I should say, before we begin proceedings, that I am ruling amendment No. 1 out of order. The Senator in whose name it is, has been notified accordingly.
Social Welfare Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I was going to ask the Minister whether, in view of the request that has been made to him in the Dáil, he would further consider the possibility of paying the increase in old age pensions earlier than the 7th of January. I think that it only fair to say that old age pensioners in general expected that this increase would be given much earlier than 1949. The amount will not be very great in the case of the old age pensioners. I had intended to ask a number of questions on various sections of the Bill and I think I might dispose of the matter now. Reading through the report of last week's Dáil proceedings, which I got last night, I find that Deputy Dr. Ryan had asked very much the same questions as I had intended to ask relating generally to the finances of the Bill. I expect that the Minister is not in a position to-day to give more information on these matters than he gave last week. If the Minister says that he has given all the information he can give with regard to these matters then I do not propose to waste the time of the House in asking the questions.
There is one matter, however, which I think I may be allowed refer to, and refer to on this section. I noticed in the Irish Press in the report of yesterday's proceedings a remark attributed to myself. This particular remark is inserted between inverted commas. It refers to something I said with regard to the statement of the Minister for Finance when he sought the permission of the Dáil to proceed with the raising of the loan last March.
With all respect, I take it that we are on Section 9 and I do not see the relevancy of this.
The Minister present is not answerable for statements made by the Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Social Welfare did not make the statement. The statement was attributed to me and if you will bear with me I think I can relate it to the section in this way. I asked yesterday what was to prevent the Minister from providing more money for social welfare than is provided under this Bill. I am now suggesting that the Minister ought to consider providing more money for old age pensions. In other words, I am asking that the Minister would pay these old age pensions at an earlier date than the date specified in the Bill. The Minister indicated that he is not in a position to pay more money. On that question, I asked him yesterday why he could not pay more money and that is how I think the matter I am raising is now relevant. In any case, I do not think that Senator Duffy, when he hears me, will have any objection to my attempting to make a certain correction. The reporting of this particular passage would seem to indicate that the Minister for Finance had said a certain thing. I did not quote the Minister verbatim. I merely indicated what he said. Verbatim, this is what he said:—
"The credit of the State is high and since 1939 there has been comparatively small addition to the national debt."
These are the Minister's words, not the words that appear in to-day's Irish Press in inverted commas. The reference to the loan not being underwritten occurs in these words:—
"This is the first occasion since 1923 on which a public issue is being made without being underwritten."
These are the words used by the Minister and not the words that appear in to-day's Irish Press.
I hope there will be no attack on the Irish Press in this House.
I want again to ask the Minister whether he could not meet us in this matter and pay these pensions from a date earlier than the date specified in the Bill. We did expect, when the inter-Party Government came in, with all their promises as to what they would do for old age and other pensioners, that they would have done something more than they are doing in this Bill. The increased old age pension is not to be paid until the last quarter of this year. The people expected, and were entitled to expect, that the pension would be paid from a much earlier date. An increase at the rate of 2/6 a week for the last quarter of the year amounts to what? An increase of 7½d. a week, taking it for the period of 12 months. In view of the circumstances of these pensioners and in view of the financial condition of the country, I think we could do more for them than is being done under this Bill. Consequently, I would ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to arrange to have these payments made as from an earlier date.
I expect that the Minister will repeat what he said in the Dáil, that there are administrative difficulties, the question of printing, and so on. All I can do is to remind him that a somewhat similar position existed last year on the introduction of certain special allowances and the Government of the day arranged that the arrears would be paid in due course, and they were paid. I do not see why the Minister could not do the same thing. If it is because of administrative difficulties that he cannot pay them before the 7th January, there is no reason why these people could not get their arrears in a lump sum.
I must certainly congratulate Senator Ó Buachalla on the brave show that he is putting up in connection with this Bill. He asked me why I did not get more money or why I did not pay more pensions, in view of statements made by the Minister for Finance here. I might rejoin to Senator Ó Buachalla that if the Park were not full of unsaleable turf and coal we would have much more money to make available for social services; that if people had not engaged in crazy expenditure on transAtlantic airlines we would have more money for pensions.
They are sold.
If certain folk had not ordered, on the 17th February of this year, 75,000 tons of wheat at £50 a ton, which will cost a subsidy of over £2,000,000, there would be more money here for the payment of pensions and the extension of social services generally. But these are all headaches of the past. I do not want to go back on them now except that I am bound to advert to them when Senator Ó Buachalla, with an inspiring freshness, asks me why do not I give more to old age pensioners, the said Senator's Party having done nothing during 16 years of office except to increase old age pensions by 2/6 per week.
Fifty per cent. over 1939.
Let us deal with that. I say that statement is not correct and Senator Hawkins is far too agile-minded to believe it. If it were true, we would have had that statement paraded on every platform during the last general election, but, in fact, Fianna Fáil never wanted to discuss old age pensions at the last election. There were very obvious reasons. It was a ghost to them. What happened, as I explained yesterday, about 1916 the British raised old age pensions to 10/- per week and to-day the normal level of old age pensions in the rural areas is 12/6 per week. It is true that, if a person is absolutely destitute and undergoes a second means test, that person may get an additional 2/6 or it may be only an additional 2/-, and at times it may be only an additional 1/-.
Anybody who has experience of local authorities outside perhaps the Dublin area, will realise that it is extremely difficult to get that supplementary 2/6 and then it is paid through the poor law administration. Under this Bill we propose to lift the maximum for old age pensions in rural areas to 17/6 per week. There will be only one means test for that, that will be the initial test. So far as 103,000 old age pensioners at present getting 12/6 are concerned, they will automatically get 17/6 and the means test to be applied in their case will be whatever means test was applied when they got the 12/6. There will be no fresh means test in that case. Those who at present qualify for 12/6 will qualify for 17/6 when this Bill is passed.
On the question of the date of operation of the Bill when this Bill was got together, when Government approval for the expenditure of £2,500,000 was secured, we applied ourselves to the task of ascertaining how soon we could bring the Bill into operation. I consulted the officials of my Department, who are officials who dealt with the cash supplement scheme last year. I tried to get them to give me a target date from which the Act could be made operative.
Having discussed the matter with these trained and competent officials who realised the work of reassessment, review and revaluation involved and who were aware also of the delay that would be experienced in getting new pension books printed—anybody who has experience of the printing industry will know what the difficulties are in that respect—they told me that this seemed a very formidable task. It was only after strong pressure by me that I eventually got the target date fixed as the 7th January next. I am making this statement publicly. Its accuracy, therefore, can be tested in the light of experience and the views of living officials. It was bearing that fact in mind and in the light of that information that we considered the whole position afresh. The Government was informed of the position and said that in view of the fact that this Bill will require a considerable time to implement, that considerable formalities and mechanics have to be arranged, we should make provision in the Budget for the payment of these pensions as from the earliest date on which the officials of my Department said it would be possible to implement the decision. That decision was definitely and frankly taken, bearing in mind that it would be in or about the 7th January before the Bill could be made operative. Bear this in mind, that even that date was attainable only by taking every conceivable kind of short-cut to the implementation of the Bill. Some of the decisions in this Bill had to be anticipated in order to get the work under way and thus avoid a later date for application than the 7th January. Even before it can be implemented on the 7th January, we have still to take the chance of dropping the annual review of pensions which normally takes place with the issue of new pension books. We have also to stop the hand-to-hand delivery of pension books and to use instead the post to secure that these persons will get their pension books before the date of the coming into operation of the present Bill. If it had been possible to implement this Bill before the 7th of January, the Government would have made financial provision for doing so. The first approach was on the basis that it would be possible to do so, but physical difficulties have made it impossible. I may mention in this connection, in order to give the House some picture of the difficulties involved, that there is not a single higher official in my Department who has been able to contemplate fixing his holidays yet, and, even when this Bill is implemented, many will still be unable to take their holidays in time. Even with all that, it is going to mean a heavy strain on the staff available to deal with the Bill, because this matter requires trained computators, people with experience, people who have ability to assess means. The Government are as anxious as any member of this House to bring the Bill into operation at the earliest possible moment, but there are practical difficulties. It is because of these difficulties that the 7th of January was fixed as the earliest possible date on which the Bill could be brought into operation.
While I accept much of what the Minister has said in relation to the difficulties involved, I hold that his statement in no way answers the case which I made. I put forward this case with all the more conviction as I think my statement has been substantiated by what the Minister stated here last night. There are 145,000 persons in receipt of old age pensions, the Minister told us last night. According to my figures, which might not be quite up to date, but which were not so very long ago supplied by the Department, there are 124,000 out of these 145,000 in receipt of the full pension. They therefore come within the means test as set down then and as set down now. The income of each of these pensioners is not over £15 12s. 6d., so that they are entitled to the full pension now and will be entitled to the full pension under this Bill. What is the purpose of having a re-examination into such cases? We have it on record that they are already in receipt of the full pension. I hold that it would be a very simple matter to deal with these 124,000 persons right off. That would leave only 21,000 persons to be dealt with and, if the Minister states the increases are going to range up to 5/- per week per pensioner, then it is a very simple matter to make an arrangement by which each old age pensioner entitled to the full pension would get after next week or the following week an additional 5/- per week.
I am glad, and appreciate very much that the Minister has told us of the difficulties attached to giving increases of this kind, but that only goes to show how these obstacles were overcome last April. The Minister questioned the statement that I made, but I have here a copy of the advertisement, issued, not by a political Party but issued by the Department of Social Welfare, setting out the new rates of pensions in connection with old age pensioners at that time. The advertisement issued by the Department stated:
"Any person who is entitled to an old age pension or a blind pension in respect of a week beginning on or after the 4th April, 1947, will be entitled to a supplementary cash payment of 2/6 per week. Such pensioners in urban areas will continue to receive food vouchers; pensioners in rural areas will continue to be eligible for payments which may be made by public assistance authorities, who will continue to be recouped 75 per cent. of such expenditure by the Exchequer."
The Minister last night gave us a short history of the old age pension Acts. He told us that in 1909, when the old age pension Act was first introduced, the pension was 5/- per week, and that in or about 1916 it was increased to 10/-, but he very conveniently skipped the long period from 1916 to the present day. He did not tell us that in 1931 the pension was reduced and that as a result of the legislation introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government the basis of the means test was modified to such an extent that almost immediately a very large number of persons became entitled to old age pensions. In 1931 the number in receipt of pensions was 111,911, and in 1941 that figure was increased to 136,000. He did not pay any attention to the fact that during the emergency years provision was made for the issue of food vouchers and fuel to old age pensioners and that arrangements were made whereby in rural areas public assistance authorities were entitled to and encouraged by the Department to give assistance to old age pensioners.
To destitute old age pensioners.
What happened in these cases quite recently? When the present Minister assumed office, one of the first regulations or Orders was to discontinue the recoupment of the 75 per cent., and if the local authorities wished to assist old age pensioners they did it on the lines suggested by Senator Duffy.
May I correct the Senator? I think he is completely wrong in what he said. The Order that was issued in connection with the food vouchers applied only to home assistance recipients. It made no mention whatever of old age pensioners, absolutely no mention. If the Senator would even take the trouble to look up the documents in the Library he will see that he is completely wrong in his statement.
On a point of order, I should like to know whether we are discussing Section 9? I suggest that this debate is completely out of order.
I was going to suggest to the Senator that he might deal with the question of the operative date.
I would suggest that he cannot deal with the question of the operative date now. He must deal with Section 9 but he is only trying to make a political speech.
Senator Duffy may hope to score some debating point in relation to the section——
It is not a debating point; it is purely a question of order.
I do not wish to hold up the House by repeating what I have already stated on the Second Stage. That is that when we have 80 per cent. —the Minister said 90 per cent.—of the total number of old age pensioners getting the full pension at present, I cannot understand the necessity for having a re-examination into such cases.
May I say a few words? If we are honest in this House in dealing with this Bill, we should approach it in the practical manner in which it has been the custom to approach such measures for a long time. That is not the practice now. Senator Ó Buachalla woke up when we had reached Section 9 to make his speech on behalf of the old age pensioners, who are not going to get the increases until the 7th January. If he were in earnest, he would have put down an amendment for Section 9 but he is not in earnest. This is merely a piece of window dressing, something which the Irish Press will publish to-morrow. It is merely a declaration on behalf of the Fianna Fáil supporters in this House as to what they would do if they had an opportunity of framing this Bill. I suggest, with all respect, that the suggestions made here are not honest. We are discussing Section 9.
Surely it is not in order to accuse a Senator of being dishonest while doing his duty in this House.
I do not think the Senator should take it that way. I do not think Senator Duffy means it in that way.
Supposing we leave these gentlemen to reflect outside for themselves and their own consciences as to whether they are serious in their desire to do something for the old age pensioners. I should not like to determine the issue for them. I want to draw attention to the fact that the secion we are discussing is concerned with inserting a table setting out the rates of pension which should be payable when the Act comes into force and that nothing else is relevant to the section. That is the only point I want to make. If I were to answer Senator Hawkins and Senator Ó Buachalla, there are a number of things I should like to say which would probably take us very far afield. At this stage the point I am trying to insist upon is that we will discuss a section when we reach it and what is in the section and nothing else.
I had hoped that we had dealt with the politics of the Bill and that we would now come down to the cold mechanics of it.
Yourself having introduced it.
I did not introduce it. I was not the first speaker. Let me say this to Senator Hawkins. He asks why we should examine all these 130,000 old age pension cases. If he had been in the office when I was discussing this matter with my officials he would have heard me make the same case. I asked why it should be necessary to go through the 130,000 cases and I argued that it should not be necessary. The final decision was that we would not go through the 130,000 cases. All these people will be less troublesome to deal with than the other cases. But records have got to be kept at headquarters for 130,000 people, and they have to be assigned in future to the category of full pensions. Even that takes time. There are 130,000 of them to be done. It is because of the fact that we are taking a short-cut and not doing that reviewing in these cases, but merely creating new records with new assignments of pensions that it is possible to hit the target date of 7th January. I shudder to think what the date would be if we had to review each and every one of the 130,000 cases in the light of the modified means test.
Senator Hawkins talked about the cash supplements last year. I tell him, and the files can show it, that it was three months after the date upon which the decision was taken before they were brought into operation. Let us bear this in mind. The cash supplement scheme was brought into operation last year by means of a stamp which was superimposed on the pension order. It was a 2/6 stamp in the main. If I could have done the same thing this year the Bill could have been brought into operation somewhat earlier; if I had not modified the means test or if I had given a fixed 2/6, which I am not doing. These old age pensions are going up from 12/6 to 17/6, from 15/- to 17/6 in other cases, and by varying sums at different points of the scale.
In connection with the widows' noncontributory pensions there has to be a complete review. Every single noncontributory widows' and orphans' pension will have to be reviewed. That is because the means test is substantially modified. A widow will now be entitled to get 10/- a week from a son or daughter or other relative, or any kind of gratuitous payment. The widow herself will be entitled to a means exemption of 10/- per week by reason of the fact that she is a widow. A widow with two children gets a means exemption of 13/-. On top of that, I propose to step up widows' noncontributory pensions where a widow has one child, by 14/6 per week; where she has two children, by 9/6 a week; where she has three children, by 11/- a week; where she has four children, by 12/6 a week; where she has five children, by 14/- a week; where she has six children, by 15/6 a week; where she has seven children, by 17/- a week; where she has eight children, by 18/6 a week; where she has nine children, by 20/- a week, and where she has ten children, by 21/6. All that involves a review of these cases, and it is because of the fact that it is physically impossible to do it earlier that the 7th January is put into the Bill. On the point about the 2/6 extra which may be granted to an old age pensioner in a rural area, I have had experience of the administration of the Act. I have seen it administered. I have seen the test imposed, and how rigid that was. I can only say that you would get a blood transfusion more quickly than the extra 2/6.
Whatever convincing reasons the Minister may have given in his opening remarks, he certainly has now convinced me all the more that my approach to this question was the correct one.
Only five years too late.
He has put forward all the difficulties. The real difficulty, however, is the question of finance. A sum of £600,000 was made available to finance this scheme and it could be done only from the 7th January to the 31st March. That is the answer to the question.
Senator Hawkins must not claim to be the only paragon of truth in this House. I say that that statement is not correct. Outside, I would describe it by another term. So far as the Government are concerned, if this could have been brought in earlier it would have been done. I say with every sense of responsibility, and the Cabinet records will prove it, that if it could have been brought in earlier more money would have been available for financing it from an earlier date. But there is the physical difficulty of doing it. The officials know that and I should like to have them brought before a select committee and asked what they know about it. Senator Hawkins would be in a sorry way if he got the truthful testimony of the officials who know the facts surrounding the matter.
I feel that the Minister has the utmost sympathy for these officials. I have had some little experience of these officials on and off over a considerable number of years. I do not think that any words of mine or of any Senator would be sufficient to pay tribute to the loyalty and industry of the officials of the various Departments. I am sure that that is true particularly of the officials in the Department of Social Welfare. I would be the last person who would postpone their opportunity of getting away on a holiday. I would be the last person to postpone the opportunity for the Minister to get away on a holiday, because I think that if any man ever needed one he does. I rose to ask a simple question: why the Minister could not arrange to pay these pensions from an earlier date? I said in my opening remarks that I was sure there were administrative difficulties militating against the actual payment of the pensions from an earlier date. I asked the Minister, as he is paying the pensions early in January, why he could not have stated that the pensions would be payable from a date in October and then pay the arrears of pensions in January. That can hardly be a difficulty of administration. If it is, I cannot see it. But then I admit I am not familiar with all the workings of the Department. I am thinking of what happened last year when it was decided to pay certain supplements. They were not payable for six weeks after the date on which it was agreed they should be paid, but then they were paid as arrears.
I cannot see why that could not be done in this case. I might as well admit to the Minister what I have in my mind. I will be doing that if I ask him two questions on the various sections of this Bill. What I have in mind is this, that the Government is not putting up the amount of money which the Minister has said the Government is putting up. That money is coming from a source other than taxation: other than from the source which should meet the cost in this case.
For old age pensions?
I have nothing more to say.
Will the Senator say whether he means that the money for old age pensions is coming from sources other than State funds?
There can be no question on this section as to where the money is coming from.
I am not going to engage in a discussion with Senator Duffy about this. I agree that we ought to get through the Bill as quickly as we can, because I agree that we cannot do very much about it. I was anxious to get certain information and no more. If the Minister could explain to me why he could not pay these arrears of pension, say, from October to January in a lump sum, I would be glad, but I feel the reason why he is not doing it is that there is some force preventing him from doing it. It is not just an administrative force or an administrative difficulty.
I would like to say that I was reprimanded in this House some time ago for making unworthy suggestions concerning civil servants, but I have never made any assertion so unworthy or so despicable as the one that is being made now that old age pensioners cannot get the increase in their pensions because certain civil servants want their holidays. It is unworthy, it is dishonest and it is dishonourable to the House and should be withdrawn.
I must ask the protection of the Chair in this matter.
I do not think the Senator made that assertion.
The only mention that I made of holidays was that, in order to get down to the implementation of this Bill, the higher officials had sacrificed themselves by postponing their holidays, and they did that with no care for themselves. Senator Ó Buachalla asks "Why do you not pay those arrears of old age pensions"? One may answer that by asking "Why did not Fianna Fáil pay the arrears of widows' and orphans' pensions?"
That is no answer. I suggest that we are dealing with the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare.
The Minister is now replying to the Senator.
In every piece of legislation in which there is a provision for the payment of rates of benefit as from a particular date, these dates are usually projected into the future. This Bill fixes the date from which these pensions will be payable. The procedure followed in this case is exactly the same procedure as that which was followed by the Fianna Fáil Government when they introduced Bills in which there was a provision for the bringing into operation of particular scales of benefit. I have already stated that, if it were possible to bring this into operation before the 7th January, that would have been done, but the work involved made it impossible to fix an earlier date. I know of no Fianna Fáil Bill that was ever introduced in this House or of any other Bill introduced by any other Government which ever fixed the payment of benefits in arrears in a way other than that set out in this Bill. There were the cash supplements of last year, but that was a trivial business in relation to this.
It was £2,500,000.
A fair amount of it was in lieu of food vouchers. If the Senators wish they can have a full innings on this on the Fifth Stage, when there will be an opportunity for tearing off the varnish from their arguments. What we are doing in this case is exactly that which was done by every other Government we have had in this country over the past 26 years, namely, fixing a date. That date is fixed only by reference to the physical possibility of paying the benefits from that date.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 1 to this section, in the name of Senator Hawkins, has been ruled out of order.
Senators will be aware that the purpose of the amendment was to remove from the consideration of the means test moneys that may accrue to persons who are already subscribers to a contributory pension scheme. We have in the country quite a number of organisations, business firms and undertakings——
Is this amendment being moved to Section 11?
The amendment has been ruled out of order.
Because Section 11 deals only with the Health Act, and not with old age pensions or contributory pensions. It deals with payments made under the Health Act.
I suggest that Section 11 makes provision for disregarding any payments that may be made by a local authority in respect of a person, or of his dependents, under Section 44. What I want to suggest to the Minister is that, while I agree such provision should be made, I also want him to disregard taking money that might accrue out of a pension scheme to which the pensioner himself was a contributor.
That has nothing to do with Section 11. Section 11 makes provision for exempting from a means calculation any benefits that a person may derive under Section 44 of the Health Act.
I am trying to convey to the Senator that I had tabled an amendment to this section.
That amendment has been ruled out of order. The Senator must deal with the section and not with the amendment.
If the discussion is to be confined to the section, then I shall have to avail of another opportunity to deal with this matter.
Question—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), in line 28, after the words and figures "Order of 1947" to insert the words "or on becoming entitled to under this Act".
I am moving the amendment for the reasons that I gave in my Second Reading speech yesterday—that this is a saving section. Its purpose is to ensure that no old age pensioner will be in any worse position, as regards the amount of money he is to receive after the passing of this Act, than he is in at the present time: that after the investigations, to which the Minister has referred, have been carried out, that his pension will not be less than the pension that he is now in receipt of. I hold that it is possible that such a worsening of his position could take place, following a review, and that such a person could find himself in a very much worse position after the 7th January than he is in now. I know that the Minister will give me the same reply now as he has already given in the Dáil in this connection. However, I have a grave doubt about it and I want to safeguard those persons who will become entitled to pension, say, on the 8th January. I want to ensure that the calculation of their means will be on the same basis as it would be if this Act were never passed. Otherwise, as I said yesterday, if there is going to be a new basis for arriving at the means test set up under this Act then, whatever modification has been made in the means test will be nullified and the number of people who will receive the full pension will be much smaller than is the case at present. If the Minister puts forward the view to the House that there is no danger of such an occurrence I cannot see what is to prevent him from accepting this amendment. I want him to give the consideration in this connection that he has promised to give and that would be given by some other Party, should it come into power. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I tried to read this amendment into the section, but frankly, I cannot make head or tail of it. It may be intelligible, but certainly it is not intelligible to me.
The Minister knows what it is intended to convey.
There is no need for anybody to get heated about this, because only a handful of people out of the 150,000 are involved. Where an old age pensioner of 70 or more years of age had, nothwithstanding his age, children not over 16 years, he received a food allowance and, later, a cash supplement in lieu of the food allowance in the past.
Since July, 1947, the Fianna Fáil Government said: "We will give you cash supplements in lieu of the food vouchers but any old age pensioner in the future who has children under 16 is not going to get from the Government a cash supplement in respect of these children." In other words, they said: "We will recognise certain claims up to July, 1947, but as from then we will recognise no such claims."
The present position is that an old age pensioner who made an application for an old age pension since July of last year, if he has ten children under 16 years of age, gets no more than the normal rate of pension—either 12/6 or 15/-. Under this scheme those who had certain allowances, food vouchers first and then supplementary cash allowances, might conceivably, in a handful of cases, get less under this Bill than they are getting because of having a large number of children under 16 years. The House will appreciate that they are not a growing nor an exceedingly large class of people.
One cannot be sure.
We are only dealing with a handful of people. I am making sure in this Bill that they will suffer no loss and that, in future, they will get the full 17/6 per week and a modification of the means test.
I take it that Senator Hawkins wants them to get a medal as well.
They should.
There would be a case for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I presume it is hardly necessary, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that the operative date mentioned in the section, 4th October, 1948, applies not only to the increased rate of contributions to national health insurance and unemployment insurance but to benefits also. I should like an assurance from the Minister that benefits on the new scale will be available as from that date. According to the Bill, this part shall come into operation on the 4th day of October, 1948. It should follow, therefore, that the whole part, from Section 14 to Section 22, inclusive, will come into operation on that date.
May I say that the 4th of October is the date from which the new scale for contributions take effect? The merging of the basic benefit and the cash supplements will take place on the same date and will be payable as from that date.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
I move to delete the section. I consider that my motion is just and fair. Under this section provision is made to increase the national health insurance contributions—those of the employer and of the employee— without giving the beneficiary any additional benefits. As I said last night, I hold the view that by increasing the contributions without taking any step to increase the benefits we are doing grave harm and danger to the future of social security in this country. Last year, in the Supplementary Estimates, the increases for sickness benefit were increased by 50 per cent. and for disability benefit by 100 per cent., but no additional increases were made in contributions. The total sum required to cover that scheme was made available from the Exchequer. I pointed out yesterday that if we examine the Estimates for 1946-7 the sum provided in regard to national health insurance was £494,300. In 1947-8 that sum, as a result of making available the increased benefits and probably administration, rose to £804,000. We are going to ask the employer and the employee to increase their contributions to build up an insurance fund and, at the same time, those people who are entitled to benefits find that no provision is made for increased benefits. The Minister last night spoke at length on the financial structure of this society. He said that there is £4,500,000 to its credit. He said that almost every year there were more contributions by subscribers than were expected. He put forward the view that it was good that this fund should be there and that it was no serious harm that the £450,000 that was made annually available to that fund was not made available this year. He said that neither I nor any other Senator need worry about the people entitled to national health insurance benefits or widows' and orphans' pensions because there was still sufficient in the fund for them to draw upon.
The Minister stated last night that the fund is in a very sound financial position and that it would be a foolish thing for us to worry about what might be there in 1950 or 1958. We are seeking here to increase the contributions. What we are really doing is putting a kind of taxation, if you like, on the employer. We all know that where there are large numbers of men employed, even though the individual contribution may not be much, it will amount to a considerable sum at the end of a year; industrialists and others will pass on any increases to the consumers. I have in mind another section of the workers where the contribution cannot be passed on. I am referring to the employer of agricultural labour. It is usual throughout the country for men who have agricultural labourers employed not to deduct from those employees the small weekly contribution required under national health insurance. That is made available more or less to the workers as a reward for their services. Now the contribution is going to be increased, and, since those increases will eventually be passed on to the consumer, there will be a further justification for another increase in wages. I think it was Senator Ruane who recommended the Bill to the House last night because of the increased benefits that were being made available. In 1947 when the National Health Bill was under consideration in the Dáil the present Minister said:—
"I have said before, and I do not think it can be repeated too often, that what we call national health insurance legislation is neither national in its concept, nor helpful in its scope and, in fact, provides no adequate insurance at all, having regard to the proposals which confront the bread-winner."
That was the Minister's view last year.
And still is.
And still is. He brings before us here in the Seanad something that we are expected to take as the first instalment of a comprehensive national health security scheme.
It is not the first instalment.
It is the first step. If the sentiments he expressed last year are still his sentiments and if the views he advanced for the Bill here are still his views, he comes forward with a Bill here providing for increased contributions and making no provision for those things which he knows and which I hold are very essential if this question of national health is going to be of real national benefit. We have what some may regard as generous provision made for the man who falls ill. The provision is not in relation to his income as a worker. I am sure that everybody will agree with me that it is in time of illness that money is more urgently needed than in normal times. I would have expected to find in this Bill the same provision made as there is in the Public Health Act for the dependents of a bread-winner who falls ill or is disabled. Under the Public Health Act where a bread-winner contracts a contagious disease certain provision is made. I would suggest to the Minister that he should avail of the opportunity offered to him of amending this Bill now. It is unfortunate that we should be discussing a measure of this kind while the Dáil is in recess. There is always the drawback present in the minds of the Seanad that any amendments to the Bill will entail the calling together again of the Dáil. I would ask the Minister not to take any serious notice of that particular consideration but to avail of the opportunity he has now in this House of amending the Bill on the lines I have suggested on the Report Stage.
Provision should be made so that those people from whom we are asking for increased contributions will feel that they are going to get something in return which will make it worth their while to be enthusiastic and active participants in the scheme. If we do not do that now we shall find it very difficult later to implement the scheme the Minister has outlined or, indeed, any Government-sponsored scheme. The demand for increased contributions without a commensurate return for those contributions will be damaging to the future development of national health.
The issue here is a simple one. When we take away all the trappings and Senator Hawkins's references to enthusiastic and active participants, the issue is a simple one. It is whether the scheme is to be contributory or non-contributory. The particular section that we are discussing makes provisions for a contribution in the case of men of 1/0½ per week. The employer pays 6½d. and the worker pays 6d. I take it that these contributions are determined on the basis of an actuarial valuation. There is no reason to think that they are not. The original scheme propounded in Great Britain in 1911 was based on very minute actuarial calculations. The total contribution was alleged to be 7/9ths of the benefit. That practice has been adhered to rigidly from 1911 down to 1946 or 1947. The employer and the worker jointly paid for 7/9ths of the benefits and 7/9ths of the cost of administration. The remaining 2/9ths were paid by the State—that is, 2/9ths of the cost of the benefit and of administration. I take it that what is proposed here is a continuation of that principle—the principle of insurance benefits related to contributions. I am in favour of that principle.
For the information of those who may have some doubts in the matter and who may be tempted to raise questions with some of us as to what our attitude ought to be, I want to say that the trade union movement throughout the world has gone on record as declaring itself in favour of a contributory scheme of insurance as against a non-contributory scheme. There are very valid reasons for that attitude. There were two reasons advanced by the international trade union movement in favour of the contributory scheme; first, the contributing parties should have an interest in the administration of the scheme—as they have here in the administration of the scheme. The interest is not as great an interest, perhaps, as that which they had before Fianna Fáil changed the entire principle of the approved society system. Up to 1933 the insured persons administered the benefits themselves. From 1933 onwards you had a tripartite scheme consisting of the State, the employers and the employees. The second main reason advanced by the trade union movement in favour of the contributory scheme was the fact that the amount of the benefit, once it was paid, was guaranteed. There was no means test. Once you qualified for benefit you got the benefit for which you contracted. If you contracted for 22/6 per week you got 22/6 per week. All the insured person required was a medical certificate to show that he was incapable of work by reason of illness. Once that certificate is available the insured person, irrespective of his status, irrespective of his income, and irrespective of any other consideration, is entitled to the benefits prescribed by the Act.
During recent years the late Government tacked on to this scheme a supplementary benefit which was paid without relation to the beneficiary's contributions to the scheme. I do not know why that should have been done, but I suspect the Government were unable to make up their minds as to whether the value of money was to increase or not and, as a temporary measure, without committing themselves to any final proposals, they simply increased the rate of benefit by 15 per cent., the amount of that supplement being provided from the Treasury.
I think we ought not to assume that in making that decision the late Government committed themselves to the principle of a non-contributory scheme, because I can remember very early on in their career they reversed the decision of their predecessors in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. When the present Minister for Finance was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, he reduced the contributions of insured persons in respect of unemployment insurance, and one of the earliest things done by his successor, now Deputy Lemass, was to restore the original contribution, which increased the payment made by insured persons by 3d. a week, and he had the full support of the Labour Party in doing that.
Do not imagine that I am criticising him. I am defending what he did in 1933, and I am defending it in relation to what Senator Hawkins said here, because if Senator Hawkins is right and is expressing the view of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1948, then he is repudiating what they did as a Government in 1933. But I suggest he is utterly wrong. I suggest the Fianna Fáil Party, if they had been in office, would have adhered in 1948, as in 1933, to the insurance principle and they would have gone back to the old rate for sickness benefit. If they maintained it at 22/6 a week, as it is now, that would have increased the contribution by employer and worker to provide funds for that purpose. Everything else is beside the question.
The only issue here is, shall we have a contributory scheme with payments by employer and worker covering 7/9ths of the cost, or shall we not? The Bill provides for a contributory scheme which is calculated to cover 7/9ths of the cost of the benefit administration. I think the House ought to approve of that scheme, which has stood the test of time for 35 or 36 years. In the main that scheme has lived up to the claim made for it by the late Mr. Lloyd George—ninepence for fourpence. I had experience of administering a society which provided its members with tenpence worth of benefit for every fourpence got in contributions. That may not be the experience of all societies, but it was the experience of the society with which I was associated. It is a good scheme. It is a good plan that the insurance benefits would be contributory, that the insured person would have a right to his benefit and that he would have some say in the administration of the scheme and the conduct of the society which operates it.
Might I say to Senator Hawkins that I do not think he is serving the best interests of the insured contributors by pursuing the line he has adopted to-day? It is well known that the organised workers throughout the world know all the pitfalls and what little value can be attached to the tinsel of apparenly free schemes. They are all convinced that in the long run it is better from the worker's point of view that this scheme should be on a contributory basis.
We agree with that.
I misunderstood the Senator so, because I thought he was following the rather misguided line taken in another place and I am glad that the Senator has inoculated himself against that. The insurance principle is the best from the standpoint of the worker. It makes sure that the money is available to pay him his benefit and it gives him a statutory right. We are amalgamating the basic benefit with the cash supplement and giving the worker a right to the combined rate of benefit, thus putting the whole scheme back on its original insurance basis. During the emergency certain persons got food vouchers in exceptional circumstances to tide over the difficulties which then surrounded them, but nobody regards the issue of food vouchers as a desirable social experiment. At best it is a desperate kind of remedy for a desperate kind of disease.
It was adopted during an emergency.
Nobody wants the food voucher or the soup kitchen continued as part of our economic life. It was decided to get rid of the food vouchers, and cash supplements were substituted. When the scheme was applied in the first instance, in so far as it applied to workers who paid contributions for their benefits, it was recognised that as those workers' wages were pegged down under wage control machinery, there was a pretty thin case politically for asking them to pay increased contributions for food vouchers at a time when wages were being pegged down pretty ruthlessly and then the Exchequer put the money into the pool for the food vouchers. Subsequently, cash supplements were introduced.
It is on record that one Minister said: "In any case, it is better to give cash supplements, because they do not believe they are getting anything extra when they get food vouchers", and it was stated by that Minister: "If you give a person a pension of 10/- and a food voucher worth 2/6 you will never convince him that he is getting 12/6". The suggestion was made that in order to let him feel that he was getting something tangible added to his old age pension, it was better to give him a cash supplement than a food voucher. In that way, we floated into the cash supplement scheme, which was extended in some areas. Persons in receipt of sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance Act got no food vouchers or cash supplements between 1939 and April, 1947, and they were compelled to exist on 15/- a week sickness benefit. I agree that that benefit was scandalously low. Nobody will make me admire even the present rates of benefit—I will not do it. I hope to have the pleasure, with the assistance of Senator Hawkins, of substantially increasing these scales of benefit in due course.
All we are doing in this Bill at the moment is to amalgamate the basic benefit with the cash supplement and to put it back on the normal insurance basis; we are doing nothing else. In the comprehensive scheme, among the things that will be tackled, and tackled earnestly, will be stepping up the rates of benefit for sickness and disability purposes, and, perhaps, trying to get rid of the lower rate for disability pensions altogether and the inequality between men and women which exists in the present scheme of things. That problem has been tackled during the last five months. Five months is not a short time, but some of us had pretty tough jobs to do in that five months. We had to familiarise ourselves with a new Department and the hundred and one things which fall to the lot of a Minister daily, all time-soaking operations. Senator Hawkins regretted that the Dáil was now adjourned and that if an amendment were to be carried here or recommended here it would involve bringing them back. But you can take this from me. Were it not for the fact that I, and particularly the officials of my Department, worked extremely hard on this Bill because I was impatient with the low rates of benefit at present paid and because I was impatient for the modification of the means test, this Bill would not come before this House until October or November next. I could easily have waited until October or November before introducing a Bill of this kind, and only the officials of my Department know the amount of time that was poured into the production of this Bill. If I had waited until October or November next to introduce it, I could not pay benefits on the 7th January next; we would have been running well into next year before we could pay benefits. Quite considerable difficulties have been surmounted so that we should have an interregnum so that the mechanics of the Bill could be studied and so that steps could be taken to bring the Bill into operation with the utmost expedition.
We could have taken the line of no contributions increase as the contributions increase is a meagre one. Senator Hawkins spoke of the difficulty for farmers to pay increased contributions. A farmer's contribution to widows' and orphans' pensions and national health insurance will be an additional fourpence per week. If, after 26 years of native Government, we have an agricultural economy whereby farmers cannot bear another 4d per week, we ought to give up agriculture altogether and get into a more pleasant pastime. If they cannot bear another 4d. per week we ought to throw our hats at agriculture.
Senator Hawkins said that this was the first instalment of a comprehensive scheme. It is not. It does not touch the comprehensive scheme at all. I could have, perhaps, concentrated on the comprehensive scheme by putting this Bill away back in the queue, by telling the old age pensioners "you have got to wait" and by telling the widows and orphans "you have got to wait". But I was impatient to help the old age pensioners and to increase the non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. Under this Bill 23,000 existing widows will get benefit. I concentrated, therefore, on trying to produce a Bill with the utmost expedition, not on producing an instalment of the comprehensive scheme. The comprehensive Bill will appear in due course. As soon as I possibly can get a decision on this important matter, into the other House and into this House it will come. This Bill is a Bill dealing with urgent cases—no more. It does not purport to remedy the national health insurance defects; it does not purport to remedy unemployment assistance or unemployment assurance defects or defects in the contributory widows' pension scheme. It is merely a Bill stepping up the pensions of old age pensioners, non-contributory widows and orphans and blind persons, modifying the means test and lacing up the basic benefits with cash supplements. Other aspects of sickness benefit will be introduced in the comprehensive Bill and I do not think that Senator Hawkins will have much complaint to make of it. I do not think he can complain if I can step up benefits substantially.
The points at issue here are very simple. I think that we ought to be glad that this amendment of Senator Hawkins was put down so as to give us an opportunity of dealing with them. The position under this section is that the rates of contribution are being increased; in return for that increase in the rates, contributors are getting no extra benefit. It is agreed that it is in times of illness that men and women really need extra help, but no extra help is being made available under this section. The Minister says that the amount is only 4d. per week. That is one way of looking at it. I do not know whether the Minister has given information in the Dáil as to what it would cost in a year. As I said, when I was speaking on another section, it was my intention to ask a number of questions with regard to the finances of the Bill. I did not have time to go through the Minister's reply to certain questions which were posed by Deputy Dr. Ryan. I do not know if he answered Deputy Dr. Ryan or not. If he did, the answers to Deputy Dr. Ryan will do me. Can the Minister say, however, what is the amount in a year to be paid in extra contributions?
If the Senator looks up last week's Dáil Reports of Wednesday and Thursday—I think it was Thursday—he will find the information in reply to questions put by Deputy MacEntee. They are the first three questions on that day's Order Paper.
The Minister understands our difficulty. I have adverted to it already. We did not get the report until last evening, although we sought it, and, consequently, we are handicapped.
The matter was reported in the daily papers.
What will the extra contributions cost in a year to workers and employers? Will they cost £1,000,000?
Under the section? Nonsense !
I suggest that, in order to get the Minister to reply.
£400,000 each way covering all. That is for national health, widows and orphans and unemployment insurance.
Under the section how much would it be? £100,000? However, it does not matter. I am not going to press for the information if it is not readily available. Fourpence per week is one way of looking at it, but if it is going to run to £100,000 in a year it will be a very heavy tax on men and women who say that they are not adequately paid as things are. I hope it will not happen, but it would not surprise me if in due course we had applications for increases in wages because of this extra impost on the workers.
Whatever basis such a claim is made on, I hope that it will be made on more responsible grounds and on a more intelligent basis than that.
And on a less mischievous basis.
If we agree, as the Minister I think agrees, that the allowances are very meagre, if we agree that widows and orphans have not been adequately dealt with so far, if we agree that old age pensioners are entitled to some assistance, we must agree that the people who are concerned in this section are entitled to some assistance also. When we are making provision for the various classes of people we have made provision for, I hold that we should make provision for these people even if it means creating a fund out of taxation.
Why did you not do it during the past 16 years?
That is no answer whatever. We are dealing with a Bill brought in by the Government of the day. The Minister, I think, agrees that the provision so far for widows, old age pensioners and blind persons has been inadequate; so surely the provision which he has made under this section is inadequate also. My point is that if it is inadequate we should, no matter how it is done, make provision to get for these people increased benefits. If the Minister says that it cannot be done, then that is that, but let the fact be understood that this section imposes a tax on workers and employers in return for which no benefit is being made available.
May I make a point so that it can be put down immediately after what Senator Ó Buachalla has said? I asked Senator Ó Buachalla why, if the national health insurance benefit is not adequate, did not Fianna Fáil introduce proposals for legislation to increase these benefits during the past 16 years and, with disarming simplicity, Senator Ó Buachalla said that that is not the point, that we are dealing with the Bill now.
Quite and I insist that that is the point.
The Senator insists that that is the point, yes. The Senator apparently is suffering from amnesia in this matter because, last year, the Fianna Fáil Government introduced the National Health Insurance Bill, a Bill dealing specifically with national health insurance. There was the opportunity to raise sickness benefit and disablement benefit. Not a single thing was done by the Fianna Fáil Government under that Bill.
And the Senator did not ask them to do it in this House.
What was the purpose of the Bill?
It passed through this House and the Senator remembers it.
What was the purpose of it?
What was not in it is important.
Here is the purpose:—
"An Act to re-enact certain amendments of the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1942, effected by the Emergency Powers (No. 381) Order, 1946, and otherwise to amend the said Acts."
Any amendments they wanted to suggest to raise the rates of benefit could have been introduced in that Bill. Any section they wanted to step up the rates of benefit could have been put into that Bill. It was not done by Fianna Fáil and now engaging in the relaxation of tight rope walking here to-day, Senator Ó Buachalla says he wants us to do within five months what the Fianna Fáil Government did not do in 16 years.
The inference, of course, from that is that the State started only five months ago.
The new Government started only five months ago.
The State was not very brilliantly managed in at least 16 years of its 26 years' existence. Senator Ó Buachalla now talks about a tax on workers. That hare was started by some of his political friends in the Dáil last week. It seems an odd thing to me for Fianna Fáil Senators and Deputies to be considering the workers and to be worried about a tax on the workers. The whole sympathy with the workers in this matter is really too touching to dilate on it at great length. One might break down in sorrow at the sufferings. They talk about a tax on the workers. This, from the Fianna Fáil Government which last year taxed tobacco and cigarettes and the bottle of stout, which the worker drinks, and the cinema seat. Was there any concern about taxing the workers then? Let me say this to Senator Ó Buachalla: This tax racket will get him no political tricks whatever. If he is going to get tricks by this scheme of playing politics over old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions, he will not get them on this tax racket. That is going to be no joker for him in this set up. Will the Senator bear this in mind? If a worker consumed ten cigarettes a week— nobody will accuse him of recklessness or riotous conduct in doing that— under the Fianna Fáil Budget he will pay only the same tax, if it is called a tax, as under this Bill.
But he will get ten smokes. He is getting nothing under this.
He gets 7/6 under this Bill.
There is the thriftlessness and spendthrift outlook of Fianna Fáil. In the Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget they said to him: "You pay 10d. for ten cigarettes. We are going to make you pay 1/- for the same ten cigarettes". He could have got them for 10d. before. Fianna Fáil said we are going to soak another 2d. out of you.
He cannot get them at all now.
Under this Bill, he is going to get a statutory permanent right to at least 7/6 per week in respect of national health insurance benefit and that will be above any danger of attack, politically or financially. He will not have to depend on the whim or caprice of any Government. It is taken away from the cash supplement category entirely. It is now being enshrined in an Act of Parliament and cannot, to that extent, be easily assailed. Bear this in mind: If we had not done this under this Bill, the Act under which the Cash Supplement Order was made comes to an end at the end of December next and the cash supplements would normally lapse at the end of December next. There is some legal justification for my saying that it is highly doubtful whether there would be power to continue a Cash Supplement Order in present circumstances under the 1946 Supplies and Services Act, even if it were continued in 1947.
This puts the whole question beyond doubt so far as the insured contributor is concerned. I am concerned in this matter with the interests of the insured contributor. I think his interests are paramount in this business. I am concerned about him to-day as I have been concerned about him for more than a quarter of a century, and my advice to him is to recognise that the small additional contribution which he is paying under this Bill is a worthwhile payment for putting his benefits on an unassailable basis, as they are being by this Bill.
I am not convinced from the Minister's statement that he has made any case at all in connection with the rejection of the amendment I have put down to this section. The Minister referred to a Bill that was before the other House last year. He asked Senator Ó Buachalla and the Fianna Fáil Party what had they proposed at that time to increase benefits and to improve the conditions of persons in receipt of national health insurance benefits. I have here the report of the Dáil debate on that Bill. The Minister was then Leader of the Labour Party, who would be one of the most interested persons in the House in proposing amendments and suggestions that might be of benefit to the workers.
An amendment would be ruled out of order when proposed by an ordinary Deputy. Only the Government can do it.
Apart from the references I have already read, the only suggestion that the present Minister made on that occasion was that the ceiling of £250 should be raised to £500, and that was accepted by the Minister. The Bill at that time did more and conveyed more than what has been read out.
I only read the title of it.
A few moments ago when Senator Ó Buachalla sat down Senator Hayes used the term "mischievous." We have heard more accusations levied in this debate than in any other debate that has taken place in this House in a long time. We have had more talk about political kudos from one side of the House or the other. I am not approaching this Bill from any political motive because I know from past experience that there is very little political gain to be got by any political Party out of any social services they introduce because, once the service is introduced and put into operation, the people will naturally expect more. If the Minister thinks he will get any great political kudos from this Bill and from the accusation that we were here for 16 years as a Government and did not do the things he is doing now, he is greatly mistaken.
I pointed out last night that in 1932, when Fianna Fáil took over, the amount of money made available for social services was £3,500,000. The Estimates for 1948 provided for a sum of £16,500,000. I am sure that money was not misappropriated and that it went in providing social services for our people. It is not right, therefore, to suggest that nothing has been done. We are not satisfied. Those Senators who have been in the House since 1938 will recollect that on every occasion that a Bill of this kind came before the House, no matter on what side of the House I sat, I advocated, as I am advocating to-day, that any national health insurance service should be national in character and should make provision for the bread-winner and contributor at the time when he needs it most, that is, in time of sickness or disability.
Our present position is that there is a sum of something like 15/- made available. When a bread-winner who has been earning £3, £4 or perhaps £6 a week and in respect of whom contributions have been paid by himself and his employer, is laid up ill, if he has not set aside a sum of money for such an occasion, he is put into the degrading position that he must apply for public assistance. I feel that the Minister should have availed of the occasion of the introduction of this Bill to rectify that position from the moneys that are available. We are told that there is £4,500,000 in the investment fund, which has been subscribed in contributions over and above the amount expended in benefits. If that is the case, why not give the workers the benefits of this money particularly when you are increasing their contributions?
Senator Duffy has asked what Fianna Fáil proposes you should do. They introduced a scheme of supplemental benefits last year. I agree with Senator Duffy and the Minister that the principle of insurance should be preserved in these matters and I am urging the Minister to accept my amendment in order to preserve the principle of insurance, that when a person pays into an insurance fund he should get something in return for the money he pays in. It is now proposed to increase the premiums, but you are not proposing to give any increased benefits in return for the increased contributions. In this year's Estimates provision was made by the outgoing Government for a sum of £789,000 for national health insurance, £960,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions, and £600,000 for the unemployment fund. If there was a proposal that the supplemental benefits should be dropped, then there was no necessity of providing all this money. The money provided in the Estimates would have been sufficient to cover the total amount required.
The Minister has posed another question as to what Fianna Fáil was doing for the past 16 years. Why is he in the position which he occupies to-day? Is it not because there was a special Department of Social Welfare set up to co-ordinate and develop our social services and to make preparations for bringing in the scheme put forward by Senator Duffy? I am sure he has read the election addresses, the policies and the programmes of each of the Parties in the election, and I am sure in his direction of the Party to which he belongs he must not have overlooked the proposals put forward by the Fianna Fáil Party as well as every other Party in that election. I can relate them for the Senator on some other occasion, but for the present I will content myself in asking the Minister to accept this amendment, at least if he is not prepared to accept a policy of increased benefits.
The proposal in the section—and again I would draw attention to the fact that we are discussing Section 16 for the time being and not any other part of the Bill—is to increase the employed man's contributions by 2d. per week. What he is to get in return is provided for elsewhere. Of course, I agree that we cannot discuss this thing in vacuo and we are entitled to ask whether the benefits the workman is going to get are worth the additional 2d. per week. If we accept the insurance basis, that is the contributory principle in this Bill, we must recognise the fact that the insured workman who is called upon to pay in addition 2d. a week is guaranteed 7/6 in benefit in respect of that contribution. Senator Hawkins will not accept the fact that the workman who is sick to-day is getting 7/6 a week as a supplement provided from the Treasury to which he has no legal claim. There is no legal claim to that benefit.
It is made available.
Of course, it is made available for the time being.
That is all that matters.
It is made available for the time being.
That is what he wants.
What is the use of tricking ourselves in saying something that we know to be untrue? If the Emergency Powers Act of 1946 is not renewed before the 1st January, 1949, that 7/6 goes by the board on the 1st January. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance in the late Government agreed that it was most undesirable to continue that temporary legislation one hour longer than was necessary, and it was under that legislation that these supplementary Orders were made which enables an insured person to get 7/6 a week for which he is making no contribution. I think it is much wiser to put insurance benefits on some permanent basis. In other words, instead of paying 4d. a week, the insured workman will pay 6d., and in return for that he will get sickness benefit at the rate of 22/6 a week instead of at the rate of 15/-. In that way you maintain the insurance principle but Senator Hawkins foolishly asks this House to run the system on different principles.
He does not.
If Senator Hawkins does not realise that, he is not nearly as intelligent as I thought and hoped he was. The Senator wants the 15/- benefit to be paid on an insurance basis, and the remaining 7/6 without relation to any insurance principle. That is what it means surely. There is no use in denying that that is the fact and that is the case Senator Hawkins is making—that the insured person will pay for two-thirds of the benefit and that the other one-third will be provided under a supplemental scheme which cannot last for one hour after the temporary Act of 1946 lapses. If the Oireachtas for any reason fails to re-enact the 1946 temporary Act, after the first week in 1949 the insured person who becomes ill will receive 15/- per week and he will have to wait the coming into effect of this Bill to get 22/6. There is no escaping these facts. They are unanswerable.
The Senator talked about the line some of us took from time to time in relation to this legislation. Senator Hawkins has in the past expressed very pious opinions, when Bills of this kind were before the House, in favour of being generous to everybody, but I never saw him going into the Division Lobby to support these sentiments. During the number of years that I have been on the opposite side of the House, I have noticed that whatever measure was brought in by the then Government secured the Senator's vote. I think he acted as Whip for his Party to make sure that all the stray lambs followed him into the division lobby.
A matter of which I am very proud.
Then I am saying something for which the Senator will take credit when the history of this period is being written. I should like to say something with regard to the line we have taken in the past concerning insurance. Insurance means that you pay a contribution in return for benefit. The line we have taken is that the rate of benefit provided under the National Health Insurance Act is totally inadequate. In a scheme published last year we proposed that the principle under which the benefit is paid should correspond more than it does to the unemployment scheme; that is to say, that there should be a particular rate for an insured man, with additions for his wife and family if he had any. The proposal made in our scheme last year, and I see no reason to depart from it now, is that the sickness rate should be brought up to 30/- for a single man. It is now 22/6 under this Bill. Our proposal was 30/-, with an allowance of 15/- for his wife and 7/6 for each of two children, the benefits for the remaining children being provided, as they are now provided, on a non-contributory basis under the Children's Allowances Act. That is the principle on which we are working. The benefits to-day for any children in excess of two are provided on a non-contributory basis under the Children's Allowances Act. In Great Britain the children's allowance is provided after the first child on a non-contributory basis. It would take too long to examine into these principles, but they are well worth studying. If Senator Hawkins studies them, he would be able to say whether or not he agrees with the principles.
The proposals which we made last year and which I still defend, because I think they are wise, would thus give a married man with four children a total income of 75/- when ill or unemployed, because we had the same rate for unemployment. For that it was our proposal that there should be a total contribution of 5/- a week, of which the employer would pay 3/- and the employed workman 2/-. That is the basis on which we developed the scheme which, with all respect, I think is worthy of examination and consideration by Senators who want to criticise us for what we are doing here. In supporting these proposals here we are supporting something which we regard as an interim measure. It is a measure which does something to make permanent, in the first place, the benefits which are now provided on a temporary basis; and, in the second place, to increase the pensions or benefits payable to people whose claim is of a non-contributory character. This is an interim measure. We are supporting it in that belief and look forward to the ultimate plan which will give us a scheme more in conformity with the proposals which we drafted ourselves over a year ago.
I should like to ask the Senator, as he is so much opposed to the continuance of the supplementary benefits, why he did not oppose them last year.
The Senator asks why I did not oppose them. Oppose what? There is nothing else in their place.
I am not in the slightest interested in the consistency or inconsistency of Senator Duffy, Senator Hawkins or any other Senator. I am always in favour of conversion. I do not think you will get to Heaven by being consistent, but rather by doing the right thing as you see it when the time comes. It seems to me that there is a principle raised here far more important than any point about what Fianna Fail would or would not have done. I have not the slightest idea of what they would do in given circumstances, and they probably do not know themselves.
The contributions are being made permanent and it is proposed that they should be definitely on a contributory basis. I want to put on record my conviction that provision for illness or disablement definitely, and probably unemployment, is part of the cost of industry or any type of production. In the past it was never provided for. We have not yet reached the stage in which it is possible to provide that there will be no sickness. It may be that some day that will be reached, but I do not expect to live to see it. While it is there provision for the period during the lifetime of a man or woman when he or she cannot work, is part of the total cost of the firm for whom he or she works, and it has to be provided for in some way or other. We call the provision for it a social service. I suppose in a way that is right. I believe we have to reach a stage at which it will be recognised that the wages paid, as soon as we can reach them, will have to be sufficient to enable the worker, either by way of insurance or by saving, to provide for himself and his family whenever they are ill. That is, I think, what we are aiming at. We have not reached that yet. In some classes of employment the wage is, perhaps, sufficient, but in others it is insufficient.
I think we should always look ahead. Therefore, to my mind, it is desirable that we should, if possible, reach a stage at which provision by workers during the time in which they work, or provision, if you like, by their employers—because I do not think there is a fundamental difference of interest —should be made by insurance and not by the State as a semi-charity or a semi-social service. That is not now possible. It should be the direction in which we should try to work, as we try to better the state of society. Therefore, it seems to me to be fundamentally right that when you make a provision of this kind permanent you should put it on a contributory basis, not simply because the Labour Party has approved of it, but because it is the right basis and the basis at which we should aim. That basis is that industry or agriculture will have, in some way or other, to make provision out of its profits to provide for the periods of illness. The best way to do that is a matter on which we may differ, but it will have to be provided. It is part of the cost and it will have to be paid for in some way or other. Therefore, I believe that the Minister is right in the principle underlying this section. I am not going into details, but I want to put that on record.
In this discussion a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the words "contributory basis". But, in addition to the contributions of the employer and the employee, the State makes a contribution of 2/7ths. I want to know if there is anything sacrosanct about that 2/7ths. Why could not the State increase its subvention so as to make it possible for the contributions of the employers and the employed person to remain as they are at present, not in the way it is done now, but as a permanent increase of benefit, not a contribution to the payment of benefit? Senator Duffy spoke as if the contributory system was sacrosanct. Senator Douglas seems to interpret it as resting on the contribution of the employer and the employee and made no reference to the State contribution. So long as the State takes a hand in this, why could it not be possible for the State, assuming that it is a State contribution, to raise it to such a degree that the contribution would remain at the present level in respect of employer and employee, and that the sick beneficiary would get the benefits at the rates set out in the Bill?
We have had an unusual experience here this evening. I thought that last evening was about the most unusual that we ever had to contend with. I think the Minister would want to get it into his head that the members of the Seanad have the right to criticise any measure or any motion that comes before it. Not only have they the right to make such criticism, but it is their bounden duty to make it of any measure, or part of a measure, or of any motion, as they think fit.
Does the Senator remember what Deputy MacEntee used to say in this House?
I would remind the Minister that, as far as I am concerned, no amount of insult on his part and no amount of attempted misrepresentation on the part of Senators, is going to prevent me from expressing my views on any matter on which I think I ought to express them, and on which by the rules of the House I am entitled to express them. We have felt it our duty, on Section 16, to call attention to what we consider an unfair situation. Increased contributions are being demanded from the workers and from the employers. We are satisfied that widows and orphans are getting some reasonable provision made for them, but we are not satisfied that reasonable provision is being made for a sick man or a sick woman. Increased contributions are demanded, but no increase in benefits is being made available to them. We are arguing that, just as the widow, the orphan, the blind person and the old person have the right to some increased assistance, so also the sick person and the disabled person are entitled to some extra assistance. The worker and his employer are being mulcted in extra contributions, but the worker is not getting any extra benefit.
The Minister sought to counter my question by asking me "What did Fianna Fáil do during its 16 years in office"? I am not going to read quotations from the Reports to show the assistance that Fianna Fáil got in Dáil Eireann or in this House in its efforts to develop social services and to provide adequate funds for them. The Minister says to me in reply: "What did we do since we came into office"? We have reduced, he said, the tax on beer and on pictures and such like. My answer to the Minister is that it is going to be very poor consolation to a sick man or to a struggling wife or to hungry children, if they are to be told that, in their need, the price of beer has been reduced, and that, if they want to stretch their income, the recourse open to them is to drink more beer and go to the pictures. In to-day's newspaper reports we are told that the price of bread, over a large part of the country and for many consumers, is going to be increased, and that the butter ration is to be reduced.
It is more than it was last year. It is difficult to refrain from saying that what we have just listened to from Senator Ó Buachalla is undiluted humbug.
We are accustomed to that from him.
Take your medicine.
I am going to make sure that some of the boys do not ride away that horse called humbug in this debate. Senator Ó Buachalla talked about the rates of benefit paid to a sick person and to a disabled person. I know that they are bad. I have said that they are bad, but I want to tell Senator Ó Buachalla that, in due course, a Bill will be introduced by this Government, which was not introduced by the last Government, which will step up sickness and disablement benefits, and which will do many other things which Fianna Fáil had the chance of doing and did not do.
What are the sick men going to do in the meantime?
What did they do under Fianna Fáil during the last 16 years?
You reduced the tax on beer. How is that going to help the sick man?
That is what has you out of office, and it will take you a while to get over it.
I would not mind being out of office if I had to do a thing like that.
The truth of the matter is that between 1939 and 1947 the cost of living went up by approximately 75 per cent. From 1938 to 1948 persons drawing national health insurance sickness benefit did not get one penny per week increase in their benefits, and Fianna Fáil was in office during all that period. They got no cash supplements whatever between 1939 and April, 1947. Fianna Fáil could have done something for them during that period, but it did not. Senator Ó Buachalla had the opportunity of getting the ears of Fianna Fáil Ministers, but he did nothing and they did nothing. Now, he has the effrontery to come into this House and ask what are we doing to step up the rates for persons in receipt of national health insurance sickness benefits. Why did not Fianna Fáil do it during its 16 years in office? Now, it is shedding crocodile tears, concentrated crocodile tears. For Senator Ó Buachalla to pretend here to-day that he is the one man on whose heart-strings a requiem is being played for the suffering national health insurance beneficiaries is sheer nonsense. No one would believe it, not even the Senator himself.
I want to say to the House, because I think it ought to be said, that there is very considerable legal doubt, not on my part, as to whether there was any legal authority whatever for making the cash supplements Order under the 1946 Act. One thing that is perfectly clear is that the Order will lapse when the Act lapses at the end of this year. Even if the Act is continued, I am legally advised that the Order cannot be continued under the Act, with the result that from the 1st of January next, assuming that the Act lapses on the 31st December, or assuming that it is continued after the 31st December, the cash supplements Order cannot be re-enacted. I am legally advised that that is the position. Assuming that we did nothing in the matter, the position would be that the cash supplements would cease to be payable. Because they ceased to be payable benefits would go back to the pre-cash supplement stage and the persons who are now getting 22/6 a week sickness benefit would fall back to 15/-, and those getting 15/- would fall back to 7/6. The method adopted in this Bill of putting it back on an insurance basis makes it perfectly clear that that will not be permitted to happen and, at all events, it puts the scheme back on an insurance basis. A number of Senators, and particularly those with some practical experience in this connection—for instance, Senator Colgan, who knows the whole background—acknowledge that the best method from the point of view of the insured contributor is to get the scheme on an insurance basis. The workers under this Bill will pay a relatively trivial extra sum. However, they have the satisfaction of knowing that their rights are enshrined in an Act of Parliament, not easily assailable even by a Government with envious eyes on the reduction of social services. They know that these benefits will be payable without the risk of its becoming the plaything of politics or financial crises and they know that a pool will be created out of which their benefits will always be assured. For the trifling sum involved—a maximum of 6d. per week over three services—the workers are now having their rights enshrined in statutes instead of being made the subject of a doubtfully legal cash supplements Order of 1947.
I do not like to intervene so frequently in this discussion but every time the Minister speaks he is less and less convincing. Most of the time he is merely covering the same ground that has been covered by him many times since we started. In the Budget of last May a sum of £500,000 was taken from the national health insurance fund——
That is not true.
——and a sum of £450,000 was taken from the national health insurance fund and the unemployment insurance. In a full year a sum of £950,000——
That is completely incorrect.
There is provision in another section of this Bill to recoup to the Exchequer sums paid out in connection with the supplementary benefits up to the 1st July. Our argument is that the benefits have not been increased even though the contributions have been increased because the funds that should have been made available were not made available. We are not complaining so much about the increased contributions but we are urging that if the contributions are to be increased the Minister should increase the benefits—no matter in how small a way—so that the worker who has to pay the increased contribution will appreciate that he is getting something in return.
The Minister has spoken about the expiry of the year. Surely the authority of the Dáil and the Seanad to pass a Bill or to make an Order is not going to expire when we adjourn this House to-night. Surely it is necessary to avail of the opportunity this House affords the Minister of making provision now in this Bill to do what he admits he would wish to do and what he admits should be done, namely, to make provision for a man or his wife or family in times of sickness or disability. If you do that you are doing more than making a mere promise. We are giving £2,500,000 for old age pensioners, blind persons and widows and orphans. If my suggestion is carried out, I say that you are encouraging our people to take a more active interest in the national health insurance fund and societies in general, and you are giving people something to which they are absolutely entitled. The money is there and, as Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, 2/9ths is provided for national health insurance and unemployment assistance from the Exchequer——
Two-ninths is not provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act.
If it is necessary that moneys should be made available in order to give greater benefits, why does the Exchequer not make the additional moneys available—if it is a question of money, and I say that it is a question of money? I am sure that the Minister and Senator Duffy are both well aware of the circumstances under which the people in whom we are interested, and on whose behalf we speak, live. I make a strong plea on behalf of the workers because no organisation in this country has done so much for the workers as Fianna Fáil has done——
You skinned them.——
——and no Party has got that great support from the workers that the Fianna Fáil Party has got.
And we know the way you treated them.
Remember what Abraham Lincoln said.
I agree with what has been said by my colleague, Senator Hawkins. I would stress that for the man who works on the roads the additional increase of 6d. per week, as I understand it, will be a severe hardship. It is a considerable hardship, apart altogether from what he already pays, and the trouble is that he is not getting any direct benefit from it. There is no point in saying that the supplementary allowance has been added to the basic rate. The workers feel that the rates of sickness and unemployment benefits will remain as certainly as the old age pension will remain—and nobody dreams that the Government is going to reduce the old age pension.
This measure is very important to the progress of the country. Much has been said about sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. We all realise that these benefits are inadequate and I think the reason for that has been given by many of the speakers who spoke about the contributory principle. It is because they are based on the contributory principle that the benefits are inadequate. It would be well to remember, in connection with the introduction of a scheme of social services which will amply provide for the worker during his period of sickness or unemployment and which will give him a real living wage and a guarantee against poverty, that to put the scheme on a contributory basis would impose an unbearable burden on the working man during the period he is working.
Senator Douglas suggested that the wages paid would have to be sufficient to enable the worker to provide by way of insurance for himself and his family. It would be necessary to impose a rate of, say, 2/-, 3/- or even 4/-, on the workers to provide for those benefits. I believe that in other countries the rates are as high as that. The fact must be faced that the wages given by employers are not sufficient to provide proper social security services in this country. The State will have to intervene. There can be no doubt about that. I have been told—I do not know whether it is correct or not—that in New Zealand the State finances the scheme by means of a 5 per cent. tax on incomes. I think something along those lines will have to be done here. A tax will have to be imposed which will give these people some proper social security and some guarantee against want when they are out of work. It seems to me that the present system is an unwieldy one. A lot of time is wasted in the collection of contributions and in the paying out of benefits. At the moment there is no possibility in our present circumstances of bringing into operation a proper scheme of social security on a contributory basis.
With regard to the point raised by Senator O'Dwyer, it is quite true that in New Zealand there is a complete departure from the insurance principle. The fund is built up by means of a levy of 5 per cent. on all increments, plus a small income provided by each of the beneficiaries contributing £1 per year. That was one of the principal issues in the last general election. The Conservative Party in New Zealand proposed to reduce this tax of 5 per cent. and, if they reduced the tax of 5 per cent., the fund out of which all these social security benefits are paid would have dried up. That is the issue. That is the point about which we have warned Senators here from the very beginning. It is far better that there should be a contributory basis for a fund of this kind. The worker should pay a certain defined contribution and he should be entitled to a certain defined return in the form of benefits when he needs them. The whole of this discussion has gone on the assumption that this 22/6 per week is static. I have already made the point—I repeat it again— that the 15/- a week is the statutory benefit and the remaining 7/6, that is, one-third of the total, is a grant which was given under an Order made last year under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946. Was there any lawful authority for making that?
The authority of the Dáil and Seanad.
It was never submitted to the Dáil. It was made by the Government and there are now grave legal doubts as to whether the Government had any right to make it.
I will read the section under which it was made.
Whether the Dáil or Seanad, or the Government had authority to make it, did it affect the worker when he received the 22/6?
Yes.
In what way?
If the Senator will have a little patience, he can talk later. This Order was made under Section 2. The Order under which the workman is getting his 7/6 was made under Section 2 of the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act which says that
"the Government may by order do any of the following things:—
... authorise and provide for the regulation and control by or on behalf of the State of all or any supplies or services which are in the opinion of the Government essential to the life of the community."
That is all the Government can do under this section. That is the section under which the temporary Order was made increasing benefits by 50 per cent. I suggest now that if any citizen likes to go into court to-morrow he can stop these benefits. Any citizen can stop them to-morrow. It is just another of the extraordinary performances of the last Government, when they set out to do anything that came into their heads and consulted nobody; whether they acted legally or illegally did not matter. If they acted illegally they usually made an Order, while the emergency as on, legalising anything up to murder which might be committed under an Order made by Government Departments. You had that practice here. I suggest to the House that the recipients of that additional 7/6 are in a very weak position because there is no lawful authority to pay them next Friday night.
We are trying to convince you of how weak the position is and the fact that they should get a lot more.
That is very funny coming from Senator Hawkins. There is a serious matter at issue here, and I strongly urge upon the House that this Bill should become law as rapidly as possible, and the Minister might consider what further action he will take to safeguard the persons concerned until the new rates become effective. It seems to me that if there is not an act of indemnity the whole of these benefits will go by the board, because they will be out of order.
The Minister has introduced a new point in connection with this section. That is, that there seems to be some doubt as to the legality of the payment of certain allowances. Does the Minister think the same applies to the State subvention of 2/9ths?
No, that is settled by statute.
The State subvention is settled by statute and regulated by an Act of Parliament.
And could be altered.
Certainly. You could alter that with your eyes wide open. In this particular instance the cash supplements Order is now an Order of very doubtful parentage. It is made under an Act and it is now very doubtful if there is any authority to make it under that Act. Even if the Act is continued in operation, the validity of the Order is questionable. If the Order lapses and a new Act is introduced I am legally advised that there is no authority to make an Order of this kind. I do not want to raise that wider issue, but I do want to point out that it shows the stupidity of having our workers' right to benefit made the subject of Orders, themselves of very doubtful legal origin and easily capable of revocation. From the point of view of the insured contributor and those concerned with his true rights as distinct from those concerned from a political point of view, it is better that the insured contributor should pay contributions on an insurance basis so that the right to benefit will be unassailable and incapable of being subjected to such doubts as have arisen under the cash supplements Order. I want to correct one statement. I think Senator Hawkins ought to correct it himself in the interests of accuracy. He said that we took money from the unemployment insurance fund, the national health insurance fund, and £450,000 from the widows' and orphans' pension fund.
I did not use the word "took"—it was not there to be taken.
We took nothing out of these funds. The only point at which we did anything unusual was in connection with the widows' and orphans' pension fund. In that case we did not put in the £450,000 for the good and sufficient reason that the actuary—the competent authority to decide the need or otherwise for doing it—said there was no need to put in £450,000.
"You have been putting in too much too long and it is sufficient if you put in £220,000."
We did not put in the £450,000.
Or the £250,000.
When £450,000 went into it last year it was twice as much as was necessary and, therefore, it was not necessary for us this year to put in either £450,000 or £220,000. In fact, the fund is so well in credit now it could be argued as to whether it is necessary to put it in next year and the year after.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, is the Minister able to give us the approximate figures for the number of people who, it is expected, will come under the scheme by raising the ceiling from £250 to £500?
No figure is available which would indicate the number who would come under the scope of unemployment insurance, extended by this amendment. The most reliable estimate would be that 18,000 or 19,000 additional persons would be covered for unemployment insurance benefit under this section.
Question agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
There is an amendment down in the name of Senator Hawkins. to delete this section.
The same point was raised on Section 16.
The same arguments would apply and, I suppose, there would be the same replies.
And the same result.
Yes, the same result. The majority are over there.
Amendment 4 not moved.
Sections 28 to 58, inclusive, the Schedules and Title, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed, to take the Fourth Stage to-day.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration," put and agreed to.
Agreed, to take the Fifth Stage to-day.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I must say something in reply to what Senator Duffy said with reference to the last Government. He said that they got away with everything in this country, even murder.
If I am to be quoted at all, I should like to be quoted correctly.
The Senator said that the Fianna Fáil Government had taken murder by the hand.
What are we discussing on this stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Only what is in the Bill can be dealt with on the Fifth Stage. No Second Reading speech will be allowed.
I should like to know whether this gentleman is obeying the Chair or not.
I can never quite understand the inconsistency of the Labour Party in this country, and I cannot understand the attitude of a Labour Minister who assesses poor labouring people to meet part of the cost of this Bill. I wonder he did not force the hands of his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to meet the cost in other ways.
He did, to the extent of £2,500,000.
The Minister's method is to assess the labouring people, people such as the unfortunate miners. Many sections of the working classes are now doing short time, perhaps one or two days in the week, and they will be called upon to contribute towards the administration of this measure. Senator Baxter tells us that the Minister has secured £2,500,000. It is a pity he did not force the Minister for Finance a little further and make him finance the administration of this measure through income-tax payers and those who make excess profits.
Is this a Budget speech?
Why did he not impose something on the people with £2,000 a year instead of putting the contributions on the labouring people? When I observe the tactics of Labour Ministers and Labour members of the Oireachtas, I am not at all surprised at the Minister for Agriculture referring to them the other night as "quiet mice".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister for Agriculture has nothing to do with this Bill.
The labourers will soon be a forgotten party. What is the lot of the labouring man now, with the increase in the price of bread and the reduction in the butter allowance?
Surely, this is not in order?
It is quite in order to talk of the people who put the taxes on the unfortunate poor.
This gentleman thinks he is down in Arigna.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Lynch must confine himself to the subject matter of the Bill and not deal with the increased price of bread or other such matters.
I am merely talking about who will defray part of the cost of administering this Bill. On one amendment the Minister said he would be able to make increased old age pensions retrospective if it was not for the squandermania of the last Government in their big turf production schemes and the amount of muck and waste from coal and turf in the Park. He said these things had given headaches to the present Government. Have they any headaches over the 15,000 or 20,000 unemployed because of the abandonment of the turf scheme?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That matter should have been dealt with on the amendment when it was being discussed.
I am referring to the people who will pay part of the cost of this Bill by way of increased contributions on their national health insurance cards. I think that it is a most unbecoming thing, especially for a Labour Minister, to tax the working people of this country in order to meet the cost of this Bill, which, I believe, should be borne by the people who are in receipt of large incomes up to thousands of pounds. I believe that the money to meet this Bill should come out of revenue and not from increased workers' contributions. That is all I have to say.
I wonder whether the Minister would say if the rates of benefit in respect of maternity claims have been increased in the Bill?
No. The rates of maternity benefit have not been increased in the Bill. There again that is a thing I would like to see, not only benefits in respect of maternity, but special allowances in respect of all the circumstances surrounding maternity, and I hope to do that in the comprehensive Bill.
Notwithstanding all the hard knocks that have been given yesterday and to-day, which, I am sure, have not left deep scars on any of us, may I say that I am much obliged to the Senate for the way it has considered the Bill and for the expeditious manner in which it has disposed of the measure, particularly at a time of year that is inconvenient to the Senate? I never offered this Bill to the Senate as a remedy for every difficulty afflicting the Irish race in the sphere of social welfare. I offered it to the Senate as a substantial improvement in social legislation. It does not go as far as I personally would like it to go. It does not go as far as social welfare legislation will go ultimately, but it makes available an extra £2,500,000 for old age pensioners, widows and orphans, and blind pensioners, and modifies the means test. In the long run, I hope that no matter what our politics, all of us will be glad of that.
I would like to remove any doubts or misunderstandings that may exist as the result of our approach to the Bill and the criticisms we offered to it. If the Bill had not been used as a political weapon the discussion would have been on a much higher level. I want to emphasise the point that, from my point of view, I agree entirely with the principle of contributory insurance, and if we are to develop any scheme in this country it must be on these lines. We were asked what our policy was regarding social services or what it would have been if we had been returned as a Government. I have only to refer the people interested in the answer to that question to the many statements of what we proposed to put into operation if we had the opportunity of doing so. I want to join Senator Hayes and the others who spoke last night in saying that if we are to achieve the objective we have in view only increased work and increased production will help to achieve it. The only way to have all the things we want is to work more, produce more and to give the agricultural community the means of accomplishing that. In order to remove any misunderstanding that may exist, I should give expression to this view, which has been expressed by each and every one of our Leaders, not only after going out of office, but before. If we cannot achieve those objectives we cannot achieve our final goal or a reasonable social security plan.
The point was made last night that one of the greatest inducements that could be held out to us here to step up social services was that when the time might come, our people in the Six Counties should not feel that they should keep out of the unification because of any loss they might incur. I think that statements of this kind are damaging. The approach to the matter of the difference—if there is a difference—between here and the Six Counties, should be for us in this part of the country to give a guarantee and make a sacrifice if needs be and say to those people, "If you are prepared to work with us in an united Ireland, your position is not going to be worsened with regard to social services or any of the other services provided for you at the present time." If we do that, we will be doing much more than decrying our people for having lower social services. We should be in a position to give a guarantee, and it is up to every one of us, to every Party, to bring that about. As far as our Party is concerned, we are prepared to give every co-operation and all we ask in return is that our efforts should be understood and appreciated in the same way as the efforts of any other section or Party would be appreciated.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil without amendment.
Business suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.