on the shelf. Then again, we are very strong on the matter of widows and orphans. The widows and orphans of small farmers or fishermen often are in a very difficult position. They should get better attention. We suggest that as another item that should be dealt with.

Deputy Childers has already made the point very well about children's allowances and the importance of giving a special allowance in respect of children after the third or fourth child because it is on the large families that the heaviest economic strain falls.

To us it is clear that there is a difference on principle, because we want to spread the net as wide as possible and to approach the problem from a national point of view, caring for all classes in the community. For that reason, we feel there is a fundamental difference in principle between our approach and that embodied in the Government measure.

This Bill has my full support and I would like to compliment the Minister on introducing it. It is a step in the right direction if we are to have social security. Some of us think that it is essential to have social security for a certain number of our people who cannot provide for themselves when they are disabled or who cannot ensure that, when they die, their wives and children will be secure against hardship. Deputy Dr. Ryan suggested that there should be social security for all. I do not think this country can afford that type of social security. That is my opinion. Deputy Dr. Ryan is entitled to his. In my opinion this Bill is worth a trial. If it is found to work satisfactorily, it can be amended to include others not already included.

Deputy Martin Corry says that the small farmer, the man with five, ten, 15, and 20 acres, should be included. What about the small employer? I have in mind, say, a one-horse carrier. He is an employer. Then there is the tailor who employs one or two people. They should be included in the Bill. The small farmer is not as badly off as, say, a docker or worker in Dublin, Cork, or a provincial town, who lives in a tenement house or flat. He may be a casual worker. If there is work for him, he will get it. If there is no work, he is idle. Such a man has to buy his household requirements. The small farmer, if he is industrious enough, can produce food for his family. He is not in the same category as the city worker, no matter how bad his land may be.

This Bill is worthy of consideration. I cannot see how anyone can vote against it because it is providing for a section of our people, the old, the blind, the widows and orphans, who most deserve help. It is worth a trial.

Deputy Corry says that the general manager of Córas Iompair Eireann and bank managers come under the scheme. I happen to be a worker—all of us areworkers—and I maintain that the worker at the docks or in the cities, towns or rural areas, is the greatest taxpayer. I employ 100 men all through the year. Sometimes we have casual workers which bring the total number up to 200. We pay them the standard rate of wages and overtime. They are the greatest taxpayers in the country because, if they earn £5 to £10 a week, they spend it in the locality where they live. They do not invest their money outside the country. They do not save for their old age or insure against disability. This scheme compels them to contribute to an insurance scheme. It gives them a certain status. On death, their children will benefit. It cannot be said that they obtain free benefits under the scheme. They will contribute towards this insurance Bill, as I call it. It is a good Bill. It has my full support and I compliment the Minister on introducing it.

It has been agreed on practically all sides of the House that a social welfare scheme is a necessity. Despite the fact that during the course of this debate charges have been preferred by Deputies on the Government Benches against those who have spoken from the Fianna Fáil Benches that their criticism has been destructive instead of constructive, Deputy Dr. Ryan, in replying to the Minister's speech on Second Reading, made it perfectly clear that, so far as this Bill is concerned, the intention of the Party is to support what is good in the present Bill and to try to remove its shortcomings.

Some of the speeches made by Deputies on the Government Benches would have been better had they been modified. For good or ill, social insurance is here. It was forced on the country in the first instance inasmuch as we had very little say as to whether the Insurance Bill of 1911 would be enacted or not. Agreed, there were people representing this country in the British Parliament at the time. I cannot recall at the moment what their views were in respect of it but whether they were for it or against it made very little difference, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George, was definitely committed to a scheme of social welfare in respect of unemployment insurance and national health insurance, in order to meet the situation that obtained in a very highly industrialised country.

We had to accept the position at the time and since then we have gone ahead with social insurance or social welfare schemes of some form or other. Some of the speeches made here would give one the impression that Fianna Fáil had done nothing to improve the social welfare of our people. I do not want to go into the improvements carried out by Fianna Fáil. They are as well known to Deputies on the Government Benches as they are to me and I think it is only fair that they should be remembered by speakers here. Whether schemes of social welfare are good for the country or not is another matter. We have had some views expressed here to the effect that they are not good for the country and even clerics have been quoted to that effect. I am not going to try to argue whether they are or not, but I can remember, going back 50 years or even more, the conditions which obtained when I was a young boy in a fairly large provincial town with a population of between 5,000 and 6,000. I can remember the conditions under which assistance in those days to the very needy and the very poor happened to be distributed in the street in which I was reared. I can distinctly visualise people coming down there to get what was known in those days as relief. I can picture people going in and out of the relieving officer's office and afterwards going about their business. Ninety per cent. of these people were old women. I must admit that housing conditions then were very poor, but I never remember a single case of an individual dying for want of food in those days. That fact floats across my mind when the question is posed as to whether social welfare is a good thing for the country or not. I am not going to argue whether it is or not, but I am merely citing the conditions which obtained in those days in that town where, as I say, there was a population of 5,000 or 6,000. Ninety per cent. of the people I saw drawing relief in those days were old people, particularly women. Now we have more elaborate schemes and I suppose we have got to make the best of it.

One thing I did not like about the introduction of this scheme was the method adopted by the minister in connection with the increase in old age pensions. The Minister need have no illusions that, in the method he adopted of informing the public in his Second Reading speech on this Bill of his intention to increase old age pensions, he was able, if I might use a vulgar expression, to "cod" the people. They saw through it. They believe, and they know, that it was something the Minister had to do in order to ensure that certain people would support him on this Bill. I think that is proved even by the expression used here in the Dáil by Deputy Cowan when the Minister made his announcement. Turning to the Fianna Fáil Benches he asked: "Now, do you want an election?" and he added, "Now we can go to the country." I think that, in itself, is sufficient to show the people that this was a sop. If the Minister had introduced that in another way, without giving anyone the opportunity of saying that it was used as a sop, we would have been better pleased.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister said when he introduced the increase in 1948 that it was not the last increase.

Mr. Brennan

I hope I am not saying anything wrong.

Mr. Murphy

No; it is only tripe.

Mr. Brennan

I would not say anything that I could not stand over. Deputy Dr. Ryan has made certain suggestions in connection with this Bill, but before I pass on to them, there is one section of the Bill about which I should like to ask the Minister a question. Perhaps he could answer it without compelling us to wait for his final statement. Section 13 of the Bill says:—

"In relation to persons who—

(a) are employed by more than one employer in any contribution week, or

(b) work under the general control, or management of some person other than their immediate employer,

and in relation to any other cases for which it appears to the Minister that special provision is needed, regulations may decide that for the purposes of this Act the prescribed person shall be treated as their employer."

I may be wrong, but my reading of that is that the position that obtains at present is being changed. Under present conditions, whatever person employs an individual, who is insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, on the first day of the week is responsible for the stamping of his card for that week. I should like to know if the section which I have quoted intends to change that position. I thought that the Minister might be able to answer me now.

I am making a note of the Deputy's inquiry and I shall have the information transmitted to him. I am just at the moment without the relevant papers on that point.

Mr. Brennan

We next come to the question of the cost of the proposals put up by Deputy Dr. Ryan. I hold that, by the introduction of the present scheme, a very heavy imposition is being placed on certain workers. Take the case of the single farm labourer. That individual, up to 1948, was compelled to pay a certain amount of money by way of contribution towards a National Health Insurance stamp. That contribution obtained for quite a number of years. For years, if a man fell ill, he was entitled for a certain period to 15/- a week by way of sickness benefit. During the Fianna Fáil régime that was increased to 22/6. The cost of the stamp was not increased either on the employer or the employee. One of the first acts of the Minister when he took over Social Welfare was to bring the cost of the stamps up to a certain level.

I brought up his wages, too, of course.

I am speaking now of benefits. We can talk of wages after.

You could not increase his wages because you had pegged down his wages.

Under existing circumstances, that man by paying 8d. a week will, if he falls sick, draw sickness benefit to the extent of 22/6. Under Fianna Fáil, when he was paying 4d., he drew the same amount of benefit. I might put the matter this way, that I am sure in 95 per cent. of the cases the employer paid the national health stamp for his employee. The result was that that individual, without any contribution from himself, received 22/6 in sickness benefit, provided he was earning £3 10s. 0d. a week. Provided he is earning over £3 10s. 0d. a week now, then under this Bill he will pay 3/6, his employer will pay 3/6 and if he, a single individual, becomes ill, he will get the princely sum of 24/- a week. He will get that for a contribution of 3/6 a week, while heretofore he got 22/6 for nothing. I agree, of course, that under the insurance scheme he will be entitled to other benefits.

I fail to see, therefore, what advantage the farm labourer is going to get by being brought under this scheme. There will be benefits in isolated cases. The casual worker is already under the scheme. But, so far as the farm labourer is concerned, I cannot see that he is going to gain any advantage by being brought in under unemployment insurance, except, of course, in exceptional cases. Generally speaking, the cost, in my opinion, is going to be far too high for him. I have discussed this with quite a number of farm labourers in my area and they do not fancy this idea at all of having to put their hands in their pockets and pay out 3/6 a week in the future. Heretofore, the farmer paid his share and his worker's share of the 1/7 stamp. Now the farmer will see to it that the labourer will have to pay his 3/6. I agree, of course, that you may increase the farm labourer's wages to meet that situation. The increases in wages will mean a few bob extra for the farm labourer which he can put in his pocket, or spend, or put by, but he will not want to hand it back to a Government Department by way of an insurance stamp. I think that this represents a heavy imposition on a single man. It is the same so far as the farmer is concerned. My opinion is that if farm workers throughout the country were given an opportunity to express their views on this imposition, their answer would be that it was not fair. They would say that it was neither fair to themselves nor to the farmer.

Under Deputy Dr. Ryan's suggestions, the great majority of the amenities he outlined could be conceded, with the exception of the retiring age being at 65, and with the exception of doling out a certain pension for life to a young widow who probably would be capable of earning a living for herself. With these exceptions, I think that Deputy Dr. Ryan's suggestions are very good ones. I agree that his proposals would mean more taxation. I think, however, that the sum that would be involved by way of taxation per head of the population would be negligible, compared to the proposals in this Bill, under which a single farm labourer will have to plank down 3/6 a week and his employer another 3/6. A far more equitable way of dealing with the matter would be, as suggested by Deputy Dr. Ryan, to provide the money by general taxation. I do not believe the country would worry about the money involved per head of the population.

I bewail the fact that almost one-half of the workers of the country, represented particularly by the small farmers, are not covered by the scheme. I hold that it is a misnomer to call any scheme of social insurance which does not make provision for these people comprehensive. A big number of workers are not covered by this scheme, such as the small farmers, the self-employed man, fishermen, and other classes. We are making provision for people who are earning good wages and whose income is, perhaps, treble that of the small farmer on the hill-sides or on the bogs. To me, the irony of the whole thing is that, while we are making a certain section of our people secure, the small farmer on the hills and on the bogs and the fishermen, the people who always upheld the national tradition in this country, are left out.

We can go back generation upon generation and we will find that if you wanted to get strong Irish nationalism you had to go to the hills and to the bogs to get it. Some of us have had experience in our own day that the people on the hills were always ready with open arms to welcome and to feed those who were prepared to risk their lives to bring about the position which we have to-day in this country. As I say, the irony of it is that these people are not catered for in this Bill. It has been admitted, of course, that they could not be brought into the scheme. But I am expressing a personal opinion on the matter and I believe that it should not be beyond the ingenuity of people who have been associated with the working of welfare and insurance schemes for the past 30 years to evolve some scheme by which these people would be covered in some form or another. It is a shame that, while we provide for people who are in most cases earning good wages and cater for people who do not want to be catered for, we have, unfortunately, to leave out of such a scheme the people who kept the flag flying in this country, the people who made sacrifices not alone in goods but in other ways. They are the people who, in my opinion, should come before anyone else.

I hope I am right in assuming that Deputy de Valera, Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, will come into the House and clarify the position of his Party before he leads them into the Division Lobby against this Bill and in favour of the scheme put forward by Deputy Dr. Ryan.

It was a common expression for many years that Deputy de Valera was the recognised Leader of the Irish people at home and abroad in the pre-Truce period. He was responsible, with others, for the framing of a Republican Constitution under the First Dáil, a Constitution which pledged the people who were fighting for freedom under his leadership that, when we had an Irish Parliament, we would provide certain rights for every section of our citizens. For the purpose of his argument, Deputy Little quoted certain suitable sections from the Constitution of the First Dáil. With your permission, Sir, I shall just quote a few more. One section of the Constitution framed under the First Dáil proclaimed:

"In return for long service we, in the name of the Republic, declare the right of every citizen to an adequate share of the produce of the nation's labour."

Another one, which has a very definite bearing on and relationship to the matter under discussion, was:—

"It shall be the first duty of the Government to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requiste for their proper education and training as citizens of a free Gaelic Ireland."

These are declarations which are worthy of the men who served under Deputy de Valera and who went out at that period to lay down their lives in order that Irish citizens of the future, under a free Parliament established by the people of this country, would provide these rights for their fellow citizens, particularly for that section who are unable to provide for themselves.

Deputy de Valera, as I say, was the recognised Leader of the Irish people of that time. Subsequently, it came to a period when, in this House, Deputy de Valera had undisputed authority for not less than 16 years and when, even with or without the support of the Labour Party, he could have carried through this House any scheme of social security that fitted in with the Republican Constitution which he was responsible for framing in 1919. There is very little on record to prove that during the 16 years he had a clear majority in this House any attempt was made to draft and present to the House detailed proposals for the provision of a social security scheme. At any time between 1932 and 1948 Deputy de Valera could have carried out the policy advocated in 1919. There is on record from the date of the establishment of the Labour Party by the late James Connolly, year by year a demand by the Labour and trade union movement that the Parliament of the people should provide its deserving citizens with security against unemployment, illness, death and the other contingencies to which human life is prone in the normal way.

I said there was very little on record to prove anything was done or thought of during the 16 years that Deputy de Valera was head of the Fianna Fáil Government. We have, however, a couple of important pronouncements which were discovered in the Department of Social Welfare after Deputy Dr. Ryan was relieved of that Ministry on 18th February, 1948. We have it on record, too, in the Second Reading of this Bill in the speech of the Minister, that a conference was held here between representatives of the British Government and the Government of the day in November, 1947, in connection with matters affecting social security and insurance problems generally. It appears from those records—they are very flimsy—that Deputy Dr. Ryan, then Minister for Health, gave instructions to the then secretary of his Department, who was representing the Government at that conference, to inform the British representatives that in his, the Minister's approach to this problem of social security, he had decided that he did not at that time intend to cover within the scope of a comprehensive Bill any but employed classes. Relate that direction given to his secretary on matters of policy in November, 1947, with the proposals now put before the country by Deputy Dr. Ryan, proposals in which are included the proposal that the total cost of this so-called alternative social security plan will have to be raised, first of all, from direct taxation instead of by compulsory contributory insurance methods; he also complains that the Bill is not comprehensive enough. He further stated, and I invite Deputy de Valera, if he speaks in this debate, or Deputy Moylan, if he speaks on Deputy de Valera's behalf, to say what is the explanation for the change in policy between November, 1947, and the 3rd of March of this year, when, at the conclusion of the debate on that memorable date, the Fianna Fáil front benchers ran across to No. 17 Lower Mount Street and prepared there, and not here, an alternative scheme in complete conflict with the views expressed by Deputy Dr. Ryan in November, 1947.

On the question as to whether the money should be raised by direct taxation as against the compulsory contributory scheme provided for in the Bill, Deputy Dr. Ryan, speaking here on 27th March, 1947, at column 442 of the Official Report, said:—

"I am very much personally in favour of a contributory scheme for all these items."

Now he comes along and, with engines reversed, states that the total cost of a scheme much more costly than that put forward in this Bill will have to be raised by direct taxation, a method which I suggest is more socialistic than the contributory scheme provided for under this Bill.

I ask those Deputies who listened to the speeches of Deputy Derrig and Deputy Lemass whether, if they sat blindfolded in this House, they could have come to the conclusion, listening to those two speakers, that both belonged to the same Party and were advocating the same policy. Deputy Lemass appealed to the House and, through the House, to the country to take this question of social security out of the arena of Party politics. He suggested then that the employers and the workers would be unable to pay the high contributions and should not be asked to pay them. That was an appeal to the most selfish section of employers and workers. It was a tricky kind of appeal for vote-catching purposes. There is not a shadow of doubt but that that is the real reason why he made that suggestion.

Deputy Derrig took the opposite line. Listening to Deputy Derrig, having heard Deputy Lemass, one would imagine that Deputy Derrig was advocating Trinity College economics and was not a man who had supported Deputy de Valera in 1919 and had also supported him in advocating the programme outlined by the First Dáil. The two speeches were diametrically opposed.

We come then to Deputy de Valera; he went down to Cavan in February last. Cavan was specially selected, I am sure, because the small farmers there are supposed to be the poorest in the country. What did Deputy de Valera disclose in Cavan? He disclosed the fact that Fianna Fáil had no detailed plan. He went on to say amongst other things—I do not really understand this and cannot relate it to the speeches of his Front Bench colleagues—that they have proved their attitude by initiating many welfare schemes. One of the first welfare schemes put into operation by the Fianna Fáil Government was the free beef scheme. That demoralised half the people and had to be abolished.

"They have proved their attitude by initiating many welfare schemes. They set up Ministries of Health and Social Welfare, not so much for co-ordinating purposes but to see how far further they could advance towards providing social security."

From what is the Deputy quoting?

I am quoting from the report of a speech in the Irish Independent, a speech made by Deputy de Valera at a Fianna Fáil Party Convention in Cavan on 12th February, 1951. The relevant portion that I have quoted has not been contradicted.

It is quite clear that on 12th February of this year they had no plan. If they had a plan, the Leader of the Party would not have gone specially to Cavan to speak on this burning question without indicating there some details of the plan rather than leave them to be announced hurriedly on the evening of 3rd March last. How can one relate that portion of Deputy de Valera's speech with the speeches of his Front Bench colleagues? How can one harmonise these speeches? I am not surprised at his silence on this matter since the Second Reading debate commenced. But he went even further: in relation to financing the scheme he said that they were aware that if the State became the provider there was great danger that the individual would not do the utmost to make provision for himself and that it would be unjust to those who had to contribute and would lead to a general demoralisation of the State. How can that be related to the proposals contained in the statement issued by Fianna Fáil on the afternoon of the 3rd March, or to anything said in the House by Deputy Derrig, Deputy Lemass or Deputy Dr. Ryan? As a matter of fact, in some of the things they said they were in conflict, one with the other. Is it not, therefore, desirable that Deputy de Valera, as Leader of the Party, should say something to help to clarify the Fianna Fáil position before we go to the Division Lobbies on this Bill?

This Bill, when it comes into operation, will finish once and for all the poor law system that was imposed upon our people by an alien Parliament. It will wipe that out and it will mean a very considerable saving in rates and in taxation. It will wipe out the blot upon the people of this country, where they are compelled, if they are in a destitute state, to seek poor law relief. Even at the present moment there are cases where such a miserable figure as 8/- a week is given towards the upkeep of a family. When this scheme is in full operation. it will render unnecessary the big sum that is provided by the taxpayers by way of unemployment assistance. If it helps gradually to wipe out the poor law relief imposed on us by an alien Government, and if it helps to wipe out the dole system which operates under the title of unemployment assistance, it will effect a saving of approximately £3,000,000. That will serve a very useful purpose.

Deputy de Valera said they were not thinking of this kind of measure for co-ordinating purposes. I think it is desirable that a Bill of this kind should help to co-ordinate the various services that provide national health insurance, unemployment and the other benefits which are now to be brought under it. Is it not wrong that we should have, in the same town or village, an employment exchange manager acting for a certain section of the Social Welfare Department, at one end, and a national health insurance agent, part-time, at the other end of the same place? It is desirable that these two services should be brought under one roof, if possible, with the same man in charge, with whatever staff he may require. I believe all these services should be operated from the same centre. Deputy de Valera does not seem to place much importance on that, so far as I can see, reading his Cavan speech.

It is interesting to note that in a particular debate here some few years ago Deputy MacEntee, speaking on emigration, stated most emphatically that the alternative to emigration was a continuance of the poor law system imposed upon our people by an alien Parliament. Speaking here when he was Minister for Local Government, on the 19th November, 1943, Deputy MacEntee said:—

"The whole crux of the trouble"—

that was, emigration—

"is that at the present moment there is not available in this country the raw materials in one form or another which will enable us to continue our home production. Therefore if you keep the people here you can only keep them here with this recognition: you will condemn them to live on home assistance of one kind or another."

This Bill, when it comes into operation, will abolish that very regrettable necessity which Deputy MacEntee regarded as inevitable, when he said that poor law relief was the only alternative to emigration. That was a rather poor contribution to the discussion. However, the Deputy can console himself, now that he has read the Bill —and I hope he has read it; I have not heard him speak on it—that there is an alternative, and that is to be found in the provisions of this Bill.

If this scheme is not as popular—and I admit it is not extremely popular— as it should be, that is because it is misunderstood by the majority of the people and, worse still, because it has been very much misrepresented by the Fianna Fáil Party before they came in here with their alternative scheme and by other opponents of this measure. I have heard some of our theologians in this House, Deputy P. D. Lehane, Deputy P. O'Reilly and others, quoting very prominent clerics in support of their opposition to the Bill. I have heard Deputy Cowan severely criticise and censure a very prominent cleric for the type of argument he used in opposition to the Bill in a document which was circulated in pamphlet form through the country. I am not going to go into that aspect. If I wanted to hold the House up I could quote from the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, Bishop of Clonfert, many references that he made from time to time, especially when he was chairman of the National Health Insurance Society, in support of a measure of this kind. I do not say in support of all the details of a measure of this kind, but certainly in support of the provision of a suitable scheme of social security for all who need it.

I want to remind Deputy P. D. Lehane, Deputy P. O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan that when, on the occasion of the birth of this Government, on the 18th February, 1948, they marched into the Division Lobby to make Deputy John A. Costello head of the Government, they went with the full knowledge that they were supporting Deputy Costello as the head of a Government that had agreed upon the putting into operation of a certain ten-point programme. If Deputy P. D. Lehane will go to the Library, if he has not the programme himself, and ask the librarian, the librarian will be able to produce for his information the full text of that ten-point programme which made it possible for this Government to be established and to function since 18th February, 1948.

One of the most important sections of that programme was the provision of a comprehensive scheme of social security. I will accuse Deputy P. D. Lehane, Deputy P. O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan, if they go into the Division Lobby against this measure, if and when a division takes place, of repudiating the action they took in voting for the establishment of this Government in 1948. If they voted for a Government, as they did when they voted for the election of Deputy John A. Costello as Taoiseach, and for the election of Ministers, they voted for them in the full knowledge that during their lifetime they would make an attempt, with the support of those Deputies, to put into operation a comprehensive scheme of social security. It was one of the most important points in the programme which brought this Government into existence. There is no use now in saying they did not do that. We can produce the evidence—it is in the division list.

This Bill has been opposed by the spokesmen of what I call the new rich. We have had certain quotations from Deputy O'Leary. He quoted from a speech delivered not very long ago by the chairman of the New Ireland Insurance Company at a function held in the city in which he scarified everybody associated with or having responsibility for this Bill. The last people in this country who should oppose the provision of a reasonable scheme of social security for the less fortunate of our people are those who are themselves well secured behind tariffs at the expense of the community. I do not object so strongly to anybody opposing this kind of scheme on conscientious grounds, but they should not carry it too far, as has been done, in my opinion, judging from some of the quotations given in the House by some of those who spoke against the Bill and by one or two Deputies who spoke in favour of it.

If the scheme embodied in this Bill does not meet in full the requirements of the Labour Party, I say to supporters of that Party and to the workers generally that it is because this is not a Labour Government. This is an inter-Party Government comprised of 13 Ministers, only three of whom are Labour Ministers. If Mr. Norton were the Minister for Social Welfare in a Labour Government, he would bring in a Bill providing social security that would give effect in full to the policy laid down by the Labour Party. He would bring in a Bill that would provide old age pensions at the rate of 25/- a week at the age of 65. If the Bill does not meet the full requirements of the Labour Party, it is simply because in an inter-Party Government you have to meet the point of view of the people with whom you are associated. That is the real reason. I make no apology for giving that reason to those who have been demanding the reason from us. Deputy Allen smiles. It is no harm to tell him the truth. He can laugh.

It is no harm to smile at your simplicity.

I want to know, from Deputy Lemass in particular, and from Deputy Dr. Ryan, what authority they have from the workers or any section of the people for suggesting that the total cost of this scheme should be raised by way of direct taxation upon all sections of our citizens. Have they received even one resolution from any organised body of workers demanding that the full cost of this scheme should be provided by direct taxation? The labour and trade union movement that have been demanding the provision of a social security scheme over a long period of years, after careful consideration, having reviewed the question— as far as I know the last occasion on which they did so was in August, 1947 —have always demanded a social security scheme that would be based on a compulsory contributory system. I assert that Deputy Lemass would not advocate that scheme and plead that this whole matter should be taken out of the arena of Party politics were it not for the fact that he is making that appeal specially to the most selfish class of people who may be brought under cover of this scheme. At any rate, I do not recognise that he has any authority from the organised workers to advocate a scheme on that basis.

I go further. Those who remember the discussion that took place on the Vote on Account will remember Deputy Lemass, Deputy Dr. Ryan and the leading members of the Fianna Fáil Party who sit in the Front Bench, crying about the huge increase in the Estimates and asserting that the people were unable to bear the burden of taxation that would have to be raised this year to meet the Estimates for the various public services. Now they come along, forgetting, conveniently, what they said in regard to these matters on the Vote on Account, asking that another £4,600,000 or more should be added to the bill to which they objected on the Vote on Account. Is that consistent with sincerity in discharging their duties to the public?

I assert that it is the changing tactics of Fianna Fáil from one month to another, from one day to another, from one member on the Front Bench to another, that one fails to understand. That is why the leaders should be asked to come into the House before the division to clarify the position for the followers of Fianna Fáil, if for nobody else. At any rate, as a result of the Second Reading of this Bill, at long last, we have extracted from the Fianna Fáil Party some alternative scheme. We will defend ours as against theirs in the Division Lobby and in the country, if necessary.

The sooner you go, the better.

If this Bill were properly understood, if the full contents of the measure were in the hands of all sections of our citizens, particularly of that section that will be under the cover of this Bill, the most eloquent advocates for it should be the women, the married women and the women who hope to be married. Is it not the duty of any Christian, earning fairly decent wages, to make some provision during his lifetime for those he will leave after him, so as not to leave them, as many men, I am sorry to say, have left widows and orphans, to be provided for by the ratepayers and taxpayers? All self-respecting workers, male and female—I am talking about the self-respecting and they are in the majority—would much prefer to contribute to the provision for the rainy day rather than tax the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and all sections of the people in order to provide the total cost of the alternative scheme propounded by Deputy Dr. Ryan on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. We will defend the compulsory contributory insurance system as against his system in the House, in the Division Lobby or in the country, whenever the time comes.

I do not think a system of social security could ever be worked effectively under a scheme of voluntary contributions. For instance, for the sake of argument, take the 22,000 workers in the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann. If it was left to the free will of those 22,000 to say whether or not they would like to come under a scheme of this kind, would not they change their minds every day in the week? In my early days, when I joined the railway service, it was the policy of the company not to appoint permanently in the service any clerical officer who passed the entrance examination unless he gave an undertaking that he would join the superannuation scheme and contribute a certain percentage of his salary to the pension fund. I had to sign an agreement that, when I came to the age of 25 years, I would contribute a further percentage to provide for my widow or orphans in the event of my death while in the service or after leaving the service. Do you think that I, as a young lad with a very small salary that was barely sufficient to pay my land-lady, would have signed either of those sections of the agreement with the company if I had not been obliged to do so? The same applies to everybody like me. You cannot have a solvent insurance fund based on a Bill of this kind unless it is created under a compulsory contributory insurance scheme. You cannot have sections of workers in the same industry in and out of a scheme of this kind.

This Bill will give additional benefits to many sections of workers such as those referred to by Deputy Lemass, employed in firms like Guinness's, and Córas Iompair Éireann, and to some of the employees in the Electricity Supply Board. Some of the employees of these companies have their own pension schemes. They are making contributions in some cases for pensions and other benefits; in some cases the pensions and benefits on retirement are by way of an ex-gratia allowance. I do not believe it is the intention of the Minister to bring under the terms of this Bill people who are well provided for and who, for instance in the case of sickness, might be getting more money out of the funds of the company for which they are working and out of the fund to be created under this Bill, than they would get while they were working. At any rate there is an optional clause in the Bill, which enables organised sections of workers to go before the tribunal which is to be set up and to make a case for exemption.

I should like to bring one matter affecting a large section of workers to the notice of the Minister. The Minister I know is well aware of the existence of a superannuation fund under the 1948 Act which was passed to provide pensions for employees of local authorities—road workers and others— when they retired at the age of 65 or over. That Act, which was introduced by Deputy MacEntee, was, as he stated at the time, an experimental measure. I am pretty sure that the Minister also understands that that Bill has failed to meet the reasonable requirements of many sections of employees of local authorities. There are very few, so far as I can find out up to the present, who have been given the benefit of pensions under the Act of 1948.

The point I want to make to the Minister for consideration between now and the Committee Stage is this: If, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, he finds that the Superannuation Act of 1948 is not making the provision which was intended under that measure for road workers and other employees of local authorities, the Act should be repealed or amended or, at any rate, arrangements should be made so that road workers and other employees of local authorities will not be expected to continue to pay a contribution for a doubtful retirement benefit and so that they will be brought under this scheme rather than remain in the doubtful position of having to contribute under the Act of 1948 in the hope of getting a pension on retirement. If they are brought under this Bill, they will be entitled to benefits for unemployment, sickness, maternity and retirement— to four or five benefits against one very doubtful benefit under the Superannuation Act of 1948. I should like the Minister to look into that matter and clarify it between now and the Committee Stage because there is a general feeling amongst road workers and, so far as I can find out in my own area, they would much prefer to come under the social security scheme as outlined in this Bill rather than have to continue to make contributions for a very doubtful benefit under the Superannuation Act of 1948.

Deputy Derrig in that long-winded pronouncement in which he advocated the adoption of Trinity College economics from beginning to end, asked why any section should be omitted from the terms of this Bill. Why did Deputy Dr. Ryan not take that view? Deputy Dr. Ryan, as I was trying to remind some of his colleagues before he came into the House, made it very clear in 1947—he gave instructions to that effect to his secretary who was attending a conference—that it was his intention in the comprehensive Bill, so-called, that was in his mind, only to cover employed classes. Of course Deputy Dr. Ryan has already spoken, but he did not, when he was speaking, make any attempt to explain why he had changed his mind so drastically between November, 1947, and 3rd March, 1951, on matters affecting the classes to be covered by the Bill and the method of raising money to administer the Bill.

I do not want to take up time of the House further than to say that, as an old member, I am very glad to be privileged to have the opportunity of voting in favour of a measure of this kind. Deputy Lemass, of course, has made an appeal for agreement on the terms of a measure of this kind, but Deputy Lemass must recognise, and so must his colleague, Deputy Dr. Ryan, that there is a very serious difference of opinion on a major matter of policy between him, the Minister and the people who are supporting the Bill in connection with the question of the method of raising money to finance the Bill. I, at any rate, am delighted to have been in this House long enough to give a vote in favour of the Second Reading of this measure.

I should like to take the same line as Deputy Davin on this measure. I think the House is entitled to know what exactly is the Fianna Fáil attitude to this measure in view of the fact that succeeding ex-Ministers have taken different views. We had Deputy Derrig complaining that the present Government had abandoned the policy of retrenchment that had been advocated by one of the Parties before the change of Government. Then we had Deputy Dr. Ryan saying that he was opposed to the Bill because, in his view, it was not sufficiently comprehensive and that it did not bring into the scheme a sufficient number of people. We had Deputy Lemass stating that his only quarrel was that the Government would not agree to accept the general plan put forward by Deputy Dr. Ryan. Let us remember that Deputy Dr. Ryan said that he was opposed to it because it was not sufficiently comprehensive while, in 1947, he made a statement in this House, which is on record, that he was in favour of a scheme which would embrace only the employed classes. There appears to be a considerable difference of opinion amongst members of the Opposition Front Bench on this Bill. They do not appear to have a uniform outlook. Deputy de Valera will need to be very adroit if he wishes to retrace the steps he trod when he was down in Cavan. He expressed there a view and took a line which diverged very much from the views expressed by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Dr. Ryan. I think it is only right that the people and members of this House should know whether, in fact, the Fianna Fáil Party have any uniform view to express and whether they can express it in a manner which will be understood by the people at large. I do not know whether the followers of that Party can understand the approaches which have been made to this Bill by the different speakers on the Fianna Fáil side. I doubt if their own supporters would be able to form any opinion, or would know what approach to make towards this problem.

Deputy Dr. Ryan's scheme would cost about £3,000,000 more than the proposed scheme. One could hardly describe Deputy Dr. Ryan's proposals as a scheme or a plan. I think they are only an expression of opinion. On the Second Reading of the Bill, he spoke for two and a half hours, and at no time did he mention that Fianna Fáil had any kind of a plan or a scheme which could be regarded as having an outlook on this matter of social welfare. Apparently, Deputy Dr. Ryan's scheme was hurriedly devised up in Mount Street after the adjournment of the Dáil. It was a surprise to many people to see it published the next day in all the newspapers, having been sent out, I take it, from the Fianna Fáil headquarters. From the statements made by Fianna Fáil Deputies down the country before the day on which the Second Reading of the Bill was moved in the Dáil, and before we read the newspapers the next day, we did not know that Fianna Fáil had any plan or scheme. We certainly thought that they were completely opposed to any scheme of social welfare. The argument they are putting up now is that the scheme proposed by the Government is not the type of one which they would wish to put into force. In other words, we find them in agreement with us so far as the need for a scheme is concerned.

Let us examine and see what effect the scheme outlined under the Minister's Bill is going to have on the country at large. It means, first of all, that £9,000,000 will be collected from three sources: the employers, the workers and the taxpayers. When that sum of money has been collected, it will be distributed in the form of benefits to the persons qualified to receive them, such as the sick, the aged, the unemployed, widows and others. If the persons in those classes were not provided with those benefits they would be faced with destitution. One would imagine from the speeches made by members of the Fianna Fáil Party that, when those various classes of people receive those benefits in money they will go to the bank, lodge the money there and that we will never hear of it again. That, of course, is not so. This sum of £9,000,000 is going to be spent by those people who, as a result of its distribution, will be saved from destitution. They will spend it on food produced by the farmers whom the three Deputies who have spoken against the Bill claim to represent.

Why not give them £40,000,000 on the same basis?

Deputy Dr. Ryan advocated that.

Why not do that when you are going to do so much?

We are making a start with £9,000,000. Instead of those recipients of benefit being faced with destitution in the future, they will have this money to purchase food and clothing. It will enable them to protect their health by getting their requirements from the chemist and to avail of the various other services. It will provide them with other little amenities which are incidental to normal living.

This Bill was very strenuously opposed by Deputy P.D. Lehane, Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Reilly. It is very hard to understand their reasons for opposing it when one considers that this scheme will create new purchasing power amongst classes of people who, otherwise, would not have any purchasing power, apart from the existing benefits which at the present are meagre. Those three Deputies apparently are not anxious to see the people with that purchasing power. I would ask them to remember that the prosperity of the farmers, whom they claim to represent, depends on this, that the people of all classes have sufficient money to enable them to purchase adequate supplies of food.

I wonder if they are going to maintain the attitude they have already expressed towards this Bill. I do not think it is yet too late for them to change their minds. They are not just three blind mice. Probably they have seen the light since they gave expression to their views some days ago. Suppose they do decide to continue to oppose this scheme, they will then find themselves walking into the Lobby with the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are also opposed to the scheme. I should like to point out, however, that Fianna Fáil are not opposing it because it is to cost £9,000,000 but rather because it is not a scheme costing £12,000,000. Are those three conservative Deputies in these circumstances going to rub shoulders with the Fianna Fáil Party which considers that this scheme is not costly enough? Personally, I believe that the sick, the aged, the unemployed and widows will be shocked to find that such an attitude was adopted by those three Deputies, because opposition to this Bill, as it stands, means that they are opposed to an improvement of conditions for those classes of people. If they said they were in favour of the Fianna Fáil view, as it has been expressed, or of a more expensive scheme than this, they might be able to save their faces so far as the classes of people I have referred to are concerned. In these times, when the cost of living is at such a high level, it is certainly very hard to understand why these three Deputies should be so selfish in their outlook.

Take the case of a farm labourer receiving a wage of £3 5s. a week. He, like many other people, may have got the 'flu during the last Christmas period. Are these three Deputies quite satisfied to see that man in the future, as he is at present, getting only 22/6 a week during the period of his illness? Do they think that is sufficient to enable him to carry on? Some of these men have a family and I doubt if 22/6 a week would buy even the barest rations to feed such a family in case the man had the misfortune to get influenza. Similarly, are they satisfied to see a young or middle-aged widow facing a gloomy future on 22/- a week as against the proposed figure of 38/- per week for a widow with two children under this scheme? Their opposition to this Bill, as they do not agree with Fianna Fáil, only means that that is their attitude towards the problems which face these classes.

This is a compulsory contributory insurance scheme which insures those employed classes against misfortunes over which they may have no control and certainly cannot anticipate. Very few people can pay a sufficiently large insurance premium to cover them against such contingencies. This scheme, which is spread over such a very large number of persons, gives a very high degree of insurance in return for a very low contribution and that could not be done otherwise than under a State-sponsored scheme such as this.

It would not be right for people to believe that Fianna Fáil ever had a plan to bring into force a scheme of this kind or even a comprehensive scheme of social insurance. There was a Department established, the Department of Social Welfare, under Deputy Dr. Ryan. The principal purpose of that Department appeared to be to deal with the many Acts in operation at that time. There were something like 27 different Acts passed between 1911 and 1947. Certainly the operation of schemes under all these Acts would demand a good deal of time from the Minister. But, if he intended to provide a comprehensive scheme of social insurance, he was long enough there to have drafted the general outline of it, even if he had not a detailed plan. As well as that, the Fianna Fáil Party were long enough in office with an over-all majority which would enable them to have put into effect any scheme which they considered necessary. When the people decided that they no longer wanted Fianna Fáil as a Government, it was found that they had left no such plan and the present Minister had to start from the ground and build up this scheme. It was no mean achievement for him to succeed in the space of three years in hammering out a scheme of such magnitude. The previous Government were in office for 16 years and at the end of that time there was not even the framework of a scheme on which the present Minister could have worked. He had to set about the job himself and he deserves great credit for the manner in which it has been presented.

Deputy Dr. Ryan, in the course of his speech, claimed that a scheme was intended. He now agrees with the proposed co-ordination of the many Acts passed between 1911 and 1947. But, if a scheme was intended by Deputy Dr. Ryan and his colleagues, certainly there was no evidence that they were making any practical approach towards the implementation of such a scheme. When the Dáil adjourned after this scheme was introduced in the House, we read in the papers the next day what I would describe as a scrappy scheme hurriedly put together by the Fianna Fáil Party. Obviously, it was one to which no consideration of any great moment was given. It was hurriedly put together so that the Party would not look as if they were opposed to the benefits which this scheme proposes to give to the classes which would benefit by it.

This scheme is also opposed by Deputy Dr. Ryan because, in his view, it is not sufficiently comprehensive. We could devise a scheme which could be applied to every person in the country. But it is quite evident that the people in the country do not require such a scheme. They are not asking for such a scheme. In that case, we would be only taking from them what we were going to give back. On the other hand, this scheme is devised to ensure that people who would otherwise be faced with destitution will be cushioned against hazards in certain eventualities, whether it be becoming ill or reaching a certain age. This scheme will have the effect of distributing purchasing power in a specified sphere, in the sphere of the community where money is spent in order to acquire the bare essentials. By diverting the £9,000,000 into that channel, the course of the purchasing power will be determined. We know exactly the sphere in the community from which this £9,000,000 of spending power will emanate.

Another complaint which we heard from Fianna Fáil speakers was that the present scheme was changed in comparison with the scheme first introduced. That was a surprising observation from Fianna Fáil speakers considering that the cost of living has gone up by 3 per cent. since that time. In my opinion, that would justify the alteration of the scheme which will enable greater benefits to be made available now than it was proposed to make available in 1948.

Let us remember that Deputy Dr. Ryan made a remarkable statement in the course of his speech. He said that the old age pensioners were living at a reasonable standard of comfort in 1947. That, of course, justified the line he took at the end of 1947 when he refused to modify the means test because such modification would have involved an increase of £500,000 in taxation. The proposal for modification was put forward at that time by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and Deputy Costello. It was turned down by Deputy Dr. Ryan and his colleagues. The excuse was that the country could not afford it and he, apparently, at that time, considered that the old people were living at a reasonable standard of comfort. The old age pensioners were then in receipt of 10/- per week. They were receiving the same amount in 1933.

What were they receiving in 1932—9/-?

They were receiving 1/- less. They were granted an increase of 1/- in 1933. During the 16 years Fianna Fáil were in office, the cost of living almost doubled. Ministers were given an increase of 100 per cent.

Would Deputy O'Higgins remember that his uncle drew £700 more than I did and did a damn sight less for the country?

The Deputy is good at sneering at dead men.

The old age pension level was kept down to 10/- for a period of 14 years, while the cost of living was permitted to rise progressively. No attempt was made to ease the position of the old age pensioners, though the cost of living bore as heavily upon them as it did on other sections of the community. They did not live outside the community; they lived amongst us and were expected to live with us. The only easement made available to them was that the local authorities, through the ratepayers, issued vouchers to enable old age pensioners to procure a certain ration of food. Remembering that the black markets were flourishing at the time, these vouchers were really in the nature of a guarantee that these old people would get food without having to go into the black market for it. It was not an increase. It was merely a guarantee that a certain amount of food would be available at the controlled price.

It was given in addition to the 10/-.

The voucher was in addition to the 10/-, but let us remember that it was regarded as having a cash value. There were roughly 5,000 old age pensioners receiving anything from 1/- to 5/- per week, plus these vouchers, which were probably worth another 2/6. They all had to meet the rising cost of living out of that meagre allowance.

The present Government when it took office decided that they could not wait until the Bill now before the House passed into law in order to relieve the position of old age pensioners. Consequently they increased the maximum from 10/- a week to 17/6 per week. In addition to that they are now prepared, because of the rising cost of living in the last six months owing to circumstances outside our control, to grant a further increase to old age pensioners under this Bill. The sooner, therefore, that this Bill passes into law the better it will be for old age pensioners. Fianna Fáil speakers have suggested in the course of this debate that Fine Gael is opposed to this scheme. I want to quote now from a speech made by Mr. William T. Cosgrave, the then Leader of the Fine Gael Party, at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis in March, 1937. He said:—

"It was and always would be one of the principles of the policy of Fine Gael to maintain, consolidate and co-ordinate social services so that injustices and inequalities might be remedied, that overlapping might be prevented and that the cost of administration would be reduced thus making more money available for the sick, the poor, the unemployed and the beneficent."

That clearly demonstrates that it has always been the aim of Fine Gael to improve the lot of those who need the help of the State. It is nothing new for this Party to be in favour of this scheme which will improve conditions for those who need improvement most.

I am sure Deputy Rooney has embarrassed the Minister considerably by some of his remarks. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell the House when he is replying whether or not any scheme was being prepared or any effort was being made to prepare the scheme when he took office. Deputy Rooney quoted at length to prove that Fine Gael were in favour of social services as far back as 1937. Some of us almost forget that period, but it is no harm to remind Deputy Rooney that as late as 1947 the present Taoiseach said here:—

"In any case, as has been said, they are nothing more"

—he was referring to social services—

"than a row of medicine bottles showing disease in the household. The sounder your economic fabric is the less need there is for social services."

Hear, hear! It is sound.

That quotation appears in the Official Report on 13th March, 1947, at column 73. On the 28th March, 1947, at column 532, the present Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, said in relation to social services that social services benefit the purchasing power of 50 per cent. of the community and that we were adding 25 per cent.

"Supposing that the 25 per cent. does not defeat its own purpose and does not achieve some further inflationary effect, then its addition is absurd because it is merely putting these people on what may be described as their old position."

Deputy Rooney told us that this Social Service Bill will add to the purchasing power of the community and that it is a heaven-sent scheme as far as the farmers are concerned.

Add to the purchasing power of a section of the community.

You said it was a heaven-sent scheme for the farmers because it will add to the purchasing power of the community and will enable the farmers to get a higher price for their agricultural produce. Apparently the present Minister for Finance does not think that; he is afraid that this additional expenditure may create inflation. It is extraordinary that the Minister when introducing this Bill neglected to inform the House of the effect it will have on the cost of living when it passes into law. He did not tell us whether it might increase the cost of living by 5, 6 or 7 per cent., but it is a well-known fact that if this Bill comes into operation in its present form it will increase the cost of living. It is bound to increase the cost of every article in production. Labour Deputies who are so eager to have this Bill in operation should bear that in mind.

No matter what sort of scheme you have, you will have to pay for it.

The Party opposite wanted to pay more.

The Minister for Social Welfare could have told the Dáil what the estimated increase would be in the cost of living on all sections of the community. It is important that the country should be told that, before this Bill is put across the people.

It is in the White Paper.

No matter what this will cost, Deputy Dr. Ryan wanted it to cost more.

I fail to see any reference to the percentage increase in the cost of living.

The Deputy said the cost.

No, the cost of living on the whole community. What increase in the cost-of-living index will this scheme mean?

The Deputy said that 40 times.

Tell that to Deputy Dr. Browne.

I would like the Minister, when replying, to give that, as it is an important figure.

Could the Deputy tell us how much the Fianna Fáil scheme would increase the cost of living?

They had none.

The one they envisaged.

The greater percentage of the population can gain no benefit at all under this scheme. That is admitted, I think. It is a minority that will gain at the expense of the majority. No indication was given by the Minister—I suppose it is not his job—as to how the money is to be found, what section is to be taxed to raise these additional millions. It would be more honest to take the Budget before this Bill was debated. It would have been easy to have it postponed until after the Budget.

Were you not pressing for this Bill?

The Budget will be taken in the next three or four weeks.

You pressed for this.

The House and the country would be most interested to know from what source the additional finance is to come before they decide about this measure. It will seriously affect the agricultural community because of the higher contributions. Most agricultural workers at present or in the immediate future will be receiving £3 10s. 0d. a week or more. Therefore, they will be called upon to contribute 3/6 from their wages.

Fianna Fáil never gave them any benefit. They denied them that.

The employers will have to pay also. That burden will react against agriculture, as both workers and farmers will be unable to bear it. The worker will try to get the employer to pay and it will mean an additional 7/- a week between both. It is an unfair burden to put on lower-paid workers and on the section of the community that cannot pass it on to the rest. Almost every other section that is called upon to pay increased contributions—both workers and employers—will be in a position to pass it on, but the agricultural community is not. They are primary producers, and will have to carry the burden themselves, as well as their share of central taxation necessary to make up the balance. That is why I object to the rate of contribution on farmers and agricultural workers. Every section of the House should give that matter serious consideration.

Are they not getting an increase? Who is passing the buck there?

In some of the documents issued by the Minister, this £40,000,000 the farmers are getting under the rehabilitation scheme will enable them, it is claimed, to pay the extra contribution. There is no one alive here to-day—and I hope we will live a long time—who will ever see that £40,000,000 given to the farmers.

They are getting a share of it already.

It will not add 1 per cent. to the total production from agriculture, in the manner in which it is being spent at present.

More shame on the farmers if it will not.

Agricultural output in 1948 was £210 per person gainfully employed in agriculture; it was £378 for a person employed in industry, or £56 to every £100. The agricultural community are being called upon under this Bill to take the burden equally with the industrial community in the matter of contributions and also in the matter of taxation afterwards.

Prices have gone up since 1948.

But the balance is still there against agriculture, the balance is there in the same ratio just as it was in 1948. Again, the prices of industrial goods have gone up, and the ratio is the same as in 1948—£56 as against £100. It must be kept in mind that 53 per cent. of our farmers are under £10 valuation. These people are living on small holdings, trying to eke out an existence. We have 120,000 agricultural labourers, approximately, and 355,000 farmers. Not all the farmers, judging by the size of the farms, can employ an agricultural labourer, or need an agricultural labourer.

Deputy Dr. Ryan said they could not be brought in anyhow.

We have reached the stage when an agricultural worker— and I am not saying he is getting enough or too much—is in a better position as far as the amount of money available to him per week or per year is concerned, than a large percentage of small farmers.

We would like to bring in the small farmers, but how could we?

As you increase the cost of living you will put those small farmers in a worse position still, and the day is fast coming when small farmers will be forced to abandon their holdings, many of them, and to seek a living elsewhere. There is no question about that. You are fast driving them on to it. They are an important section of the community and if they are to be preserved in this State, the State will have to take some steps to retain such an important section of the agricultural community.

We would like to see the small farmers included, but how could you include them?

There is no question about it, these will be an added burden on the agricultural community. No consideration is being given them.

Are they not better able to pay?

There are not many of those small farmers who will be able to retire at 65. I think it will be agreed that they must continue.

They never did retire at 65, and please God, never will.

They will be less able to continue in the future.

They will be able to get a pension if they have to sell the farm.

They must continue to work, and while their neighbour down the road——

Your plan is that there should be no retirement.

Might I be given some protection by the Chair? We have the yapping yahoos from all sections.

You must be a first cousin to a yapping yahoo.

Deputy Allen must be allowed to make his speech without further interruption.

The agricultural section are being treated most unfairly. They are being called upon to pay, although they are very much opposed to the terms of this Bill. They are opposed to it because of the contributions they will be asked to pay.

They are very much opposed to it and I am surprised that the Labour Party, who should know and fully appreciate the condition of the agricultural workers, are prepared to stand for the rates of contribution that those workers will be asked to pay.

They will get benefits that your Party always denied them.

There should be some control exercised over Deputy Desmond, Deputy Davin and pint-pot Lehane.

Some of the benefits under this Bill are desirable and are benefits that we stand for and would be prepared to implement to the fullest. We agree that national health insurance benefit should be increased. We agree also that unemployment benefit should be increased. We are not, however, agreed that everyone in this country, when he or she comes to 65, should be compelled to retire and should be given a retiring pension. We are not agreed on that, and that is where we join issue in the main with the Minister on this Bill.

There is nothing compulsory at all.

There are some peculiar features in the Bill. Under its proposals, a small farmer, a self-employed person or anybody else, and his wife, when they reach 70, will be entitled to £1 a week each. Again, the employed person and his wife, when they come to 70, will not actually have £2. That is an anomaly, but it is true. They will have 24/-, plus 12/-.

At 70 they will have the same amount. Under the Minister's proposals the other person and his wife will have £2. There are some peculiar features there. I believe the Minister would be wise to accept the scheme put forward by Deputy Dr. Ryan.

And who will pay for that scheme?

He put it forward in the Dáil after this Bill was introduced and he gave full details of it in his speech. He indicated that he either agreed or disagreed with certain proposals and he dealt with each heading right through the Bill. In my opinion, it is a much better scheme. The Government's scheme will cost, between the contributor, the employer and the State, far more money per annum than the scheme put forward by Deputy Dr. Ryan. It will cost much more money. There is no question or doubt about that. Deputy Dr. Ryan's scheme will cost millions a year less.

A better scheme for less money—is that what it means?

It will cost millions per year less money because of the fact that Deputy Dr. Ryan does not propose to retire every person employed for wages or salary at 65 years of age. That is where the big proportion of this money is being spent. It is unjustifiable expenditure, we believe, to impose on the community at the present time. It is a burden that the community will be unable to bear, especially the agricultural community. Therefore, the Government would be wise in withdrawing this scheme and trying, as Deputy Lemass, the deputy leader of this Party, suggested, to have an agreed social welfare scheme for the whole country. It would be far sounder and far better. There is no necessity for controversy, political or otherwise, in respect of a social welfare scheme.

We have given an outline of the distance we are prepared to go and the burden that we believe the community are able to bear. It is a matter that should be considered. The Government's scheme will cost millions more per annum than the Fianna Fáil scheme. It is an unfair scheme, unfair especially to the agricultural labourer and the farmer, to impose on them the high contributions required under the scheme. A man may have £1,000 a year and he will stand to benefit, to get a retiring pension or sickness benefit or, if he is ever unemployed, unemployment benefit. He will get all the benefits under this Bill and he will have to pay only 3/6 a week, just the same as the agricultural worker with his £3 10s. 0d. a week.

And the agricultural worker will get all the benefits too, please God.

The poorer sections of the community who are unable to pass the cost on to the rest of the community will be forced under this scheme to pay more than the richer sections of the community. That is where the scheme is unjust. It is a scheme that should not be accepted by the House.

The proposals before the House in this Bill are very attractive. They do not seem to have drawn very strong opposition from the Opposition. As far as that is concerned, then, it is an ideal piece of legislation. However, before embarking on this measure, which proposes Utopian conditions of life for the people in future, before finally deciding on it, we should have a form of prospectus submitted. The Bill proposes to give everybody about to come into the world the utmost protection and care that science can devise and, from his entrance into the world, a feeling of protection that will extend all through his life until finally he is put in his coffin and laid to rest. It is an idealistic set of proposals. Undoubtedly, it is attractive.

From what source will the necessary funds be drawn to provide the services for this grand, idealistic condition of affairs which it is proposed to set up? We have no proposals on those lines before us. A person in a comparatively small way of business, who requires a loan from the bank of a few thousand pounds for the purpose of extending his existing business, must satisfy the bank manager that the investment has some prospect of success which will enable the applicant to repay the loan. Supposing a company was being formed and that there was a semipublic or public issue of shares. Would the mere statement that it was proposed to form the company attract the required capital? Would not the board have to set out in detail the type of business that it was proposed to establish, the amount of capital required and the potential trade? After careful study of the prospectus, the investors would buy the shares if they were satisfied that it was a good investment. What would we think of a man who would publish a prospectus and ask for £100,000 capital on the basis that he would give the investors an easy and carefree life for the remainder of their lives? No one outside a lunatic asylum would invest on the basis of that type of prospectus.

Here we have a proposal which tells the public that we will give them much more leisure, much more security and greater safeguards from the time they are born until they are laid in their coffin but nobody tells us how these services are to be supplied. The proposal as it stands is unjustifiable and does not merit serious consideration. It merits complete criticism and opposition from every sensible Deputy.

Nonsense, rubbish.

All right. The Deputy may have far greater perspicuity than I have and may be able to see into the future but, as an ordinary plain business person, I am dealing with this Bill and, as such, I have made the statement that I have made and I will repeat it. I do not consider it rubbish but I consider that an interruption of that sort is stupid.

Nonsense, rubbish.

Stupid again. We have no prospectus. Have we built reserves over the years that enable us to say that we are in a position to incur debt of so many millions and to pay out millions per annum? As far as I know the statistics, such is not the condition of our finances. If, then, we have not got reserves on which we can establish this scheme and pay the claims which must arise from the proposals now before us, is there any indication in the Bill of the source from which we will get the necessary finance for the future?

We are all to retire at 65—not all of us, but a number of us—and to have all the facilities proposed in the Bill. That must involve expenditure of money. We have not the money. It must be raised. Where? Surely the prospectus should set out the source from which the money will be raised and the community should know to what extent additional taxation will arise. Give us a prospectus. Where is the money to come from? How far will it apply to each individual and to each section of the community? We are entitled to know that. We are entitled to know what the Bill will involve us in.

If the scheme were objected to on strictly moral grounds, there would be there a distinctive line of demarcation, but it is not. Let me object to it on grounds which I shall put forth and in doing so, I find that mine is a voice speaking alone. Both sides in this House are committed to the scheme— if not to this one, to one somewhat similar. We are, therefore, thrown back on the position that all these social services are nothing more than a panacea, introduced, so far as we are concerned, originally in the British Parliament, when the old age pensions were first granted. That was in the days when the British Parliament was controlled by an individual who was then called a wild Socialist.

Subsequently, spurred and speeded up after each war by the dreadful threat of Communism, England ran before that threat and tried to bribe her people and to stave off the onrush of Communism by giving them what they considered benefits equivalent to those given in some Communist countries. Does that not mean, however we may like to look at it, that there must be some form of good in Communism, when we try to copy Communist countries and follow them in the example of trying to distribute amongst the community as a whole, the resources of the State? In saying that, I do not want to be taken as an advocate of Communism but I do say that a definite stand should be made on this question. This Dáil should take the people into its confidence, if we want to advance socially, put forward its prospectus and tell the community the amount of money it will be necessary to provide for these services and how that money is to be raised. Deputies should tell them that it will involve additional taxation for the agricultural worker, the road worker and the business community year after year. In evading and side-stepping that duty, we are all becoming a group of hypocrites.

We are putting forward our security schemes without a plan, if we attempt to raise this money in general taxation without telling the people in advance to what extent their money is to be utilised to finance it. On the one hand we shall hear that these schemes come from the inter-Party Government, and the Parties who combined to form that Government will claim support from the electorate, because of these schemes. On the other hand, we may be told that the scheme comes from the Fianna Fáil Government and they will claim the support of the community as a result of it. Cannot there be honesty, no matter what Government is in office, and, no matter what social reform is proposed, can the public not be taken into our confidence and be told that there is no means by which money, services or commodities can be provided except through the ordinary economic channels as we know them? If we are going to increase expenditure, the public will have to provide it.

I read the very interesting statement made by Deputy Lemass on this subject last week and I recommend it, with all the force I can command, to the full consideration of every Deputy in this House. If we are going to have social reform and better conditions for our people which inevitably must mean increased taxation for the community, let that not be done in a political way. Let it not be the production of one political Party, imposing themselves on the vulnerable and easily-led members of the public who will eventually have to finance these schemes. Let it be done by agreement. The public should not be involved in any expenditure of this nature without submitting the scheme to a committee of experts, set up to examine the question and to report fully in advance what the scheme involves for the whole community. The tactics employed by Parties in this House in reference to this measure remind me of the words of the popular song: Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better. That attitude, adopted by Parties competing one against the other, is wilfully negligent and wholly destructive of the national economy.

Deputy Lemass, by the speech which he made, struck me as a man who was solidly and soundly considering the effect on the national economy of this and other similar proposals. Any policy which ignores that effect I do not regard as sound business. I may be too conservative and, as such, one who has not a sufficient conception of modern needs. Being a man who always understood that I had to live within my means, I have never been able to get beyond that idea. I may be old-fashioned and wrong, but even nations have at times endeavoured to reduce and curb their expenditure even to the extent of limiting the quantity of food allowed to their people, as they have been doing in England for some years back. It was done in this country when our forefathers were compelled to restrict themselves to a meagre allowance that was barely sufficient to enable them to live. Then we find that in times of emergency, when rumours of war are in the air, compelling a shortage of money and tight-living, nations can spend money lavishly. There is lavish expenditure during a war but there is poverty and starvation after it. It is an old-fashioned notion that nations should confine themselves merely to trying to balance their accounts year by year, but perhaps that is wrong. I am satisfied, from my experience of wars in different countries during the last 25 years, that the notion of trying to pay your way is wrong, old-fashioned and out-of-date Now I find that nations can go on recklessly incurring expenditure without making any provision for it. This Bill is based on that standard. You make no provision for raising the money needed to finance it just as nations have made no provision in advance for wars in which they were engaged. This country during the emergency had to meet a somewhat similar situation. We are out of court, if we begin to balance our Budget in advance.

Do you not think it would be good policy to provide in advance to meet the possibilities and the results of your investment as that principle would apply in any business? Is there nothing more than that? Since you have no reserves on which you can safely draw, are you making any provision for increased production from the general workers and the general body of people in this country to meet the increased demands which the passage of this Bill will involve? I say you are not. As regards production, the returns are becoming less and less. We have demands for shorter hours of work, and due to various other causes there is less production per unit. Our output is becoming smaller. I suggest, therefore, that you have made no provision to meet the demands which the passage of this Bill will involve. Do Deputies think that can go on indefinitely? Here, as in England, you have been drawing on reserves that were built up over generations by people who were hard drivers in business, who were capable of conducting enterprise and who were successful in building up capital reserves. Through income-tax, death duties and other means Governments here have been able to draw from that source of supply, but remember it will soon be exhausted. We have been living on reserves which were the result of careful husbandry and of outstanding industrial effort on the part of our people over hundreds of years.

When these reserves have been spent, where is there another source to draw from? There is none, except in increased production. The position, therefore, is that you will have to go back to the workers and tell them that it rests with them to give the country increased production at a lesser charge, and that that is the only way in which we can finance the State. In other words, this State—the same thing has happened in England—has been drawing on reserves which, over generations, had been built up by the industrious and hard-working sections of our community. Have you any other source from which you can draw revenue to finance this Bill?

I am not opposed to the Bill. I am delighted with it, not being a heavy capitalist myself, if a capitalist at all. I do not at all see why the workers of this country, in a general way should not be generously provided for. Since I have nothing to contribute out of my reserves you cannot make it nearly big enough. I am talking as I see things. Go on with your scheme, but tell us if there is a plan behind it, a plan that will enable us to produce more than we are at present, and so that we may, to our utmost capacity be in a position to make provision to meet every man's needs. I should like to be told that that was the answer, but we have not been told that.

I accept the Bill with the utmost welcome in so far as it aims at providing better conditions for the general community. But that is not the position. There is no provision in it for large sections of the community. I suggest that you are dishonestly trying to extract contributions from one section of the community to help another section. What are you going to do when this Bill is passed? Do not tell me that its implementation will not mean an increase in general taxation because I do not believe that. You are proposing to tax the poorest section of this community to provide for others, some of whom are living in infinitely better conditions than the section I refer to, which is composed of the small uneconomic farmers. There is no benefit to go to them or to their children, but they are being asked to provide benefits for people who are in an infinitely stronger financial position than themselves. Apart from the question as to whether that is economically sound, do you think it is morally justifiable—to take from the poorest section of the community to give increased benefits to their wealthier neighbours? I say that position is wrong morally, and that while that is so, this Bill could never be passed by any fair-minded Government. In the poorer parts of the country you have great numbers of small farmers who are part farmers and part labourers. Their families are in the same position. Do you think that to deprive them of benefits of a national nature of this kind, under a socialistic scheme such as this, is charitable and just? Why leave out that section of the people? They form a big section. They work, not merely eight hours a day but 18 and 20 hours a day, and not for a fixed wage but for a meagre existence.

This grand scheme, which is intended to raise the social standard of the community as a whole, is in my opinion aimed at destroying those in this poor section, and will make their position more pitiful and bitter than ever it has been. Is that just having regard to the fact that it is the continued labours of this section which enable this country to maintain its position on the export market? It is their production and labours which provide us with the exports that enable us to buy our requirements from abroad. Agriculture is our only industry which provides us with exports which are of any worthwhile value. The agricultural industry here has been maintained on a low wage and on a low miserable existence. The majority of those who are engaged in it are in that position. There is continued neglect associated with the industry. Those engaged in it see the workers in other industries with their wages guaranteed to them. The young people in agriculture see other industries protected by their unions here, across the water, and in the United States of America. They are bringing in tractors and other machinery to replace human beings. Is it considered sound economics to replace young men and women by these machines?

In the congested areas and in the county to which I belong we have the most intelligent and capable young people to be found in any county in Ireland or in any country in the world. Evidence of their capacity for work is to be found in the fact that the comparatively few migrants who were transferred by the Land Commission from Leitrim to the Midlands were a success there. You will destroy those people by this scheme. You will drive more and more of them out of the country. Can the Government not think of a plan which will employ these intelligent, hard-working and capable people in their own locality, which would give them something to do that will be a benefit to the nation and encourage them to remain there? How are you encouraging them? These people can go on working on a farm, living on a starvation allowance, without any prospect of sickness benefits or a pension at 65, while the people in the towns and cities are to have all these advantages.

Our Governments are made up mainly of men drawn chiefly from circles other than agriculture, and they are not intelligent enough to understand the needs of the people in the country and their value. They are not trying to encourage them to remain on the land. By the legislation they have introduced this Government and previous Governments have driven the people from the land, people who were really productive, who were really worth while. Houses are being built at extraordinary expense in the City of Dublin until almost one-fifth of the population of the country has been drawn up here. What precautions have the Government taken to provide useful employment for these people when the houses are built? If a man wants a labourer's cottage in the country it is at least two years before he gets it, although he is prepared to do useful work in producing essential agricultural produce.

Now the Government are going to debar the major section of our producing community, namely, the agricultural community, from participating in this scheme, but they are being compelled to pay for it. How do they expect support for such a scheme? I can see in the scheme the greatest and most deliberate effort ever made to deplete the rural population and to destroy the workers and the producers. Why do they not reverse their policy and give encouragement to the people in the rural areas and show that they can put these people into useful occupations? They are a section of the community who are highly intelligent, capable and industrious. Why not utilise those qualities? Science has been used to produce atomic power and energy. Motor cars, aeroplanes and other machines have been produced at a huge cost. Why can we not concentrate on utilising the energy, capacity and intelligence of the finest people in the world and retain them at home by devising means by which they can be usefully occupied?

This Bill has no such plan. There is no vision in it. It will exhaust the resources which the people have got at their disposal and which have been built up over centuries. You are accelerating the depletion of these resources. Have you estimated how long it will take completely to exhaust them? Can you tell us how long our present resources and our reserve of capital will last at the present rate of expenditure? When all these resources are exhausted, from what source do you anticipate getting future revenue to meet all this increased expenditure in every direction? We are living on capital built up over the centuries. How long do you estimate the reserve will last? When it is exhausted, where are you to find revenue to continue? An answer to that would be enlightening. Before increasing expenditure in the way proposed here the Government should make that publicly known. We hear a lot about morals. The Government ought to set an example in that respect. The private individual when he lives beyond his income gets into financial difficulties and he is exposed. Are Governments to have no responsibility when they enter into liabilities for which they make no provision? Morals are excellent things to talk about and to theorise about, but I should like to see them put into practice by Governments. Deputy Lemass stated that he would like to see all these social reforms approached, not from a particular point of view, but from the national point of view, and I agree with him. That was an honest statement. No matter how much is spent under this Bill, I have very little to lose, but I should like to see the well-being of the community promoted I am merely pointing out what I consider are the moral and national obligations of the Government. I should like to see an estimate of what all this will cost and how the Government propose raising the money. The Government are proposing to squeeze a section of the community, namely, the small farmers, who will receive no benefit but who will be made pay for this for the benefit of those who are in a better financial position. It is entirely immoral and certainly will not have my support. Why do you not include all sections of the community? Why do you eliminate the one section who, above all others, are most in need?

We are told that one of the difficulties is the collection of the weekly contribution from the small farmers. The difficulty with small farmers is that ready cash is not available, that money is always very scarce. But that was got over by Governments operating in this country long before an Irish Government was set up. They paid the land annuities half-yearly. If the farmer wishes to go into the scheme, why not give him the opportunity of paying his contribution through the medium of the land annuity? What justification has the Minister for robbing that section of the community which is admitted by all to be the poorest? They will not be allowed to avail of the benefits of the scheme but they will be compelled to pay for the mixed blessing of conferring those benefits on some other section of the community. I consider this Bill in its present form to be both immoral and criminal. It certainly is not ethical. It is immoral to take from the most deserving section of the community and the most useful section and hand what one takes over to less useful and less energetic people.

Deputy B. Maguire stated that he welcomed this Bill. Having listened to him condemning the Bill for at least half an hour, I find it difficult to understand his claim that he welcomes it. He described this Bill as a panic measure. I took him to imply that the old, the blind, the widow, the orphan and the sick who are in need of help should be liquidated in some way. I will not support any body who advocates the assassination of the old just because they are old, or the blind or the disabled. I would prefer to tax everybody in order to make the lot of these people easier.

The farmers are in receipt of £10,000,000 yearly by way of subsidies and grants. I suggest to Deputy Maguire that the money for these schemes will be found from the same source. Anyone who takes the view that the helpless should not be maintained in at least frugal comfort will certainly not have the support of the people. There is one difficulty with relation to collecting contributions from the small farmers and perhaps it is because of that difficulty they have been omitted from this scheme. Possibly the contributions could be paid weekly, monthly or half-yearly. It is not so much the collection of the contributions that is the snag as the fact that there might be undue malingering. We all know how impossible it would be to check upon the self-employed on their own land. That may be what decided the Government to keep the small farmers out. They were not omitted because of any ill-will towards them. They were omitted because the Government felt they could not give them the benefits of the scheme and it would, therefore, be unfair to make them pay direct contributions. The burden thrust upon the small farmers because of this scheme will be no heavier than the burden thrust upon the general taxpayer throughout the country.

It was the Minister's duty to formulate a scheme having received the sanction of the House on the First Stage of this Bill. The Minister has done that. Oddly enough, Deputy Lemass now suggests that he should not have formulated any scheme, and he wants him to withdraw the present scheme and get an agreed scheme. I take it he threw out that suggestion because he did not want the Government or the Minister to get the credit due because of the implementation of this scheme.

The Opposition have a right to criticise. They are entitled to criticise every Bill and so long as they do that constructively no one has any right to object. This Bill is the best the country can afford. If the Opposition think they can improve it, then let them do so by way of amendment on the Committee Stage. If their amendments are practicable they can rest assured of the support of the democratic-minded Deputies on the Government Benches. The Labour people who have been advocating social welfare for the past 20 or 30 years are entitled to support any group of people who will give them something better. We would like, of course, to be assured that the Opposition are not speaking with their tongues in their cheeks when they promise a a better service than the present one at no cost at all. We all know that is not possible of achievement.

We believe in a system of contribution because a direct contribution confers the right upon a man to a certain benefit. We realise, too, that the money so contributed cannot be used for purposes of political sport. Neither can it be increased or reduced at the will and pleasure of a Minister for Finance. No stigma of charity can attach to the benefits since the people themselves are paying for them.

Deputy Allen said that the increased contributions will mean another 3/6. That is not so. The total sum per week will now be 3/6. Most of the contributors are already paying quite a considerable part of that 3/6. Against that contribution, too, one must offset the 1/- per week death benefit insurance which these people heretofore were compelled to carry on themselves, their wives and their families. In fact, this scheme should represent a considerable saving to the wage earner from that point of view. I have had experience in this matter. I worked for a number of years as a life insurance agent. I know how many workers paid 2/- per week on themselves and on their wives and children. That 2/- contribution for life insurance purposes can now be dropped and can go into the family budget in the normal way since the State now guarantees a death benefit.

I do not propose to deal at length with the benefits of this scheme but there are two or three points that I would like to mention. Deputy Maguire, Deputy Ormonde and some other Opposition Deputies referred to the fact that the small farmer cannot benefit. Reference was also made to the fact that the small farmer would be hunted out of the country because of the cost of this scheme. Most of the small farmers in my constituency work for eight or nine months in the year as carters employed by the county council or in some other kind of employment since they cannot earn a livelihood for themselves and their families owing to the size of their holdings. If they do not work, their sons work and when they enter into gainful employment they will be automatically covered under the terms of the Bill. If they are not covered themselves, their sons or daughters will be covered, so they will gain almost as much as the ordinary rural worker.

I welcome the Bill mainly for the fact that for the first time in the history of the country the agricultural worker is being recognised by getting the right to unemployment benefit. In the past, when he had the misfortune to fall out of work through no fault of his own, he had to apply to the home assistance officer and make a public confession, in the dispensary, of his misery because he was unable to secure employment, and then he got 15/- a week to cover the necessaries for himself and his wife and children. Thank God, that day will be gone and, if only for that, it will give me great pleasure as a Labour Deputy to follow the Tánaiste into the division lobbies to vote for this Social Welfare Bill.

The point has been made by Deputy Allen that it is unjust and unfair to expect a manual worker to retire when he is 65. It was almost suggested that it was a crime. I claim for the manual worker the very same right as Fianna Fáil gave to every civil servant, every clerical officer and every one else in this country, of retirement at 65. There is no compulsion, but should a worker find that at 65 he is unable to compete in the struggle for existence with younger men, is it not fair and just that he should at least have guaranteed to him a certain amount of retiring pension and should have that pension irrespective of any little income that might be provided by a son or daughter or by a generous employer? If that is the objection Fianna Fáil have to this scheme, or that any other Deputy has to it, I feel that when they go to the country again, the workers will know who are their friends and who are not.

I should like to correct one misapprehension under which Deputy Maguire labours when he tells us that nations may spend without recking the cost, that they may engage in wars without ultimately having to pay the penalty. I think that the circumstances and conditions as they exist in Europe to-day ought to convince Deputy Maguire that his theory is utterly wrong. If the British people are living on short commons, if all their wealth has been squandered, if they must try to maintain themselves on six or eight ounces of meat per week, the reason is that they have had their war and now they are paying for it. Similarly, if we propose to spend millions on any sort of scheme, whether it be to improve social services or anything else, we ultimately —as Deputy Maguire in this instance was careful to point out—shall have to pay for it.

In approaching the question before the House, I think it could be established that we have, all of us, one common ground on which all the Irish people stand—it is that poverty shall not go unrelieved nor helplessness unprotected nor misery uncared for. Our people are a just people. They are not only a just people but they are merciful and charitable. We are naturally inclined, therefore, to accept almost without question any measure the purpose of which is to ameliorate the lot of the people. Bearing this in mind, must we not scrutinise any scheme carefully and searchingly when it evokes strong criticism from those who are usually reticent in regard to public and political questions? That question is a very relevant one to this debate. Never in our parliamentary history has any measure purporting to be one of social reform called forth such unreserved criticism as the Tánaiste's scheme has. I call it the Tánaiste's scheme, because it is an open secret that he is the true and only begetter of it. We know that Fine Gael did not want it, even if they are now trailing after the Labour Party's tail. They did not want it in the beginning and there was a Party crisis in regard to it. However that may be, we know that they have now to accept responsibility for it. This is a scheme which has called forth criticism from unaccustomed quarters. Theologians, professors of ethics and sociology have condemned it. In doing so, I suggest that they are only expressing the views of hundreds of thousands of our people. Those views have been fashioned not by any anti-social or inhuman prejudice, but by the manifest injustice of the Tánaiste's—or perhaps one might say the Labour Party's—proposals.

This Bill is a selfish Bill, framed by self-seeking politicians whose mind is fixed on one ulterior object and that object is the purchase of urban political support. The Bill, I think, has no higher motive than that. It is not concerned with social justice. If it were, it would not freeze out, as this Bill freezes out, from all benefit and advantages the hardest working element in our community, the primary producers, the farmers; neither would it be so callous and indifferent to the needs and vicissitudes of the self-employed person as this Bill is. The self-employed person is usually a person of independent character. He likes to stand on his own two feet and not be beholden to any man for his livelihood, but that great good quality of his leaves him the more vulnerable to illfortune and ill-health than any who hold cosy jobs. Yet this Bill does no more for the self-employed person than it does for the working farmer, though those two sections of the community have to shoulder their share of the cost of whatever the Bill provides for everyone else. In short, they give much but they get nothing. One half almost of the producers, of the workers of the country, are discriminated against by the provisions of this Bill and they are victimised by it. Will anyone tell me, will the Tánaiste tell me, where is the social justice in that?

By reason of its deficiencies and its defects, this Bill could well be called a measures of social injustice. It is these manifest deficiencies which have called forth the condemnations to which I have referred, the condemnations from many quarters. These judgments, these adverse criticisms of the Bill, have been uttered. I am sure, very unwillingly by persons and organisations who hitherto have shown themselves loth to interfere in public affairs. We may be sure, therefore, that they have not been lightly spoken. It is all the more incumbent, accordingly, for us who in this House will take personal responsibility for the fate of this. Bill to ponder and consider them well. We certainly should not scoff at them nor sneer nor jibe at those who have had the moral courage to express them. Yet there are some Deputies in this. House who have not scrupled to use— to abuse, perhaps I should say—their privileged position here to abuse those who have endeavoured to recall to our minds the fact that the provisions of this Bill raise moral issues to which each and every one of us is bound to have regard.

On that point, may I say that it has seldom, I think, been the lot of this House to listen to two speeches more abusive of persons outside this House than those which were delivered on Wednesday and Thursday last by Deputies Desmond and Cowan. Deputy Desmond is a newcomer to our public life and I know little about him, but Deputy Cowan I do know, and when I hear this, shall I say, nuncio of the red pope of the Kremlin getting up in the House, as he did last Thursday, and belabouring through column after column of the Dáil Debates a Catholic priest because he had the audacity to set out the principles upon which proposals such as those now before the House should be judged, and, in doing this, dragging in the Papal Encyclicals, I am reminded of the signal ability with which Satan can quote the Scriptures to suit his own purpose.

But who is this Gamaliel who proposes to teach ethics and sociology to our clergy? He is the man who, a few years ago—a very few years ago— proclaimed the imminent triumph of Communism in Europe. This is the man who professes to reprimand the Rev. Dr. Hegarty because he suggested that there might be moral issues involved in some of the provisions of this Bill. He is the man who, a few years ago, proclaimed that he was looking eagerly to the day when the régimes of Portugal and Spain and elsewhere would topple and the system which prevails in Russia and the satellite States enthroned there instead.

The man who criticised Dr. Hegarty is the man who, a few years ago, wished to found the Vanguard, and here are some of the Christian principles which he wished then to have given effect to. He wished to found the Vanguard in order to end capitalism in Ireland. He wished to found the Vanguard in order to establish a Socialist Republic for all Ireland. He wished to found the Vanguard in order that the agricultural industry would be organised so as to include most of the agricultural profession and the provision of machines, seeds, implements, manure, etc., on co-operative lines. The main part of his programme thus was to collectivise agriculture in this country on exactly the same basis as it has been collectivised in Russia. He then went on to say: “All farms of 50 acres to be acquired by the State and made available for agricultural workers”. Again, he is the man who wants, if you will, to collectivise production and distribution in this country, the gentleman who declared in August, 1944, that it was part of his political programme to ensure that the distribution of essential commodities would be organised on collective lines under State control to eliminate waste and reduce the cost of living, just, of course, as they have happened to do in Russia and are now trying to do in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the rest. He is the gentleman who, in August, 1944, claimed that it was part of his programme to acquire all dwelling-houses not occupied by their owners. These were to be acquired by the State, and all houses for letting were to be placed under the direct control of the State. This was all to be done in accordance with Christian principles and in accordance with the teachings of the Papal Encyclicals.

In order that there might be no doubt as to the type of organisation that Deputy Cowan proposes to set up in this country, we were going to have a party organisation here exactly on the model of the Communist parties everywhere, because here is how the Vanguard, here is how Deputy Cowan's Party was to be organised:—

"The Vanguard will be organised on the principle of democratic centralism. Every member will be required to work for the organisation and to obey the orders of the leaders.”

There is not very much democracy in that.

"Discussion between members on every matter of policy will be encouraged up to the time when a decision is made, but when the decision has been made it will be binding on every member. The Vanguard will be thus a highly disciplined organisation which shall give leadership in every sphere of the struggle for socialism.”

This is the gentleman who proposes to condemn the utterances of responsible Churchmen when they are at variance with his peculiar conception of social justice. Just think of it! Houses not occupied by their owners ought to be taken over. All farms over 50 acres to be collectivised, industry to be collectivised. That is Deputy Cowan's conception of social justice.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy relate that to the Bill?

It is as ad rem to the Bill as Deputy Cowan's five column attack on the Rev. Dr. Hegarty was last Thursday.

The Deputy should take on St. Paul now.

I knew that Deputy Cowan had one quality—might we describe it as overweening modesty?—but I never dreamt that he regarded St. Paul as second only to himself.

The glaring defect of this Bill is, I think, its refusal to give any consideration whatever to the working farmer and the self-employed person. That was its fatal defect when the Bill was introduced. It remains its fatal defect to-day, even though some of those who were so outraged by this complete indifference to our agricultural population that they were going to vote against the Bill have been mollified or suborned by the proposal to increase the old age pensions and to relax to some extent the means test. I think it has been very cogently argued here that, in order there should be no doubt about the Government's ability to fulfil those pledges to the old age pensioners, a measure to increase these pensions should be introduced and passed through this House in anticipation of this Bill. That has not been done. Accordingly, we can say that this promise to increase old age pensioners pensions reminds one of the old saw: "Live horse and you will get grass."

Thus the farmers and self-employed people who are completely outside this Bill, except as beasts of burden and contributors, to provide the benefits which other people will derive from it. who pay for this Bill but get nothing out of it, are being told that, if they survive their ailments and illnesses and contribute through taxation to provide for others the benefits denied to themselves, they will perhaps, and only perhaps, get a pension, provided they are poor enough. There is no means test for most of the beneficaries under this Bill, but there is going to be a means test for the old age pensioner. I do not want to be taken as decrying the need for a means test. On the contrary, I think it is morally very questionable whether you are entitled to take from anybody, any member of the community, what he honestly earns and give it out to other members of the community, without regard to the circumstances of those who happen to be in the fortunate position of recipients.

Why then do you take a Minister's pension of £500 a year?

Because I have done what the Deputy never did—I have served my country since 1916, and served it well and honestly. I am certain that, if Deputy Cowan were entitled to a pension, he would draw it, and would draw it twice over, if he could get away with it.

A Minister's pension, £10 per week and no means test.

For 29 years, I have been in public life in this country. I earned every penny of it——

You have done well out of it.

——and earned it hard and honestly. I have not been a shyster lawyer at any stage of my career.

That is typical of the Deputy's sense of responsibility after all these years of service.

Acting-Chairman

Order!

I have finished with pensions and Deputy Cowan. I was saying that the position of the working farmer and self-employed persons now is that, if they live long enough, they will get a pension, provided they are poor enough, and poor enough they will be if this Government continues in existence, for, whatever else this Bill will do, it will not make conditions easier for those who are not included in its scope and certainly will not make conditions easier for the farmer. It will, in fact, make conditions more difficult for them.

As Deputy Allen said and as we all know, there is no such thing as an employer's contribution in this Bill. There is a consumer's contribution and the employer is the means by which the contribution is collected from the consumer. I doubt whether, in the majority of cases, there is any such thing as a worker's contribution, because ultimately the worker will naturally seek to compensate himself in increased wages for the contribution he pays. The employer is entitled, in ordinary practice, to compensate himself for what is known as the employer's contribution and these two things are going to be reflected in increased costs, in an increased cost of every article manufactured in this country and every article that passes over the shopkeeper's counter. But the farmer who has to depend on an export market for his product, the farmer who has to sell in that one market in competition with everything that comes from other parts of the globe, cannot compensate himself in the same way. There is no person to whom he can pass on the burden which this Bill will impose upon the community.

As I have shown, the shopkeeper can do it, the manufacturer can do it, the shop assistant can do it and the worker in industrial employment can do it. The only man who cannot do it is the man engaged in our primary industry, the man who is a primary producer, the man whose efforts ultimately support us all. He is the one man who will be left to bear the whole cost of this Bill ultimately.

I know that many members of the Labour Party seem to regard the farmers as the enemies of the Irish people. We have had some expressions here to-day from members of the Labour Party which certainly were not complimentary to the farmers. We heard Deputy Dunne attack the farmers and his chairman, Mr. George Pollock, who had the honour of being the first Irish delegate to the Comintern, with Deputy Connolly, in the year 1922——

Was that the year Deputy Boland went over?

We read in the newspapers the speeches these two gentlemen made attacking the farmers of Ireland, as employers, as farmers and as producers, and we had their speeches broadcast at length over Radio Éireann, so that apparently neither members of the Labour Party nor members of the Government are very friendly towards the farmers, even through there are a substantial number of farmers in Fine Gael and the other Parties who are supporting them in relation to this measure. We have the Tánaiste attacking the industrialists, the men who are engaged in manufacturing industry, and we have Deputy Dunne and others attacking those who are engaged in the agricultural industry. It is very strange but it is precisely these tactics which have been engaged in elsewhere, where attempts have been made to undermine the very conception of individual effort and private enterprise, which have resulted in the condition of affairs which prevails in Czechoslovakia to-day. However, that is perhaps a little by the way.

It is not merely on the ground of the inequity and injustice with which almost half of our people will be treated under the Bill, though that is a consideration of the first importance, that we are opposed to this Bill. I at least am opposed to it on the ground that it has been presented dishonestly to the House. The true cost of this scheme has been concealed, and deliberately concealed, from the Dáil and from the public. The true cost of this scheme, over and above the cost which is represented by the burden of the contributions, will in a very few years be very much more than the £4,750,000 which the White Paper suggests will be borne by the Government. In a few years, the Government contribution to this scheme will be in the neighbourhood of £11,000,000 to £12,000,000. The Tánaiste knows that —he has the figures.

That is a complete fabrication, well worthy of the Deputy.

The Tánaiste has these figures, but nothing could extract these figures from him. Deputy Derrig put down a number of questions directed towards getting the Tánaiste to disclose to the House what the true cost of the scheme would be. He knows as well as I how much it is, but he would not answer. He would not tell us, any more than he would answer the questions which were put to him in regard to what he described as Social Welfare Bill No. 1. That was the Social Welfare Bill by which the insurance contributions under the widow's and orphan's pensions scheme were increased considerably whereas the benefits which the workers were to receive were increased only very slightly over and above what they had been drawing under the Fianna Fáil Government.

Reference has been made in the House, and by Deputy Maguire, to the speech which Deputy Lemass made on this Bill. I have referred to the rather significant fact that this Bill has been criticised and condemned by persons who do not normally interfere in ordinary political matters. I think that the significance of that fact should be pondered on deeply by all of us. These criticisms indicate that we may be at a crossroads in our social development. Up to this, when we have been dealing with social service schemes we have been content to take the machinery and organisation as we found it. That machinery and organisation for particular purposes derived from those which were introduced in Prussia, I think, about 80 years ago when Bismarck wished to kill the spirit of individual independence in that State. Simultaneously, one may say that he introduced conscription as a part of his policy to regiment the people.

Bismarckism, as we know, ended in Hitlerism. I do not want Nortonism to end in Leninism—but that ambition might not be shared by some of Deputy Norton's more intimate colleagues. However, the proposals were originally designed not so much to make easier and happier the lot of the people but to build up the military might of Prussia and to develop her manufacturing industry to that end. In 1911 a British Prime Minister took the schemes which the Prussians had developed and applied them to industrial Britain. They were applied to Ireland merely through the accident that the Act of Union was still in force. They would never, I believe, have been applied to this country in the form in which they have developed. They would never have been devised in their present form, I think, by any native Irish Government. Undoubtedly, we would have had social services which, I am sure, would be adequate to all and just to all. They would be just to all not only in the benefits which they would confer, but they would be just to all in the burdens which they would impose. Those social services of Irish origin, Irish conception and Irish creation would have been different from the benefits given and the burdens proposed by this Bill.

Has the time not come, as Deputy Lemass suggested, to review the whole problem anew? The protests and criticisms which this Bill have evoked are, I think, a manifestation of the public feeling that in this matter we are on the wrong lines. The fact that by developing on these lines we are victimising our farmers, as we are in this Bill, and that we are similarly victimising self-employed persons, is taken outside as a proof that we are developing on the wrong lines. It was not, perhaps, so serious when we were dealing only with National Health Insurance and the widows' and orphans' pensions, and when the contributions were comparatively modest. But the contributions are now becoming very significant. The contribution in respect of each person employed in industry, when this Bill goes through, will be of the order of £18 4s. 0d. a year. That is a very substantial sum. It represents a very substantial burden upon, let me point out again, the narrow section of the community who cannot pass their burdens on to anybody else. In view of this, it has become a very serious problem.

I think most of us are beginning to feel that these schemes, as originally devised, cannot be applied with equal justice or even with approximate justice to all the people entitled to benefit from them in this country and that, therefore, we are ill-advised to proceed on the lines that we have been thinking on—I as much as anybody else— up to the present, and that the time has come when we should really see if we cannot bring in a measure more closely in accord with the teachings of our moralists than this scheme appears to be. I know that everybody is anxious that want should not go unrelieved. I know that everybody is anxious that the problem of unemployment should be dealt with fairly and reasonably. But we are not dealing with the problem of unemployment or want or sickness fairly and reasonably in this Bill. We are perhaps dealing fairly with one section of the population but we are doing that entirely at the expense of the other section of the population—and that other section is not the capitalist, the employer, but the self-employed person and the farmers in the country. We are now brought face to face with this problem on a scale which perhaps we never contemplated. Surely the time has come to put our thinking caps on and see whether we cannot conceive another scheme which will not merely do justice to all but—something which is of great importance, that is, if we can do it—which will encourage voluntary adherence to a scheme of this sort and, if we can, enable us to relinquish altogether the use of compulsion as a weapon to ensure that people will provide this State, through what are, in fact, poll taxes, with the funds to ensure that they will not die of starvation or that they will be able to look after themselves when they are ill. Primarily, it is not a Christian conception that it is the duty of the State to do this. The primary responsibility rests upon the individual to look after himself in these matters. The State should come in only when conditions have made it quite impossible for the individual to do that.

In life as we know it to-day, it may not be possible for every individual to do that. It may not be possible for every thrifty individual or every industrious individual to do that. Certainly it is impossible for a great many thrifty and industrious individual to do it. If we could devise a scheme that will be so attractive that it will induce people to join it of their own free will, it would be very much better that we should proceed on those lines, from the point of view of our national character and of the self-reliance and the self-respect of our people, than that we should continue to do it in the way first devised by Bismarck in order that he might regiment and better organise the Prussian people as a military race.

Nobody can say that this Bill has not been thoroughly analysed, and indeed nobody who adverts in any way to the truth will attempt to deny that it has had a fair amount of misrepresentation as well. We can afford at all events to review the contributions to the Bill, to analyse the criticisms which have been offered, and to see how far those criticisms represent any real contribution to the solution of the problem with which this Bill deals.

To me the most remarkable aspect of the discussion was the completely different approaches to the Bill by sections of the Opposition. Deputies Ryan and Lemass clearly had nothing whatever in common with Deputy Derrig, and neither Deputy Derrig nor Deputies Ryan and Lemass had anything in common with the contribution which has just been made by Deputy MacEntee. Deputies Ryan and Lemass said that they accepted the bulk of the Bill, that they agreed with the principles enshrined in substantial sections of it; their only concern was that the Bill should be extended, and they wanted it extended in a certain direction. The decision to seek its extension in certain directions was of course obviously a belated one, because anyone listening to Deputy Dr. Ryan speaking on the Second Stage could see quite clearly that he was sorely confounded and dumb-founded when he realised that the Bill contained a provision to increase old age pensions to the all-time record of £1 per week, to modify further the means test and to exclude from the calculation of means a substantial portion of income derived from disability pensions enjoyed by members of the Defence Forces and from the special allowances paid under the Military Service Pensions Acts.

The fact that this Government is doing all these things after the substantial instalment of social justice which was made available at the cost of £2,500,000 per annum in 1948 was something which stunned Deputy Dr. Ryan, and in an effort to show that Fianna Fáil was desirous of doing something more he then proceeded to bid for electoral support by saying that Fianna Fáil wanted the Bill to go further and further. I will say for the Deputy that he said that with imperturbable courage. He suffered in no sense from introspection or from any feeling of shame that in this House in 1947 he had trooped into the division lobby with the Deputies opposite against a modification of the means test for old age pension purposes which would cost, he said, only £500,000 per year. Since he did that we have given an additional £2,500,000 a year for old age pensions and there is another £1,250,000 in this Bill. Of course, the fact that this Government gives two substantial instalments to the relief of the plight of old age pensioners and blind pensioners in so short a period obviously causes political discomfiture to Deputy Ryan and everyone else opposite. Consequently they proceed to bid for electoral support by saying: " If we only had the chance we would do something bigger and something better."

Let us come to the something bigger and something better that the brethren would have done in the light of the speeches made by Deputy Ryan in 1947. I must put these speeches on record again if only for the purpose of exposing the hypocrisy with which this debate has been well-seasoned. Deputies Ryan and Lemass, both to a lesser extent than subsequent speakers, wanted this Bill extended so as to cover everybody. Some said that the Bill was bad but they wanted even the badness spread over everybody. Let us hear Deputy Ryan talking in 1947, at the end of 15 years of Fianna Fáil administration and see what he was going to do to include everybody in this all-over all-embracing scheme which has been talked about in such glowing terms on the benches opposite. On March 28th, 1947 (column 554), Deputy Dr. Ryan said:—

"Deputy Murphy says he thinks we could bring 90 per cent. of the people into a contributory scheme. I do not think so. At least, I do not think it is easy to bring people into a contributory scheme unless they are wage-earners... But, to return to the point, it is not easy to collect contributions unless from wage-earners. I say that as a fact and if Deputy Murphy or anybody else can show me I am wrong, I will be delighted because I should like to see the small farmers and small shopkeepers— between them a very big class—included. It is calculated that there must be nearly 250,000 between these two classes—250,000 people who need provisions for their old age. It is a pity we cannot have a comprehensive scheme for them, and if Deputy Murphy or anybody else can show me how it can be done, I will be very delighted to have it considered for this contributory scheme. If we cannot include them in a contributory scheme, we will have to consider what can be done otherwise. That is all."

Mr. de Valera

Hear, hear!

Deputy de Valera says: "Hear, hear!" I could say "Hear hear!" to that too.

Mr. de Valera

To the last portion of it, which is the whole point.

I will come later to the plan the Deputy had in 1947 and if anybody can explain that plan to me I will add another prize to the one which Deputy Dr. Ryan was willing to give Deputy Murphy if he could show how these people could be brought into a contributory scheme.

Mr. de Valera

It was not contributory.

Let me go back. Deputy Ryan said:—

"It is a pity that we cannot have a comprehensive scheme for them."

Deputy Ryan admitted then that he could not have a comprehensive——

Mr. de Valera

Contributory scheme.

He was talking about a contributory scheme. He said that he could not have that for these people and that it was a pity that they could not be brought in. He recognised that in March, 1947. I will say definitely and deliberately—I will produce documentary proof later—that he never intended to bring farmers, shopkeepers and self-employed persons into a contributory scheme of the kind before the House, the very same kind of scheme which he intended to produce. I will produce documentary evidence in a minute.

On the 22nd October, 1947 (column 824), Deputy Dr. Ryan said:—

"Certain people will be left who will have to get non-contributory pensions—old age pensions, widows' pensions and non-contributory unemployment benefit in the way of unemployment assistance, or whatever it may be. I do not know at what level the pensions for non-contributory persons may be. It may be difficult to make them any better than they are at the moment, but it should be quite possible to give much better pensions to the contributory group when the scheme comes into operation."

That, again, is a recognition that the farmers, shopkeepers and self-employed persons could not be brought into a scheme and that he did not intend to bring them into a scheme.

Mr. de Valera

Into a contributory scheme.

I know the Deputy's disputative qualities. The Deputy would throw a somersault on the edge of a razor and, if you complained to him that you could not do the same, he would say: "There is heaps of room here for you." Again, on March 12th, 1947, Deputy Dr. Ryan said, at column 2,004:—

"Deputies will have to keep in mind, of course, that to give a very much better old age pension and to give it at a lower age, say 65, and also to improve these other schemes like national health and unemployment assistance will mean a very big contribution whenever the schemes come along. It will not be a one-sided matter. The contribution will have to be increased considerably."

Deputy Dr. Ryan made that statement in 1947. Now, Deputy Little says: "No, the contribution should not be increased", and even Deputy Dr. Ryan, free from the responsibility of office, says the contributions should not be increased now. He recognised when he was the Minister that they should be increased. Bidding for votes now, he thinks it is not necessary to do that. Deputy Little chirrups that he also would not like to have them increased. In column, 554 of the 28th March, 1947, Deputy Dr. Ryan said:—

"Deputy Murphy said that we need more courageous proposals. I quite agree with him on that and I am afraid that when this comprehensive scheme comes along, some Deputies may lose their courage, because there is no doubt that if we provided even for the aged, as Deputies would like to see them provided for, on a contributory basis, it is going to mean a very big contribution from the worker and, as I say, the courage that will be necessary to face that issue when the time arrives will be fairly substantial."

There was a realistic approach to the problem. A fairly substantial increase in contributions would be necessary and a substantial measure of courage would be necessary to face up to the problem. When he is asked to face it, Deputy Dr. Ryan now turns and runs because he will not face up to the very problem which he raised himself in the debate in the Dáil in March, 1948.

Is it not quite obvious why Deputy Dr. Ryan has changed his mind? The simple reason is that he has changed his seat in this House. If Deputy Dr. Ryan were sitting here his views would be the same, but now, sitting over there and feeling he is fated to sit there for many years, he has changed his mind and he now wants to give something to everybody for nothing. He does not even know the cost of some of the proposals which he suggested the last day. But I will come back to that.

Not even Deputy de Valera's passion for accuracy will save Deputy Dr. Ryan from the humiliation which ought to follow the disclosure of his attempts at costing his own scheme. We had another statement from Deputy Dr. Ryan on 28th March, 1947:—

"We are working towards what has been referred to by every speaker —a comprehensive scheme—but it will be, I am afraid, 12 months or so before it can be presented. I am also very glad, too, to see that every speaker appears to be in favour of a contributory scheme of insurance by which, so far as we can arrange it, people will build up their own insurance funds and insure themselves against sickness, unemployment and so on."

There was Deputy Dr. Ryan cheering for the idea that the people had so inculcated within them the spirit of contributing for insurance against those risks, that they would build up their insurance fund against the risks of sickness, unemployment and so on, clearly showing while he was sitting on the Government benches he believed in that approach, because it is the only sane and legitimate approach to the problem. In the meantime, the political faith of the Party opposite had altered. Deputy Ryan now sits in Opposition, hoping that by bidding for votes he can get back here. He now proceeds to abandon all the things he said then. I put this to Deputy de Valera: Was Deputy Dr. Ryan right when he was here, and is he right when he is there, talking in opposite terms? Is it not clear he cannot be right on both sides?

Mr. de Valera

May I answer?

Certainly, I would be delighted.

Mr. de Valera

It is quite clear Deputy Dr. Ryan was put there to investigate these things. He went along certain lines and examined them so far as he could and he came to certain tentative conclusions. Surely, if a person has time to reconsider these things he can change his mind about them?

Sixteen years!

I think it was Emerson who said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Deputy Dr. Ryan studied Emerson without doubt, because he was not to be anchored to any consistency once he changed his position over there. Let me say this now, and I do not think there is anything wrong in telling the Party opposite the cold and cruel truth of the position. They apparently do not know anything as to how far their own plans for social security got. In November, 1947, and that was not far away from the change of Government, Deputy Dr. Ryan authorised the then Secretary of the Department to tell British officials who were visiting Dublin at the time, discussing reciprocity matters, that he intended only to deal with the employed classes, who number 665,000; that he could not say then that he would be able exactly to deal with them, and that the other classes would have to wait until later on. They would have to wait until the sweet by and by and at the moment he was dealing only with the wage-earning classes. That is the corroborated statement made by the late Secretary of the Department on the instruction of the Minister, to the British officials.

Mr. de Valera

What about it?

The point I am making is that Deputy de Valera must have heard Deputies on his own benches for the last three days during which this Bill was discussed bleating for a scheme under which everybody was going to be covered.

Mr. de Valera

Hear, hear!

Is it not clear now, if anybody wants to be convinced, that even when in power the Fianna Fáil Party never intended to cover anybody except those employed under a contract for wages or salaries?

Mr. de Valera

That is a completely wrong inference. The point was that Deputy Dr. Ryan had been examining this, and this was the result of his preliminary investigations. He did not have an opportunity of completing his investigations and bringing them before his colleagues. There is a big difference between that stage and when a Bill finally comes to be passed in the House.

That is an interesting admission. I remember Deputy Lemass sitting over there shortly after the change of Government in 1948-and the records can be searched for the reference in which he said that Fianna Fáil, going out of office, had left a social security plan ready, pigeonholed. "Take it out and work it," he said. That was Deputy Lemass. Now his leader says that Deputy Dr. Ryan was only thinking, forming his ideas, and he had come to no conclusion.

Mr. de Valera

The point is that if Deputy Dr. Ryan had a scheme completed in the form in which it could be brought in as a Bill, it would be available.

Is it not perfectly clear that Deputy Dr. Ryan in fact had merely views about this matter in 1948, that these were his recorded views, that he told the British: "I will only cover the wage and salary-earning classes"? That is what he intended to do and, if you accept that, then you must accept that Fianna Fáil never intended to do anything else. If you say he had no views, that these were only tentative views, then Deputy Lemass did not speak truthfully when he said, in 1948, that a perfect plan had been left behind.

Mr. de Valera

It would be very interesting to get the changes of view; or possible changes of view, in detail, of the Tánaiste and members of the Government in regard to this.

If you get it, it is the most monumental record of consistency you have ever read.

Modesty again.

In any case, the mere point I want to establish is that when Fianna Fáil had power to bring in a variety of classes, which they now dishonestly pretend that they want to bring in, they did not bring them in and declared in this House and to the British representatives visiting Dublin for discussions that they did not intend to bring them in.

Mr. de Valera

The Fianna Fáil Government had not an opportunity of dealing with it.

I want to put it on record, even if it annoys Deputy de Valera.

Mr. de Valera

It is only the truth I want and the proper conclusions.

The trouble is that the Deputy wants his own variety of truth.

Mr. de Valera

As far as truth is concerned, I can stand up against the Tánaiste.

There is nobody questioning the Deputy's adherence to truth, but he must not, by inference, imply that other people are not telling the truth merely because they say things which displease the Deputy.

Mr. de Valera

No, but because there are certain inferences being drawn.

The trouble is that the Deputy wants to decide who is right and who is wrong.

Mr. de Valera

No, I do not.

Quite clearly, you cannot do that with other people's speeches.

Mr. de Valera

I want to show that there is another side to it.

We understand where we are. We can pass on. Deputy Derrig appeared in rather strange colours in the course of this debate. Deputy Dr. Ryan accepted the bulk of the scheme. Deputy Lemass said the same and that social security should not be a matter for political controversy and that we should try to put it over and above the heat of political agitation and political discussion. Deputy Derrig burnt himself into a white heat of indignation, expressing a fear as to what the cost of this scheme would be. He thought the red flag of ruin was up and that in no time we would be all launched into a crucible of bankruptcy if a scheme of this kind were put into operation. Nothwithstanding the fact that these were Deputy Derrig's fears, his two colleagues, Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Lemass, wanted us to go on and impose more and more taxation. It never occurred to Deputy Derrig while he was speaking that his own colleagues had decided to advocate the expenditure of more money, the levying of more taxation, which Deputy Derrig himself feared would be the end of all things in Ireland.

Not more taxation ultimately than the taxation in your scheme. Explain the retirement pensions.

We will come to all that in a second. Deputy Dr. Ryan did not display any great acumen when dealing with figures and costs. If one looks up his Second Reading speech, at columns 1119 and 1120, it will be seen there that the Deputy first said that the additional schemes which he suggested would cost £1.5 million—that was in one column—and when he moved over to the next column he said they would cost £2,000,000. They went up by £500,000 while the Deputy moved from column 1119 to column 1120.

We will see by how much your estimates will go up.

If you follow my estimates you can have complete faith in them and you can be certain that you will not go far astray. Deputy Dr. Ryan said that, in his view, the additional taxation necessitated by his scheme would be £2,000,000 a year. That was the highest he put it at, and then the additional £1,250,000 which I was proposing to raise for the purpose of the additional old age and blind pensions. Deputy Dr. Ryan might as well have gone to a telephone directory for figures as to quote the figures which he quoted there because they are as far from reality as the Poles are apart. What are the facts? A calculation by people professionally qualified to calculate, with a reputation which extends beyond this country, shows that in one case where Deputy Dr. Ryan thought it would cost £1,500,000, in fact the cost would be £4,250,000.

Mr. de Valera

What is that for?

Widows' and orphans' pensions.

A few millions would not matter.

Deputy Dr. Ryan left out the cost of schemes such as maternity benefits, death grants, treatment benefits and increased administrative costs and made miscalculations in respect of other services as well, and the net position was that what Deputy Dr. Ryan said would cost £2,000,000—and I give him the other £1,250,000, which makes it £3,250,000-would cost an additional £10,000,000, and what the Party opposite have now advocated on this Bill is that we should raise in taxation another £10,000,000. Will Deputy de Valera square that with his Cavan speech? will Deputy de Valera say that there is in that suggestion the prudence which he advocated at Cavan? Will Deputy Derrig now tell us whether he is satisfied that his colleagues represented him when they asked that another £12,000,000 in taxation should be raised just to make this scheme something better by the Fianna Fáil suggestions? Can I now have it from Deputy de Valera that the Fianna Fáil Party stands for raising another £10,000,000 in taxation in respect of this Bill?

Mr. de Valera

I do not know the figures.

O.K. I might even give the Deputy the document. I want to know too are Deputy Cogan, Deputy Lehane and Deputy O'Reilly going into the Division Lobby with our friends opposite to vote for another scheme which will impose an additional £10,000,000 taxation, in the present circumstances of this country?

We will vote against this, anyhow.

The poor man's friend.

That is what the Fianna Fáil Party have gone on record as saying in respect of the proposals made by Deputy Dr. Ryan. It could not be otherwise, in any case. The Deputy was obviously bewildered when he was talking. That evening there was a kind of stop press issue of the newspapers prepared, into which was inserted the hurriedly prepared Fianna Fáil proposals, so hurriedly prepared that some of the proposals in the Bill with which, I take it, Fianna Fáil do not disagree, were excluded from the scheme they sent to the paper. Young and inexperienced men, in a hurry, made hurried calculations. Deputy Dr. Ryan, the financial wizard, says £2,000,000 or £3,250,000. The people qualified to judge say it will cost £10,000,000.

Who are the people qualified? Will the Tánaiste tell us from whom he is quoting and will he quote the whole document, not extracts?

A professional actuary.

Who is the professional actuary?

A civil servant employed in my Department, with plenty of skill and brains in that respect.

Publish the whole of his report then.

It is quite clear now in any case that, so far as Deputy Derrig's worries are concerned, Deputy Dr. Ryan is not much troubled about them because even though Deputy Derrig is worried about the cost of the scheme his colleague, Deputy Dr. Ryan says: "I am going to plaster the people with another £10,000,000 in addition." What I should like to know is what Deputy Derrig thinks of his colleague's proposal to raise another £10,000,000 on top of what is provided under this Bill. Part of the Fianna Fáil proposal also is that there are going to be no retirement pensions at 65 years of age. They are to be abolished. Deputy Kissane, again suffering from that introspection, said he was opposed to paying pensions to people at 65. The Deputy sees nothing wrong in paying pensions at 65 to civil servants, Guards, members of the Army, judges, employees of local authorities and people such as these but do not dare to pay them to builders' labourers, tradesmen, agricultural workers, road workers or dockers. It is all right for ex-Ministers and ex-Parliamentary Secretaries to get pensions when they are 40 or 50 years of age, but never must an agricultural worker or a docker get a pension at 65 years of age, according to Deputy Kissane. Let me say that I think the docker or the agricultural worker has a damn sight better right to a pension at 65 years of age than a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary after three, five or seven years' service, and so far as I am concerned, he is going to get it under this Bill, and the Deputy can vote against it if he likes.

Is this a quotation?

I have enough to do without carrying the Deputy's speeches around with me.

That is a misquotation.

No, read your speech. Now we come to sum up two points. No. 1 is that so far as a scheme of social security is concerned, Fianna Fáil never included the farmer, the self-employed man or the shopkeeper.

Mr. de Valera

How can the Minister say that? Fianna Fáil were not in office and did not have the opportunity of bringing the matter to finality. Why cannot we have a proper argument if we are to debate these things?

The way you want it.

Mr. de Valera

I want the truth.

A Deputy

You promised it 30 years ago.

The trouble with the Deputy is that if he thinks he is getting the better of an argument, things are all right, but if he is not getting the better of the argument, he wants to alter the rules of the game.

Mr. de Valera

Fianna Fáil did not have an opportunity of bringing in its Bill. You cannot deny that.

My answer to that is that Deputy Lemass said in 1948 that whatever had been left behind by Fianna Fáil was a fully prepared and fully-worked out plan. You cannot be right from both standpoints. That is clear in any case. Now, in an effort to bid for additional political support, Fianna Fáil wants to extend the scheme, but it is costed so incompetently that to do what they want to do would involve abolishing the retirement pension at 65 years of age and put another £10,000,000 of taxation on the people. If that is their policy I do not mind. This policy involves imposing an additional £10,000,000 in taxation, and all the other classes are to stay out until some day in the sweet-by-and-by they will have another look at it.

There is another aspect of the Bill that deserves some consideration because we had some self-appointed theologians here who gave us the benefit of their reservoir of knowledge in that sphere. Listening to Deputy P. O'Reilly, one would think that this Bill was going to break up family life, and that children would not respect their parents in future if they knew that they took advantage of such benefits as children's allowances. He said that a stage would be reached when a child would put out its tongue at its parents and say: "You did not give me anything; the State gave it to me since I was born." He also said that it would lead to a breakdown of family life. That was the crazy kind of picture painted for us by Deputy O'Reilly on this Bill.

Deputy Dillon when in Opposition painted the same picture.

Listen now to Deputy O'Reilly, who took us back to Biblical history. Here we have got an up-to-the-minute, close-up view of the consequences of Adam's Fall:

"In my opinion, the command of God to Adam after the Fall—‘in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread'—holds as much force to-day as it did then. So far as the records of time are available to us, 4,000 years later, God's Divine Son came on earth to redeem us from that Fall."

He goes on to speak of Nazareth and says later:

"There was no State security there. There was no social welfare. From that we have tangible evidence that the Divine plan was that man should provide for himself by the sweat of his brow."

Now whatever the consequences of Adam's Fall were, I am sure that they did not include a complete ban on social security schemes at any time in the future. The trouble with Adam was that he had social security but he could not look after it. It was only when he fell that he lost his benefits. Deputy O'Reilly says that it was hinted to Adam that for the rest of his life he would have to live on the sweat of his brow. Whatever else you do, in the view of Deputy O'Reilly—and you can do a lot of things, because man has done a lot of things since-you must not start a social security scheme. If you do, you do not know what will happen. Is it not a perfectly daft statement for a public representative in this country, in an intelligent Parliament, to come in and tell the people that the human race must never have a Social Security Bill? The Deputy is going to vote against this Bill. Well, God help the electors in Cavan if he is going to vote against the Bill on the basis of a statement of that kind. I think it is political and theological lunacy.

The Minister is an expert on theology.

I am not, but I am not going to admit that the Deputy is either. The Deputy has shown himself to be an expert on nothing. Does anybody believe that you will wreck the human family or that you will destroy the Christian or Catholic concept of life, if you give a man sickness benefit when he is unfit to work? Does any body think that you will break down the moral fibre of the people if you pay unemployment benefit to a man if he has lost his job, through no fault of his own, or that you will ruin family life or separate the children from the mother if you give them widows' and orphans' pensions because the breadwinner has died?

We have already put on record our principles in that respect.

I know the Deputy's point of view in this matter is quite a comprehensive one. Deputy O'Reilly treated us to an exhibition of fear as to the consequences which will befall family life, and the Irish and Christian home, if we dare to provide the benefits such as are enshrined in this scheme. He is going to vote against this Bill because he thinks the ruin of the Irish family will be accomplished by keeping the widow and the orphan out of the county home.

I do not believe he meant that.

You did not read his speech but I read portion of it. Deputy Cogan had an incursion into the domain of theology as well, and he proceeded to give us his views as to how things should be done and arranged. I think there is a lot of impudence in a lot of these suggestions by lay people as to what is the correct procedure theologically. I would like to ask Deputy Cogan, does he imagine that the hierarchy in this country are not doing their duty, and that they are silent while we are passing through a Bill here which gives offence to the moral law? Does Deputy Cogan think that he knows canon law and the moral law better than the Church knows it, and, if the hierarchy have no reason to object to a scheme of social welfare, does not that satisfy Deputy Cogan's conscience and Deputy O'Reilly's conscience, or do they think that there is some slothfulness on the part of the hierarchy and that they are not doing their duty on this matter? Is it not a bit brazen and impudent to be advising people who need no advice in this matter? Their learning, their culture and their understanding of Irish conditions, and their regard for the Christian, the Catholic Faith needs no commendation from us because it stands high on its own eminence. It is quite dishonest to try and use some of the tracts and literature that have been issued against this Bill by people with no qualifications to judge and no authority to judge as a reason for conjuring up opposition to a Bill of this kind.

I have read, and I say it definitely and deliberately, arrant nonsense by people claiming to be putting the Catholic point of view in respect of this Bill. Here is one outrageous example of it. I can do nothing but describe it as such. Writing against "State welfare schemes", and with an obvious eye on this Bill, we get this intemperate description by the author of a pamphlet published recently. He says:—

"The proposals must then suffer many of the known evils of assistance; for example, tenants of the corporation are known to saw the rafters off the roof for convenient fuel."

I have never heard of any tenants sawing the rafters off the roofs for fuel.

What is the Minister quoting from?

From an article by Dr. Hegarty in an issue of Christus Rex. I think that is deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of Irish life. I have asked every corporation that I could if they had come across cases where the tenants sawed the rafters off their roofs for fuel, and I have not been able to trace one. I have asked publicly at a meeting to be furnished with the name of one tenant who had sawn the rafters off the roof in his house for fuel. But supposing they do, and supposing a dozen tenants saw the rafters off the roofs of corporation houses for fuel, is that any reason why we should build houses without roofs so as to prevent them doing it? Is that any reason why the corporation should stop building houses, even though there may be isolated blemishes as regards one particular aspect of a social welfare scheme? It is no reason why the decent honest person should not get the protection which a Christian and a progressive State rightly gives to all those who toil in the service of the State.

We had another example of the intemperate language that was used by people whom Deputy MacEntee befriends here. Referring to State schemes of assistance, the author says:—

"There is much sober truth in the paradox that we have as much right to free love as to free spectacles."

I think that is an unworthy reference to unfortunate people whose economic position compels them to seek free spectacles by putting the receipt of these free spectacles on the same basis as the filthy sin of free love.

The spectacles are no longer free now.

The gentleman who wrote that did not know even that. Let me say this: if you want any authority in any case in respect to the Church's attitude on social welfare schemes, and the importance which the Church attaches to the State helping the weak and helping those who need supplementary assistance in their passage through life, we can get that by reading the Encyclicals, or we can get it from publications which have been issued by the Catholic Truth Society containing a summary of the Encyclicals. Here, in one which is convenient to my hand, in the Encyclical Letter on Atheistic Communism, we meet this passage under the heading of Social Justice:—

"But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as working men are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment."

The Encyclical Letters clearly defend the right of the worker to be able to make provision for those contingencies. That represents the Catholic view to the approach to the social welfare problem. If I have to choose between the views expressed in these Encyclical Letters and the lay theology of Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Reilly, I want to say that I prefer these Encyclicals as the fount of my knowledge to whatever information the Deputies may have scrappily picked up from time to time on the same subject.

We had a discussion, mainly initiated by Deputies in the Opposition Party, on the question that we did not need a retirement pension at 65 years of age. I could not find any reasons for the opposition to that scheme offered by the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken on the matter. They merely had the idea that we should not give it at 65 years of age, but we never heard an argument as to why men should not get it at 65. Anybody who has any experience of life knows perfectly well that, in these days especially, it is extremely difficult for the worker of 60 or 65 years of age to hold his job with any employer who is engaged in activities which require hard physical work on the part of the worker. I wish that Deputy Colley, who is also opposed to retirement pensions at 65 years of age, would go around to any building job in the city and ask the foreman on the job how many times he has picked a worker who is over 60 years of age, and ask him further when did he last pick a workman who was 65 years of age. Deputy Colley will not have many to take back in the taxicab if occupations are offered them.

Mr. de Valera

There is, surely, an alternative for dealing with these cases.

What one does the Deputy suggest—that he should be paid sickness benefit or unemployment benefit?

Mr. de Valera

Either of two things would happen.

That we should offer sickness benefit or unemployment benefit. He is not sick and he is quite willing to work, but he lives in a society that will not provide him with work. The employer wants young and vigorous men and an insurance company thinks twice about insuring a man if he is 65 and has to go up any height. Deputy Little would know nothing about that, but it is a fact. It is said: "Pay the man unemployment benefit." The man is not unemployed. He is unemployable because the people who should provide him with employment, those who have got the wealth and the instruments of production will not discharge their responsibility to him. He is not unemployed in any sense; he is unemployable. They will not take him. The obvious thing is to retire the man in the same way as the State pays pensions to retiring Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Did we not offer the alternative of providing for such men?

Do they not get unemployment benefit?

They will get better benefits when this Bill passes. This Bill recognises the stern facts of life, that it is impossible for people of 60 or 65 or even younger who lose their jobs to be able to get work again. At 65 it is almost impossible to keep a job if physical endeavour is required from a man. In that case, the man has to live on the charity of his son or daughter, if he has a son or daughter, and if they are placed in circumstances to enable them to keep him, or he can draw unemployment benefit for a while under the present system, or he can look for home assistance, or go to the charitable organisations. I prefer to recognise that we have in this country to-day large numbers of employers—every farmer in the country is one, for example, and a lot of employers in industry are the same —who do not provide retirement pensions for workers at 65 years of age. At that age, if a worker goes, it is: "Good-bye and thanks; I am sorry to lose you." But that does not pay the grocer, it does not pay the milkman and the landlord.

Recognising the fact that these people cannot pay pensions because their own position probably does not enable them to do so, that the man has nothing to live on when he loses his job at 65, this Bill proposes to give him a pension and an allowance for his wife, irrespective of her age. That is provided for in the Bill. You can vote against that if you like, but you ought to be honest and admit what you are doing to the people for whom there may be no other provision. You were 16 years in office and you did not do it.

Mr. de Valera

Other people were years in office and they did not do it.

It is being done now and Fianna Fáil can vote against it if they like, but, quite clearly, at the first effort to provide pensions for retired workers at 65 and an allowance for a dependent wife in the case of a family which has nothing to live on, Fianna Fáil are going to vote against it with the aid of Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Reilly.

Mr. de Valera

With an alternative.

We have had enough of these alternatives in Irish history.

You have an alternative Minister for Health on the Front Bench.

You will have to walk the tightrope very carefully when explaining your attitude towards this Bill. Some other points were raised in connection with the matter. One was the administrative cost of the scheme when administered by the State. Somebody was worried on that score but, of course, never took the trouble to find out what are the administrative costs of private insurance companies. If you take the life insurance and the industrial insurance carried on by insurance companies established in Ireland and take their business for the year 1948 you will find that the cost of administration varies from 26 to 29 per cent.

Mr. de Valera

These are actual, not estimates?

These are calculations on the basis of what they pay in commission and expenses of management as a percentage of premiums. All the figures are here.

Mr. de Valera

Is it an estimate?

No, it is a calculation from the returns which they put in.

The 12½ per cent. is an estimate?

In the case of private insurance companies it varies from 26 to 29 per cent.

What Deputy de Valera asked was, was not the 12½ per cent. in the White Paper only an estimate?

I assure you he did not ask that.

Mr. de Valera

I wanted to point out the difference between what has actually taken place in which every penny can be calculated and what is only an estimate. We do not know what the 12½ per cent. may amount to.

Perhaps you will take some figures which may have a reassuring effect. The cost of administration of the Department of Social Welfare is equal to 7½ per cent. of all income—contributions, State grant and interest. That is the cost of the administration of the Department of Social Welfare.

At the moment?

Yes. The cost of the administration of the Department under the new scheme when it is in operation in its fifth year is estimated to amount to 11 per cent. We made it 12½ per cent. to round it off in case of a possibility of error. There is obviously no need for alarm in this case so far as the State is concerned. There might well be need for knowing why so much of the premium income of private insurance companies goes in management and does not go back to the policy holders.

A question was raised by Deputy Flynn, I think, in connection with the special allowance paid to Old I.R.A. men under the Army Pensions Act or the Military Service Pensions Act. Under the Bill it is proposed to exclude any income amounting to not more than £80 received by persons as a special allowance under those Acts. The effect of that will be that approximately 1,300 persons will benefit by having that allowance disregarded out of a total of 1,500 persons who are drawing the special allowance under these Acts.

Might I draw attention to the fact that the highest allowance paid is £98 10s.? Why differentiate between £80 and £98 10s.? I might add that the former Minister for Defence undertook to look into that matter and gave a rather satisfactory answer in respect of it.

I have a return which shows that there are 97 persons receiving less than £20 per annum; 200 between £20 and £40; 390 between £40 and £60; 599 between £60 and £80; 102 between £80 and £100; 68 between £100 and £120; 30 between £120 and £140; 11 between £140 and £160; and five between £160 and £180. That is an official return which has been put into my possession, so apparently there has been a change in the procedure since the Deputy was last familiar with the position.

The question of old age pensions which will now be payable to farmers on attaining 70 years of age provided they give their holdings to a son or daughter was raised by Deputy Childers. He asked what was the extent, I think, of the change in procedure and what the object sought to be achieved? The position at the moment is that if the farmer waits until he is 70 years of age and then gives his farm to his son or daughter under existing legislation, which has been extant for a considerable time, the income from the farm is taken into consideration against him for old age pension purposes. If he gives away his farm to a son or daughter and applies for an old age pension under existing legislation he may find himself in the position that he has neither a farm nor a pension. The result is that farmers up to this, being prudent men, were reluctant to give away their farms when they reached 70 years of age in the hope that they would get a pension, but with the knowledge that they are very unlikely to get it.

This Bill enables a farmer when he reaches 70 years of age, or before it if he likes, to give his holding to a son or daughter in the knowledge that having done so he will not be assessed with the income from that farm for old age pension purposes. When this Bill becomes law he will know that he will get the old age pension for himself; that if his wife reaches 70 years of age she will get an old age pension too; and the son or daughter in possession of the farm will have the wherewithal to marry. This desirable social object will be promoted by encouraging the young unmarried people in the household to set up house for themselves, something they cannot do easily so long as the farmer holds on to his land feeling it is the only income he has.

Is that without regard to the valuation of the property?

That will happen in the case of every holding up to £30 in valuation and that will cover 86 per cent. of the farms of the country.

Supposing the owner of the farm has a niece or a nephew residing with him and that niece or nephew runs the farm for him, can the farmer transfer in the same way to either of them as in the case of a son or daughter?

That is a different matter. Nieces and nephews might arrive in droves where the old man had no son or daughter just for the sake of taking over the farm from him when he reaches 70 and they might disappear again a week after he gets the pension. In the case of a son or daughter there is an actual interest in the holding and the natural desire to succeed to it so that the son or daughter can set up house for themselves.

It does not extend then beyond the immediate family.

That is so. The Deputy will realise there would be most affectionate nieces hovering around the old man if we opened the door too wide.

The cost of the scheme has been raised and also the cost of the contributions. I have already given the figures in that regard. I do not think they afford any ground for disquiet. I have said that under the scheme in the first year of its existence the cost of social security will amount to approximately 2.87 of the national income for 1949; this 2.87 can be broken up as follows: .92 per cent. for the employees' contribution, 1.13 per cent for the employers' contribution and .82 per cent. representing the State contribution. In view of that coverage the provision of benefits of this widespread character need give no cause for disquiet.

How much would that be in millions? The national income is about £400,000,000. Therefore, 3 per cent. would be about £12,000,000.

Substantially less than we spend on drink and racing.

I am asking for the figures.

Drink and racing and other foibles which unfortunately enmesh the human race.

The Minister was shocked at £12,000,000 before.

I am never shocked at investing millions in humanity.

Let us have it clear. It will cost £12,000,000.

The Deputy did not approve when he saw £500,000 as the cost of modifying the means test in 1947. He ran away from that. So far as the imposition on the national income is concerned, it is relatively nothing and it is a burden well within the capacity of the nation to bear.

Just the same, it will cost £12,000,000. Has the Minister figures for the second year?

No. That is the figure for the cost. The figure for the second year will be approximately the same. If the Deputy will put down a parliamentary question I will get the figures for him for each year. I do not carry time tables and calculating tables around with me on the Second Reading of a Bill.

They will only be estimated figures, too.

Wait for the end of the second year and you will then have them in fact. Then you will be satisfied.

I am relating the matter to the cost of running in the first five years. Many figures have not been disclosed here.

Wait and see.

That is not the way to approach the matter.

Is not an estimate good enough at this stage?

Deputy MacEntee referred to certain aspects of the Bill and spoke about the exclusion of farmers. I hope I have convinced him now that Deputy Dr. Ryan intended to exclude them as well and they would never have appeared in a Fianna Fáil scheme.

Mr. de Valera

Do not say that.

I congratulate the Deputy on his tenacity in repeating the same thing which, unfortunately, is wrong every time.

Mr. de Valera

It is the tenacity of accuracy.

Social security has many facets. This aspect is that of maintaining income—that is, the income maintenance service we are providing. One can have social security in a whole variety of ways which do not represent maintenance. The provision of employment would represent another aspect of social security. So far as the farmer is concerned, I think he has done very well under this Government and there is no use in trying to teach the farmer to be either mean or greedy. Left alone, he will be neither. He should not be made mean and greedy to satisfy or gratify a political purpose. At present the State is paying £4,000,000 a year for the relief of rates on agricultural land, and that is being levied off citizens who are not farmers for the benefit of the farmers. That £4,000,000 is being paid by people who will never own a piece of ground beyond that which is sufficient to bury them.

Providing services which the farmer rarely uses—water for the town and roads for motor cars.

Not at all. If it means nothing to the farmer, then drop it. But see what the reactions will be.

Mr. de Valera

He will have to pay all these other things and he will get no benefit.

Deputy Maguire says it is no good and I say that if it is no good the farmer should not take it. We are spending £40,000,000 on a vast scheme of land reclamation. That means that the farmer is getting a subsidy from the State of £40,000,000 spent over the next ten or 12 years. That represents social security for the farmer. When people talk about the farmer not getting his share of the national cake they should not overlook these two items in particular. In addition to all that, the State is providing him with guaranteed prices for wheat, beet and milk and so arranging the home market that he is insulated, as far as the nation as a whole is concerned, against risks to which he would otherwise be exposed if the State did not intervene on his behalf. I do not say it is wrong to do that. I think it is right. We must try to shelter every person, but it is unfair in a discussion of this kind to try to set one class against another. What we ought to be doing is building up allover prosperity, so as to make the farmer wealthy, the worker wealthy, and everybody engaged in useful and purposeful national activities wealthy, so that prosperity, represented by a bigger national cake, will be shared with all the people who created the materials to provide and bake the cake.

It is in that spirit that I say to those who say they represent the farmers in particular that if the farmer is not getting everything he wants in this Bill he gets it in other spheres as well. Remember this, out of the £7,000,000 which we spend in old age pensions, much more than 75 per cent. is sent to the rural areas, and the bulk of that goes to the small farmer class.

Mr. Maguire

On the basis of a valuation of means, because their condition of poverty is much more acute than in the big industrial centres.

Let me say to Deputy Maguire that in Leitrim there are 4,000 old age pensioners and blind pensioners who will benefit by this Bill. At present they get in old age pensions £183,000. That will now be further substantially increased. If Leitrim had to bear out of its rates the cost of old age pensions and blind pensions, it would cost the Leitrim rates £1 5s. 5d. That is paid by the State to-day—rightly paid by the State— because the people of Leitrim could not bear a burden of that kind.

I do not want this whole problem approached from the point of view of a smash-and-grab raid—get what you can and run away, get the other fellow's share if you can. We ought to look on this Bill, and every other thing we do, as an effort to help the Irish people. Everybody may not be put in the first place. There may be some people to-day and others to-morrow, but so long as we are equitable in our approach and our distribution, in the course of time we can make a contribution to the needs of our people.

Mr. Maguire

Has the Minister estimated what the contribution from the taxpayer generally in Leitrim is towards the cost of old age and blind pensions?

I have not, in respect of Leitrim.

Mr. Maguire

It would be necessary, before making a comparison. You have to estimate their contribution on the basis of population.

I suggest to the Deputy that that is not a profitable investigation for a Leitrim Deputy. If I were the Deputy, I would leave it alone.

Mr. Maguire

I say that from the figures given it would appear as if we were definitely living on the rest of the community, but having regard to our contribution in direct and indirect taxation I say we are certainly not doing that, but from our productive capacity we are largely contributing to the cities and urban areas.

If the Deputy probes that closely, he will find it is an optical illusion, and if I were he I would let that hare sit. There are no tricks in that for the Deputy.

Mr. Maguire

I am not prepared to let it sit.

All right. That is often the way with people who will not let well enough alone.

Mr. Maguire

Why not tell the whole story? That would have been better than giving only one side of the picture.

Deputy Davin raised the question of local authority employees and the effect of this Bill on them. That matter obviously is one which will require consultation between my Department and the Department of Local Government. That consultation will take place during the course of the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas. As far as employees of local authorities are concerned, they would be very much better off under a Bill of this kind, which would give them comprehensive benefits under six or seven heads for a sum proportionately no greater than they are paying for one type of benefit under the present Superannuation Act.

I do not desire to keep the House any longer. I recommend the Bill to the Dáil as a substantial instalment of social justice for men and women who toil and render service to the nation. I recommend it with a claim that it represents a substantial and a genuine effort to provide the first comprehensive social security scheme for this country. I trust that, no matter what views Deputies may have on the various political issues, they may endeavour to face up broadly to the necessity for a comprehensive social security scheme on which we can all agree in principle, no matter how much we may differ in detail. If the Opposition even now will accept that——

Mr. de Valera

What?

The fact that we agree to social security in principle—and this is social security in principle—I would undertake on the Committee Stage to allow the thing to be as open as possible, so that we could discuss the matter as freely as possible, conditioned by this overriding factor, that we have a cheque for a certain amount and we have to spend within that cheque. If we take off in one case and give to another, we have to recognise that there is a loss on one side and a gain on the other. There could be a broad understanding and a broad discussion on the Committee Stage details. I regard the passage of the Second Reading as acceptance of the principle and we can have free play for different views on the Committee Stage. However, if that is not acceptable, it does not matter. I am asking the House now to pass the Second Stage.

Mr. de Valera

Does the Minister wish me to speak on that?

If the Deputy likes.

Mr. de Valera

We have generally indicated our readiness and willingness to consider this whole question of social security. The difference is as to the methods by which it should be done. Where we differ with the proposals is that the method, in our opinion, is not the best that can be got. There was a proposition made that there should be some effort to try and get discussion, so as to have that question settled between us. I do not think that the amount of discussion has been sufficient for that. I do not know that in the Second Reading there would be possibility for it.

Can we not have a Special Committee of the House on the next stage to do it?

Mr. Maguire rose.

Deputy Maguire has spoken already on several occasions. I must now put the question.

Mr. Maguire

Would the Minister consider that the small farmers of this country, who are left out of the scheme, could be included? I want an answer to that. Would he be prepared, even on the Committee Stage, to include that section of the community?

If the Deputy means the farmers who work for three or four months of the year on the farm and who must of necessity work on the roads or drainage schemes for the rest of the year, they are covered by the Bill, as they will be with an employer for that period, and they will keep their right and entitlement to benefit. If at any stage such a farmer decides he will work in future on his farm, he need not go out of the scheme but can become a voluntary contributor and pay a special rate covering him for the rest of his life, so long as he contributes.

Mr. de Valera

In regard to the proposition put up to me by the Tánaiste, it was already indicated from our benches that we are anxious, naturally, that so far as possible social security schemes should be outside Party divisions. It would be a great thing for the country if it were possible to have something like an agreed scheme. It is a matter for the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste to decide. I would like to have this division postponed, if I could, to consider that, as it is not possible for me now to consult about it.

Mr. Flynn

I made one point to the Tánaiste in a statement last night that——

That is not a question. It is an argument. To the motion "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" an amendment has been moved by Deputy Dr. Ryan to delete certain words and substitute others. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

On a point of order, are you putting both amendments together?

The wider amendment will embrace the narrower amendment.

In order to vote for my amendment, I must vote against the Bill now?

The Deputy will understand that the question is, "that the words proposed to be deleted stand". The amendments propose to delete certain words.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 66.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Óg.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • 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.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Sweetman and Spring; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 67.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Óg.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • 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.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomás.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Sweetman and Spring; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share