Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 1952

Vol. 131 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Insurance) 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 establish a co-ordinated system of social insurance and to provide for the benefits thereunder, to repeal, amend or extend the existing enactments relating to national health insurance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance and intermittent unemployment insurance, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

Mr. Norton

This is a motion declaring it to be "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 establish a co-ordinated system of social insurance", etc. Of course, when the Minister made his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill we were not privileged to see the Budget. But, since then, we have seen the Budget, and in the light of the terms of the Budget this Resolution seems to be misleading. We were told on the Second Reading of the Bill that the scheme of social welfare introduced by the Minister was one in which the workers were going to get certain insurances at a lesser charge than they would have to pay under the previous Social Welfare Bill. It is true, of course, that under this Bill they are not getting retirement pensions which were included in the previous Bill, for the retirement pensions for men at 65 and women at 60 are killed in this Bill. Those who will be covered by the Bill for other purposes will not be entitled to the death benefits provided under the previous Bill. That provision is being killed as well.

In addition, the previous Bill, which I had the honour of introducing, provided for an increase in maternity benefits from £2 to £5. Those persons are not going to get £5 now. They are going to be tied down to the £2 which runs to-day and which has been running for many years. The maternity attendance allowance provided under the previous Bill is similarly killed with the three other provisions I have mentioned in the Bill which has been introduced by the Minister. But, notwithstanding that fact, the workers' contributions are going to be increased in this Bill, in spite of the assurance we got from the Minister in March in 1951, that there would be no increase in the contributions under this Bill. We were then told that the Exchequer would pay the additional cost involved, and that workers would not be expected to make any additional contribution whatever.

That statement has been falsified by the provisions of this Bill which is increasing the contributions of workers although depriving them of four vital benefits, four valuable benefits which were in the previous Bill, and four benefits which were not in any respect mere risks. To a great many members of the community they would be, not risks, but almost certainties. They are killed in this Bill. We were told on Second Reading that the additional cost of this Bill was to be paid for out of moneys provided by the Exchequer. The Minister has had to admit that the workers' contributions are being increased under this Bill. The Exchequer, we are told, will pay the rest.

That is a fraud; that is a sham; and that is deliberately deluding the workers because, under this Bill, not only is the contribution of the worker increased but he will have the delightful privilege of paying his employer's share and the Government's share. He will pay all that out of the money which he will now yield up to the Exchequer in the form of higher prices for bread, tea, sugar, flour and butter, higher prices which he will pay for cigarettes and, if he takes a drink, higher prices which he will pay for beverages.

Instead of this being a Resolution purporting to say that the money will be provided out of the Exchequer to finance this Bill, this Resolution could more appropriately be described as a Resolution to search the pockets of the workers, to take more money out of those pockets by making them pay higher prices for foodstuffs, beer and tobacco. Out of these higher prices they will get back a fragment in compensation and the rest will be utilised by the Government to pay the employer's portion and the Government's portion of the social welfare scheme.

Is it not as clear as daylight to anyone, any single man who takes a drink and smokes a pipe or cigarettes, who eats bread and butter and likes tea and takes sugar in it, that by the time he is finished paying the extra charges for these commodities the amount he will pay will be vastly in excess of what he would have paid under the previous Social Welfare Bill and that under that previous Bill he would have got much more valuable benefits than he is getting under this Bill?

In short, Sir, as we see this Social Welfare Bill now, we can understand the haste which was displayed in trying to push the Second Reading through the House as speedily as possible. Not only will this Social Welfare Bill be financed entirely, so far as the State contribution is concerned, but there will be a surplus over, out of the additional moneys which will be taken out of the pockets of the workers by compelling them to pay increased prices for foodstuffs and increased taxes on cigarettes and liquor. All the humbug and all the pretence that this Bill would be introduced, that the workers would get a social welfare scheme as good as the previous one and without any increased cost, has now been unmasked. The Bill before us is a shadow and a miserable shadow of the previous Bill and the workers will have the privilege under this Bill, taken in conjunction with the Budget, of paying not only their own share but the Government's share and the employer's share as well. That is offered to them as a Bill which is supposed to be better than the previous one.

Major de Valera

What is the use in talking about the previous Bill when you had three and a half years to put it through and did not try to do so? Talk about present-day problems.

Mr. Hickey

You voted against it, of course.

Mr. McGrath

He did not vote against this.

Major de Valera

This is more of the political bluff.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy wants to test the country on political bluff, there is an easy way in which that can be done.

Mr. S. Collins

A midnight ride.

Mr. Norton

Appeals to the Taoiseach to call on the President have produced in the Taoiseach a stubborn reluctance to discuss any such proposition with the President.

Major de Valera

There is stubborn reluctance to discuss the motion.

Mr. Norton

It indicates that the Taoiseach is not so satisfied that the country is as ripe for a general election as the Deputy who bears the Taoiseach's name would appear to be.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Norton on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Norton

I said that this Bill is a Bill which denies the workers many valuable benefits provided in the previous Bill, that not only does it increase their contribution but it makes them pay the employer's share and the Government's share and it gets that share out of their pockets by making them pay increased prices for liquor, tobacco, cigarettes, tea, sugar, butter, bread and flour. That is the way in which this scheme will be financed and it is offered to the workers as something better than the previous Bill when, of course, anyone with intelligence knows that this Bill is a fraud on the workers, that the promises which were made in 1951 by the Government have not been redeemed and that this Bill does not in any way measure up in benefits to those provided for in the previous Bill. When this Bill is passed it will still be the most inadequate social security scheme in operation in Western Europe to-day.

Major de Valera

It will be something as against nothing.

Mr. McGrath

For sheer hypocrisy Deputy Norton's speech would take a lot of beating, when you think of Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare coming in here in 1948 and compelling the workers to pay an increased contribution of 6d., without any benefit whatsoever. He consolidated 15/- and 7/6 and made it 22/6. He gave them no benefit whatsoever, and he stands up here now and compares the increased contribution of 5d. in this Bill with the 1/7 that he was charging under the Bill that he never intended putting through.

Mr. O'Leary

Why did not you vote for it?

Mr. McGrath

It was clear to everybody in the country, as was shown by the reduced numbers of the Labour Party on their return, that that Bill was just put before the people, as the fake Budget was, just to catch votes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not keeping very close to the Money Resolution.

Mr. McGrath

I am keeping close to the hypocritical statement of Deputy Norton. They went before the people on the Social Welfare Bill that he referred to and they got their answer. We are not introducing a Budget or anything else for the purpose of catching votes. We are acting honestly.

Mr. S. Collins

Would you like to go before the people on the Budget and get your answer?

Mr. McGrath

We went before the people and we will go before them again when necessary and the Deputy may not be so proud when he goes before them himself.

Mr. S. Collins

I am not afraid to go before them.

Mr. McGrath

And we will not go before the people boasting of the Johnny Costello pint.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get back to the Money Resolution.

Mr. McGrath

I have said all I want to say on the Money Resolution.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

While members on the Government Benches may say that they are fed up listening to certain phrases and statements from this side of the House, we would be entitled to say that we are quite fed up with this cant from the Government side that Deputy Norton had three and a half years during which he could have passed into law a scheme of social security and did not do so because of his reluctance to do so. That cuts both ways. It is not so long since Fianna Fáil Deputies were on these benches, and, in respect of practically every piece of legislation brought in at that time, we had from Fianna Fáil speakers, then on this side of the House: "We were going to bring that in." When the 1950 Housing (Amendment) Bill was brought in, the former Minister for Local Government said: "That is our Bill," but they had 16 years in which to bring that Bill in and they did not it in.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has the Housing Bill to do with this Money Resolution? I allowed Deputy McGrath to counter what he thought Deputy Norton had said.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I suggest we are perfectly entitled to refute the suggestions of speakers from the Government side that there was a deliberate delay of three and a half years in the passing of the Social Welfare Bill introduced last year. Deputy McGrath says that Deputy Norton's Bill sought to extract forcibly from the pockets of the workers a contribution of 3/6 per week. A contribution of 3/6 per week was expected, but it was not hidden from the public. Every worker knew he would have to pay 3/6. Fianna Fáil spokesmen at the time tried to make capital out of it and we did not blame them for seeking to make whatever capital they could out of it; but the fact is that the contribution was to be increased from 1/11 to 3/6 per week and the workers knew exactly what they were getting.

I submit now that the difference between the 5d. extra contribution and the difference between 1/11 and 3/6 as provided in the other Bill would be very satisfactorily compensated when one remembers the four major provisions which Deputy Norton mentioned were in the Bill he introduced— the death gratuity, the maternity attendance allowance, the increased maternity grant and the retirement pension at 65 for men and 60 for women. It is significant, and even the Fianna Fáil back benchers know that it is significant, that there was a strong endeavour by the Government, to the point of nearly forcing the Dáil to give them the Second Reading before the Budget, to have the Second Stage passed before even the Fianna Fáil back benchers knew what the provisions of the Budget were going to be.

I forecast during the last election in my own constituency that, if the promise of Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he was then, was to be implemented, the promise that there would be a social security scheme under which the workers would not have to contribute another penny by way of increased contribution, the worker would pay very severely for any such scheme. Everybody knows that that is the position at present.

I instanced the case of a man with a wife and three children. They, by reason of the fact that the food subsidies have been slashed, will be forced to pay per person an extra 2/1½ per week if they are to continue buying even the now rationed amounts of foodstuffs: tea, bread, butter and sugar. That means that the man, his wife and three children will have to pay an extra 10/7½ per week for these four items. The reliefs—2/6 for the second child and 1/6 for the third—will amount to 4/-per week, leaving a gap of 6/7½ that the workman will have to pay. Putting 5d. on to that, it means that the worker is going to pay——

Mr. McGrath

For the Budget gap.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

——for this Fianna Fáil scheme of social security a contribution of 7/0½ per week, so that our forecast during the last election that the workers would pay through the nose for a Fianna Fáil scheme of social security has proved correct. Even the Taoiseach, who is generally regarded as an honest man, spoke very strongly in favour of the retention of the death gratuity and retirement pension when he spoke in Cavan about 14 months ago. I quoted the item from the Irish Press when I spoke previously here. I have not got the quotation now but Deputy de Valera, as he then was, spoke strongly in favour of a social security scheme which would include a death grant and retirement pension when he spoke in Cavan in February, 1951—the first statement we had on social security vis-á-vis the discussion on Deputy Norton's social welfare scheme. The fact is that for a reduced scheme of social security, due to the provisions of the Budget, the workers will not alone not get a scheme with no increase in contribution, but, having regard to the slashing of the subsidies, they will have to pay 7/- a week for it.

Mr. MacCarthy

Deputy Norton is very concerned now about the effect of the reduction of subsidies on the contributions which will be made to the social welfare scheme, but, speaking on 15th October, 1947, at column 435 of the Official Debates, Deputy Norton said:—

"The highlight of the document put before us is, I take it, the subsidies to reduce the prices of tea, bread and sugar. I think these are sham reductions. I do not think they make any perceptible contribution to relieving the plight of the ordinary working people to-day."

If that was his attitude then, how can their removal make such a perceptible difference now? Deputy Larkin, speaking in the same debate, said:—

"...money to provide the subsidies... is to be obtained, in the main, from wage and salary earners by extra charges on what have come to be recognised as necessaries... If it was a question of a tax on drink, from a moral or ethical point of view, I would be the first to tax it out of existence altogether."

How can the taxes make such a difference to-day if that was Deputy Larkin's attitude on that occasion? These speeches speak for themselves and the attitude of these Deputies to-day merely shows that people, as the years go by, can alter, according to the circumstances they think would be in their favour, the principles they were supposed to hold at the time they made these statements.

Mr. O'Leary

As a worker, I want to say that the majority of Deputies do not understand the position of workers under the Budget. Fianna Fáil for 16 years never thought of a social welfare scheme. The present Minister said in my constituency during the general election that when he left office, he left a better Social Welfare Bill behind him which Deputy Norton could have put into operation. We all knew that was untrue because he had no such thing as a social welfare scheme at the back of his mind at all. After the general election, having preached so much on social welfare, he had to try to draft some class of Social Welfare Bill and he copied the Bill Deputy Norton had, but took the good points out of it, as I said here before. The death benefit in Deputy Norton's Bill would have been a great benefit to the poor people, who are not able to pay for funeral expenses through an insurance society. It would give £6 for a child and £20 for an adult. That was one of the best things I saw in the Bill, but that was taken out of it. The poor to-day, as in the past, must depend on their good neighbours, when some of these people die without a policy and would have to be buried by the local authorities. The present Minister would not relieve his own people in County Wexford by leaving that privilege there.

The Budget has made a lot of difference. Statements have been made that the times are not as bad for the working-class people. Does not everyone know that after July the bread and butter will be taken off the poor man's table? We have heard all the praise about giving the old age pensioners 1/6 and giving increased children's allowances. What about the people who have no family, what is being given to them? What is being given to those on home assistance, what is in the Social Welfare Bill for them? Nothing. They may depend on the local authority.

In County Wexford we are giving 6/-to the blind pensioners as a subsidy from the local ratepayers, along with the £1 per week blind pension. Here we have the Government boasting about what it is going to do. I think it is a shame and I rise here as a worker who has been in industry for 25 long years in the one firm, in the dust mills where lots of my comrades died from congestion of the lungs, from dust and industrial disease, and nothing for them. The same thing happened the miners in Castlecomer, in Arigna and in other places. The Government says: "No, we will not touch these people." They are left as they are, where they were left for 16 long years. Down the country the people are disgusted with the present Minister for talking so much about what he is doing in his Social Welfare Bill, talking so much and doing so little.

Apart from the Budget increases altogether, there is the price of milk, which Deputy Dr. Browne, when he was Minister, said was so necessary for the young children; but he walked into the Lobby last Thursday night to increase the price of butter by 10d. per lb., along with Deputy Cogan from Wicklow and Deputy Peader Cowan from Dublin, supporting a Government that put these penal taxes on the poor. Is it any wonder that the people outside are asking: "When are you going to throw out the Government?" I wish to goodness we could do it to-night.

I remember that the Taoiseach, when he was beaten here on a Bill by one vote, went off in the middle of the night and dissolved the Dáil. That was on the Transport Bill, the bogey now that the ratepayers and taxpayers are subsidising to the extent of millions of pounds—Córas Iompair Éireann. He will not run to the Park now. No, because it is not popular for him—and well he knows it, because the people are outraged. I am living in a community where there are 600 poor people who are not able to get the necessaries of life, who are out of employment and are trying to exist on the dole, which is 23/ in the case of a man. The old people get the pension after 70 long years, but the present Minister, who knows County Wexford the same as I do, said here a fortnight ago that 1/6 would give the old age pensioner sufficient money to buy the necessaries of life with the increased cost. He allowed 5d. for half pound of butter, so much for tea, so much for sugar.

Is it not terrible to hear a Minister who voted himself £500 per year for being a Minister in this House offer 1/6 to the fathers and mothers of the men of 1916 and the people coming after them? He ought to take courage in his hands and bring this Bill back to the Custom House, so that the officials could examine again the Bill that Deputy Norton produced to this House and to the country but on which we had not the co-operation of some of the fine Fianna Fáil people. Deputy McGrath and others refused to vote for that Bill; they voted against it and the records of the House show that. I say to the Minister: "Your Bill is not nearly as good as Deputy Norton's Bill as far as the worker is concerned, since the cost of living has gone up so much and will go up so much more in the near future."

Captain Cowan

I regret very much that the debate on this Resolution should be conducted in the spirit in which it has been conducted up to the present. We had the main discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, a discussion which lasted for many parliamentary days and in which most Deputies took part. At the end, we found that the Bill was accepted without a division. That is as I think it ought to be. As I said when speaking on Deputy Norton's Bill, what I was really concerned about was to get the Social Welfare Bill on the Statute Book. That ought to be the concern of every Deputy who is interested in this problem.

Now, whether it was Deputy Norton's Bill or Deputy Dr. Ryan's Bill, one can find quite a number of matters on which there could be increases and improvements, but the vital thing as I understand it is to get it on the Statute Book and the amendments will look after themselves in time. It is regrettable in a House constructed such as this that the two Parties who have contributed so much towards social welfare, the Government Party and the Labour Party, should be fighting with one another while another large Party sits and looks on. That is what I think is regrettable in the whole thing.

I would make an appeal to my old comrades in the Labour Party to let this Resolution go through, to improve the Bill in so far as it can be improved in Committee, to get it into operation as soon as possible; and, please God, opportunities will arise for amendment, as they always arise when a Bill of this nature is actually in operation. I think that it serves no good purpose to have a debate about it conducted in a spirit of bitterness. I know that when Deputy Norton was preparing his Bill—and he spent a considerable time in its preparation— that it was his desire that the Bill should be passed into law, but I have a suspicion that the great difficulties he had were due entirely to the set-up in which he happened to be at the time. I think that if Deputy Norton were to explain the difficulties he had in that period of three years one would find that they were serious difficulties.

Mr. O'Leary

Yourself and Deputy Dr. Browne.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Dr. Browne and myself went into the Lobby to support Deputy Norton in his Bill and, as I said at the time, I was really concerned about getting a Bill on the Statute Book. I would ask the members of the Labour Party to try to get this on the Statute Book because it is important in the interests of the people they represent and there will be opportunities in the future for amending it.

I read recently in one section of the Press that for one reason or another has lowered itself to the use of yellow Press tactics, the Independent Newspapers, that on the Bill before the House there were about 100 amendments tabled by the Labour Party and that they were going to fight it tooth and nail, line by line and comma by comma. I was surprised because as a Deputy of the House I generally get amendments as they are sent in and I had seen no record of 100 amendments. When I got the printed list of amendments I found that the only amendments to the Bill other than the Minister's were some minor if important amendments put down by Deputy Hickey.

Mr. Hickey

And you know the reason why.

Captain Cowan

I do; I thoroughly understand the reason. No private Deputy can put down an amendment to a Bill which involves a charge on public funds. Every Deputy has that difficulty on every Bill. I know that the Labour Party could not put down amendments, but I object to the yellow Press tactics of Independent Newspapers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is far removed from the Money Resolution.

Captain Cowan

I only make the passing comment that it is wrong that a Bill like this intended to be of such use to the people should be treated in that yellow Press way by the Independent.

I would ask Deputies, particularly my old friends in the Labour Party, to let this Money Resolution go through. They have allowed the Second Reading to go through having expressed their views on it and I would ask them, as far as they can within the limitations imposed on us by the Constitution and by parliamentary practice and rules, to make this the best Bill possible. When two Parties have shown a desire to improve the conditions of the people it is wrong in general that they should be at one another's throats in the interests of a third Party which does not give two hoots about social welfare.

Mr. Keyes

This Money Resolution is couched in the customary parlance of Money Resolutions in legislation passing through this House. It purports to have money provided by the Oireachtas for the specific purpose of this legislation. In this Resolution those words give a false impression because although the impression is that money is to be derived from the Oireachtas, the money for this legislation is in fact derived from direct and indirect taxation, taxation which is not even remotely concealed but is exposed to the public gaze. The promises of the Fianna Fáil Party when they were in opposition and when they were in power that they would give better social services to the people of the country with less taxation have not been implemented. The Money Resolution is necessary for the implementation of the Bill, but I suggest that having regard to what is being done by the Government in respect of this legislation the wording should be altered. It should be correctly related to the measure which is to be given to the people.

Deputies Norton and Corish have explained this and I do not intend to go over the ground again but I think that we are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Money Resolution is wrongly worded. It is fraudulent because we are not getting the benefits which are supposed to be given to the people but must pay for them through the nose. Deputy Corish gave a case in point: the extra amount which is supposed to be given by the Oireachtas is being given from the Budget which was introduced at a suitable time. It has been said that it was rushed through before the Second Reading of this Bill but it is now perfectly clear that it was used to extract money for this social welfare legislation. Therefore, the wording of the Money Resolution is not suitable or fitting for this Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I disagree entirely with those Deputies who held that this Bill had discarded some of the best points of Deputy Norton's Bill. The best points in Deputy Norton's Bill or in any Social Welfare Bill are the provisions for sickness, unemployment and the dependents of workers who die. Those parts of Deputy Norton's Bill are preserved unchanged in this Bill. The great hazards of life for people of limited means are the danger of sickness, of untimely death leaving dependents unprovided for and of unemployment and those hazards are provided for under the Bill just as well as in Deputy Norton's Bill. It is as well to make that clear because it is fundamental to any Social Welfare Bill that those three hazards of life should be covered.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Norton

We are in Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

As nobody else offers to speak I call upon the Minister.

Mr. Norton

We will have an opportunity of speaking after the Minister?

An Ceann Comhairle

If somebody offers I will call upon him but if not I will call upon the Minister.

Mr. Collins

With respect, are we not in Committee?

An Ceann Comhairle

This has been argued ad nauseam. Will the Deputy resume his seat?

Mr. Norton

It has been the custom on a Money Resolution of this kind to regard the House as being in Committee. When the House is in Committee Deputies are not limited to one speech nor has the Minister been given the privilege of replying. We are in Committee; the indicator indicates that we are; yet we are treated as if this were a Second Reading or a Final Reading. It is no such thing. That ruling limits the rights exercised by Deputies up to now in this and in previous Parliaments.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is under no misapprehension as to whether the House is in Committee or the Dáil is in session. Even when the House is in Committee the Chair must make such arrangements as to bring the debate to a conclusion. The Chair cannot sit still and allow the House to sit without anybody offering to speak. Nobody has offered to speak after Deputy Cogan and I must therefore call on the mover of the motion to conclude.

Mr. Collins

May I make the submission that a Deputy in the exercise of his rights in this House may be anxious for the Minister to intervene before he speaks either for the second time or for the first time? Surely in these circumstances it is not improper for a Deputy to remain in his seat to give the Minister an opportunity to intervene and then has he not still the right in Committee to speak?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair must endeavour to have the debate consecutive, that is to say, that the debate must continue or, otherwise, if nobody offers himself, the Deputy moving the motion must be called upon to conclude. Deputy Cogan has concluded and no other Deputy offered himself. If some Deputy offers himself, I will call on him. If nobody offers himself, I must call on the mover of the motion to conclude.

Mr. Norton

May I submit, Sir, that it has always been the practice when the House is in Committee that the debate comes to a normal termination by nobody desiring to speak further, in which case the issue is put? The Minister has not yet spoken on the matters which have been discussed and I submit to you that it has been the customary practice to permit the House to comment in Committee on what the Minister has to say. Some Deputies on these benches have not spoken because they have been waiting to hear what the Minister has to say. Up to the present they have never been denied that opportunity. Apparently now it is proposed——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Norton is absolutely wrong. The Chair is not endeavouring to deny any opportunity to speak. The Deputy is quite wrong in trying to pin that on to the Chair. I am allowing every Deputy to speak who wishes to speak but, when nobody offers himself, the Chair must take some precaution and some opportunity to have the debate taken in an orderly fashion. If nobody offers himself, the Chair must call on the Deputy who moved the motion to conclude the debate.

General Mulcahy

On a point of order. I am not challenging your right to rule in any particular way you decide to rule on this matter, but I do not think I can let the occasion pass without suggesting that when we are in Committee, if nobody rises to take part in the debate, the Committee naturally ends then and the question can be put. I submit there is no way in which a debate in Committee can be stopped except by somebody moving that "the question be now put." In Committee, the Minister is entitled to intervene at any time he wants, but the Minister is not entitled in Committee to prevent a discussion on a motion in the light of what he has to say on it by refusing to rise until everybody else has declined to rise. You may rule on this matter in a particular way, but I think that if you rule in that way the Standing Orders will have to be looked at so that it will be made clear that by failure to rise during the Committee the Minister cannot automatically apply the closure in an underhand way—that if he wants to apply the closure he can move "that the question be now put."

Mr. S. Flanagan

I object to the statement that the Minister is trying to apply the closure.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Deputy is entitled to make that suggestion. I am not saying whether such is so or not. The Chair cannot sit still and allow the House to remain idle without doing anything. The House must bring the debate to a conclusion. If nobody offers himself, I will put the motion.

General Mulcahy

I can understand that. If nobody offers himself, then it is your right and duty to put the motion. But what I question is that, if nobody offers himself, it is your right to call on the Minister to conclude the debate. I submit that in these circumstances the Minister is definitely putting the closure on the Committee discussion. In reply to what the Deputy says, I suggest that the Minister was asked in Committee on Finance by members of the Labour Party, to give certain information— information that is necessary for the proper conduct of the discussion in Committee. He did not give any information when he was moving the motion that would throw any light on the questions now asked. The Committee cannot properly carry out its business if the Minister declines to give any information in Committee on Finance and if he sits still for the purpose of closuring the discussion without giving the information. If the Chair feels that it is its duty to call on the Minister to conclude, then I say that that is a procedure which puts into the Minister's power the right to closure this debate without taking on himself the responsibility for doing it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the duty of the Chair to bring the debate to a conclusion. It is to be assumed that Deputies who made their points wish to hear the Minister on them. Therefore, if no Deputy offers himself, the Chair is bound by precedent. For instance, on the Estimates for Public Services that has been the procedure for years—that the Minister is called upon to conclude.

General Mulcahy

On the question of the Estimates, occasions have arisen in which, shall I say, the practice of the House has been broken through on the rigid point of the right to speak more than once in a debate. Cases have occurred on the Estimates where the Minister has apparently concluded and the House has decided that it would not be stopped from continuing the discussion in Committee after that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is called upon to conclude in practice —99 per cent. of the cases support that the Minister is called upon to conclude.

Mr. S. Collins

May I make a submission to you, Sir, on the question of order? My submission is that under the Standing Orders of the House the manner in which Committee business concludes is by the putting of a motion. I submit to you, Sir, that if this discussion were to conclude it should be by the Chair putting the motion and not calling on any Minister to conclude. I am in the position that I am anxious for the Minister's intervention before I intervene myself because I want certain points which have been raised by Deputies cleared up in the light of which I may be able to make a contribution to this discussion. I submit that it is a breach of precedent to call on the Minister in these circumstances to conclude the discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The point that the Deputy is making is that in certain circumstances Deputies could prolong the debate indefinitely.

Mr. S. Collins

Surely that is their democratic privilege as Deputies.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not denied the Deputy that. But, if nobody offers himself in order to conclude, the Chair has to put the motion. But the invariable practice has been, when a motion is moved by a Minister or by a Deputy and nobody offers to speak to the motion, the mover of the motion is called upon to conclude.

Mr. Norton

I submit that that is not the position in Committee.

Mr. Keyes

Are we to take it that the Minister has no right to intervene except by way of concluding?

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not say that.

Mr. Keyes

He has not spoken. Are we to take it that the Minister's intervention automatically means concluding the debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

Nobody has offered himself and the Minister has already spoken.

Mr. Cogan

May I point out that the Fine Gael Party are trying to delay the operation of this Bill just as they delayed the other Bill for three years?

Mr. S. Collins

That is a typical Coganesque stupidity that you will not answer in Wicklow.

General Mulcahy

That is a great thought.

Mr. Norton

The "senile delinquency" is extending. It is coming home to roost in the Deputy himself.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Deputy Mulcahy made the statement that the Minister was using underhand methods with the connivance of the Chair. I think that that is an accusation against the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not understand Deputy Mulcahy to be making that charge. I do not think he was making any charge of that kind against the Chair. The Deputy was making political charges against the Minister.

Mr. S. Flanagan

How can he impute underhand methods to the Minister for something that the Ceann Comhairle does.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not understand it in that way.

Captain Cowan

My suggestion is that, perhaps, the best way to decide the matter now would be to put the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

Everybody knows that is what the Chair must do.

Mr. O'Leary

Will we get any explanation from the Minister?

Mr. Norton

He has given the Minister the last word.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the invariable practice on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Norton

That is not so.

Mr. O'Leary

There are a few points which I would have liked the Minister to clear up.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

This was a motion "to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary..." I thought I might have been asked what these matters are. I was not asked, and I think, with all due respect, that I should stick to that particular point. The last Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare prepared by my predecessor, Deputy Norton, was for £12.9 million. Next year £21.3 million will be necessary to implement this Bill and the Children's Allowances Bill. Therefore the Oireachtas will have to provide an additional £8.4 million, and Deputy Norton referred to that as a humbug and a pretence. That is all I have got to say.

Mr. O'Leary

I wish to say to the Minister that it has been brought to my notice down the country that when a widow seeks an old age pension she will lose by the change-over.

Dr. Ryan

That does not arise on this motion. We will deal with that on some of the clauses on the Committee Stage.

Resolution put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.