I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Social Welfare Bill, 1957—Second Stage.
This Bill is put forward in implementation of the decision of the Government, as announced by the Minister for Finance in his Financial Statement on 8th instant, that there would be a general increase of 1/- a week in social assistance payments extending to adult dependents and one dependent child in order to offset as far as possible the effect of the ending of the food subsidies. This Bill provides for persons in receipt of old age and blind pensions, unemployment assistance and non-contributory widows' pensions. A recipient who has no dependent within the statutory defination will receive an increase of 1/- per week, and a person with one dependent 2/- per week. For a person with one adult and one child dependent the increase is 3/-.
Increases in children's allowances are being dealt within a separate Bill.
It is proposed that the increased rates of social assistance should be payable as from mid-May and it is hoped to commence actual payments at the higher rates in the first week of July. Arrears will be paid with the first payment at the new rate. It is hardly necessary for me to say that it would not be possible, for administrative reasons, to start payment at the new rates any sooner, and it will, in fact, not be an easy task to do so within the limit which I have laid down.
The increases in social assistance payment proposed under this Bill will cost the Exchequer approximately £642,000 in a full year. Of this sum old age pensioners will receive £432,000, recipients of unemployment assistance £127,000 and those in receipt of non-contributory widows' pensions £83,000.
This is a Bill in which an increase is proposed in payments to persons in receipt of old age pensions, and on that account the Bill will not be opposed. However, it is proper to remind the Dáil and the country of the manner in which this legislation is brought in here. This is intended to be the Government's method of compensating these unfortunate people who have to exist on social assistance for the increase they must pay for their bread and for their butter.
We do not think these proposed increases are in any way adequate. We do not regard this measure as going any distance towards compensating those who have to use more bread and more butter than persons in better circumstances, and in case people outside may not understand the position, let me say that it is not possible for us to amend this Bill in the way we would like to because to do so would not be in accordance with the rules of the House. We are, therefore, faced by the Government's half loaf and in accordance with the old maxim: "Half a loaf is better than no bread," this Bill is accepted by us, but we reserve the right to say here, as we intend to say outside, that the proposals in this Bill can in no way represent adequate compensation for those who have had to face considerable hardship under the Government's budgetary proposals.
Naturally we shall not vote against this Bill, but I should like, before it finally passes, to make a few comments. This Bill to increase the social assistance payments has been brought in under extraordinary circumstances, the circumstances of the Budget which we have been discussing for the last three weeks. I would say that even in ordinary circumstances the allowances are very mean. I do not think the people who receive them can be expected to regard the Government as being over-generous.
I remember the debate on the first Budget introduced by the inter-Party Government and the speeches that were made and I went to the trouble of looking up some of them. It must be remembered that at that time there were no increases in prices of essential foodstuffs and an increase of 2/6 a week was given to old age pensioners and to those in receipt of widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. Deputy Gogan of the Fianna Fáil Party spoke on that occasion. He was not very enthusiastic about the 2/6 given to the old age pensioners. As a matter of fact, when the 2/6 increase was announced by the then Minister for Finance in his Budget speech, Deputy Lemass described the increase as very niggardly. What therefore should be the description of an increase of a 1/- per week?
Deputy Gogan, who described himself as an assistance officer, went so far as to interview certain people in his constituency asking them what they thought about the 2/6 increase for old age pensioners and this is the sort of comment he got. I quote from Dáil Volume 151, column 992. Deputy Gogan said:—
"I happen to be a home assistance officer and I went to the trouble of seeking the opinions of some of the old age pensioners to find out in what light they regarded this increase. I shall quote now, not from newspaper reports, but the actual words of the people I asked:—
‘They broke their hearts. As far as I can see the pension will not be worth anything with the cost of living as it is.'
The second one is:—
‘God only knows where we will be in July."'
That was the month when the increases would be paid.
"Another said:—
‘Better than nothing. You cannot make them give any more.'
Another one said:—
‘It is not a whole lot, is it? I do not know how we manage. Everything has gone very dear.'
Another one said:—
‘They broke their hearts, God help them and the coal going up. We will be dead before we get it."'
A former Minister for Social Welfare also had a few things to say about the insurance increases given in respect of the insurance group. These were people who, in some cases, got an increase of 11/- a week. Some of them got an increase of 6/- per week in sickness or unemployment benefit. Deputy Dr. Ryan, now Minister for Finance, speaking on the Bill which increased these benefits said, at column 31 of Dáil Volume 158:—
"In fact, the benefits are being increased by roughly 20 to 25 per cent. and it will be agreed that wages generally and the lower salaries of people who are eligible for insurance have increased by 25 per cent. since 1952. Taking it on that standard the increases that are now proposed are justified and the only doubt anybody could have in mind is as to whether they are adequate or not."
At that time—about a year ago—he wondered whether or not an increase of 11/-, or of 6/- per week, was adequate. Now we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Government that 1/- a week for old age pensioners and a 1/- extra for dependents is sufficient to compensate for the increases that have taken place as a result of the withdrawal of the food subsidies.
We all agree that money is rather scarce and that it has been so over a number of years. It was scarce last year and the year before, but surely we are entitled to have regard to the attitude of the Minister for Finance when he described as inadequate an increase of 11/- per week to a person who is sick or unemployed and has a wife and two children. I think the State can do better by these people.
I also think people should be very careful to distinguish between social service and social welfare. I heard some speakers on the Fianna Fáil side yesterday—I heard them on the other side, also—talking generally about social welfare, and we are being admonished and exhorted all over the place not to spend any more on social welfare. When they say "social welfare", they are including the old age pensioners, the men on the dole and the widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions. That is not good enough. We must do the best we can for the old age pensioners. In my opinion, we have never done the best we could in accordance with our resources, especially for the old age pensioners. The old age pensioner cannot contribute to greater production; he is entirely dependent on the generosity, not so much of the Government but of the people. In this case I think the Government could have been more generous. The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech said that the amount to be devoted to the old age pensioners in a full year as a result of this Bill, was something like £432,000——
£642,000.
No, that is wrong. The old age pensions amount is £432,000, according to the speech.
I am sorry; that is correct.
I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not, but the Government stretched the resources of the country to give the master bakers £230,000 and they made a present to the Racing Board of approximately £130,000. These two amounts combined, if devoted to the old age pensioners, would have given them at least another 1/-. Surely that sort of money, if it could be found for the Racing Board or the master bakers, could and should have been devoted to old age pensions.
I have advocated in the House, and I am prepared to advocate anywhere I can, a special tax for the old age pensioners. I know from talking to people, at least in my own constituency, that people would be prepared to bear a small tax of, say, 1d. on a small packet of cigarettes, in the knowledge that the penny—I do not know how much it would yield—would go to the old age pensioners. I think all of us are to blame for this. We have treated the old age pensioners scandalously since this State was established and I think the Government, through the Minister for Finance, should try in next year's Budget to devise ways and means of having a special tax or taxes on particular commodities, luxury commodities, I would say, and devote the proceeds to people like old age pensioners and widows who are in receipt of non-contributory pensions.
I want to ask the Minister for Social Welfare to try to ensure as far as he can—and I know he can invoke wide powers in this matter—that the local authorities will not reduce any allowances they pay to people who are to benefit by the 1/- a week increase under this Bill. It has been known to happen—it happened last year, and the year before and on many other occasions—that where the Government is generous to the extent of increasing sickness benefit or unemployment benefit or assistance or widows' pensions or old age pensions—the local authority takes off the 1/-, 2/-, 2/6 or 5/-.
That is mean, and it is typical of many of the county councils. When I say "county councils", I do not mean the county managers, the assistant county managers, or the secretaries of the county councils: I mean the ordinary members, as it is their job to ensure that this money will not be taken from the recipients of home assistance, I.D.M. allowance, D.P.M. allowance and such other things. They can insist that the county manager will not reduce those allowances by the amount of the increase given by the Government. I think the Minister has power, though I do not know the details of the power he has, to make an Order to ensure—he cannot ensure absolutely—that these allowances will not in many of these cases be taken from these recipients.
As I have said, we do not oppose the Bills, but we regard it as a mean sort of a Bill, particularly mean in the circumstances in which it was introduced, where the prices of essential foodstuffs have increased so very much in the last few weeks.
I feel that we should issue a protest from this side of the House against the inadequate treatment which the Government is preparing to give to the recipients of old age pensions. It seems to me that the calculation on which the Minister is basing this 1/- a week is a false one. The Minister is taking an average for the whole country and forgetting the fact, which is known to everyone, that the poor people eat much more bread, particularly, than people who are better off. It seems to me that the cut in subsidies will undoubtedly affect to a much greater extent the poorer sections of this community than the more well-to-do.
The increase in bread and butter prices which the Government's action has brought about will, in fact, mean that when a loaf of bread has been bought and when a lb. of butter has been bought at the beginning of the week, the 1/- increase which the Minister has in his bounty decided to give will have been utilised. During the rest of the week, the old age pensioner and the person in receipt of social assistance will have to make up as best he can for the increased cost put on the necessaries of life. I do not think it would have been outside the bounds of possibility, even in the stringent circumstances of this year, to have given a greater increase to persons in the social assistance class than was given by the Government in this Bill.
The Minister has decided in this Bill to utilise portion of the ordinary taxation for capital purposes. The Minister and the Government have decided in the Budget that the import levies, such of those as are left now, are to go into the capital account. I do not know whether it is realised generally that there is £2,500,000 in taxation which is, properly speaking, current taxation, but which is, nonetheless, going into the capital account. That £2,500,000 taxation would have been available for relief to the persons in the social assistance class, if the Government had decided so to apply it.
Of course, if the taxation from the import levies is moved from the capital account to the current account, this raises further difficulties on the capital account. This is no stage to discuss these matters and I have dealt with them in my speech on the Budget. However, once the Government has taken the decision—to my mind, the correct decision—of supplementing private savings from the banking resources of this State, then I think it would not be too difficult a matter to get a further £2,500,000 for capital purposes from the banking system. If that were done, the £2,500,000 of the import levies would have been available to help old age pensioners and persons generally in the social assistance class.
There is this extraordinary fact to be borne in mind with regard to this legislation. This legislation is to give effect to the Government's decision to give compensatory payments to members of the social assistance class as a result of the Government's decision to cut the food subsidies. It should be recalled that when the Government cut the food subsidies previously in 1952, their bounty was not then limited to the social assistance class. If Deputies look at the statement which was circulated to the House here at the time of the 1952 Budget, it will be seen that the phrase used then was "compensatory social welfare benefits". In 1952, the Government realised—the same Government as has brought in this Budget—that in view of the rising cost of living, by its decision to cut the subsidies then, they were normally bound to give compensation to persons who were in receipt, whether in the social assistance class or the social insurance class, of benefits from the State.
They have not done so in this Budget. This Budget is remarkable for the fact that they are giving assistance, and a very meagre assistance, only to certain sections of the community who are most vitally hit by this and they are leaving out the persons who are in just as great a need as the class to whom assistance is being given. A widow with a contributory pension is being hit by the Government's decision and yet there is no compensation to be given to her; an old age pensioner is being hit to a much greater extent than 1/- a week.
It is of interest to note that in the remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary made in moving the Second Reading, he referred to the fact that the benefits in the Bill were to offset "as far as possible" the effects of the ending of the food subsidies. I think it is admitted by the Government that the provisions of this Bill are not completely offsetting the effects of the cut in the food subsidies; I think it is admitted by the Government, clearly from the Minister's statement, that they are doing it only as far as possible and that they are only mitigating as far as possible the effects of their action of three weeks ago.
I do not accept the view that, even in the current circumstances, nothing more could be done for our old people, our infirm people, our sick people and our unemployed people in this community. It seems to me that the person who is suffering from tuberculosis has a right to an increase in his payment from the State. It does seem to me that the person in receipt of a widow's contributory pension or social insurance payment is equally entitled to an increase.
I have said on the Financial Resolutions, and I feel that it is worth repeating, that there are people not very far from this House living in destitution in this city. I can speak only for Dublin, but I am fully aware, as I am sure most Dublin Deputies are, of the number of people in this country, in this city particularly, who are living literally on the border line of destitution. That is no exaggeration. I know personally of a family who, if it were not for the work of a certain charitable organisation, literally had no food in their house over a week-end two weeks ago.
These things are known to all of us and yet it is that section of the community that is being asked to make sacrifices. It is that section of the community that is being asked to bear the burden of our present economic difficulty. I do not think it is morally justified.
Deputy Corish has referred to the fact that the people would be prepared to accept another penny increase on the packet of cigarettes, if they were informed that it was for the benefit of the old age pensioners, or the blind pensioners, or the widows. I think our people would; but the point I wish to make is that it is unnecessary to raise taxes this year to give the further benefits which we think are justifiable. The Parliamentary Secretary may be replying to this debate and, if he is, I should like him to refer to the fact that there is £2,500,000 in taxation available to increase social welfare benefits, to increase old age pensions, tuberculosis allowances, blind pensions and widows' pensions. There is £2,500,000 there available, that is, current taxation, going into the capital account.
There are economic arguments for such a manipulation. There are economic arguments at certain times why we should run a Budget surplus, why we should take in more in taxation than we spend on the Supply Services. I do not think those economic arguments apply to-day. If there are such economic arguments, they are outweighed by the social effects of these measures.
The Bill which is before us, of course, cannot be opposed inasmuch as it gives a certain relief to depressed classes, but, knowing as I do the conditions in this city, I feel that the Government would have been justified in going to any lengths to endeavour to assist these weakest and poorest and hardest-off sections of the community who are being hit by these measures. Inasmuch as they are inadequately assisting only certain sections of the community, the public must view with grave alarm this start of the course of this new Government.
Naturally, it is only right that any proposal to improve the lot of those on the social service scale of income should meet with the approval of all groups in this House. I am certain that, as stated in the White Paper, the Minister does regret that he has not been able to increase the amounts in question. At least, from his point of view, the need for an increase did not outweigh other considerations. The fact that in the White Paper the Minister indicates that he expects criticism from all Parties in Opposition indicates to me that he must be very well aware that the increase now offered is much less than the amount of the loss of these people represented by the increased price of commodities caused by the removal of the food subsidies.
A rather excellent case was made by the Minister for Finance in the debate on the Budget when discussing the removal of the food subsidies, certainly a case that appealed to me, namely, that it was ridiculous that the ordinary taxpayer, however humble, should have to contribute towards the subsidisation of bread for very rich horse-owners, merchants or people in the four figure income group. That certainly appealed to me as having a good deal of logic and sense in it. If a means could have been devised of continuing the subsidy for those in the group covered by social welfare legislation, say, and abolishing it in respect of those who, by their own endeavours or inheritance, have a certain income, I would be quite willing and glad to vote for such limited removal of the subsidies.
I understand from the concluding speech of the Minister for Finance that the sum saved by the removal of the subsidies is £7,000,000. Having regard to that saving, only a very niggardly amount was provided for the people who, we all admit, will be most adversely affected. Not only is the amount of the increase in benefits small, but the sections receiving the benefit, as Deputy Corish has pointed out, are very limited. The unemployed man who has a wife and one child will receive no increased benefit under this or any proposed legislation which is being introduced to grant some relief to offset the removal of the food subsidies. The sick man who has a wife and child will receive no concession. Everybody knows that the main diet of an unemployed man and his family must be bread and butter. By the very nature of the benefits they receive, they are unable to purchase any other type of food. Therefore, they will be the people most affected by the removal of the subsidies, but, unfortunately for them, will receive no compensation. Equally, those who are ill and in receipt of disability or sickness benefit will receive no compensation. If anything, they need extra nourishment, but, unfortunately for them, henceforth, by the very nature of the proposals in the Budget, they will have to reduce their intake of bread and butter.
I echo Deputy Corish's appeal to the local authorities not to take into account the shilling increases given to those who are lucky enough to get it. I go further and appeal to the local authorities to make good the deficiency for the unemployed man and the sick man who gets no benefit whatever under any proposed legislation. At least, they should try to make good that deficiency and so relieve the burden which the sick, the unemployed, the widow in receipt of non-contributory pension must shoulder. While I say that, I am very conscious of the fact that if local authorities do that, and perhaps many local authorities will, it will simply be transferring from the Central Fund the burden that it should carry on to the shoulders of the ratepayers. Notwithstanding that I feel pretty sure that the Board of Assistance Committees throughout the country will view with sympathy that request, and will, as far as humanly possible within the rate already struck this year, endeavour to alleviate the burden that is now being placed on the shoulders of the unemployed and people who can least afford to bear that burden.
Listening to Deputy D. Costello this morning, I began to ask myself was this young Deputy a member of the last Government or had he come into this House only after the last election. If there is one thing that we have to give up in this Dáil, if we are to stop mass emigration and unemployment and get down to hard facts as they are presented to us here, it is this codology because the people of Ireland are fed up with it. It was a wonder that Deputy D. Costello, Deputy Kyne and those other Deputies who are moaning now did not do something for these unfortunate people during the last three years. Numbers of people in my constituency have emigrated to Canada, to England and other places as fast as they could get away because of the policy of the inter-Party Government during the last three years.
We in Fianna Fáil have inherited all this mismanagement from the inter-Party Government. The result is that we are forced into a position of doing something which is very much against our wishes and that is increasing the cost of living, especially for the poorer sections of the people. We have during our time tried to help the poorer sections on all occasions. Our policy over the years has definitely proved that where money could be found and where the State could afford it we did everything to help the weaker sections. Our history of social legislation can stand up to any examination. To-morrow morning if this State could afford to do it we should only be delighted to give more to the old age pensioners, to the widows and orphans, to the unemployed and to the various other sections of our people who need it. As soon as this State can afford to do that it will be done. There is no use in our trying to fool ourselves in this House and saying that this one or that one is to blame.
I am associated with as many charitable organisations as any other Deputy in this House and I am aware of the conditions that exist. One thing which I do know is that these conditions have been brought about in the City and County of Dublin because of the mismanagement of the inter-Party Government during the last three years. We will, please God, remedy the ill-effects of the past three years, given the opportunity, but as I have already stated on another occasion, we have no magic wand and we cannot get money out of the skies. I myself and members of the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned with trying to lift up this nation as far as it was humanly possible to do so. We tried to ensure that this would be an ideal Christian State, that every man would have a home of his own and the means of livelihood but things have occurred which are beyond our control and which we did not expect.
We are going through a severe economic crisis and I say, through the Dáil, to the people who are suffering and who are trying to make ends meet, that we are doing everything possible to see that their lot will be made easier. We are honestly trying to do everything possible for those in need whether it be the unemployed, the widows. and orphans or the down and outs. Deputies opposite, who are wailing and crying now, had an opportunity of doing something for these people but instead they made the lot of these unfortunate people worse than it was. We are doing our best and we shall continue to do it until we improve the lot of these people.
Does the Deputy think he will get anybody to believe that?
I shall confine my remarks to one particular section of the community to which I have referred on a previous occasion—those who are drawing unemployment assistance. I should like to make an appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to give particular consideration to that section. I know that under this proposed legislation there will be an increase of 3/- or 4/- a week to a man with a wife and family who at present draws 38/- a week. I would ask the Minister to do something to give this unfortunate section of the people something more than they are getting, even with these extra few shillings. I think every Deputy will agree with me when I say that this section of the community, more than any other, has suffered due to the present economic conditions. If it were not for the fact that they are receiving help from local authorities to supplement the 38/- which they are receiving there is no doubt that these families would be very close to starvation if not really starving.
The previous Government gave increases to those drawing unemployment benefit but did not, for reasons of which I am not aware, include the social assistance classes and the figure of 38/- remained as previously. The old figure of 50/-, in the case of unemployment benefit, was increased to 61/-, but those drawing what is commonly called "the dole" have remained at 38/-. I would make a special appeal that this gap between 38/- and 61/- should be closed to give this unfortunate category something more to live on. Some £40,000,000 is being provided in the capital part of the Budget for investment and if that produces increased employment, as we all hope it will, it will mean that the cost of social benefit and social assistance will be less. I would ask the Minister to avail of the opportunity to apply an increase to the people who are now drawing dole.
No local authority, especially in the cities and towns, can rent a house to-day at less than 10/- or 12/- a week and out of 38/- or 42/- a week this is a very high proportion of the incomes of families living on unemployment assistance. I should therefore like to appeal again to the Minister to give that class an increase of at least 10/- a week. I do not think any Deputy will contradict the statement that the increase of 1/- per week given to these people does not offset the withdrawal of the food subsidies. I do not know whether it was intended to be a complete compensation, but certainly nobody will agree that it has that effect. Perhaps the Government will say they are not in a position to give any more at the present time, but I feel that as soon as possible that 1/- a week must be increased considerably. I hope the benefits under children's allowances will also be increased in the near future.
In his figures, the Parliamentary Secretary gave the following headings: old age pension claimants, unemployment assistance claimants and non-contributory widows. For old age pensions, the payments would appear to be in the region of £170,000. There would appear to be a sum of £50,000 under the heading of unemployment payments and £35,000 for non-contributory widows' pensions. Could the Parliamentary Secretary break down the numbers of actual claimants to show the estimated number of recipients, of adult dependents and of child dependants in respect of each of these classes?
I can give the Deputy some of the information he seeks on this Bill and the rest on the Bill which follows—the Bill in respect of children's allowances. The number of recipients of old age pensions who will benefit under this Bill is 166,000; the number of recipients of unemployment assistance who will benefit is 49,000; and the number of recipients of non-contributory widows' pensions who will benefit is 31,600.
When the Parliamentary Secretary says "recipients", he would appear to regard children and adult dependents as recipients. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the number of recipients of unemployment assistance who will benefit as 49,000. Does that mean that the estimate is based upon 49,000 claimants for unemployment assistance? I do not think that is correct. I wonder if the figure includes children and adult dependents who are not technically recipients.
It includes the average number of weekly recipients and their dependents.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to say whether there is available information that would show how many actual recipients there are, the estimated number of adult dependents related to these and the number of children included in the estimate.
As far as I can remember, the average household comprises 4.1 persons.
That would not have a bearing on the information I seek.
The Book of Estimates this year provides for a sum of £102,166,000 for the services of the State. When provision was being made for this sum and when the Budget was being presented, there was a great outcry against the amount of taxation. Everybody agreed that the State was put to the pin of its collar to make ends meet, having consideration for the earnings of the people and the national income. Yet several Deputies spoke as if we had an unlimited sum to spend on social services.
Mind you, this State is fairly liberal in its provision of social services. Out of that sum of £102,000,000 in the present year, we provided £22,194,000 for social services. We are adding to that provision now, for what remains of the year, a sum of £1,963,000, making a total of £24,157,000. That compares very favourably with any democratic State in the world. In a full year, we provide for social services a total sum of £24,419,000. Deputy Costello said there was a sum of £2,500,000 available to be devoted to these services. I do not pretend to be an authority on finance, but I started off in my young days reading theories such as those of Douglas and they have all proved fallacious.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary was a follower of Douglas at one time.
I was, but I found that I had made a mistake, that there was only one way to make money available and that was by producing goods and by international trading. No matter what system of government you have in any part of the world, it will be found that the hard core of the currency is provided by the goods produced within the State and by the way the State runs its finances. There is no other way out of it. This talk about £2,500,000 being available in some banking system is nonsense. The sum cannot be discovered anywhere and I do not think it will be discovered.
When speaking last year in the Budget debate, Deputy Corish, reported at column 1405 of the Official Reports for May 15th, said:—
"It was announced last year in the Budget that a certain sum was to be made available for increases to those in the social insurance group, those in receipt of national health insurance, those on stamps and those in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions. The increase given was 25 per cent. Since the rate was first announced in March, 1950, the cost of living has gone up by 23 per cent. and we compensated them by 25 per cent. That is as it should be."
This is not a Bill to improve social services; it is a Bill to cushion the weaker sections of the community against the impact of the removal of the food subsidies. That is all it is. We would like to do better but, in our financial circumstances, it is the best we can do. We can do better only through a general improvement in the finances of this State. That is the Bill we are putting before the House and we are asking the House to pass it now. On old age pensions alone we pay out in this State £10,250,000 a year. As stated in my speech on Second Reading, the increased cost for one year for old age pensions amounts approximately to £432,000. That is the best we can do. We offer the Bill to the House and ask Deputies to pass it.
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Has he got readily available the amount spent out of each pound of taxation on social welfare benefits?
No, I have not.
I think the question would be fairer for the Minister.
All I can give the Deputy is the estimated cost of the social services which is £24,000,000 odd out of a total estimated receipt for services of £102,000,000.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.