I move that the Bill do now pass. I do not think there is anything I need say, unless any Deputy requires further information about the Bill as it stands, because I take it that nothing else can be discussed on this stage.
Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951—Fifth Stage.
I wonder if I would be in order in bringing to the notice of the Minister the hardships under which national health insurance agents throughout the country assert they are working, in the hope that the Minister will appreciate that their demands are just and that their grievances will be redressed.
The Deputy realises that this is purely a matter of administration which does not arise on this measure. The Deputy can raise it on the Estimate for the Minister's Department. It does not arise on this motion—in regular fashion, at any rate.
Very good.
My view on this Bill is that it has the major defect which the Norton Bill had, inasmuch as it makes no provision for self-employees. It makes no provision for the man selling newspapers on the street or the woman selling her cabbages in Moore Street or the Coal Quay.
The Deputy must understand that he is ruling himself out by his own statement. It is only what is in the Bill can be discussed now, and not what is not in the Bill.
I object to the passing of this Bill and I want to say that the reason I did not object to it on Second Reading was that I felt that, by voting against the Second Reading, if a division had been called for, I would have been voting for the amendment tabled by Deputy Norton, which was the equivalent of the former Bill. In my opinion, both Bills—the Norton Bill and this Bill—have two major defects. I understand that before I can call a division I must have at least five Deputies to stand up in support of it. I intend to ask the Chair for a division, and, if I can get the necessary five, to call for a vote on this stage of the Bill.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to one point which may negative to a certain extent the benefits of the Bill—if the increases in benefits under the Bill are to be taken into consideration by local authorities when assessing differential rents. It is no harm to bring that point to the Minister's notice. In Cork, children's allowances are not taken into consideration, but old age and blind pensions are. I think that it would destroy a lot of the good that has been done by those benefits if local authorities are allowed to take those matters into consideration as increased means.
If the Minister for Social Welfare had been here when the Minister for Finance replied on the Finance Bill, I do not think he would support the allegation that was made. I refer to the bitter, vindictive allegation the Minister for Finance made that, during the course of the passage of this Bill through the House, the Labour Party did everything they could to obstruct its passage. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister must readily agree that, as far as co-operation was concerned, the utmost was given by the members of the Labour Party, not alone as far as the times for taking the different stages were concerned, but in the actual debate on the different stages.
The Labour Party co-operated to the extent of agreeing to sit—and it was not usual to do so—during Holy Week. I do not want the Minister to make any acknowledgments for the co-operation of this Party, but it would be just as well on this stage—the first opportunity that presents itself to us—to refute entirely the allegation made by the Minister for Finance, which I am sure would not be subscribed to by the Minister for Social Welfare or by any of the other members who sit in the Government Benches.
As far as the Labour Party is concerned, this Bill does a certain amount to popularise the idea of social security, a type of idea that was not popular in this country—I will not say in this House—a short two or three years ago. If the last Government and the last Minister for Social Welfare fought bitter opposition at that time, to make the idea of social security popular, then I think the former Minister for Social Welfare should have acknowledged to him a certain amount of credit. I do not want to detract or take away credit from any others who have been interested or who have been strong adherents of the idea of social security, but it must be recorded on this, the Fifth Stage of a Social Security Bill, that the idea of and the necessity for social security in this country is there.
Why?
Because we have so many ills and evils in our system and in the country at the present time. If people are not in a position to provide for themselves, it is the duty of the State through the Government to come to their assistance. That is good Catholic social teaching. This Bill goes a certain way in doing that. We make no secret of the fact that we are disappointed in the Bill because it does not go far enough. Motives may be attributed to us as to why we consider that this is not an adequate Bill. Other motives may be attributed to us as to why it was not brought in in three and a half years. That might have been important 12 months ago, it may be considered important now; but the important thing so far as I am concerned now is that we have the beginning of a social security scheme. Our idea as a Labour Party will be to try to press the present Minister for Social Welfare, to press the next Government or the Government after that, to provide the maximum social security for the people who may happen to want it.
No one could take the Labour Party to task for the attitude they have always adopted on social security. The least that would be expected of us would be to press the present Minister. He has promised to reconsider certain things which were in what was described as the Norton welfare scheme, in the future. I may assure him and his colleagues in the Government that from this onwards, whether the life of this Government be long or short, we will try to induce them to improve this Bill vastly, to provide for the death gratuity, for maternity allowances and for retirement pensions for men at 65 and women at 60. We will try to get them to provide a scheme that will give social security to all the people of the country who need it.
I am quite satisfied that if the Norton Bill had not been carried through this House last year by a majority of four votes, opposed at that time by the present Minister, we would not have this Bill to-day and it would not be going through this House unanimously. The proof of that is the attitude of the Minister in 1947 towards the proposal by Deputies Costello and O'Higgins to have the means test eased—which would cost the country an extra £500,000. The Minister dug his heels in the ground then and said the country could not afford it. We were then approaching a general election in 1948 and he indicated that he was examining the question of providing some kind of scheme of social security here.
This Bill and its principal benefits are those which were contained in the Norton Bill last year but the real benefits being provided by this Bill will be offset to a considerable extent by the withdrawal of the food subsidies. The Bill is designed to assist the needy sections of the community, those in sickness and in unemployment, but those are the very people who will find it necessary now to pay increased prices for food and to meet these extra costs. Therefore, the main provisions in this Bill are not as good and not so liberal as the provisions in the Norton Bill. The Norton Bill last year, for which the Fine Gael Party voted solidly, was a bigger and better Bill. It embraced a larger number of people and its benefits would apply to a greater number also.
The minor sections of this Bill are, if you like, introduced by the Minister in order to make it look somewhat different from the Norton Bill that was carried through last year but, as far as the people are concerned, the main provisions of this Bill are those which were carried in this House last year and introduced in this House by Deputy Norton.
I am glad that we are reaching the final stages of this Bill in this House. I look forward to this Bill being an Act within the next week or so, so that the benefits which it provides may be available for the people in the beginning of the month of July. As Deputy Corish has said, there has had to be a long fight over a great number of years to get the idea of social welfare adopted, and even yet, although there has been substantial conversion as far as the House is concerned, there are certain elements and sections in the country who do not take kindly to or do not accept social welfare. I was very keen that this Bill would go on the Statute Book, that it would be put into operation. When we have it on the Statute Book and in operation there is no doubt whatever that it will be improved as time goes on. There will be amendments to it. There will be pressure for amendments in the House and from outside as the Bill operates. The main thing was to get the Social Welfare Bill as a sort of sheet anchor, and I think the Minister is to be complimented on having the Bill at this stage within a year of taking office.
The Government side of the House and the Labour Party have both contributed and co-operated to make this Bill as good as it was possible to have it at the present moment, but it is a matter for regret, certainly a matter of significance, that for some reason, which perhaps they can explain, the Fine Gael Party has boycotted this Bill at every stage in its passage through the House. It is right that that should be said. It is right that it should be put on record that, with the exception of the Minister, the Fianna Fáil Party, a couple of Independents and the Labour Party, there has been no help given in the House to this Bill.
Of course Deputy McGrath belongs to the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Minister is piloting the Bill on behalf of Fianna Fáil and on behalf of the Government. It is only right that that should be said.
There is one thing that is not in the Bill, and perhaps I should not refer to it, but I do make this suggestion to the Minister as something that he may be able to do in the Seanad, that is, to insert a section dealing with the interpretation. It is something that has been adopted in England in regard to Pensions Acts generally, that is, that, in the interpretation of the Act, there should be a bias in favour of the applicant, that the applicant should get the maximum benefit that the Bill provides. In other words, if there is a possibility of doubt, if a man's claim can be interpreted in two ways, one in the man's favour and one against him, the interpretation should always be in the applicant's favour.
If a section to that effect, such as is in British pension legislation, were introduced into this Bill, it would create a much better spirit in the interpretation of the Bill, and it would give the officials who have to interpret the Act and who will do their best to interpret it strictly in accordance with law, the right, where there were two possible interpretations, to say that the interpretation that was more favourable to the applicant was the legal and proper interpretation.
I hope the Bill will very soon be law, and that it is only the beginning of substantial improvements in social welfare legislation here. Speaking on another matter last night I said that the standard of wages and salaries in this country is deplorably low. With co-operation and help all round, with a growing understanding on the part of the general public, the time is not far distant when the allowances provided in this Bill will be substantially increased. I hope that that will be the case.
I should like to say a few words on this stage of this Bill as one who has been agitating for years for a social welfare scheme. We are all pleased that we will have it on the Statute Book at last, even though the Bill has its drawbacks from our point of view.
There is one matter that I would like to stress again, that is, the discrepancy between non-contributory widows' pensions and contributory widows' pensions. It is contrary to reason and justice that, because a man was out of employment and was not in benefit at the time of his death, punishment should be inflicted on his widow or children. There is a difference of 4/- per week between the non-contributory pension and a contributory pension in the case of a widow, and a difference of 5/- a week in the case of a woman and her child.
Take the case of a man who goes to England and spends three or four years there, becomes ill there, and returns to this country and dies after six or seven months. His stamps are not credited here, and therefore his widow is entitled only to a non-contributory pension.
Apart from that particular case, I am concerned about the woman whose husband never left the country but who was out of benefit at the time of his death. In that case the widow is entitled only to a non-contributory pension, which means that punishment and suffering are passed on to her and her children.
As people who claim to be Christian and to have a certain conception of justice we should not tolerate for one minute such a position. This is not a question of scoring a point. It is most touching that a woman and her children should be punished in such circumstances.
Recently I put down a question about workmen's compensation. Deputy McGrath also put down a question on that matter. The Minister gave us to understand that he would not do anything about it until the social welfare scheme was in its final stages or after that. I want to know from the Minister if he has in mind doing anything in the matter of workmen's compensation? During Deputy Norton's time, the compensation was raised from 35/-to 50/-. The average weekly wage of the ordinary worker is £6 5s. If he meets with an accident and sustains a broken arm or leg, his weekly income is immediately reduced to 50/-. Although that man may have a dependent relative or a family all he gets is 50/- a week. So far as I know, premiums have been steadily increasing for a number of years but the compensation still remains at 50/-. I would ask the Minister to consider these important aspects.
I should also like to refer to the necessity for some reciprocal arrangement between our Government and the British Government and between our Government and the Six County Government. I can show the Minister some correspondence which I had with the Department in the Six Counties concerning the case of a man who was getting 10/- a week in Northern Ireland and who is now living in the Twenty-Six Counties. Since 1946 the pensions in Northern Ireland have been increased but people who live outside the Six Counties will not get the benefit of that increase. The same thing applies to persons who have been living in England.
I have a case in mind of a woman from County Cork, who had been living in England for some time when her husband died. She came home to live with her daughter with the result that she was deprived of a pension. There are many other improvements that might be embodied in this Bill. Certainly I hope I shall live to see the day when mortality benefits and the other increased benefits provided in Deputy Norton's Bill will be embodied in an amending Bill to this Bill after it becomes an Act. We do not demand social security as such. It is because of the defects of the system that we are trying to operate that we have to come before Parliament and ask the people to provide by legislation for the victims of that system. I should like to see industry being made responsible for its employees rather than that it should be allowed to throw them on the scrap heap when they become disabled, and leaving the community to provide for them. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the matters to which I have called his attention with a view to providing for them in future legislation.
I merely want to make one point, and that is in regard to the assessment of unemployment assistance for part-time fishermen. We have had considerable difficulty over a long number of years with regard to the allowances paid to these workers when they become unemployed. A number of these workers, who are only part-time workers, are assessed as owners of fishing craft. I would appeal to the Minister when considering this question of the unemployment assistance rates, which is referred to, I think, in the Third Schedule, to make some attempt to clarify the position, as the present means of assessing the means of these men leads to friction as between the local investigation officers and the part-time fishermen. When assessing his means, the man is returned as owner of a craft, even though there are four other men who also have shares in that particular craft. Each of these members is assessed as owner.
For the whole year?
Yes, for the whole year.
That is the defect.
These poor men, who have a difficult task and who work under very difficult conditions are deprived of their just allowances over a long period. I would appeal to the Minister now that he has the opportunity to clarify the position so as to make it possible for these men to get justice.
It might be well at this stage to restate the Labour Party's view in regard to this Bill. In the first place, the Party has always supported social legislation designed to provide the maximum possible security for those exposed to hazards against which they are unable to insulate themselves. In this House, for the last 30 years, the Labour Party has supported all measures calculated to improve our code of social legislation. In fact, in many respects the Labour Party has been the pioneer in advocating new forms of social legislation designed to give our people here at home the same kind of security as other progressive countries have provided for their workers. If one is inclined to indulge in research, one will find that the Labour Party has been the pioneering Party in advocating improvements in our code of social legislation, just as the Labour movement and the trade union movement long before 1910 pioneered the agitation which originally brought the Old Age Pensions Act and which in 1911 and 1913 brought the National Health Insurance Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. We stand to-day in precisely the same position in which we stood then, namely, that we believe in social legislation. We believe that the provision of social legislation by the State is imperative, so long as society within the State is not constituted in such a way as to enable the people to provide from their own resources against the hazards and risks which are inseparable from the life we see around us. It is in that spirit that we welcome this Bill. We welcome it because it is an improvement on the existing position.
The three main provisions of this Bill are similar to—in fact, they are absolutely identical with—the provisions in the Bill which I introduced last year and which was passed through its Second Stage. The widows' and orphans' contributory pension in this Bill is indentical with that provided in the previous Bill. The section dealing with it is copied word for word, letter by letter, from the section in the previous Bill.
The same applies in respect to disability benefit and to unemployment benefit. These three sections are exact copies, as similar as peas in a pod, of the sections of the Bill that I introduced last year. The real weakness and the deficiency in the Bill is that it drops four of the useful provisions which were contained in the Bill for which I was responsible. In this Bill we have killed the provision for retirement pensions at 65 for men and at 60 for women. We have killed the provision for death benefits, varying from £20 for men over 18 years of age to £6 for a child over three years of age. We have killed the proposal to raise the maternity allowance from £2 to £5. We have killed the provision for paying a £4 maternity allowance to women in childbirth. I say without the slightest hesitation that the Bill has been robbed of its best provisions by reason of the killing of these four vital provisions which are commonplace provisions of social legislation in progressive countries all over the world to-day.
Let this be a sobering thought and reflection for Deputies whenever they feel like expanding their chests in regard to what they are doing in the field of social legislation. Even when this Bill passes, our code of social legislation, because of the deficiencies to which I have adverted, will still be the poorest code of social legislation in Western Europe. We will still be failing to provide for our workers here benefits which are being provided for workers in free Europe to-day. Our code of social legislation will still be below the standards which are accepted as reasonable tests in the International Labour Office in Geneva. We still have a good way to go to keep up to the level of progressiveminded countries in Europe and throughout the world in the field of social legislation.
Let this be underlined. We are still substantially behind the code of social legislation in operation in Britain and in the Six Counties. In Britain and in the Six Counties benefits are in operation which are not provided in this Bill, which are being killed under this Bill. So long as the position is that in the Six Counties, tied up as they are to British expenditure, to British rearmament, and to the financial and other risks associated with British economy to-day, they can provide for their people retirement pensions and other benefits which are not in this Bill. There will always be hard pioneering work to be done in this House to lift up the standard of social legislation so as to enable it to keep abreast with some of the best schemes in Europe and to come near to what is in operation in the Six Counties.
Under this Bill we have departed from the old scheme by which our codes of social legislation were financed. In the past, the method of financing schemes of social welfare was by a contribution from the worker, a contribution from the employer and a speaking, these were equal contributions. That was the normal balance in the past. I do not say that it was necessarily the most virtuous method of financing our schemes of social legislation, but at least it was a pattern to which our people were accustomed and it involved the minimum of dislocation administratively if there was to be an extension of our code of social legislation because we could still continue a pattern of finance with which our people were thoroughly familiar.
That balance is being broken in this Bill. That balance, which has endured so long, will go under this Bill. I do not mind that in the slightest, because in the course of time the administrative difficulties will be surmounted, and I suppose people will get familiar with the new pattern of financing social legislation. That being so, I would say that the Labour Party would not regard itself as being bound to go back to the old method of tripartite financing in respect of social welfare schemes. It might well prove to be that the best scheme for the future, from the point of view of the masses of the workers, would be to put the full responsibility, or 80 per cent. of the responsibility, on the State on the one hand and on the employers on the other. So long as the tripartite method of financing continued, it was understandable to follow that pattern. Now that it does not continue any longer, we would not feel bound to go back to it in any future scheme. In future schemes it might well be that the burden of the contributions will fall on broader backs than in the past.
We discussed the Social Welfare Bill last year against an entirely different background from that which operates to-day. We are discussing a Social Welfare Bill now, not only against a background in which the cost of living has increased in the last 12 months, bringing about a shrinkage in the purchasing power of money, but against the still bleaker background that in the next six weeks the people will experience a very substantial rise in prices of such staple commodities as tea, sugar, bread, butter and flour. Even their simple luxuries in the way of cigarettes, tobacco and beer are taxed under a Budget for which this Government are responsible. Therefore, whatever social benefits, attenuated as they may be, are being provided in this Bill, they are being provided in circumstances in which they are of much less value to the potential beneficiaries than the similar benefits or the extended benefits were in the context in which we were providing these benefits last year.
This scheme is not only substantially less valuable to the workers than the one for which we are responsible, but it is being given to them at a time when the value of whatever benefits they get will be substantially lower because of the rise in prices which has taken place since this time last year and the further rise in prices which will take place at the end of next month. We were told in March, 1951, that the present Government would produce a better social security scheme. Now, in the broad light of day, we can compare what is in this Bill with what was then offered to the people. This Bill is not nearly as good as the Bill which got its Second Reading last year. This Bill is a substantially diminished Bill from the point of view of the benefits which it provides. The workers were told last year that they would get a better Bill and that they would not have to pay any additional contributions for it. even though they were told they would not have to pay additional contributions.
But, worse than all that, they now see that this Social Welfare Bill is being financed by contributions out of the workers' pockets, on the one hand, and that they are being made to pay the legitimate contribution which the employers should pay and which the Government should pay out of the increased prices which the workers will have to pay for five staple articles of food, thereby saving money for the Exchequer. The workers, because they have to pay the higher prices, will be paying their own share, the Government's share and the employers' share of the additional cost of administering this attenuated scheme.
The workers are being deliberately and frankly spoofed under this Bill. It is not the better Bill they were promised. It increases their contributions. Not only that, but, by raiding and taking from their pockets higher prices for food and for other commodities, the Government are making the workers, who will be covered by this Bill and others who will get no benefit under this Bill, pay the entire cost of financing the scheme. We can discuss that elsewhere after this.
In conclusion I want to say that I regret that the Minister departed from the original Bill by dropping the four main benefits which I have outlined. If he had been responsible for a Bill of that kind, I think it would have brought to him and to the Government and to all those interested in promoting social welfare a very great sense of satisfaction. But these valuable provisions have been killed. However, judging by the small majority on the Finance Bill to-day, and the Government's reluctance to test the feelings of the country, it is obvious that it will not be too long until the Government is forced into a general election. The moment that event takes place we need not count upon the continuance in office of a Fianna Fáil Government. That memory will evaporate like the dew. Any new Government for which the Labour Party will be responsible or with which we will be associated will make provision for retirement pensions, increased maternity benefits, death grants and any other kind of benefit which we think will give to the toiling masses of our people a better standard of living and a reasonable return for the services which they render to the nation.
You were telling them that for three and a half years.
Fianna Fáil voted against it last year. They also held it up.
Mr. Lehane rose.
Deputy Lehane has already spoken.
I was pulled up by the Chair, during the course of my speech, for going into details. Other speakers who have spoken since have gone into detail.
The Deputy has already spoken.
Deputy Lehane has expressed his intention of dividing the House on this Bill because, he said, no provision is made for the self-employed. He mentioned such people as the fruitseller in Moore Street and the newspaper seller. I do not think Deputy Lehane has studied the provisions of this Bill very closely. As the Bill now stands, it contains quite a number of provisions for the self-employed. If Deputy Lehane will study the matter very closely he will agree that he cannot provide unemployment insurance for the self-employed. It is administratively impossible. It is difficult, indeed, to provide sickness benefit although I think that these selfemployed—especially the classes mentioned by Deputy Lehane—will have to be looked after somehow or other when they are sick. However, it is not a matter for a Social Insurance Bill. On the other hand, in this Bill and the Bill to follow immediately after this, the case of the self-employed will be considerably improved in respect of old age pensions, widows' non-contributory pensions, unemployment assistance, to which they will be entitled under certain sections at least, and also for children's allowances. I do not know if Deputy Lehane can suggest anything that could be done for the self-employed. He did not suggest what could be done and I do not know what could be suggested. However, Deputy Lehane has a perfect right to call for a division against the Bill if he so wishes.
I must confess that Deputy McGrath raised a point about which I know nothing. He asked whether the increased benefits will be taken into account when fixing differential rents. I take it that that would be a matter to be dealt with by the local authority or by the Minister for Local Government.
It would be a matter for the local authority.
The manager of the local authority, in our case.
Deputy Corish raised a point which, in a sense, I am glad to come back to. He spoke of the very determined opposition to social welfare especially when Deputy Norton was preparing and first published his Bill. I could never see any justification for that proposition. I do not say that it would add considerably to his education, but if Deputy Corish has time he might read the speech I made on the Second Reading of Deputy Norton's Bill.
I did not accuse the Minister.
Deputy Corish and Deputy Norton both expressed their very strong determination to press for further reforms. I do not see any objection to that. It is up to any Party in this House, who feel that good and beneficial reforms can be effected, to press for them as far as they possibly can.
Maybe the Minister would be reluctant to comment on it, but will he say whether or not the Labour Party obstructed the passage of this Bill through the House?
I do not say so. I do not want to comment on what my colleague, the Minister for Finance, said because I was not present when he said it.
We know what you have to put up with.
I should be surprised if he said anything wrong. Deputy Rooney said that this would be a very insignificant Bill were it not for Deputy Norton's move, which had the full approval of the Fine Gael Party. He attacked my attitude on the famous 1947 motion. I am beginning to feel rather complimented when I am attacked in that connection because it is entirely unjustifiable and without foundation, and evidently it is the only attack which the Opposition can make on me. They must have searched the debates and the newspapers to see what they can get to say against me on social welfare, but the only thing they can get is something that cannot be sustained. Therefore, I have no complaint with regard to that attack.
It is rather difficult for a person on this side of the House to keep his temper when he is attacked by a member of the Fine Gael Party in regard to social welfare. When we remember the Fine Gael attitude over all the years to the question of social welfare and when we see that they have the temerity to attack anybody in Fianna Fáil——
We voted for a bigger and better Bill last year.
You made no provision for it, though.
You had no intention of putting it into effect. It was a big bluff.
You voted against it.
At any rate, as Deputy Cowan pointed out, Deputy Rooney broke the silence of the Fine Gael Party on this Bill.
One swallow does not make a summer.
I must say they gave it an easy passage.
We voted for a better Bill last year. This is only part of last year's Bill.
If Deputy Rooney thinks the Bill has not much in it, all I can say is that it will cost £8,000,000 more of the taxpayers' money. The £8,000,000, with a little more, will be going out as benefits.
Deputy Cowan spoke about an interpretation section. I must say that it is new to me. I think Deputy Norton will bear me out when I say that the order to the officers dealing with cases in the Department has always been to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, whoever the applicant may be. I am not sure if the section can be improved very much. However, we can consider that.
Deputy Hickey also asked a question in relation to contributory and non-contributory widows. As I have said already, I feel that a contributory widow should get more because, after all, she or her husband contributed to that pension and deserves something more than the person who had not contributed directly. I suppose the other person contributed indirectly through taxes. If Deputy Hickey has in mind a person who was insured, I think that many of the cases he has in mind will be all right. Remember we will not be in the same position as we are at the moment when this Bill goes through. At the moment, if the husband is ill for a long time before dying it may be that he has gone out of benefit and the widow gets no pension. The same thing applies if the husband has been a long time idle. If the present Bill goes through, if he is credited with contributions and if he is still drawing sickness benefit he will be still in benefit. If he is unemployed he will still be in benefit. I think that many of the cases the Deputy has in mind will be all right.
Idleness will not operate to his advantage in the new scheme unless it were voluntary idleness on his part?
That is right.
Or if he chooses not to work?
With regard to workmen's compensation it is a question whether we should consider nationalising workmen's compensation by bringing it into the code or consider whether it is necessary to increase the benefits. I think it must be one or the other.
I would suggest nationalisation.
If we nationalise it the benefits will have to fall into line. These two matters will be considered when this Bill goes through. Deputy Hickey also mentioned a matter with regard to the widow who comes from England or Northern Ireland. He stated that such a widow did not get an increase although an increase was given to those resident in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a case for the British authority, but I need hardly assure the Deputy that, in any discussions we may have with the British with regard to reciprocity, we shall certainly press that point.
Deputy Flynn raised a question about part-time fishermen. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that for a person to get unemployment assistance he must first qualify and get a card to show he is qualified. In order to qualify his yearly means are taken into account. It is quite true that he may be idle for six months of the year but, on the other hand, he may be earning fairly substantial money for the other six months of the year. His yearly income may be sufficient to disqualify him from being eligible for unemployment assistance at all. On that account he does not come in. That provision was in the code from the beginning. I do not know whether it will be possible to consider changing that. It certainly is not possible at this stage.
What is wrong is that the fisherman's earnings for three months are averaged to cover the 12 months. That is Deputy Flynn's point.
No, I do not think you are right there but I would not like to be dogmatic about it.
What he gets in three months is assumed to be his annual earnings.
It was quite possible under the old means test because it was fairly low. That is considerably improved now under this Bill. It was quite possible that what the fisherman earned in three months was enough to disqualify him.
Because it was averaged to cover the full year.
Deputy Norton said that even when this Bill was passed our code of social welfare would still be the poorest in Western Europe. I have gone into the matter to some extent but it is a very difficult matter to compare. It is very difficult to compare what £2 10s. 0d. a week here would mean for a man, his wife and two children compared with the wage and the cost of living. It is difficult to make a comparison but I do not think I could agree with the Deputy that our code of social security is the poorest in Western Europe.
The Deputy also said that we promised a better scheme than his in 1951. Again, we can have a difference of opinion. Leaving aside the additions that were put on when the Budget came and the benefits resulting therefrom, we had in our Bill a very big improvement in the non-contributory widows' pensions and in the orphans' pensions as well. We also had an improvement as regards the old age pensioners from the point of view of the means test. The old age pensioners were dealt with in a special way during the last year.
When I was bringing in my Bill in the first instance, I did mention that we also intended to deal with children's allowances. As a matter of fact, in the calculation of the finances that I gave I included a certain amount for children's allowances. I know it is rather confused by what was added on afterwards. Without the additions put on after the Budget, I think that the position of the self-employed, at any rate, was very much improved. As the Deputy said, matters remained the same as far as unemployment and sickness were concerned.
We come now to the four items mentioned by Deputy Norton—retirement allowances, death benefits and the two items in connection with maternity. As far as the retirement allowances and death benefits were concerned, I was of the opinion—it is still my opinion—that the workers themselves would not welcome a scheme where they had to pay for it or pay their share. In winding up the Second Reading of this Bill, I said I was quite prepared, as soon as we had this over and had settled down to administer under this Bill, by some method to find out from the workers whether they wanted a scheme of that kind knowing what the benefits were and the cost so far as they were concerned. I am quite prepared to get down to that matter as soon as we get a little time to settle down under this present legislation.
As regards maternity benefits, I have held from the beginning that they were like treatment benefits and were really matters which should be dealt with under the health scheme because I do not see what claim an insured man's wife can make for maternity benefit any more than the self-employed man's wife. They are both equally in need of that particular benefit. If they are, then it appears to be a matter for the health side and should be dealt with in our health scheme. I hope to have it included in the health scheme when it comes along.
Deputy Norton also said that this was being financed out of the worker's pocket. I suppose that, in a general way, you can say that everything is financed out of the worker's pocket. He pays his taxes. It is financed out of the worker's pocket the same as everything else is financed out of his pocket but in our Budget we brought in an increase on income tax which is going to be levied on 18,000 people who are in receipt of comparatively big salaries. I am sure these would not be claimed as workers by Deputy Norton when he talks about the cost of living. Some of them may be his supporters but he is not speaking of those people when he is speaking about the cost of living. At any rate, we can say that far from the whole cost going on the worker there is a bias in favour of the worker and against the better-off sections and these sections will have to pay more taxes under the Budget, including what will be necessary for this legislation than the worker or the person who is not so wealthy.
Deputy Norton ended up with a slight prophecy. I suppose I am entitled to do likewise. He referred to our small majority on the Finance Bill. That majority is better than the one we got when we were forming a Government, as a matter of fact. On that occasion we got a majority of two. Now we have four. If we go on like this increasing our majority every few months we will end up with a very big majority indeed in four years' time.
That sounds like the reading of a horoscope.
Do not think we are afraid to face the people. We are not a bit afraid and we will have an opportunity of facing them in a small way when we have the time and when the business of this House permits. I am not a bit afraid to prophesy that when all that is over and when the Labour Party and Fine Gael come back, it is we who will have the laugh and not they.
The Deputy also said that when they came back they would make things right. I do not want the Deputy to answer my question now but are we to gather from that that it is the Coalition that is coming back and that, in spite of the Trade Union Congress, the Labour Party will again go in with the Coalition and do what they did before? I do not want to embarrass the Deputy by asking for an answer to that question now.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
I am calling for a division.
On the question that the Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951 do now pass a division has been challenged. I am now calling on those in favour of a division to stand in their places.
Deputy Lehane rose.
Question declared carried, Deputy Lehane dissenting.