Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jul 1951

Vol. 126 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1951—Money Resolution.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend the existing enactments relating to old age and blind persons' pensions.

As regards the cost, I think I mentioned already, but it is no harm to repeat, that it is estimated that the full cost of the Social Welfare Bill for 12 months would be £1,422,000. That is divided in the following way: under Section 2, that is the point dealing with landholders and the transfer of land to the children of landholders, there is an extra cost of £200,000; clause 3, dealing with the disregarding of allowances and disability pensions as means, will cost £50,000; the extra 2/6 costs £1,172,000—that is in a full year.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Norton

We saw the Minister for Social Welfare last night putting on an act of bluffing and blustering in order to try to conceal the perfect somersault which he was doing in connection with the Social Welfare Bill. The Minister has now admitted that, in March, 1948, he believed in a scheme of contributory old age pensions, payable at 65 years of age. Whatever maturity has set in in the Minister's mind in the meantime, he now confesses that he is opposed to retirement pensions at 65 years of age, in 1951. In 1948, Fianna Fáil published, as I said before, elaborate advertisements in the Press saying that they had a plan for security and part of the plan was contributory old age pensions at 65 years of age. That admittedly was the Fianna Fáil policy in 1948. The Minister admitted that was so last night, but, now that he has got out of his Peter Pan days and Peter Pan ways and is a little more mature, he thinks that that is a wrong thing entirely and has made it clear that, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, there will be no retirement pensions at 65 years of age. Let Fianna Fáil Deputies get that into their heads. The Minister has said, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, that he is going to throw overboard the idea of retirement pensions at 65 years of age. Therefore, when you see in future advertisements in the Press, particularly around about election times, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, indicating what their policy is to be, you have got to understand that, just like the businessman who prints at the bottom of an invoice, "Errors and omissions excepted", with the Fianna Fáil plan you have to read into the advertisement this hidden declaration, "liable to be varied or substantially altered without notice once the election is over", because that is what Fianna Fáil has done.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. J. Lynch)

It is like Labour's attitude to the means test.

Mr. Norton

We will hear the Parliamentary Secretary, if he has anything to say. Would the Parliamentary Secretary mind repeating the statement?

Mr. J. Lynch

It is like Labour's attitude towards the means test.

Mr. Norton

You will hear something about the means test before I finish to-day and I hope you will not go out while I am talking about it. In any case, Fianna Fáil election advertisements for the future must be read against this background that when the election is over they may be varied without notice to anyone, that they are not expected to run to any consistent texture, that they are just there for the period of an election and that when it is over they may be jettisoned in the same way as the plan to provide retirement pensions at 65 years of age has been jettisoned by the Fianna Fáil Party during the discussion of the Social Welfare Bill. These advertisements clearly are only for unwary people. They are intended only to ensnare simple people during the period of the election. When the election is over, the Party managers will make sure that the electors do not get unduly excited about asking for the implementation of the promise made by Fianna Fáil because the policy will be altered once the election is over.

That is what the Minister for Social Welfare has done. He has done it in an open and a naked fashion. He says now there is going to be no retirement pension at 65 and that is to be the Fianna Fáil policy for the future—no retirement pension at 65 years of age. Instead, he has got a hotch-potch scheme worthy of a mental home in which he says that, instead of giving a man a retirement pension at 65, he can get sickness benefit or unemployment benefit. He may not be sick in any sense of the word but a device will be arranged, the Minister thinks—we can wait with patience to see the promise implemented—by which some provision will be made for him to get sickness benefit although he is not sick.

Dr. Ryan

That is wrong. I told you before it was wrong. I never said it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You did say it.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You said it last Thursday.

Dr. Ryan

I did not say it. I never said it and the Deputy will withdraw it, because I never said it. He has repeated the lie.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is published in the papers. I have it here.

Dr. Ryan

I do not mind Deputy Flanagan. Try to stick to the truth.

Mr. Norton

There is no question of anyone desiring to misrepresent the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

There is a question.

Mr. Norton

I want to assure the Minister that nothing is further from my thoughts.

Dr. Ryan

It is the first thought you have.

Mr. Norton

The Minister can keep quiet now and behave like a responsible Minister. You are not now in opposition.

Dr. Ryan

Do not repeat that statement.

Mr. Norton

You should conduct yourself.

Dr. Ryan

Do not repeat it.

Mr. Norton

The Minister ought to read his own speech.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I will, and you read it and see if you can find that in it.

Mr. Norton

Life is too short to wade through twice what the Minister says once.

Dr. Ryan

Why do not you quote me?

Mr. Norton

I have already quoted the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

But wrongly.

Mr. Norton

The Minister knows that he has burnt his fingers and every time he sees the iron again he kicks up a row in case he is going to burn them again. Is not this the naked truth? The Minister said he had thrown overboard retirement pensions at 65—between 65 and 70. "However," he said, "I will give that fellow something. I will give him sickness benefit or unemployment benefit and make the conditions easier."

Dr. Ryan

That is right. Now you have it. That is fair enough.

Mr. Norton

You just got explosive.

Dr. Ryan

Not whether he is sick or not. That is another matter.

Mr. Norton

The Minister should give himself some bromide during the discussion of this motion.

Dr. Ryan

You will want bromide.

Mr. Norton

Bromide is a preliminary thing and you will want something more after it, the character of which the rules of procedure prevent me from describing.

Dr. Ryan

It is a pity about them because I would like to describe you.

Mr. Norton

There is the position the Minister is in. He wants at all costs to get away from retirement pension at 65 and in lieu of that he thinks, crazily I would say, that he can get some hotch-potch scheme of unemployment or sickness benefit wrapped up in some kind of new formula which will enable a person to get something. How he will get it, when he will get it or how much it will be, the Minister does not know nor has he taken counsel from anyone of intelligence to enable him to know——

Dr. Ryan

That is why I did not consult you.

Mr. Norton

——how this kind of scheme, which is just a daft dream of his, can be implemented. I may put this to the Minister: civil servants can get pensions when they retire at 65, Civic Guards can get pensions when they retire, judges can get pensions, Ministers can get pensions, employees of local authorities can get pensions. If all these people can get pensions when they retire at 60 or 65——

Mr. J. Lynch

Seventy-two for judges.

Dr. Ryan

74 for sheriffs.

Mr. S. Collins

Only for one sheriff.

Dr. Ryan

But you brought him up to 74.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The work has been very light for sheriffs for the past three years.

A Deputy

Not in Dublin.

Mr. Norton

If all that fraternity can get pensions when they retire, to which many of them do not contribute, what is wrong with letting the ordinary working man get a pension if he decides to retire at 65 years of age? Why cannot the ordinary man who works in a field, in a factory, in a shop or in an office, or why cannot the masses of the people who work for wages and salaries who have no pensions whatever to-day, and no indication that their employers will ever pay them a pension—no indication that their employers can ever pay a pension to them—why cannot they be allowed in under a Bill of this kind to pay a contribution which will enable them to have a pension if they so wish to retire at 65? We have got no explanation from the Minister as to why he is so bitterly and, apparently, so unalterably opposed to the provision of pensions at 65 years of age.

I want to make my position, and the position of the Labour Party, clear in this matter. If this country can pay pensions to judges, civil servants, Army officers, the Gardaí and the employees of local authorities—I do not begrudge them pensions because they well deserve pensions in return for faithful service—I see no reason why the worker who works for a small man or a small farmer and is unable himself out of his own resources to make provision for a pension, should not get a pension from the State at 65 years of age to which he, his employer and the State have contributed.

We ought to hear the Minister—I hope we will hear from the Fianna Fáil back benchers—what is wrong with giving the ordinary working man a pension at 65 if he elects to retire. Mind you, it was promised in the famous plan for security. The Minister himself has run away from that promise. Have the rest of the Fianna Fáil Party also run away from it? At all events, the latest stop-press— the hot news from the Fianna Fáil Party—is this: "Take note, citizen, we are now in office—our tenure will be as long as we are allowed to hang on by any method, questionable or otherwise—and you will get no retirement pension at 65 years of age even though we promised it to you." That is the declaration made by the Minister for Social Welfare, and it was to try and wriggle out of the embarrassing position in which he now finds himself, due to his own incompetent handling of the matter, that he put on the bluster and the bluff act which he did last night. I want to nail the Minister's ear to the post of truth in this matter, and the post of truth in the matter is——

Dr. Ryan

From you?

Mr. Norton

——that you promised pensions at 65 years of age, and now you have abandoned that promise.

Dr. Ryan

Thanks very much.

Mr. Norton

That is promise No. 1 gone. Let us look at promise No. 2. When the Social Welfare Bill was being discussed in this House on the Second Stage, the Minister then said that his view of the means test was such—I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to this declaration.

Dr. Ryan

This is a repetition of the Deputy's Second Reading speech. I will have to repeat my speech again in reply.

Mr. Norton

I do not mind if the Minister spends the next month here making speeches. This is a free deliberative Assembly. That is what this Parliament is for. This is not a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party. This is a deliberative Assembly. We are paying you a Minister's salary for doing these things, and you are going to earn it on this Bill. You are not going to come in here and say "there is the Bill and you must take it whether you like it or not." You are going to sit and listen to what the Deputies have to say.

Dr. Ryan

I am earning my money listening to you.

Mr. Norton

I will make you earn it harder, if necessary, on this Bill. There is no use in getting annoyed. This is a deliberative Assembly. On the Second Stage of that Bill the Minister said that to anyone who had £2 a week he would give him an old age pension of £1 a week, and to the farmer with a holding, the valuation of which was not more than £25, he would give a full pension. You went to the trouble of setting that out in a speech and, later, to the trouble of saying that to the Press as a declaration of policy. What I want to ask the Minister is this: Why did he not put these two provisions in this Bill instead of slavishly adopting a proposal for which I was responsible in this Dáil? This is not his Bill at all. I said last night that the Minister is in secondhand clothes on this Bill. This is not the Minister's Bill at all. This Bill is merely doing everything, and just everything, which I promised in the House on Second Reading the Social Welfare Bill would do.

This Bill is an exact copy of proposals which were submitted to the Dáil, but there was nothing to prevent the Minister from introducing a section saying that anybody with £2 a week would get the full old age pension. There is no reason why the Minister cannot do it still on this Bill. There is no reason why he cannot say to every farmer who has got a holding with a valuation of not more than £25: "We will give you the full old age pension." He promised that on the Second Stage of that Bill. Now he has the opportunity of implementing his promise, and he can do it, but the Minister will not do it. He has run away, therefore, from promise No. 2. That promise is being abandoned. Instead, the Minister is introducing into this Dáil a Bill which is merely a copy of the proposals which I formulated and submitted to this House in my capacity as Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Cowan is getting nervous.

Mr. Norton

Promise No. 2 is being abandoned. Even when the Minister came to write the amendments to the Social Welfare Bill he wrote another set of amendments to the proposals which I had submitted. He has run away even from the third set of amendments, so that promise No. 3 is being abandoned. Now it may be that the Minister is mentally lazy; it may be that he is tired after the election campaign; it may be that the feeling of political instability in which he is engulfed does not induce him to strenuous efforts. "I prefer, therefore, to take the Bill that is there and to say: the Dáil knows that this was promised; let us put through the previous Bill; do not excite me or worry me about thinking out or giving effect to my own amendments." If that is his mind, and one knows what human frailty is, then one can understand the kind of mental and physical laziness that is consuming the Minister. Is that the explanation for it, or what is the explanation, because there is no reason in the world why the Minister cannot make the modification which he promised here on the 2nd March and, subsequently, in the amendments which he submitted to the House. I want to know will the Minister not do the things he promised to do then?

We had a dissertation on a motion which was introduced in 1947, a motion designed to secure a modification of the means test. We need not waste time on the trimmings or on the various technicalities which make up the means test. The Fianna Fáil attitude to the means test can be ascertained by reference to this cold fact, that the cost of that modification was half a million pounds per year. The Fianna Fáil Government of the time voted against that motion, although it would cost only a half a million pounds per year.

Dr. Ryan

What motion is that?

Mr. Norton

The motion in 1947.

Dr. Ryan

I will have to deal with that again.

Mr. Norton

It will do you good. I will give you a schooling on this Bill that is bound, ultimately, to benefit you.

Dr. Ryan

You will not benefit from what I will say to you.

Mr. Norton

I look for wisdom in different sources from those which the Minister constituted. In 1947 the cost of accepting that motion was £500,000 per year and, though Fianna Fáil voted against the motion, they did nothing else in lieu of it. As I said, the cost then was £500,000, and it could not be found or provided to implement a motion of that kind. The Fianna Fáil Party were afraid then of an inflationary tendency if old age pensioners had the means test modified.

In 1948 I introduced a Bill in this House which gave old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows and orphans, non-contributory, an additional £2,500,000 per year, which they have been getting every year since. When one contrasts what we did in providing an additional £2,500,000 per year since 1948 with the scrooge-like attitude of refusing to provide £500,000 to implement the 1947 motion, I think we are entitled to look back with pleasure and with a certain amount of pride on the achievements which the 1948 Bill brought to old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows and orphans throughout the country. Let us see the way in which we provided old age pensions and blind pensions under that Act.

In 1916 a British administration, hostile and alien though it was, paid old age pensioners at the rate of 10/- per week. Between 1916 and 1948, a period of 32 years, the old age pensioners in the rural areas, and that is four-fifths of the old age pensioners of the country, received an increase of 2/6 per week in their pensions, making them 12/6 per week. Therefore, 80 per cent. of the 149,000 old age pensioners had only 12/6 per week in 1948 as a right, and it took them 32 years to get the extra 2/6. Within six months of taking office, the Social Welfare Bill, 1948, which I put through the Dáil, gave them an increase of 5/- per week, but those now responsible would give only 2/6 to old age pensioners in rural areas, that is 80 per cent. of the total number of old age pensioners. I do not think that ours was a bad achievement. At any rate, it was better than anything that has been done before.

What is being done now in the Social Welfare Bill which is before the Dáil is part and parcel of the plan which I had in mind for meeting old age pensions. When Fianna Fáil comes to talk about its achievements in respect of old age pensions, let this be clear, that never before did so many old age pensioners and so many blind pensioners get such a substantial increase in their pensions as they got under the 1948 Act. In so far as I had any hand, act or part in that, I look upon it as a credit-worthy achievement. So when the Minister strives to trip the Labour Party with not having done this or that, let him keep under his hat that we did more during three and a quarter years for old age pensioners than was ever done in the 32 years preceding our assumption of office, and that is not a bad achievement.

Mr. Davin

With three Ministers out of 13 in the Government.

Mr. Norton

The Minister said Deputy Norton in his Bill never proposed to give an old age pension at 65. What I proposed to do in the Social Welfare Bill for which I was responsible was this. I was covering 750,000 workers, whether they worked for wages or salary, in a field or in a factory, in office or shop. I was covering 750,000 men, women and employed boys and girls for insurance purposes under the Bill. In so far as they were adult men and adult women I was covering their children as well. In so far as they were married men I was covering their wives and children. Therefore, a very substantial number, well in excess of a million, was being covered under the Social Welfare Bill.

I proposed in the case of the employed man or woman to give them the right to retire at 65 years of age if they wished to exercise it. Nobody to-day can get an old age pension at 65, but they would be able to get a retirement pension at 65 under my Bill. To that extent I gave them old age pensions by providing for old age pensions or retirement pensions for them at 65 years of age. The masses of the people who work for wages and salaries had within their grasp under my Bill—they could see it there in black and white—the right to retire on a pension with the dependent's allowance at 65 years of age. That is gone now. It is going forever if the disaster should happen that this Government is ever given responsibility for implementing a comprehensive Social Welfare Bill. I would like to see the Bill in the House, and if the present Government is not badly rocked and shipwrecked before that, they will be shipwrecked on that Bill if they bring it back here without providing for retirement pensions at 65 years of age.

My Bill gave every man employed for wages or salary the right to a pension at 65 years of age. It did not matter who he worked for, how many he worked for, or what the varied character of his employment was. So long as he worked he paid contributions and when he reached 65 years of age, he had not to find out who he worked for. His age determined the right to retire on pension. If that can be granted to other classes in the community even without contributions, what is untouchable about ordinary working men and women that they cannot get it? What is wrong with paying it to ordinary men and women who are separated from the workhouse by their ability to earn a week's wages? What is wrong with giving them the pension if it is right to give it to people who make no contribution whatever? I hope we will get an explanation from some Deputy, particularly some Deputy who represents a Dublin working class constituency, who will tell me and tell them why it is undesirable to allow them the right to retire at 65 which we grant to many other sections of the community. At all events I promised retirement pensions at 65 and my Bill implemented that promise. Having got a Government for which they never voted and do not want, the country is going to be refused the right of retirement pensions at 65 years of age. The Minister accused Deputy Flanagan of delaying this Bill. The Minister knows perfectly well that certain preliminary work has to be done before these pensions can be paid.

Dr. Ryan

Clause 3 comes into operation immediately.

Mr. Norton

Does the Minister not realise that he is making an excursion into the realm of puerility in making a statement of that kind?

Dr. Ryan

It is £5,000 a week.

Mr. Norton

I will give the Minister on the next stage an opportunity of making sure that he can pay this increase from 13th June, and the Bill was not introduced then. When we come to the Committee Stage, I will give him an opportunity of voting for an amendment which will make every increase payable under this Bill date from 13th June. All you have to do is to put in an amendment setting out that the appointed day for the purposes of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is 13th June.

Dr. Ryan

The appointed day does not refer to these sections.

Mr. Norton

I will draft an amendment which will set out an appointed day for the sections. I will put in an amendment to fix an appointed day for each of the sections.

Mr. S. Collins

And you will get the unanimous support of the House.

Mr. Norton

And I take it that the Minister, who is so concerned about this matter, will support that amendment. Let me warn the Minister about a matter about which I warned him last night and which he did not seem to understand. Under the Army pensions regulations, persons are entitled to special allowances, provided their income does not exceed a certain limit or provided their income, if it amounts to a certain sum, does not, with the special allowance, exceed an overall maximum. Unless there is complementary defence legislation in respect of this Bill, you cannot give effect to the provisions relating to the special allowances payable under the Army Pensions Act, and, if the Minister makes inquiries from his officials, he will find that that is so.

Dr. Ryan

That is not right. I will deal with that.

Mr. Norton

I tell you it is right.

Dr. Ryan

And I tell you it is not.

Mr. Norton

Let us get this thing examined home. Under the Army Pensions Act, a man may be entitled to a special allowance of up to £97 in a year. If we give him an old age pension at present, the old age pension is taken into consideration against him and he gets only the difference between the old age pension and the £97. Will the Minister deny that that is correct?

Dr. Ryan

I will deal with that.

Mr. Norton

That is correct and cannot be challenged. This Bill says that a man who has a special allowance will have that allowance disregarded as to £80 of it when he is looking for an old age pension, so that, if a man has £80 special allowance and seeks an old age pension, the £80 is disregarded; but the Army Pensions Act does not say that if he has an old age pension that old age pension is disregarded. The Army Pensions Act takes into consideration his old age pension and unless you get the complementary legislation from the Department of Defence, the more you give him in old age pension, the less he will get on the special allowance, if he is entitled to it. It, therefore, will need complementary legislation and the Minister ought to realise it. I know it so well because I pointed out the fact to the Minister for Defence when I was dealing with the Second Stage of the Bill and the Minister for Defence, I know, approached the Department of Finance at that time with a view to getting that complementary legislation.

This Bill is portion of the Bill we offered to the House on 2nd March last. It is not as big or as widespread a Bill. It does not provide the same coverage as we provided, but it is a good part of a good Bill and to the extent to which it improves the lot of old age pensioners and blind pensioners, to the extent to which it eases the burden on people who are in receipt of wound or disability pensions and does not reckon against the old age pensioner the small sums he receives from charitable organisations —all proposals which I initiated as Minister—it has our goodwill and our benediction; but let the Minister realise that all he is doing is implementing a Bill which is our unaltered declaration of policy and which we would have introduced as part and parcel of the comprehensive Bill. Let me mark this for the Minister's observation: the old age pension portion of this Bill would have come into operation long before the main Bill. If the Minister doubts that, let him consult his officials and let him call for the minutes of a conference which I held in the Department of Social Welfare within the past three months at which I told my officials to anticipate the passage of this section of the Bill and to get on with the job of printing the new old age pension Orders and doing everything possible to implement the scheme, so far as old age pensioners were concerned, at the earliest possible date.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I think that a copy of this Bill, when it has been passed, should be sent to every old age pensioner in the country in memory of good times because it is the last of its character that will ever be passed here while Fianna Fáil are in office. It is a Bill which brings a certain amount of relief, but for which the present Minister can claim no credit. That has been repeatedly said from this side and I am saying it again. I want to express my complete dissatisfaction and I want to have registered on the records of the House my complete disapproval of the fact that the Minister and the set-up with which he is associated have deprived the people of the right to pensions at the age of 65. There can be no doubt whatever that the Minister and his supporters and followers in the House have departed for all time from the principle of providing pensions for people at the age of 65. I quote from the Official Records of the House of 20th June last, column 230:

"Mr. MacBride: Did I gather from the Minister that it is the intention to drop the retirement allowances at 65 years of age?

Dr. Ryan: Yes. When dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Social Welfare Bill introduced by the last Government, I said that my alternative proposal was that between 65 and 70 a man would receive unemployment insurance or sickness benefit at the same level as retiring allowances."

Mr. Norton

That is the statement the Minister disputes.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is the statement the Minister has openly told the House he did not make.

Dr. Ryan

I did not do any such thing. I am getting sick and tired of contradicting people about this matter, but I will deal with it later.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Surely the Minister cannot deny it.

Dr. Ryan

I will repeat that statement when I get up.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Minister made that statement which I have quoted on 20th June last.

Dr. Ryan

I do not deny that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You cannot.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to deny it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That statement was made and it is right that it should go out from this House, on the word of the Minister, that, so far as the people are concerned, while the present set-up holds office, there can be no pensions payable at the age of 65. I find it hard to grasp what the Minister means and would like to know what rate of sickness or unemployment benefit people are to get when they reach 65. As Deputy Norton pointed out a moment ago, assuming a citizen is not ill, will the Minister press sickness benefit on him? If he is employed in a job where the salary is so small that he cannot provide for himself, and if between 60 and 65 he is no longer fit for heavy and hard work, what allowance does he get from the unemployment benefits that the Minister tells us he is going to receive?

Mr. Allen

On a point of order. In what section of the Bill is sickness and unemployment benefit provided?

Mr. S. Collins

The Deputy is not aware that we are dealing with the Money Resolution.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question was addressed to me and not to the Opposition.

Mr. Allen

The Money Resolution has some relation to the Bill for which it is providing the money.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed discussion over a wide field, because the Money Resolution is to provide money to implement the provisions of the Bill. Some of the statements may have a very tenuous relevancy, but they have a relevancy, and I am allowing the discussion to continue on that basis, that the Money Resolution relates to the Bill.

Mr. Allen

This Bill, in which there is nothing about unemployment or sickness benefit?

Mr. O. Flanagan

Since the Minister stated on the 20th June last that he will pay sickness or unemployment at the same level as retiring allowances, does that mean that retiring allowances are now being fixed at £1 a week under this Bill, and that sickness benefit will be payable at £1 to those between 65 and 70, and unemployment benefit between 65 and 70 at £1?

An Ceann Comhairle

The point has been already made that there is no provision here for retiring allowances, and there is no money in the Money Resolution for it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I quite appreciate that, but I wish to convey to the Minister——

Dr. Ryan

Would the Deputy listen for a moment? I assume that the Deputy is honest. He asked all these questions on the Second Reading. I answered them last night and he was not here. I will answer them again.

Mr. O. Flanagan

When the Minister was answering them last night, he accused me of deliberately delaying the passage of the Bill, and he states that as a result the old age pensioners have been out of pocket. I read that in the morning papers. I now assure him that if he is anxious they should not be at a loss, as a result of this Bill being delayed in its passage through the House, it is in the hands of himself and his followers, comprising the set-up of which he is Minister, to give those allowances from the 13th June last, or from whatever day he so desires. I doubt that there will be one word uttered from these benches as a protest against the Minister making those allowances payable from the 13th June last, or even, if he is so generous, if he agrees to give those allowances for the past three months. I again assure him that, if it is his intention to have those payments retrospective to any particular day, when he so suddenly finds himself as the champion and the only man who has a sincere interest in the old age pensioners, he can display that interest by letting the old age pensioners see how honest and sincere he is. He can improve their conditions by paying them these allowances as from the 1st June. Then there can be no blame on Deputy Norton, Deputy Flanagan or any other Deputy for depriving them of anything, as a result of this legislation being properly scrutinised here before it is passed through the House.

From reading in the papers what the Minister said last night—I have not read the Official Report yet—I do not see that he has given one reason why his Party and its five followers are opposed to the payment of pensions at 65.

Mr. S. Collins

Its four followers.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am extremely anxious that the Minister would make an honest and clear statement. It has been put to him by the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Norton, that at one stage it was part and parcel of Fianna Fáil policy to provide a pension at 65.

Dr. Ryan

Retiring allowances.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Minister should not mislead the House. At one stage he promised, for Fianna Fáil, old age pensions at 65.

Dr. Ryan

No, retiring allowances.

Mr. Briscoe

He does not know the difference.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Let Deputy Briscoe not muddle the Minister any more than he is muddled.

Dr. Ryan

I think Deputy Briscoe is right. The Deputy does not know the difference. Let me explain. Old age pensions, as they have come to be known, are different from retiring allowances. Deputy Norton proposed that the retiring allowances be paid by the people themselves.

Breanndán Mac Fheorais

And they are going to get them for nothing now?

Dr. Ryan

I am not saying that, but they were to be paid for by the people themselves.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I would be very pleased to hear what serious objection there is to the payment of old age pensions at 65. What is the objection?

Dr. Ryan

I will tell the Deputy that, too.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is something I have been anxious to hear for a long time. The Minister cannot say this is new doctrine being preached by me. It is on the records of the House that as far back as 1943 I was advocating the pension at 65.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy was advocating monetary reform then, too.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am more than anxious to hear the real objections from the 69 Fianna Fáil Deputies and the five Independents opposing the payment of the pension at 65. If I get that information, I will feel very content and know where I stand.

Mr. S. Collins

I understand there are now 70 Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Mr. Allen

Why did the Coalition not do it?

Mr. O. Flanagan

The inter-Party Government took so many good steps forward for the old age pensioner that this step which is now being sponsored by the Minister is one of the inter-Party steps. Deputy Allen should not forget that. This is legislation for which we can claim full credit.

Mr. Allen

For the old age pension at 65?

Mr. O. Flanagan

We promised the old age pension at 65.

Mr. Allen

You did not.

Dr. Ryan

No, you did not.

Mr. Briscoe

The poor man does not understand.

Dr. Ryan

That is what you do not understand about it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am advocating the payment of old age pensions at 65.

Dr. Ryan

That is different.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We promised retirement allowances at 65.

Mr. Briscoe

That is right.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If Deputy Briscoe would not confuse the Minister, the Minister and I would get on very well.

Dr. Ryan

I am getting you on the right road.

Mr. Briscoe

You would bluff your way through anything, Oliver.

Mr. S. Collins

You would be a good master, Bob.

Mr. Briscoe

You are sitting in front of him.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If I wanted to learn I would get lessons from Deputy Briscoe as he is the best qualified man in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to give Deputy Flanagan lessons on order but I am afraid I will have to.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not desire to detain the House to any great extent.

Dr. Ryan

You will listen to me?

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is the reason why I stood up—to improve my education on the whole business. That is what I am inviting.

Mr. Briscoe

So long as you admit that, it is all right.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I hope that the Minister will clear this up once and for all and give us some reason why he is not in favour of retirement allowances at 65. That is what I want to hear from him and I trust that he will make a clear statement about why, on the 20th June, in reply to Deputy MacBride, he clearly stated that he was opposed to the payment of old age pensions at 65.

Dr. Ryan

I wish to goodness that we could get over this misrepresentation. I am aiming at Deputy Norton in particular, because Deputy Flanagan does not know what he is talking about and so was not trying to misrepresent me, but Deputy Norton did know what he was talking about and deliberately tried to misrepresent me.

Mr. Norton

I quoted to the full what Deputy Flanagan said, but in the middle of it you interrupted me.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is quite right.

Dr. Ryan

Every Deputy and every Party would claim that they wanted to do their best for old age pensioners. If they do, why do they try to misrepresent me? It would be better to come to the truth of the situation and then see what we could do. It will not benefit the old age pensioners that Deputy Norton should try to misrepresent me by saying that I was going to give a person an allowance at 70 whether he was sick or not. What good does that do anybody except Deputy Norton and his Party?

Mr. Norton

I want to assure the Minister that there was no intention to misrepresent him, but the Minister got on the line——

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton yesterday said the same thing. I objected and he had to withdraw. He came back to it last night and came back to the same thing again to-day with misrepresentation.

Mr. Norton

There is proof in the book.

Dr. Ryan

What Deputy Flanagan said is correct. I am standing by it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is what Deputy Norton said.

Dr. Ryan

Please read it again.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I will. Deputy MacBride asked (Volume 126, No. 2, column 230):

"Did I gather from the Minister that it is the intention to drop the retirement allowances at 65 years of age?

Dr. Ryan: Yes. When dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Social Welfare Bill introduced by the last Government I said that my alternative proposal was that between 65 and 70 a man would receive unemployment insurance or sickness benefit at the same level as retiring allowances and that the allowances would be given at 70 instead of 65."

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I said that I did not agree with giving retirement allowances to a man between 65 and 70. If an insured person is unemployed he gets unemployment benefit. The reason I said that was that while it may be hard for a man to get work he will get unemployment benefit and if he is sick he will get sickness benefit. I said that I would make it easier for a man to qualify for unemployment and sickness benefit. Deputy Norton said and repeated twice that I said I would give sickness benefit to a man whether he was sick or not. I never said any such thing. If Deputy Norton wants to ram that down the throats of his followers in order to get a few more votes than he got at the last election let him have it.

Mr. Norton

I got 50 per cent. more votes than you did.

Dr. Ryan

And lost three seats. Why have we this misrepresentation? What is Deputy Norton's motive? Is it going to do the old age pensioners any good or the people between 65 and 70? Is it not only Party politics to try to get some benefit out of this misrepresentation? Will Party politics do the people any good? That is the only object Deputy Norton has.

Let us take a few of these points again. There is one thing which Deputies do not understand, and that is quite evident from Deputy Flanagan's speech although he got right on it in the end. The point is that there is a difference between old age pensions and contributory pensions, as we understand them. I do not know, if you go to a dictionary, that you will find a difference, but in legislation, as we understand them, there is a difference. Old age pensions have been paid for years to people who qualified for them and they are paid out of taxation without any contributions. Retirement allowances are paid or will be paid to those who contribute to them and we must keep that in mind. No Government in this country, neither the inter-Party, the Fianna Fáil nor any other Government ever proposed that old age pensions should be paid at a lower age than 70. It was never proposed that they should be paid at 65. We are dealing with an Old Age Pensions Bill and it is altogether beside the point for Deputies to say: "Why do you not pay them at 65 as was promised or provided by So-and-so?" because no such thing was ever promised or provided.

Let us be clear. Old age pensions were never paid at a lower age than 70 and it was never promised by any Government that they should be paid at a lower age. Retirement allowances are a different matter. It was proposed in the Bill brought in by Deputy Norton, then Minister, that retirement allowances should be paid at 65 and on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party I said that I did not agree. Deputy Flanagan wants to know why. I gave my reasons on that occasion. I said, first of all, that it would be a big burden on the people who pay for them, that is, the workers themselves who pay a considerable part, and the employers who pay the rest. I held, therefore, that it should not be done unless it was necessary. I said that from statistics it could be found that there would be a very high proportion of the population over 65 years of age from this on. I was not able to lay my hand on it but in some paper read, I think, at the Statistics Society, I saw that a very high percentage of the population would be over 65 in 25 years' time. When Deputy Norton was Minister he could have found that. Perhaps I could find it but I have not got it yet. I said, what is more, that the health of the people is improving as time goes on.

These chronic diseases which prevented men from working into their old age are gradually disappearing. Rheumatism, bronchitis, digestive diseases and bad stomachs are not so prevalent as they were. Things are improving, and men are able to work better now than they were in the past. I gave all these reasons. My only objective was to encourage men to go on working between 65 and 70 years of age rather than discourage them. I pointed out that in the scheme brought in by Deputy Norton a man was discouraged from working from 65 to 70 because if he got sick he got no sickness benefit, and if he became unemployed for a month or so he got no unemployment benefit, and he would, therefore, be forced to fall back on the retiring allowance if he became sick or unemployed. These were the reasons I gave. They can be argued between one Party and another. There may be men in my own Party who do not agree with me, and there may be men on the other side of the House who do agree with me. However, it is not a matter that should be made a gospel for any Party; it should be argued amongst ourselves in order to enable us to discover the best thing to do. I am not afraid of Deputy Norton's making this an issue for the country. I should not be afraid, if it could be arranged, to take a referendum of the working men of this country—even, if you like, of those who are over 45 or 50—and to ask them if they agree with Deputy Norton's provisions or with my provisions.

Mr. S. Collins

Make it a general election instead.

Dr. Ryan

I am sure a great number of the men of this country would say that they would prefer to be free to work from 65 to 70.

Mr. Norton

There is nothing to prevent them from doing so.

Dr. Ryan

There is.

Mr. Norton

There is not.

Dr. Ryan

There is. In Deputy Norton's scheme, if a man between 65 and 70 got sick he could get no sickness benefit.

Mr. Norton

That is not so. If you look at the Bill you will see that he got an allowance in lieu.

Dr. Ryan

What allowance?

Mr. Norton

Look at the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

A retiring allowance?

Mr. Norton

The equivalent of what he would get as an old age pension.

Dr. Ryan

A retiring allowance. I know.

Mr. Norton

He could work until he was 90, if he liked, but he had a right to retire at 65 if he wanted to.

Dr. Ryan

If he got sick he could take the retiring allowance.

Mr. Norton

He did not contribute after 65.

Dr. Ryan

No. He got the retiring allowance. Whatever Deputy Norton's scheme was, if the scheme were put to the working people of this country by way of a referendum I should not be a bit afraid to accept the findings of that referendum. If Deputy Norton thinks that he will frighten us by threatening to bring this question before the country, and put us out of office, we are not afraid.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You have only to get Deputy Cowan to do that.

Dr. Ryan

This kind of talk, threatening to put the Government out, should be dropped. I do not mind Deputy Flanagan's talking about "this set-up." Every time he talks about the Government, he calls it "this set-up." What he says does not make the slightest difference. It only shows the mind and the disappointment of Deputy Flanagan that this Government is here and that he is sitting on the Opposition Benches. It does not show anything else.

Deputy Norton talked about my retreat from something that was promised in 1948, namely, retiring allowances at 65. As I explained here last night, if the Fianna Fáil Party came to the conclusion, in the course of the three years, that it would be better, in the light of further knowledge, to provide that men should work until 70, if possible, and if they are able to work until that age—and if they brought that in as an amendment to the scheme proposed by Deputy Norton when he was a Minister—surely no great fault can be found with the Party if they asked less when in opposition than they were prepared to give when they were in Office. It is usually the other way round. We asked less when in opposition, according to Deputy Norton, than we promised as a Government. When that was published our scheme was well known to the country. The canvassers of the Labour Party did not neglect to make that known—without putting it, perhaps, to the voters in the best light, either, from our point of view. Even so, we got on all right—better than the Labour Party.

Mr. Norton

You mean that you did better in the market place than at the polling booths.

Dr. Ryan

We did better coming back to this House.

Mr. Norton

It was a buyer's market.

Breanndán Mac Fheorais

You did not tell us about the butter in Wexford.

Dr. Ryan

We told the truth and the whole truth.

Mr. Norton

That must have tortured you.

Dr. Ryan

I am sure Deputy Norton would think that—that it must be torture to tell the truth.

Mr. Norton

Remember what Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people..." Go on.

Dr. Ryan

It is no great fault to find with any Party that they should ask less when in Opposition that they promised as a Government. The Labour Party promised 30/- a week retiring allowance or old age pension when they were in opposition and then they came back as a Party in the Government with a scheme of 24/- a week. What is more, we were told by the Labour Party in 1948 that there would be no increase in contributions—and then Deputy Norton comes back and the contributions go to 7/6 a week

Mr. Gallagher

There was to be a little on the porter in the Labour Party scheme.

Dr. Ryan

He said he might put a penny on the pint. They talked about the financing of this scheme. They said that there would be no increase in contributions but that they would increase the income-tax on the very wealthy—only the very wealthy—that is, people who would not support the Labour Party, and they said that when people had settled down under a Labour Government and the conditions that were there, there would probably be no objection to an increase on the pint.

Mr. O. Flanagan

A penny on the pint?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think they mentioned a penny. I am not sure. All I want Deputy Norton to do is, if he is quoting me or anybody else, to try and quote from the Official Debates and quote the exact words. If we could combine here and do the best we can for social welfare, surely it would be better than misquoting one another and trying to put the blame on the other person for what was not done and taking credit for what is done on both sides. I hope we will get down to a better basis of work in this connection.

Deputy Norton was in the House last night when I was talking and he must have heard what I said. Yet he comes along again and wants to know why I did not bring in the means test I promised on the discussion here in March. Deputy Norton brought in that comprehensive Bill. He put in these proposals that are here—they are practically the same: there is only a slight change—into his Bill in a hurried manner. Deputy Norton knows very well that I spoke on that motion from the point of view of making a full comprehensive scheme. When Deputy Norton brought along these proposals, some of the people on our side—some of the Independents and others—said: "Keep them aside and put them into operation immediately." It is because we agreed that these old age pension proposals should be put aside at that time and put into operation immediately that we did so when we became a Government.

Mr. S. Collins

May we expect the other things in your comprehensive scheme?

Dr. Ryan

Anything I promised in regard to the means test in that debate will be brought into the comprehensive scheme.

Mr. Norton

Will it be like the 1948 promise of pensions at 65?

Mr. S. Collins

Can we take it that, as suggested in your speech of 29th June last, people with incomes of up to £2 a week will get a full old age pension?

Dr. Ryan

I gave three points on the means test on that occasion. I said (1) that those who were insured would get the old age pension without any reference to means; (2) those who were less than £25 valuation would get a pension without reference to means. Where they have now to make over the farm, when the new scheme comes into effect they will not have to do so; and (3) I said £100 in cash. Deputy Norton says that in my Second Reading speech I gave the impression—I admit I did—that he will get the full old age pension as well as £100 means. When I came to put in my amendment to that Bill, the £100 was the top limit of means. I suppose Deputies know what happened there. The Party to which I belong decided that £100 should be the top limit. I forget what was the lower limit, but I put my foot in it, if you like.

Mr. S. Collins

I am perfectly satisfied if the Minister says that even the £100 will be the top limit.

Dr. Ryan

Definitely that will go.

Mr. Norton

You are too simple to be in politics, Deputy.

Mr. S. Collins

I wanted to tie the Minister down to a promise that £100 will be the top limit.

Mr. Norton

The Minister may be a doctor, but he has also shown that he is a conjurer.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton was a member of the last Government which drew up the ten points. One of the ten points was that the means test would be materially modified. I think that all the Fine Gael and Labour Deputies, when they went to the election, claimed that they had succeeded in covering a number of those points, including the one to modify the means test. As far as an old age pensioner is concerned, if he had over 6/- a week before the Coalition Government came into office his old age pension was mitigated to some extent. Under this proposal it is 8/6 a week.

With regard to a motion brought in in 1947—there may be some Deputies present who were not here last night. Deputy O. Flanagan is here—I said last night that I was Minister when that motion was brought in by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. Deputy Norton did not speak on it but he voted. Ever since October, 1947, Deputy Norton has again and again drawn attention to the fact that I voted against this motion, as did all the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I suppose that every Deputy opposite is under the impression that Deputy Norton sincerely voted for that motion. If a man is sincere and if he goes on for years afterwards accusing his opponents of doing some wrong in voting against him, then when that man becomes a Minister should he not have made the matter right? Is not that a fair question to put to Deputy Norton? I put that question to him last night and again he is mentioning the thing to-day. Is there any way of curing Deputy Norton of his misrepresentations in these matters? I put it to the gentlemen of the jury on that side that if I am accused by Deputy Norton over and over again of doing the wrong thing in 1947 and if he claims he did the right thing, is it not only fair that he should have made things right when he became Minister?

What were these matters? They were (1) he wanted to have the means test altered in this respect, that gratuities paid to a pensioner by members of his or her family, whether in cash or in kind, should not be counted. He never referred to that. Why? Because it was done already. The second point concerned any benefits received otherwise than in actual cash. He did not bring that in either, because it was done already. Thus, as I pointed out on that occasion, two points out of the three were already covered. The third point was that casual moneys earned by the pensioner should not be taken into account in assessing the means test. I remember at the time giving the example that you might have a retired journalist over 70 who could earn big money casually. If we are going to have a means test we cannot permit that. Over and over again, Deputy Norton has given as an example of our unsympathetic treatment of old age pensions the fact that we voted against that motion in 1947.

Yet he never referred to that in any of his legislation because, when he became Minister, he had sensible officials to advise him. They told him that it would be madness to put that in. I must say for Deputy Norton that he did take the advice of his officials as a rule. Deputy Norton refers to the motion of October, 1947, and I am sure he will refer to it again because he is incurable. He has got a set speech on social welfare and I come into it in several places. He is like the man who has learned a prayer, unless he goes through it quickly he will go astray.

I said here last night that I complimented Deputy Norton on maintaining the progress set by Fianna Fáil. I gave him the figures. Let Deputy Flanagan look up those figures. He need not laugh. Deputy Flanagan will find these figures correct. If he puts down a question, I will give him the figures. During 16 years in office, Fianna Fáil increased its expenditure each year on social welfare by £500,000.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You said that in October, 1947.

Dr. Ryan

We are all inclined to repeat ourselves.

Mr. Sweetman

So we have noticed.

Dr. Ryan

Social services increased by £8,000,000; that is equivalent to £500,000 per year over 16 years. Deputy Norton kept up that level. He increased expenditure during his three years in office by £1,500,000, which is equivalent to £500,000 per year over three years. He kept up the high standard we had achieved during his three years. I do not believe he would have kept it up for 16 years. It is no mean achievement, perhaps, for a man of Deputy Norton's capacity to maintain for three years what Fianna Fáil maintained for 16 years. He said himself that he gave £2,500,000 to the old age pensioners. One might be tempted to ask where then is the £1,500,000 in three years. Let me explain. In 1947 we gave increases——

Mr. Sweetman

You refused £500,000.

Dr. Ryan

——for sickness, unemployment and several other things. Evidently when Deputy Norton took office he had to make a bargain with the Fine Gael Minister for Finance. The bargain was that he would give more to the old age pensioners but, in order to balance that, he would take in more in contributions from those who were insured against sickness, unemployment and so on. He took exactly £1,000,000 off them each year in lieu of what he gave to the old age pensioners. Old age pensions are the only item relevant for discussion under this Bill, but social welfare covers the sick, unemployed, children's allowances and other things. Taking them all round, Deputy Norton did just as well in his three years in office as Fianna Fáil did each year during their 16 years in office.

Mr. S. Collins

Does social welfare cover the rejoining of the Fianna Fáil Party by Deputy J. Flynn?

Dr. Ryan

That does not come under this Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

Neither does a good portion of the Minister's speech.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton makes the claim here that he brought old age pensioners up higher than they ever were before. He brought other things up higher than they ever were before. It is a ridiculous claim for any Minister to make. Will there ever be a Minister who will bring them lower? Cumann na nGaedheal did it once, but that is not likely to ever occur again. Is it not fairly obvious that they will continue to go up if there is any change at all? It is absurd then for a Deputy to accuse me of being puerile. It is puerile that an ex-Minister should claim that he brought the old age pensioners up higher than they ever were before. I could make the same claim for sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, children's allowances and other things.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Cigarettes and stout.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister make the same claim with regard to butter?

Dr. Ryan

The last Government increased the price of butter very shortly before we came into office again.

Mr. Norton

You are keeping to your record. You have brought it higher than anyone ever brought it before.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton is departing from social welfare now. He should stick to social welfare on this particular Bill.

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister is not setting too good an example in that respect.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton said that the fact that Deputy Flanagan had talked this Bill out last week should not deprive the old age pensioners of any benefits. It does not deprive them.

Mr. S. Collins

It does not deprive them of anything more than the Minister's speech is depriving them of this evening.

Dr. Ryan

As far as the 2/6 is concerned I agree with Deputy Norton that it makes no difference because preparations are being made to pay that as soon as possible. There is an appointed date for old age pensions but there is no appointed date for the increased benefits to those who are drawing special allowances or disability pensions.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Can you not make it apply?

Dr. Ryan

The very moment this Bill goes through, it will apply. If this Bill is held up for a week they will be deprived of their increased benefits for that week.

Mr. S. Collins

Would the Minister not consider a simple amendment making the benefits retrospective?

Dr. Ryan

Surely I am entitled to an explanation but I can get no explanation as to the reason why Deputy O. Flanagan talked this Bill out last week. Surely I am entitled to say, therefore, that he has delayed the Bill for a week. It is hardly good enough now for Deputy O. Flanagan and his supporters to tell us a simple amendment will put that right.

Mr. S. Collins

We are making you an offer. If you will put in that amendment we will give you the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

I am trying to put the Bill through. Deputy O. Flanagan delayed this Bill for a week by talking it out last Thursday. The Bill will be a week later coming into operation as a result of that.

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister has held it up for an hour now.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton said there would be a delay in any case because there would have to be amending legislation. That is not necessary.

Mr. Norton

Who said it is not necessary?

Dr. Ryan

I do. It is only necessary to amend the directions. These directions are signed by two Ministers, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance. That matter will be made right by the time this Bill is through.

Mr. Norton

It has not been made right yet.

Dr. Ryan

It will be made right by the time the Bill is through. The only other point raised was that with regard to the difference between old age pensions and retiring allowances. Deputy Flanagan was not here when I explained that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not want the Minister to go back on that if he does not wish to do so.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Because of the misguided references of the Laois-Offaly representative I would be glad if he were described in the Official Report as Deputy Oliver Flanagan.

Mr. Norton

The Minister has made some statements in his attempt to defend his running away from his own proposals to modify the means test which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. I do not propose to allow those statements to pass unchallenged. The Minister is endeavouring to vilify Deputy Oliver Flanagan by saying that he is responsible for delaying this Bill for a week. Nobody but a registered fool would believe that because it is quite an easy matter for the Minister on the Committee or the Report Stage of this Bill to say that any pensions granted under Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 will be granted and have effect as on and from 13th June. I propose to give the Minister an opportunity of considering and accepting an amendment of that character in order to ensure that the people affected will get the increased benefits as on and from 13th June. If the Minister has an abundance of tears to shed for the old age pensioners, I am sure he can spare some of them to wash away his normal objections to an amendment of that kind. We can ensure this evening, tomorrow or next week that nobody will suffer one penny loss by the simple expedient of putting an amendment into this Bill stipulating that everybody who gets an increase under this Bill will get it from the day on which the Minister for Social Welfare introduced the Bill or made his Second Reading speech. Payment can be ante-dated to that date. There is no insuperable difficulty in doing that. So, let us bury that phantom while appreciating that it is merely something put up to play upon the fears of the credulous "old maids" of both sexes.

There is no justification whatever for a statement of that kind. I wonder what would have happened in 1948 if, by any chance, Fianna Fáil had been returned to office? We were told by Deputy Lemass in 1948 that Fianna Fáil had a social security plan. We were told that all the details had been worked out. If it were true that Fianna Fáil had a scheme for the payment of retiring pensions at 65 in 1948, presumably that clause was in the plan. Was it in the plan then? If Fianna Fáil had been returned in 1948 would they have implemented the plan for retiring pensions at 65? The Minister for Social Welfare said they will not implement it now. Would they have implemented it in 1948? If it was right in 1948, what makes it wrong to do in 1951 what they promised to do in 1948? I suspect there is more than meets the eye in the objection to providing a retiring pension at 65. I am painfully aware of the fact that the big private insurance companies are opposed to a plan to provide pensions at 65.

Dr. Ryan

How would that affect them?

Mr. Norton

Because the more people insure with the non-profit-making State undertaking, the less profits will be made by the private insurance companies who are in the business for the purpose of making profits.

Dr. Ryan

Not that kind of business.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister wants that information, he knows people in the business who will tell him.

Dr. Ryan

Not in that business.

Mr. Norton

He will know what the British insurance companies' views are on the matter. The whole attitude of the private insurance companies has been to get the State out of insuring people against risks or eventualities which they think is their private preserve. The opposition of the Minister for Social Welfare to providing retirement pensions for ordinary workers is the same type of opposition that comes from the big private insurance companies. Is there any significance in that?

Dr. Ryan

What are you trying to infer?

Mr. Norton

I am asking is there any significance in that, that the directors of the big insurance companies and the Minister for Social Welfare see eye to eye in a matter of this kind?

Dr. Ryan

I should like to reply to that.

Mr. Norton

You have heaps of time. We can sit until 10.30 to-night and to-morrow again. If it is right for private insurance companies to invite people to pay premiums in order that they can get a pension at 65 years of age and thus be enabled to provide for themselves, what is wrong with permitting an ordinary working man in receipt of a weekly wage, possibly a low wage, to pay his small weekly contribution with the rest of the community to a State insurance scheme, aided by his employer and aided by his State, to get his modest pension at 65 years of age because he is not able to pay the substantial contributions that would be necessary if he were to ask a private insurance company, with its tests for age and its tests for health, to provide for him by their high premium charges? If the ordinary well-to-do person thinks it wise and good business to provide for the payment of a pension to himself from an insurance company at 65 and to pay premiums of £50 to £100 a year for that purpose, why not let the ordinary working man insure through the State so that he may get the modest pension which would render him independent to some degree at 65?

That is going to be jettisoned so far as the Minister is concerned. That promise is going to be abandoned. That is going to be a ghost to the Minister in the house of Social Welfare in future. I want to know what is inherently wrong in permitting an ordinary working man getting a retirement pension at 65 when we are providing that substantial sections of the community can get that without any contributions whatever? Why should not the ordinary working man be given similar facility to render himself in some degree independent, and in some measure less an object of pity and charity, as he inevitably would be when he reaches an advanced age and is no longer able to make provision for himself by his own exertions?

The Minister talked about the diminution in the incidence of certain diseases. He said they were not as bad now as they were three years ago.

Mr. O'Hara

Fewer headaches

Dr. Ryan

I did not say three years ago.

Mr. Norton

Is it not clear that you meant three years ago because you thought the scheme necessary three years ago? You said you were going to give them retirement pensions three years ago and that it was necessary to give them retirement pensions then. Now you think it is not necessary. People are just blobs of uranium. I suppose that after another three years we shall be told that at 90 they are cross-country runners, they are so healthy at 65 for the purpose of throwing out this scheme. Does not everybody know that with machinery developed to the stage which it has reached to-day, with one industry after another going over to methods of mechanisation and rationalisation, it is harder for the elderly worker to keep his place in industry? Let anyone go into a cotton mill and see the position of the woman worker at 60 years of age, where the standard of speed is not regulated by the desire or the will of the woman to work but by the speed at which the machine works. Let anybody go into a woollen mill or any other type of factory which is highly mechanised and he will see how difficult it is for the elderly worker to keep his place in that industry and how hard it is to get back to it, if he should ever lose his place in it. It is because these are everyday considerations in thousands of homes up and down the country that it is necessary that the State should provide some method for the ordinary worker, whilst he is working, to cover himself against the inevitable risk that one day he will lose his place in industry so that when that day arrives he will at least have made provision for his old age with the assistance of the State and thus at least maintain a measure of his independence.

The Minister has told us, in the course of his efforts to extricate himself from the embarrassing position in which he finds himself as a result of having run away from his promises on the means test, that we have not done certain things in respect to a modification of the means test. Let me say this to the Minister. There was no modification in the means test from 1932 until we modified it in 1948. For a period of 16 years there was no modification in the means test. We modified it once in 1948 and, as this Bill shows, we had made provision for a further modification now so that within a period of three years we made two modifications in the means test for old age pension purposes. There was not one modification in the years between 1933 and 1948. That cannot be denied. What is the effect of it? When we went into office, a person with 16/- a week could get no old age pension whatever. Under the Bill before the Dáil, the Bill fashioned by us and planned by us, a person can have £1 per week and get an old age pension of 10/-. Is not that a considerable improvement on the 1948 position which we found there?

Finally, let me deal with one point. The Minister said that I took the advice of my officials. In so far as that advice was good, I took it. In so far as I did not like it, and it did not run in line with my policy, I rejected it. One of the things that astounded me when I went into the Department of Social Welfare was to be told by officials, when I wanted to introduce the 1948 Bill to increase old age pensions, to increase widows' and orphans' pensions, to increase blind pensions, that my predecessor had been persuaded not to embark on that course until they got after the comprehensive scheme, and at that stage there was no determined comprehensive scheme in the Department, and the Minister clearly indicates it by showing that in 1951 he has thrown over what he promised to do in 1948, and which he did not enshrine in proposals in 1948.

Dr. Ryan

I do not propose to answer the speech of Deputy Norton, but I want to deal with one matter. Up to this, the Deputy has been dealing with politics. But now he has come down to the low, dirty insinuation that I changed my mind because I am a director of an insurance company.

Mr. Norton

I did not say you changed your mind because you are a director of an insurance company.

Dr. Ryan

You did.

Mr. Norton

I did not say any such thing. I said that your view on this matter is the same as the insurance company's view.

Dr. Ryan

Is there much difference in that?

Mr. Norton

That is the plain truth. I did not make you a director of an insurance company.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

He never said such a thing.

Dr. Ryan

You said I am a director of an insurance company and that I changed my opinion.

Mr. Norton

I did not say you changed your opinion.

Mr. Sweetman

You are the person who said you were a director of an insurance company.

Dr. Ryan

I am.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Norton did not say it.

Dr. Ryan

He said: "Is it because the big private insurance companies object to State insurance of this kind?" He did not say outright "an insurance company". Of course he did the whispering part of it.

Mr. Norton

They have the same view as you have and you have the same view as they have.

Dr. Ryan

You did the whispering part of it and let the people of the country understand that the Minister, being a director of an insurance company, is influenced by these views.

Mr. Norton

I do not know whether you are or not.

Dr. Ryan

You said I was.

Mr. Norton

You get their views and they got your views.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy knows it is a low, dirty insinuation and he cannot get away from it. He said it for that purpose, I am sure.

Mr. Norton

I say it because it is the truth, as you will see if you look at the speech of the directors of your own company.

Mr. Cafferky

When a Minister assumes office, he should relinquish all posts of that kind.

Dr. Ryan

So I have.

Mr. Cafferky

Therefore there seems to be no insinuation so far as you are concerned.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

It was not done on the other side.

Dr. Ryan

I want to say, so far as the insurance company is concerned, that it does not do this type of business.

Mr. Norton

What is the song about, then?

Dr. Ryan

Because I want to answer the Deputy. I do not want to let this low, dirty insinuation go with the Deputy. That is what I am talking about. The Deputy knew what he was talking about when he made the insinuation.

Mr. S. Collins

Is it not true that the company the Minister is associated with insure against death and certain other things?

Dr. Ryan

They do insure against death, but not for retiring allowances.

Mr. S. Collins

Would not the mortality benefits proposed in Deputy Norton's Bill cut across the kind of insurance for funeral expenses and want? I think it is better for the Minister not to deal with it.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton was putting in a retiring allowance to help people to live longer which would benefit an insurance company and they should welcome it.

Mr. S. Collins

Deputy Norton's Bill would have created a situation in which people who at present have to insure for funeral expenses would not have that burden placed upon them because they would have done it by their contributions under the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

The death benefit is a different matter. We are talking about retiring allowances. I want to make it clear that, as far as my connection with insurance is concerned, the companies I deal with are not doing that type of business. There is an old Irish saying that a man who accuses you of a thing like that has a good warrant to do it himself. If I were the type to do it, I am not interested financially in the thing.

Mr. O'Hara

I should like to ask if the Minister has relinquished his position as a director of this insurance company?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Cafferky

I object to the insinuation which the Minister feels there was in Deputy Norton's speech. If the Minister is not a director, I could not accept that there was an insinuation made directly against the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.