Before we agree to take the remaining stages——
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1951—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
We will agree to take the further stages provided we get an opportunity on the Report Stage of moving an amendment to ensure that these benefits under the different sections will be retrospective to the date on which the Bill was introduced. That will ensure that nobody will suffer one farthing loss.
Such an amendment would be out of order.
I have not framed it yet and you have not seen it yet.
From what the Deputy has stated, an amendment of that kind would be out of order.
Are we not in the position that this is the Committee Stage and that that would arise on the Report Stage?
An amendment by Deputy Byrne with a more radical effect is on the Order Paper.
Deputy Byrne knew that it was out of order when he put it down.
Can you not let Fianna Fáil make their own case?
I want to get the Bill passed.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Next stage?
Now.
If the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that this legislation will have retrospective effect we will give the remaining stages now.
No. Deputy Norton knows very well that to make amendments like that now to a Bill like this would create a great deal of trouble. The best thing to do is to let the Bill through.
Is the Minister going to withdraw the inaccurate charge he made against Deputy Flanagan?
No. Deputy Flanagan did talk it out.
We will put forward an amendment on the Report Stage which no doubt the Minister will accept to remove whatever difficulties arise because of Deputy Flanagan's prolonged speech.
No, I will not accept it.
We will see.
I do not see why the Deputy should be allowed to mend his hand like that.
You made insinuations against Deputy Flanagan unfairly.
You kept them waiting three years for this.
You could not improve on it.
You are a furlong behind.
I suggest that we take the Report Stage now.
You cannot when there is an objection.
I think the House will have no objection to taking the Report Stage now.
The House has an objection.
We will have an opportunity on the comprehensive Social Welfare Bill which the Minister intends to introduce shortly.
That is high in the sky.
We will then have an opportunity of discussing the matter of retiring allowances, when they are to be paid, and all these matters that have been discussed, but I know that there are thousands of old age pensioners in my constituency and I want to see this Bill passed without any delay so that they will get the increased old age pension to which they are looking forward.
To pay for the increased price of butter that you brought in.
Any Deputy who holds up the Bill for an hour longer than he should is not playing the game with the old age pensioner.
The situation is simply this, that we have not the least desire in any way to impede this Bill but an insinuation was made, despite our co-operation, that one Deputy talked this Bill out.
Do not mind about that.
The position is that the suggestion was made that Deputy Flanagan cost the old age pensioners £5,000. If the Minister gets all stages of the Bill to-night, that will not be so. I want that retracted and, subject to that, you can have all stages.
Defend Deputy Flanagan at the expense of the old age pensioners, if you like.
You defend yourself. You will have to soon enough.
This is the zeal of the convert.
The reconverted pervert.
Give the Minister all stages of the Bill now in the interests of the old age pensioners.
If the Minister thinks that this debate has been unduly heated, he now has an opportunity of withdrawing what he thoughtlessly said against Deputy Flanagan. If that is withdrawn——
Will the Deputy withdraw what he thoughtlessly said?
He did not say what you think he said.
What did he say?
Insurance generally is relevant in a debate like this. Just because the Minister happened to be associated with an insurance company, I do not think the Minister should get offended because someone wants to talk about the interest that an insurance company naturally would have in a Bill such as the one proposed by Deputy Norton a few months ago—the comprehensive scheme.
When he finished talking about it, he said: "Has not it its significance?" What did he mean by that?
The Minister drew him on that and put words into his mouth.
If the Minister is now prepared to concede that by getting all stages of this Bill to-night, whatever harm he may have conceived that Deputy Flanagan could do will not be done, he can have all stages.
I would appeal to Deputy Norton, who I and the House know has at heart the interests of the old age pensioners—there is no doubt whatsoever about that—to withdraw the opposition and let the Bill go through.
That cannot be done as long as the Minister is going to parade the country with charges against a Deputy who was exercising his rights in this House that he delayed the passage of this Bill. He can remedy that by putting in an amendment.
If the Minister gets all stages to-night the insinuation against Deputy Flanagan that he cost the old age pensioners £5,000 will fall to the ground.
What am I to withdraw?
If we are prepared to give the Minister all stages of this Bill, will he agree that any implication or imputation that he made about old age pensioners losing £5,000 will not be substantiated?
Am I to put it this way: Deputy Flanagan talked it out last week and this week. Now Deputy Collins is kindly prepared to make that good by giving all stages to-day?
There are two apologies now.
If the Minister is really interested in giving back to the old age pensioners the sum of money that he accuses Deputy Flanagan of taking from them by his long-drawn-out debate, will he accept Deputy Norton's amendment? If he does, then they will get everything that they were supposed to have lost.
I want to make the position clear and to leave the Minister under no misapprehension. The only situation under which all stages can now be given is that the Minister publicly states here that whatever apprehension he has about a loss of £5,000 caused to the old age pensioners by Deputy Flanagan's speech is not justified because he is now getting the full facility of this House to have all stages.
And to back-date it to the 2nd March.
To January, if he likes.
The Minister stated in my hearing that it would not affect old age pensioners but that it would affect old I.R.A. men in their special allowance and men drawing disability pensions. That is the statement he made.
That is right.
Then Deputy McGrath is making a liar of the Minister. He made the statement that it would cost the old age pensioners £5,000.
Deputy McGrath is right. I said that the extra 2/6 will not be affected because preparations are being made and that is governed by the appointed day but the extra money that will be given on account of the alterations of the means test to special allowance people and in the case of disability pensions would come into effect immediately the Bill is passed. I said that Deputy Flanagan had delayed that by a week. If, as Deputy Collins said, we get the remaining stages now, I suppose we will have made up for that loss and it will be all right.
The position is not as stated by the Minister. The facts are that on last Tuesday week this Bill had not yet been circulated.
That is right.
The Bill was in the hands of Deputies only on Wednesday morning and we were asked as a concession to allow the Bill to be discussed last week even though it had not been circulated the four days required by the Standing Orders.
That is right.
That facility was readily given to the Minister. It could not have been possible to agree under any circumstances to accept the Bill through all its stages last week when it was not circulated until Wednesday as the very earliest that anybody could have got it. The Minister would know perfectly well that, regardless of whether it was finally discussed last week on the Second Stage or not, it could not have been passed through all its stages until this week. The Minister must know that, having regard to the date on which it was circulated, it could not have been passed with any proper consideration of its terms until this week. Knowing that, I do not think the charge he made against Deputy Flanagan is justified.
I am prepared to agree to the way that Deputy Sweetman puts it.
Is the charge against Deputy Flanagan withdrawn?
If I said that Deputy Flanagan talked out the Bill last Thursday, it was true. I cannot withdraw that.
We did not reach the Bill until after 3 p.m. last week and we finished it at 5 p.m.
Now Deputy Sweetman says that even if he did talk it out, I am getting the Bill just as quickly if I get it now. I agree.
And that no speech of Deputy Flanagan's held it up.
Will the Minister back date it to 2nd March, the day he made the famous speech?
That was the speech that put you out.
Is it not a fact that no matter for what time Deputy Flanagan spoke, the Minister is now getting the Bill as soon as ever he could have got it?
I agree.
Agreed to take remaining Stages now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
There is an appointed day for the purpose of the section dealing with the increase in old age pensions. Will the Minister tell us what he has in mind in respect of that appointed day?
I hope it will be possible to bring it in at the end of this quarter—the end of September.
If you keep following my footsteps you will do all right.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Seanad Éireann to be notified accordingly.