Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Dec 1974

Vol. 276 No. 12

Health Contributions (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 12, to delete "1974" and substitute "1977".

The purpose of this amendment is to postpone the coming into operation of the greatly increased rates of contribution for a period of three years, from 31st December, 1974 to 31st December, 1977, that the old rate of contribution be retained for a further period of three years. My reason for tabling the amendment is that when the rates of contribution were established in 1971 the country was in the middle of an era of considerable prosperity. There was a comparatively high degree of employment, there was no shortage of money and price rises were not a serious problem, although they were something of a problem. Among workers, particularly those who were sent in to speak on the Govbility category, there was a pretty good degree of prosperity and the payment of 15 pence a week or £7 a year at that time, while it was obviously not welcomed by everyone, did not involve any great difficulty or hardship. Since then, unfortunately, we have had the advent of a Coalition Government which has brought in its train the disasters that we in this country have always, unfortunately, had to associate with Coalition Governments except that on this occasion they seem to have outdone themselves in their performance in bringing disaster on the nation and its people. Unemployment figures show that there are currently 83,000 to 84,000 people out of work. The number is rising weekly at a rate of approximately 1,500 to 2,000. The number of redundancies is without parallel. Numerous industries, including what is possibly the most important one of all from the point of view of employment and overall prosperity, the building industry, are in serious trouble.

Allied to that you have the economic disaster which affects this country compounded seriously by the activities of the Government in sneaking into this House and making a bare announcement of an order which they made outside the House a fortnight ago, to raise, as they said at the time, £27½ million extra in taxation. That figure was based on a belief that the consumption of petrol would drop by 10 per cent. It now appears that that is unlikely and the amount of extra taxation that will be raised by the making of that order is likely to bring in about £33 million. We have had an increase in the price of butter by 4p a lb. due to the removal by the Government of a subsidy which they need not have removed. In the last week we have had increases in the price of bread, beer and spirits. Now we have this increase. The workers have reached the stage that they just cannot take any more.

In putting down this amendment to postpone the coming into operation of this enormous increase for a period of three years I am hopeful that when three years have expired the country will, to some extent at least, have got itself out of the appalling mess into which the Coalition Government have now put it. The amendment is a reasonable one because it will give some chance to the ordinary taxpaying worker to moderate his demands for the increased income which he must have as a result of the recent activities of the Government.

It was noteworthy that in his opening speech on Second Stage the Minister for Health took the rather extraordinary step of increasing very substantially the weekly payment of most workers who fall within this category and, in the same speech, went on to ask them to restrain their demands for higher income because of the general economic situation. In this amendment I am giving the Minister an opportunity, if he is sincere in his exhortation to workers to restrain their demands, to show that sincerity by postponing this increase for a period of three years until, hopefully at least, the mess we are in will be over and the people who come into the limited eligibility category will be in a better position to bear the burden of this increase.

Great play has been made by those who were sent in to speak on the Government side, of the fact that the increase is only 11p per week or £5 per annum. I think it was Deputy Coughlan who said the 11p would only buy a bottle of lemonade, which I thought was nice of him. It is, of course, totally false to judge this increase on its own, in a vacuum and away from the context of the whole general economic situation. That cannot be done. It has to be seen in its proper context as yet another step by the Government in a long line of steps to increase prices, to increase deductions from the wages of the ordinary workers and to put them in a situation in which they have no alternative but to make not just claims for higher wages but claims for very substantially higher wages.

The Minister by accepting this amendment can have his Bill but at the same time the hardship which this, in conjunction with all the other things done recently by the Government, will create can at least be postponed until such time as hopefully in three years' time the prosperity we knew in 1971, 1972 and 1973 will have returned to this country and the workers, the small farmers and others who are in this category will be in a better position to meet the imposition.

The case for this amendment is all too obvious and reasonable for the Minister to reject the amendment. The reason for it can be seen not by the performance of the Coalition in the last 20 months but the performance of the Coalition in the last ten days when we have had practically a budget a day. One of the members of the Fourth Estate said last week that the theme song of the present régime is: "'Tis only a budget a day, dear". The fact that even the press corps are now talking in those terms about the régime which we have ruling the country at present is proof of the need for this amendment. We have probably the unluckiest Coalition Government in history at present. There is an old saying that it is better to be born lucky than rich. We have a very unfortunate relationship between two diametrically opposed parties.

In 1951-1954 we had the unlucky Korean War. That was blamed for the lack of decisions and decision making by the Coalition Government at that time. In 1954-1957 we had the unfortunate Suez crisis. Again they were very unlucky. The Suez crisis caused the fall of the Coalition at that time. They came in once more in 1973 and they are again unlucky because of the Middle East situation and another oil crisis. Everything is blamed on the oil crisis. I heard it insinuated at a county council meeting lately that the sheiks of Araby were card-carrying members of Fianna Fáil. The Coalition have had three terms of bad luck. Every time they take office they have bad luck. What country could afford an unlucky Government like that?

I must ask the Deputy to relate his remarks more closely to the amendment.

I accept fully the ruling of the Chair. I am merely pointing out the unfortunate bad luck the Coalition have had in three terms of office. The people cannot afford to take a chance on a fourth term. We are asking for the postponement of this savage increase until 1977. Those Government backbenchers who spoke so scathingly about the fact that this is the only attempt at health legislation since this Government came into office early last year will, I am sure, accept the necessity for this amendment and follow Fianna Fáil into the division lobby. At the moment we have close on 84,000 unemployed. The figure has probably increased by another 300 or 400 since Deputy O'Malley spoke shortly before seven o'clock. Large numbers are going on a three-day week. Large numbers are trying to survive in this Christmas period with no solid hope for the future of continued employment. The Minister referred to pay-related schemes. Most workers are not interested in pay-related schemes. They want to work. They are not interested in being subsidised.

The Minister is an honourable man and a reasonable man. He has served his constituents faithfully and well. Never in his career here has he done anything to tarnish his title of "Teachta Dála". He has strong ties with the trade union movement. I appeal to him now to accept Deputy O'Malley's amendment. He is aware of the problems facing the workers, one being massive price increases. These are blamed on circumstances outside the control of the Government. Not all can be laid at the door of outside circumstances. Knowing the Minister is a reasonable man, I believe he will accept this amendment.

I have been plamásed and criticised but I am not prepared to accept this amendment. This is a two-section Bill and Members knew exactly what they were voting for when they recorded a vote of 61 to, I think, 51 about a quarter of an hour ago. I recognise a changed attitude in the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. They have apparently done a little research and know the party were committed to health contributions and in the amendment now proposed, they accept the principle of health contributions. Every opportunity is taken by the Opposition to talk about the condition of the country. I do not know whether they appreciate the difficulties not alone for this country but for every country in Europe and a great many other countries as well, including Japan and the United States of America.

Deputy Burke said it was unlucky we had a Coalition Government over the last 15 or 20 years. We did have an oil crisis. We have one now again. We have to face up to figures. I was perfectly honest when I said I want £3½ million contributed to the health services. Members of Fianna Fáil, of Fine Gael and Labour are looking for money for the health services. This is not a tax. It is a continuation of legislation introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government and the Minister for Health who introduced it, the late Mr. Erskine Childers, said it would be a permanent feature of health legislation and would increase from time to time. I have justified it on the ground that the hospital services in respect of the middle income group have risen by about 93 per cent. It is justified on that score. It is justified by the increase in the cost of living for which they may criticise us. It is justified also on the question of wages. I do not think workers will object to the payment of this amount in order to continue their entitlement to the limited eligibility services.

I do not see any point in postponement until 1977. Deputy O'Malley said we should set an example when we exhort workers to restrain their demands. We do not address this to workers only. It is popular for members of the Opposition to say that we, as trade unionists, are asking the workers to tighten their belts. We are asking every single section of the community to do that, whether they are wage or salary earners or professional people.

This is a cynical amendment as, indeed, the others are too. I do not propose to accept it. Even though £3½ million is a small sum compared with the total health estimate, it will make some contribution towards the improvement of the services. I do not propose to accept the amendment because the issue was finalised when the division bells went and the overwhelming support of Dáil éireann was given to the measure I introduced.

The Minister makes the point that I have now accepted the principle of health contributions which I did not do before. The position is that on Committee Stage of a Bill I am entitled only to put down amendments which do not conflict with the basic principles of the Bill as read a Second Time. Two of my original amendments were ruled out of order. I have a letter from the Ceann Comhairle to that effect. Therefore, I fail entirely to see what point the Minister thinks he is making in his own aid by telling me that I now accept the principle of the Bill.

If I am a democrat I have to accept the verdict of the Dáil in agreeing to the Second Stage of the Bill. Therefore, for the purposes of any future argument or amendment on any subsequent stage, I cannot go against— nor can anyone else no matter how strongly he may feel about the matter —the principle which is not just a principle of health contributions as such, which I never said I was against, but a principle of increased health contributions. That accounts for the changed figures in amendments Nos. 3 and 4, where I have to show at least some nominal increase even though I would prefer that there would be no increase at this time.

The House has heard something very briefly both from Deputy Burke and myself about the economic plight of the country at the moment. We did not hear any reply to that from the Minister. There was no denial that the situation is very serious and that great hardship is suffered by a large number of people within the limited eligibility category. We have to see this increase in the context of overall Government activity over the past few weeks in raising well over £30 million extra out of the pockets of the people. This House and the Minister should not make the mistake of thinking that, because these extra deductions go under the name of health contributions, they are some painless, harmless deductions from workers' pay packets. They are the same as income tax. They are the same as social welfare deductions. When the ordinary worker gets his pay packet on a Friday night he is interested in the total amount of money in it. He looks to see what his gross pay was and he looks to see how much the deductions were. So far as he is concerned it is all going to the Government. Whether it is called health contributions or income tax is of no consequence to him. It is taken away from him. He does not get it.

The effect of this Bill is to take an extra £3½ million per annum, in effect by way of taxation, from workers who are put to the pin of their collar to support themselves and their families. To say that the money will be devoted to health is no answer whatever. On the Government's own figures we had a sum of £27½ million raised by a backdoor method outside the House in the past fortnight. We were never told what that money will be devoted to. If £3½ million extra is needed for the health services, why cannot it come out of that? There would be £24 million left. One can recall very easily that, when the benefits of the EEC were being distributed by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare who, incidentally, was the leader of the party who opposed our entry, we were told at tremendous length over a long period what all that money was being spent on, how it was being spent, and so on.

We have heard nothing in relation to the £27½ million which I think more correctly will turn out to be £33 million. Why could not the £3½ million we are raising in taxation here be got out of that £27½ million? Is it, as has been suggested by many people inside and outside the House, because the money is already spent? Is it meant to keep us from falling into total national bankruptcy and to try to put off the evil day a bit further?

This amendment gives the Minister and the Government an opportunity to draw back from the lunatic course of taxation on which they have embarked in the past fortnight. It is the last opportunity they will have to draw back. If the Minister is in any way sincere, particularly in his exhortations to people not to look for higher incomes, I would ask him to show that sincerity by postponing until 1977, as suggested in this amendment, the implementation of this increased health contribution, as it is called in the Bill, but for all practical purpose it is a form of taxation. The Minister has the opportunity to do that until, hopefully, the worst will be over and the country will be back to something of the prosperity it knew for many years under Fianna Fáil Governments.

The Minister insinuated that we were against the whole idea of health contributions. Speaking for myself, I am not against the idea of contributions. We now have roughly 85,000 people unemployed and up to 50,000 or 60,000 people on a three-day week—we have no definite figure on that. Many young people who cannot get jobs are emigrating. The spectacle of emigration which we have not seen in the past number of years is returning to us now. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment postponing from 1974 to 1977 the increase in the contributions. I am not against the idea of contributions per se. I am against the timing of the increase. The Minister, more than anybody else, is aware of the problems the workers face. He may say that Fianna Fáil are bleeding for the workers but I ask him, sincerely, to postpone this measure. The Government have raised taxation on petrol and on dog licences——

We cannot have an economic discussion of this amendment.

The point of the amendment is that the Government have already raised so much money by way of taxation in the last week that there is hardly any need for this additional £3½ million. I appeal to the Minister to postpone imposing this additional burden on the workers, take the monkey off their backs. I fully realise the pressures being put on the Minister by his Government colleagues for money, but I appeal to him to pull back from the precipice and accept the amendment. By doing so he would be making a gesture towards the cost of living, towards the cost of survival, in these difficult times.

The Minister has indicated that he is not satisfied with the present system of financing the health service. If that is so and he requires time to investigate this matter thoroughly he should accept Deputy O'Malley's amendment. More than ever before the imposition of any additional taxation or the extraction of any additional money from the weaker sections of the community is a harsh measure. The Minister must surely be aware that conditions are so bad that a further extraction of money would only lead to many people going without some of the necessaries of life.

It has been stated that the amount of money each contributor will be required to pay under this Bill is very small but to some people it will mean a lot, particularly the less well off sections. Deputy O'Malley's amendment would give the Minister breathing space and time to go into the question of financing the health services in detail. The amount of money to be extracted from the workers by way of increased health contributions, increased petrol costs and the various other increases sanctioned recently is substantial.

It may be that the money to be raised by way of increased contributions is required to keep the show going and I suspect that is the reason. If the Minister told the House that there was no money and that that was the reason why he was raising this particular contribution we would be able to put forward alternative suggestions. Deputy O'Malley's amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to have the question of the financing of the health services fully and comprehensively examined in order to ensure that there will be a fair and reasonable system of contributions in the future.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 52.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerald.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seáan.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 2 was discussed with amendment No. 1. The one decision should suffice.

Amendment No. 2 not moved

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, line 25, to delete "26" and substitute "16".

The purpose of this amendment is to allow for the minimum possible increase in the amount of contribution as I drafted it originally, I had the figure at 15p per week and £7 per annum but as was pointed out to me correctly by the Chair the House has now accepted the principle of increased contributions and, therefore, any amendment would have to show some increase in the contributions. In this amendment and in No. 4 which I thought would be discussed with No. 3, I provided for the minimum increase, namely, an increase of from 15p to 16p per week and from £7 to £8 per annum. The reasons for this are the same basically as the reasons for amendments Nos. 1 and 2—the economic situation of the country and the tremendous hardship being experienced by so many people but particularly by people in the category, for health purposes, of entitlement to limited eligibility. The majority of these people are workers who are paid a weekly wage and from whom the deductions under various heads each week, including income tax, are staggering. This must be viewed in the context of the everincreasing rise in the cost of living, or as Deputy Burke more correctly put it when speaking here a few moments ago, the cost of survival, because this is the situation at present.

Rather extraordinarily to my mind, the House has accepted the principle of increased contributions. Among those who voted for these increased contributions were many Deputies who, in 1971, not only voted against the contributions proposed then but who spoke and voted against the very principle of there being any contribution whatever. I wonder if these debates here serve any purpose or if there is any sense in my putting down amendments, amendments which, on the whole, are fairly reasonable. The real situation is that the Tánaiste, although he is Minister for Health, was told by the Minister for Finance and by the Taoiseach that there is no money and that, therefore, money must be got from somewhere.

I am familiar with the way in which these messages come from the Department of Finance. A Minister is told to view the various charges relevant to his Department and to decide in what respect there could be increases so as to bring more revenue into the Exchequer. The normal attitude of any Minister to such a message is to tell his officials to inform the Department of Finance that their Minister is not interested. A week or two later the Secretary of the Department concerned receives a letter from the Department of Finance informing him of a certain area or areas in which increases could be effected. Unfortunately, the Tánaiste has not been strong enough to withstand such pressure but he must realise how obnoxious it is, particularly at this time when the country is truely crippled by the succession of blows it has received from this Government during the past fortnight, to make a further imposition on the people. Irrespective of the name that may be given to this further deduction to be made from the weekly pay packet of the workers it is nothing less than taxation.

However, because the edict has gone out that money must be raised in order to prevent the country from falling into total bankruptcy this Bill is brought forward in, what I would consider, the least suitable of all areas for the raising of money—the field of health in which this Government according to themselves have a commitment to provide free comprehensive health services for everyone, irrespective of how well off or how badly off any one may be.

Here we have a Bill which seeks to raise substantial additional taxation under the guise of health contributions but this additional taxation is not being raised from the people who can afford it best. It is being raised from the middle income group who are probably the hardest hit of all and whose every necessity and commitment is increasing in price not weekly or monthly but almost daily. I do not know how this can be reconciled with the principles of socialism which the Minister and his various party members like to preach about on some occasions.

Deputy Gogan and myself.

Did the Minister say "Deputy Coughlan"?

Deputy Coughlan is the man who, when asked to define socialism, said that what he would regard as an example of socialism was the St. Vincent de Paul Society. We have this curious action on the part of such a Government. Deputy O'Connell of the Labour Party pro tem has described this action as inverted socialism. Perhaps it would be be described more accurately as perverted socialism. Perhaps it would be more accurate to leave socialism out of it and to describe it simply as a panic measure by a Government who are in serious trouble and who have mortgaged the future of this country.

As I have said before, if the Minister and the other members of the Government were sincere in the exhortations to the public to restrain demand, they would not be engaging in this kind of measure or in the measures in which they have been engaging in the past few weeks. Apparently, Because of the panic situation in which they find themselves, due to an enormous shortfall of money they are trying to raise revenue from any and every source.

Whatever arguments one might put forward regarding the increased cost of petrol or even those foodstuffs that have been increased during the last week or two, surely the health of the people is something on which no decent Government should try to raise extra taxation, regardless of how serious the situation in which they had got themselves and the country into.

The ill and potentially ill people are now being taxed by the increase from 15 to 26p per week and in this amendment I am trying to reduce that increase to the minimum that I am allowed to propose within the rules of order. I believe that there should be no increase but since Dáil Éireann has —strangely—accepted the principle of an increase I am trying to confine it to the minimum. I ask those who, in 1971, in this House expressed themselves so strongly against the original Health Contributions Bill and who were opposed not only to the amount of the contribution then fixed but in principle to any contribution, how do they reconcile their opposition then with the fact that not only are they going to vote now for the continuation of health contributions but for an 80 per cent increase in the rate of contribution fixed a few years ago?

A Deputy

Did you ever hear of the conversion of St. Paul?

I did, but I think St. Paul became a decent, honourable man when converted. I cannot say the same in the case of some of the conversions I saw here tonight. Many of those who did not speak in the debate but who walked through the lobby because they were instructed to do so were doing this because it was necessary to keep the Government in office and to raise another £3.5 million in taxation. But whether it was fair or proper taxation does not matter to them so long as it preserves for another week or month or whatever it will be the Government with which the country is currently afflicted.

I appeal once more—although it appears it is in vain, because on the last amendment the Minister announced that he would not accept any amendment in my name—to him to give the unfortunate middle income group a break after what has been done to them by the Government over the past fortnight and reduce the increase being made to the minimum possible, the Bill having been read a Second Time. The Minister will not get this opportunity again and he cannot blame anyone for his failure to take the opportunity being described as hypocrisy when he gets up on his bicycle, as he will, in the next few days, to go around asking trade unionists and others to moderate their income demands when at the same time he is directly taxing them in health even though he justifies it by saying that he is doing it under the guise of health.

It is not under the guise of health. I told the Deputy frankly that this extra money was going into the health services. Peculiarly Deputy O'Malley calls this a taxation Bill now: how did he describe it in 1971? He was in the House then. Could he tell me how the figure of 15p was arrived at in 1971? How was the amount of £7 per annum arrived at? There was no justification for it. It could have been £XYZ or XYZp. Now that Fianna Fáil are in Opposition there is this peculiar change and, as Deputy O'Malley says, it is taxation now but it was a normal health insurance contribution in 1971.

I do not know how the Fianna Fáil in government behave but Deputy O'Malley suggests that somebody told me that the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance was short of money, to run out and get some. Was the same thing said to the late Mr. Childers when he was Minister?

We were never that short.

Why was it introduced at all? There is no point in going over these arguments. The Opposition have made their points about petrol, butter, the bad condition of the country and they have had ample opportunity for discussion on the Vote for Industry and Commerce and on the no confidence motion. There is no point in repeating these things.

Does the Minister not like to hear them?

I understand the Deputy's ambitions.

I have no ambitions.

You should have, or you are no bloody good. Deputy O'Malley suggests we are seeking this money because times are bad, that we have got the country into a mess. Deputy Burke says the same thing and talks about the good days in 1970 —we will not say too much about the beginning of 1970—the good times of 1971. If things were so good in 1971, why did the Minister for Health then introduce this system whereby the workers would pay 15p per week and others £7 per annum? If times were so good there should have been no imposition on the middle income group. His argument that times were so good cannot stand up when these amounts were fixed.

Because times were good, people were better able to pay them.

If the Government were so well off and had so much money they did not need this tax. I remember a time under Fianna Fáil, if the Deputy wants to talk about distress—I do not like being personal— when the Deputy successfully contested the by-election in Limerick about 1968 which were supposed to be the good times of Fianna Fáil— and when Limerick city had an alltime record of unemployment.

There is a lot more of it now.

The Deputy would be surprised if he looked at the figures and compared the present figures with those of 1968 and 1969. Whether the improvement is due to Deputy O'Malley or Deputy Coughlan I do not know that. Let them fight that out locally.

The Deputy alleges that the exhortations we make are directed at the working class. They are directed at everybody. We do not ask them to take cuts; we ask them to be moderate in their demands. We freely admit that these are very difficult times. Perhaps the Deputy would describe them in stronger terms. In any case, if the health services are to be improved more money is needed. I cannot visualise the Deputy on a budget resolution voting for a tax if such were introduced to prop up, maintain or develop the health services. This money goes directly into the health services and it is a very small amount of the total cost. If I could get £3.5 million, £4 million or £5 million more for the health services it would be money well spent if it went on providing health services that are now being demanded when practically all the countries in the world, except the oil-producing ones are in dire trouble. There is no point in repeating these arguments. Fianna Fáil are against increasing this charge and we are for it and any irrelevant arguments will not change my mind.

One of the main responsibilities of a Government is the health of the nation and one Government may differ from another in the way they achieve their goal. However, all sides will agree that the ultimate goal is to provide better services. You must not forget that there is the physical and the mental sides and both have to be considered when health services are being discussed. There is mental stress and strain imposed on people because of the increase proposed by the Government——

The Deputy must relate his remarks to the amendment we are considering.

In view of the decision of the House on Second Stage and Standing Orders, we are proposing the minimum increase, namely, 16p. We appeal to the Minister for Health to meet us on this Amendment. I am aware of the problems he is facing, of the problems of the Government for financial and other reasons, the internal strains within the regime——

We cannot have a discussion of this kind on the amendment.

In view of the savage demands being made on the wage packets of the workers, I would appeal to the Minister not to impose this additional charge. It will be the final straw that will break the camel's back. The Minister has suggested 26p but I would appeal to him to reduce it to 16p. This may sound very little but it cannot be taken in isolation. The increase must be taken in conjunction with the other increases that have occurred and that are continuing to take place daily.

We appreciate that the Minister is sincere in his efforts to do his job as he sees it but we appeal to him not to impose the charge of 26p. He has succeeded in getting a majority in favour of the increase but let it be the increase of 1p which we suggested rather than the 11p the Minister wants. The workers cannot survive another sledge-hammer blow. I do not want to sound dramatic about an increase of 10p or 11p. If it were the only increase that had occurred recently I accept that it would be dramatic to continue speaking about it; but we must consider all the other increases that have taken place. There was one increase imposed by the Minister's colleague who is sitting beside him now, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs——

The Deputy is attempting to have an economic debate. The Chair has pointed out on a number of occasions that the Deputy cannot indulge in an economic debate while we are discussing this amendment.

Deputy O'Malley's amendment reads:

In page 2, line 25, to delete "26" and substitute "16".

If the amendment were accepted the Bill would read:

in the case of a person insured under the Act of 1952 to whom section 4 or 5 of this Act applies, at the weekly rate of 16 new pence...

We appeal to the Minister for Health not to impose extra taxation on the people. We know he is sincere in his interest in the health of the nation but we would ask him not to sacrifice the mental health of the people in his concern for their physical health. One goes with the other. Too many people are at their wits end and the Minister should not add to their burdens by imposing further taxation by a vote of this House, steamrolled through by one of the parties in Government and led by the Minister. By their own words members of the Minister's party are committed to improve the standard of living of the people.

Perhaps my appeal may fall on deaf ears but even at this late stage I would ask the Minister to pull back from the precipice and to agree to our amendment. I would ask him to allow a free vote to members of his own party who are only too willing to come into the lobby with Fianna Fáil and who have admitted this in their speeches on Second Stage. Give them a free vote and there will be a decision taken that will be good for the workers of the country, rather than this Bill which is a further imposition on the workers.

The impression may have been given that this side were against a contribution being made but that is not so. If the increase of 11p were used to bring people into the middle income group it would be justified but what the Minister has proposed will not help the lower income group who are entitled to medical cards, nor will it bring more people into the middle income group.

I have a social conscience and I realise help must be given to those in need. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out the middle income group is the sector that is hardest hit. Workers and farmers are the people who have to pay the £7 and the 15p contributions but the extra taxation being imposed here will crush them while it will not benefit any other section.

It is the Minister's policy to include everyone but I am mainly interested in bringing in those who are in need of help. The Minister's measure is imposing extra taxation for the same services and it is not justified. The Minister should accept Deputy O'Malley's amendment. We are not giving extra services to anybody.

I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. Deputy O'Malley has given this Bill a great deal of consideration. He is a very reasonable man and he has come up with an amendment which must be acceptable to any reasonable Minister. He indicated that the principle was bad. The Minister said the amount involved was very small. If the amount he will get from the additional contributions is so small and if the principle is not the best it is only reasonable to accept the amendment. Earlier this evening the lobby hoppers trod on the backs of the workers by indicating in no uncertain terms in the division lobbies that they are in earnest about extracting the last penny from the workers. One must examine this on a global basis. There has been a 20 per cent increase in the consumer price index. There has been a savage increase in postal charges, in the price of petrol.

We are not having an economic debate, Deputy.

All these things must be taken together to get a global picture and see whether the capacity to pay is there. After imposing the last increase in the price of butter——

I have already told other Deputies that we are not having an economic debate on this amendment.

I would be the last one to speak about the increase in postal charges, butter or petrol prices. What I am trying to point out is that when you examine the income of the normal man and take into consideration all his outgoings these savage increases——

General reference has been allowed already but the Deputy must confine his remarks to what is specifically in the amendment.

I am trying to point out that people just have not got the capacity to pay and the Minister and the Government are endeavouring to extract additional money from contributors who do not have the capacity to pay. It appears to me that the Government commissioned some member of the Cabinet to find out what was in the average man's pocket after the last increase in order to extract the last penny from his pocket and somebody came up with the idea: "He still has 15p left. Let us take it off him now, lads. It is your job, Minister, to get it from him."

Without an anaesthetic.

It would have been more responsible to call in the receiver, hand over the country to him and say: "We are gone, it is up to you to work out some solution." No. They will extract this from the workers. Taken with all the other increases the worker must find himself borrowing to pay.

If this is to be the lifeline for the survival of the Government that is all right but let us be told that. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health told us that over 24 per cent of the people are on the poverty line or below it, so 24 per cent cannot pay anyway. If we add to that the people who will not be called upon to pay we see that we are in a serious situation. Indeed, that 24 per cent is a figure that needs to be revised in the light of recent price increases. The Minister comes in here with this life raft to save the Government and we are told that having dealt with the other sections it is now back to the worker again. The great train robbers took only half as much and they ended up in jail.

I would say the Minister does not believe what he is telling us. I regard him as a fairly reasonable type of man and I do not believe he is as vicious, deep down, as the Bill indicates. I believe he is being prodded and prompted by many of the people in the Government.

Will the Deputy relate his remarks to the amendment?

He now has an opportunity, given him by Deputy O'Malley who is a reasonable Deputy and has a real concern for the health of the people and has shown it in debates on health matters. The Minister has made his point about the health contributions. The House has voted on the first amendment. The Minister has conceded that the amount is small and that some group will be set up to examine methods of payment. The Minister can now go back to the Government and say: "I won the point. It comes into operation on 31st December, 1974. The principle of extraction has been upheld. We are all satisfied with it. I am carrying out a survey to ensure that we have a more reasonable way of extracting more, possibly."

The Minister is anxious to point out that Fianna Fáil did this and that it has stood the test of time. If the principle was as bad as the Minister and other members of the present Government said it was at that time then it should be changed. With the passage of time attitudes change and there are demands for better services. We hear a lot of talk about a free health service. There are many services that people are paying for at present and cannot obtain. They are being asked to pay additional contributions for services that some of them are unable to obtain. That is completely wrong. If they were even being guaranteed the services they are entitled to one might say that instead of sending round the hat this might be a means of getting the gang out of difficulties. I hope the Minister, having got the opportunity from Deputy O'Malley, with this reasonable amendment, now that the principle has been established and consolidated here by the lobby hoppers——

The Deputy should not refer in that manner to Members.

I will say the backbenchers and the Members of the Government who so viciously trampled on the workers with the health contributions, going into the division lobby imposing further hardships on people who cannot afford to pay. It is despicable.

The Deputy is not very temperate in his remarks.

I would be the last to abuse a Member of the House and the last to disobey the Chair.

The Deputy's remarks are not relevant to the amendment.

In relation to the amendment, the amount indicated by Deputy O'Malley is very reasonable. Possibly he went a little too far but the important thing is the principle. The Minister said the amount he will get will be very small. Why bother about it then? If the Minister intends to have this comprehensive examination and if he is concerned for the large percentage below the poverty line who cannot afford to purchase the necessaries of life, he will accept this reasonable amendment instead of digging deep into the pockets of the unfortunate people. The Government are in dire straits and the nation is in dire straits because of the Government's broken promises. Survival is the name of the game. That has been obvious in the last few weeks here.

I am sorry to see so many tramping into the division lobbies on the backs of people who can ill afford to meet this impost. I am sure the Minister, if he had his way, would be courageous enough to accept this amendment. Let him have this comprehensive examination of the methods of financing the health services or let him accept this amendment. He has heard the well-reasoned arguments of Deputies on this side of the House and he will no doubt yield to their logic.

Question put: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 52.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerald.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael, F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (1) (a) as it amends the original section 3 refers to the increases as coming into effect on 1st January, 1975, and ending on the date specified by order for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section. Section 3 (2) of the 1971 Act refers to pay-related contributions which can be brought in by order of the Minister. I have no brief one way or the other in relation to pay-related contributions for health, but we do have that system in operation in relation to social welfare. It was envisaged in the original legislation that at some stage it would be introduced, presumably on the grounds of its equity, that those who have more should pay more and those who have less should pay less.

That principle has been accepted in relation to social welfare and I should like to inquire from the Minister what his views are in relation to the possible introduction of this. The Minister mentioned earlier that he had received a report from a working party who had investigated the matter. Apparently they made recommendations to him. That working party were established by the previous Minister and so far as one can surmise from what the present Minister said the recommendations seemed to favour the implementation of pay-related contributions in relation to health.

I would be obliged if the Minister would tell us what the recommendations were, and outline to us his attitude to them and whether or not he proposes to go along with the ultimate introduction of pay-related contributions in regard to health as has been done in the past two years in relation to social welfare.

I answered this when I was replying to the debate on the Second Stage. There is provision in the Act for the introduction of a pay-related scheme. What discussions the late Minister had in respect of a system of pay-related contributions I do not know. It is true that the matter was considered but I consider on balance or, to use the Deputy's own word, inequity, that whilst pay-related benefits would be justified in respect of social welfare payments this would not be so in respect of health services because the benefit which the unemployed or sick person would get would be related to his income, to his wage or to his salary.

I would not be attracted to it in respect of the health services because it would mean a graduated scale of payment for what would be the same sort of service. The Deputy may have a point in that if the scheme were to be extended to the whole country, that is free hospitalisation and mother and child care, there might be a case in respect of a small percentage of the population but I can visualise a situation wherein a worker with £30, a worker with £35, and a worker with £37 per week, would be paying at different rates but would receive the same service. My view, and the view that has been expressed to me by those who would be concerned by this, is that it would not be right to apply pay-related contributions to the health scheme.

I am obliged to the Minister for giving the House his views on the question of pay-related health contributions. It is particularly important if one views it in the context of his own proposals for an extension of the limited eligibility benefits to the whole community. I think, although I did not speak with the late Minister about this point, that the reason he had subsection 2 of section 3 inserted in the Health Contributions Bill, 1971, was because he envisaged that at some time in the future there might be an extension of limited eligibility benefits to the entire community but that he was satisfied that if that extension took place it would be entirely inequitable that the same contribution should be made by someone who was just above the medical card level as someone who was extremely wealthy by any standards.

While I take the Minister's point that the benefit is the same for everyone I do not go along with him then and say that because the benefit is the same for everyone the contribution should be the same for everyone. At the moment in the limited eligibility category we do not have an enormous discrepancy because for all practical purposes the top limit is £2,250 per annum.

But for manual workers they could go over that.

There are not many manual workers above that limit.

There could be quite a number.

Leaving some very highly paid manual workers out of it the top limit is £2,250. The bottom limit would vary considerably because of the various factors that have to be taken into account in relation to the issue of medical cards for full eligibility but one could hazard a guess that for a married man with a family the bottom limit would be £1,300 to £1,400. Therefore, as limited eligibility stands, we are dealing with a segment who are covered by a yearly income of approximately £1,000.

The principle of a flat rate contribution by everyone within that category is, in those circumstances, fair enough considering the administrative difficulty and the difficulty of collection that would be encountered in trying to bring in a pay-related contribution there. If the Minister is still adamant about going ahead with his proposal for limited eligibility benefits such as free hospitalisation for everyone, that is the 10 per cent who are above the limited eligibility limit, then it would be inequitable if the Minister did not bring in the pay-related contribution system as envisaged under subsection 2 of section 3. If the Minister does not do that we will have a situation where a person with £25 per week, or even less in the case of a single man, will not be eligible for a medical card, will have limited eligibility but will be making the same contributions as someone who has £20,000 a year.

The principle involved is important if the Minister proposes to go ahead with what he has been talking about for a long time. While I am grateful to him for giving us his attitude to pay-related contributions as things stand, and basically I agree with him, while there is a narrow limit in relation to the distance between the top and the bottom in practice of only about £1,000, if he does extend it there will be considerable inequity engendered by that move.

I should be grateful if we could have his views on the question of pay-related contributions as they would apply after the introduction of his proposed scheme to cover the whole community with limited eligibility.

I have not committed myself one way or the other for the future in respect of what contributions people might pay when Government policy is implemented with regard to the provisions of free hospitalisation in public wards for the whole country. There are 600,000 insured persons at present. Their weekly income can vary between £25 and in the case of skilled workers £55 or £60. Then there are the ranges in between. I do not think anybody would be thanked for introducing pay-related contributions for people in that type of category; similarly, in respect of farmers—of which there are 70,000 now in the limited eligibility group by reason of the fact that they are below £60 valuation. My feeling is that it would be wrong to differentiate. As a matter of fact, it would be very difficult to introduce pay-related contributions for the farming community until they decide to keep accounts which they will have to do with the introduction of income tax. As far as the real top bracket are concerned—it has been described as 10 per cent—within that 10 per cent there are many people such as teachers, guards, civil servants, self-employed people, shopkeepers and so on which whittles it down—I would not put an actual percentage on it— to a relatively small percentage of people. I am not the Minister for Finance. But my reaction to that would be that they would be subject to the type of taxation that will be introduced by the Minister in respect of capital gains and wealth tax. They are all caught for income tax and sur-tax. Without committing myself to pay-related contributions for the whole nation, I do believe that a bigger contribution by whatever method employed should be implemented to ensure that those people pay, in general taxation and, incidentally, for the health services as well.

Now that the contributions are being increased, I should like to know if an insured person or persons eligible under this Bill finds himself unable to avail of some of the services—because of lack of beds or something else—will be compensated will the Minister be prepared to make the necessary finance available to that person? By that I mean a person who is eligible for such services, who is unable to avail of them in the ordinary way and who has to pay substantial sums for a bed in, say, a private hospital or some other institution. As the Minister is aware, very often the non-availability of beds is a problem facing many patients in need of immediate hospitalisation. But because of the problems outlined in the earlier stages of the debate—such as the insistence of the VHI on a 24-hour period in hospital, the beds with the golden legs which have to be occupied by such VHI contributors —such patients are unable to gain hospital admittance when they need it. If such a person decides, in the interests of his health, to obtain a bed in a private ward somewhere, will the Minister make some type of payment to him?

The other question to which I want to revert is the alteration of the income limit for medical cards. In paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum it says:

... (which is usually denoted by the issue of a medical card):—

In view of the points made in relation to the reduction in income by increases imposed from time to time, will the Minister ensure at an early stage that the guidelines laid down will be updated in respect of the weaker section of the community at present debarred from services to which they are entitled? Could the Minister indicate whether or not a person who is forced to obtain such services, who is unable to avail of the services for some of the reasons I have mentioned already will be compensated in any way, or has that person to suffer on and put his health at risk? When a person pays for such services, it is necessary that they be provided and that the Minister ensures they are so provided. It would be unfair to ask people to pay additional contributions and then discover that the services for which they are paying and to which they are entitled are not available.

In relation to what Deputy Dowling has just said, a situation exists in the Western Health Board region in which a lot of the specialist services are not available. For that reason patients must of necessity go to Dublin. I know of several instances of medical card patients being unable to obtain beds in Dublin hospitals for long periods. In one specific case in which a man was recommended by the surgeon in Castlebar to go to a specific hospital in Dublin for immediate surgery, that hospital was unable to take him. His family doctor had to make arrangements for him in another hospital where he had surgery within a week. The surgery involved was so severe that that man had to spend seven weeks in hospital and received a bill for £700. That is the kind of situation with which we are faced in our region.

Had we a guarantee that that type of service would be provided, certainly I would have no objection to extra taxation even during this period when, by all accounts, taxation should be kept to the minimum.

The other point I wish to emphasise is the position of Ballina hospital.

I am sorry, Deputy. There is not sufficient scope within the confines of this section for a wide-ranging debate on the health services generally with particular reference to the areas in which the Deputy is interested. It would not be appropriate.

People in Ballina are being asked to pay extra money for services thy will not receive.

When I spoke earlier today I talked about the 1970 Act. I do not think anybody from the opposite benches disputed what I said, that the 1970 Act and I think the 1953 Act contained proposals for the provision of certain services. That is the reason why I had occasion to say that the introduction of legislation was not a problem in respect of our health services at present.

Although the health services have improved during the past 20 years they are still not complete but so far as the middle income group are concerned, while there have been no spectacular changes for the people, the services are being improved, are being streamlined and patients are receiving better attention. I think it was Deputy O'Malley who said that anybody could sue a health board for the nonprovision of a health service to which he considered himself entitled. This is the whole difficulty. The Act of 1970 provides that the Minister may make regulations to provide for certain appliances and certain treatments for the middle income group but that proviso has not been invoked since 1970 because it was not possible to provide all the services.

Let nobody on the other side think that I am satisfied with, for example, the dental service. Indeed, I am not satisfied, in relation to the whole field of health and it is for that reason that I said what we need is money and not legislation.

Deputy Dowling asked about the situation of a person in the middle income group who might have to go to a semi-private ward. In such a case the person would get a subvention from his health board. In respect of a medical card holder who required immediate treatment or an operation, the matter would be one for the health board. Even in respect of a case such as Deputy Calleary mentioned where a person had received a bill for £700, the board would examine the circumstances and decide what help could be given. I am sure that Deputies have experience of remission of payment of many such bills where it was obvious that the people concerned could not afford to pay.

So far as the Health Acts are concerned, there is a lot to be done before any legislation is introduced for the health service generally. Everything can be done under these Acts but the difficulty is one of money and there is no point in saying otherwise.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill".

There was an amendment to the Title in the name of Deputy O'Malley but this has been ruled out of order.

On the Title may I refer in passing to the amendment I had down which was:

In page 2, line 6, after "1971" to add "by imposing further taxation on the people".

This would have made the Title clearer. It would have made the purpose of the Bill clearer to the people who are to find a further 11p per week, in addition to the 15p they are paying already in respect of health contributions, deducted from their paypackets together with the deductions that are made under the various other heads.

The Chair ruled that amendment out of order. I accept that ruling but at the same time it is only right that I should avail of the opportunity once again to draw attention to the essentially fiscal nature of this Bill. If another £3.5 million is required for the health services—indeed, much more than that is required in this sphere—it could have been got from the recently acquired funds, for example, the £27.5 million which will accrue to the Government as a result of the additional tax imposition on petrol. I have asked here on two occasions as to where any of this £27.5 million is being spent. It can hardly be regarded as being unreasonable of me to suggest to the Minister that, even at this late stage, he should seek this extra £3.5 million from the extra taxation on petrol which, as Deputy Barrett forecast, was imposed by the Government before the oil companies put another 10p on the price of petrol which they are now in the process of doing. There is also the £2.4 million extra in taxation which will result from the unnecessary withdrawal of the subsidy on butter. Would this not have gone a long way towards providing £3.5 million which the Minister is now seeking to extract from the pockets of people?

For these reasons the long Title is somewhat bald. It is not as meaningful of the real purpose of the Bill as it would have been if the words that I proposed had been added. However, as always, I accept the ruling of the Chair in these matters.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

January 15th.

Wait a minute.

I have been told that there have been no amendments to the Report Stage but I can table amendments for the Fifth Stage. I shall not be walked on.

Nobody is trying to walk on the Deputy.

I did not direct that remark to the Minister nor to the Chair, for that matter.

I was under the impression that there was an agreement that all Stages would be passed in this House today.

There was no such agreement.

Bill received for final consideration.

We have come to the Report Stage and I was about to announce that since there are no amendments we will proceed to the Fifth Stage.

There was no interval between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage but an hour before the Committee Stage was taken, for the convenience of the Minister and of officials of the House, I circulated the amendments that I proposed to move. I could do that also in relation to the Report Stage.

I do not object to the Deputy wishing to put down amendments but it would be a bad idea at this stage if we were to ignore what the Whips had arranged. At least, I was under the impression that an arrangement had been made.

Having made the point that I am entitled to put down amendments——

Yes, on the Fifth Stage.

——I agree that we proceed to the Fifth Stage.

Top
Share