Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1950

Vol. 38 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where an officer or employee of the society is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, he shall be appointed within a grade at least as favourable, having regard to existing rights and salary scale, as his or her existing grade in the society's service.

The section makes provision for the transfer of present employees on both the indoor and outdoor staff of the National Health Insurance Society to the Civil Service. The Minister has given a guarantee that the transfer will not worsen the position of any of the persons concerned, but, despite that promise, it is quite possible that a person transferred into the Government service may find that there is not in that service a grade comparable with that from which he has been transferred. There might thereby be created in the minds of these people a sense of injustice and they cannot be expected to give loyal service, or to be as enthusiastic for the change over, as would be the case if the Minister accepted the amendment.

I have no doubt the Minister's intention at the present time is to give the same status, as far as possible, to every transferred employee. That may be all very well until it comes to giving effect to the terms of the Bill. In doing that, the Minister's wishes may not apply to a very large portion of those concerned. The House knows the Minister is not in a position to direct the particular grade or service into which these people may be taken. This matter was referred to on the Second Stage, and the Minister gave his views then. While accepting the promise he made, I should be very much more pleased to see the amendment incorporated in the Bill, so as to give these people a safeguard or a guarantee that they would get such a fair deal as I feel sure the Minister would like to give them.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

In actual fact, I do not think there is any real difference between Senator Hawkins and myself as to what will happen the staff of the National Health Insurance Society. This amendment seeks to give them a statutory guarantee, that they will be appointed "within a grade at least as favourable, having regard to existing rights and salary scale as his or her existing grade in the society's service." I made the position perfectly clear. So far as the staff is concerned they will be taken over at salaries not less than what they have; their tenure will be no weaker than it is; and those who are pensionable will, in fact, get better pensions schemes than they have now. In fact, a substantial number of the staff on the clerical and administrative side will be assimilated to appropriate Civil Service grades, and that assimilation will mean that they will get an increase in salaries.

So far as the staff of the society is concerned, I tell the House, as I told the staff privately and through the Dáil, that with what is going to happen they are not going to suffer any injury. They know clearly that they will suffer no loss or reduction in pensions, wages, or salaries but, in fact, an improvement in pensions where they are pensionable officers, with a tenure from the State instead of tenure from a private company, and for many of them increases in existing salaries. That assurance has been conveyed to them by the Government and I think all sections in the Dáil, and I presume the same in the Seanad, desire that these people would be treated fairly. No one is proposing to worsen their position.

I say to Senator Hawkins that I know of no other body of employees, whether working for the State or for any other authority, that have a guarantee given in the name of the Government, and by a possible alternative Government, that nobody wants to worsen their position. Could anybody feel happier than that? I know of no other class in the community with such an assurance. From the first day that they apply for assimilation they have not to concern themselves with any real worry about a statutory guarantee. I do not think it is necessary to give that statutory guarantee. Let me put this to Senator Hawkins. There are people who have been in the Civil Service since this State was set up in 1922. They have 28 years' service but no statutory guarantee about existing salaries or wages, and no statutory guarantee about existing wages or rights, whatever they might be.

The position in this amendment is that I should give a statutory guarantee to people who are being taken into the Civil Service for the first time, and with one week's service that they are to get a statutory guarantee, while such statutory guarantee is being denied to many others in the Civil Service with 28 years' service. I think everybody will agree, if they look at the matter dispassionately, and in an unbiassed way, that it is highly undesirable to create within the Civil Service another class which imagines that it has rights superior to the rest of the Civil Service. What will happen in the next couple of months is that those people who are taken over, so far as they are employed on work analogous to that identifiable with the Civil Service grade into which they are assimilated, will be civil servants, and that their rights will be whatever rights go with their grading and their assignment to particular Civil Service grades.

What is their future to be in the particular class of the Civil Service to which they are assigned? When they go into the Civil Service they will presumably become members of staff organisations, and whatever grievances arise from time to time can be represented by whatever organisation they are in through the Departmental Conciliation Council and, if necessary, taken to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. Now we get to this condition, that nobody's conditions will be worsened, and that a substantial number will have their positions bettered. They are getting a new tenure from the State, a new guarantee given through the Houses of Parliament. They will be assimilated into the Civil Service and will have staff organisations to represent them. If they have grievances they can go to the Departmental Conciliation Council and also to the Civil Service Arbitration Board.

From every point of view, I think Senator Hawkins will agree, on reflection, that these people are very well safeguarded and have, probably, got more safeguards than any other class that I know of, having regard to the fact that they are coming into the State service, and not being transferred to a body outside State control, where their future might be linked in some tenuous way with the fortunes of an organisation less solid and less consolidated than the State. I suggest to Senator Hawkins that we are, in fact, doing, but not by means of statutory guarantee, what he seeks to achieve in the amendment. I think the Senator can take my word that the assimilation and grading will be all over in a couple of months.

Mr. Hawkins

I fear that the Minister has overlooked the most important feature in the "taking over," when he attempts to compare, and to give to the House an outline of the conditions in which former employees of the National Health Society will find themselves when they are taken over as civil servants. This is not a bankrupt concern but a wealthy organisation which had £6,500,000 invested. It had a future before it, as we can assume that it is one of the societies which would carry on for many years. Therefore, the employees had a guarantee of employment, with good conditions and provision for a pension fund, inside the framework of their own organisation.

When the Minister draws a parallel with civil servants, he overlooks the fact that those who join the Civil Service do so voluntarily, of their own free will. It may be that it was the only avenue of employment open to many of them at the time, but they are there of their own free will. On the other hand, the employees of the National Health Insurance Society are being taken over and they should be given the guarantees, which should be incorporated in the Bill, to ensure that their position and status will not be worsened in any way by an Act of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Norton

I assure the Senator that will not happen.

Dr. O'Connell

I happen to have been associated for a short time with this society. I was a member of the negotiating committee which settled the wage claim of the members of the staff last November. Settlement was reached on a basis which was agreeable to the staff as a whole and accepted unanimously by their trade union. During these negotiations it was quite evident that what the staff wanted was to approach as nearly as possible to the position which they would occupy when they would be taken over under this scheme. They knew it was about to come; it was in the offing, although it was not mentioned specifically at any time during the salary negotiations. The agreement fixed rates as nearly as practicable to what they would get in similar circumstances when taken over. I think that the staff were very well satisfied with what happened on that occasion. The staff have not approached me or, as far as I know, any member of the committee of management—Senator Clarkin and myself are members of the committee—with any sense of grievance about the transfer.

I should inform Senator Hawkins that there was a fairly constant leakage from the staff into the Civil Service. It was the greatest cause of leakage. They were anxious to get into the Civil Service, so I do not think there will be any grievance.

I would like the Minister to say why he says their pension rights would be better. They have a non-contributory pension and are entitled to two-thirds of their salary on full service. There is another point I would like him to explain; that is, whether the existing marriage gratuity regulations will continue in the Civil Service. I am not sure, but I think the marriage gratuity operating in the society at the moment is rather better in some ways than that which operates in the Civil Service.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Could the Minister give us any indication as to the numbers of people coming into the Civil Service who will get this increase in salary which he mentioned a few moments ago? About what percentage of the staff will be involved in that increase? If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that numbers of the people to be taken over will come into the Civil Service on a better scale of salary than they enjoy at the moment. That could be true of a dozen or of 100. I wonder what percentage of the staff will benefit on transfer?

Mr. Norton

Senator O'Connell is right in pointing out to Senator Hawkins that, far from the staff not desiring to become civil servants, quite a substantial number of them do from time to time. The society recruits staff. Many of the people they recruit have competed also in the Civil Service examinations. Employment in the society may turn up first and, on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, they start with the society. In due course, the result of the Civil Service examination is promulgated and they see they are successful, whereupon they promptly give notice to the society that this is an opportunity too good to miss, they leave the society and go into the Civil Service. That is the common pattern of things.

Why does Senator Hawkins fear that there will be a complete transformation in the feelings of the staff and that from now onward they will detest the Civil Service? The whole pattern has been one of praying that the day will come when they would be high on the list of successful candidates for the Civil Service. There is no fear at all that any single member of the staff has any horror of becoming a civil servant. It is not with horror but with enthusiasm that they are approaching this proposition. I suggest to the Senator that the assurances to the staff give them no reason to apprehend that they would be treated in any unfair way. Not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the Government I can give that assurance. I hope to effect the assimilation to the Civil Service grades even before the transfer takes place, so that they will know what happens. Senator Hawkins is really pushing an open door. What he wishes to achieve is really an accomplished fact.

I cannot give Senator Ó Buachalla the percentage of the staff which will secure increases. He may take it, in a general way—and Senator O'Connell's speech underlines what I am saying—that when the staff organisations last negotiated with the committee of management a certain agreement was arrived at. The staff were then striving to get Civil Service standards of remuneration, but they did not get them. In some instances they came very close. In other instances there was probably a difference of £40 to £70 between the maximum of their grade in the society and the maximum of what could be regarded as a comparable grade in the Civil Service. They never actually got what they claimed they were worthy of having regard to the salaries of appropriate Civil Service grades. Now when they are taken over the intention is to assimilate them into these grades and in no circumstances will they get less than they are now getting with the society. In all cases there will be in fact a gain to a greater or lesser extent on their being taken over and assimilated into the appropriate Civil Service grade. The extent of the gain will depend on how near they now are to the present appropriate Civil Service scale of salary for the grade into which they will be assimilated.

On the question of pensions the position at the moment is that female National Health Insurance Society employees will, on transfer to the Civil Service, be entitled to calculate their superannuation under the 1909 Civil Service Superannuation Act. In other words they will get on retirement a pension based on one-eightieth for each year's salary plus a lump sum based on one-thirtieth for each year's service up to a maximum of 45 thirtieths. In addition they will get a gratuity on marriage, having served six years, of one month's salary for each year of service whereas in the case of the National Health Insurance Society the gratuity was at the rate of 6 per cent. of the salary for each year of service. So you will see at retirement for marriage purposes the gratuity in the Civil Service is better than in the case of the National Health Insurance Society. Let me say here that no female civil servant to-day can get a pension based on one-eightieth and a lump sum since their superannuation comes under the 1889 Act which provides for a pension at the rate of one-twentieth of salary for each year of service. Women civil servants for more than a quarter of a century have been trying to get a pension scheme based on one-eightieth of salary plus a lump sum of one thirtieth. The female employees of the National Health Society when they come into the Department of Social Welfare will be the first civil servants to get that new superannuation scheme and to that extent they will be in a better position than other women civil servants. I think that what is being done in this case will determine the pattern of future legislation in its application to women civil servants.

Dr. O'Connell

I am glad the Minister made that explanation about pensions because there was some doubt about the matter. I hope that the scheme which he has outlined will be applied to other civil servants and to those outside the Civil Service whose pensions are based on Civil Service terms. I should have said when I spoke earlier that the demands put forward by the union at the time that the negotiations were in progress were that these employees should be given the same rates as female civil servants.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I would like to get the number of people involved who are dissatisfied with the pensions payable in the Civil Service. It ought to be easy to get the figures relating to the different grades with the salaries applicable to those grades and then the Minister should be able to indicate the corresponding grades in the Civil Service into which these people will be transferred, the rate of salary obtaining in that grade and the number of people and the amount of money involved. If, however, the Minister is not in a position to give this information there is nothing more we can do about it.

Mr. Hawkins

I would like to have some clarification on what is to happen the present pension fund of the society. The Minister has given the figure as something in the neighbourhood of £120,000. Will the payments on retirement or gratuities to the employees of the National Health Insurance Society come from investments from this fund or does it mean that the fund will be taken over by the Department of Finance and that in future the payments made in pensions or gratuities will be made from sums provided by the Oireachtas.

I am at a difficulty to try and find out what exactly is going to happen to the pensions fund and in the same way what is going to happen to the entire funds of the society. You have on the one hand the employees being taken over as civil servants and their pensions and all other payments to them will be provided by the Oireachtas. When the comprehensive scheme comes along provision will be made for an increased payment of contributions by employer and employee and I am at a loss to know how the Minister is going to divide up or allocate the present funds of the society so that the persons who subscribed them will benefit from these particular funds.

Mr. Norton

We can discuss that on the relevant section. The scheme gives statutory guarantee of existing salaries to the staff.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister has not made it clear what he really means to do in the matter of the superannuation funds of the society.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is amendment No. 1 not dealing merely with the transfer of officers?

Mr. Hawkins

Yes.

Mr. M. Hayes

How does the use of the fund come into it then? What has it got to do with it?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It arose out of the discussion on the Bill, but perhaps it would be better to defer that matter.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

While my natural tendency is always to safeguard the wage earner or the salary earner, I am not convinced that there is any need for the amendment put forward by Senator Hawkins and even if I thought there was a need I do not think it would be an improvement on the Bill as it stands. All he asks is that a person shall be appointed within a grade at least as favourable. "At least as favourable" means not less favourable; it does not indicate that there would be any improvement and I think that the Bill, as drafted, indicates that there can be no worsening of the standard of either salaries or pensions. Section 7, sub-section (1), stipulates that whatever payments have been made by an employee of the society, he shall be deemed to have been paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas throughout his service. If you are paying for 20 years and come into the Civil Service, you are eligible for pension as if you had been 20 years in the Civil Service. Sub-section (2) reads:—

Where a person who is appointed to a situation in the Civil Service... was... a member of the pension fund, such situation shall be a permanent situation and such of his service under the society... shall be treated as established service for the purpose of the Superannuation Acts.

I can imagine a case—I do not know what number there would be—of a person coming into the Civil Service after 20 years' service and getting the same pension rights as the civil servant with 20 years' service, but a civil servant with 20 years' service would be receiving a higher salary than a person who had been employed by the society for that number of years. I am not saying that it would happen in every case. The Bill seems to indicate, however, that nobody's condition will be worsened. Every year in the service of the society will count as service in the Civil Service and will entitle the person to payment and pension similar to the pension payable on a similar period of service in the Civil Service.

I would not like to be too rigid and insist that everyone who is taken over should be kept at exactly the same sort of work as they were doing. If a person becomes a civil servant he is liable to be transferred from one Department to another. If you make the thing too rigid, you will find that somebody who has been dealing with national health insurance and nothing else will raise an objection and for the rest of his period in the Civil Service must deal with national health contributions and nothing else.

If I thought that Senator Hawkins's amendment would improve the Bill I would support it, but I do not honestly think it would. It only commits the Minister and his successors to putting these people into a job which is no worse, but they will, under the Bill as it stands, get a status and a job no lower than the one they have at present because their own organisation ensures that they are not to be lowered in the social or the salary scale.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 2:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

() Should any dispute arise as to the rights of an officer under this section the matter shall be determined by a committee consisting of a chairman to be appointed by the Minister, a representative of the trade union to which the officer belongs and a representative of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. M. Hayes

Does amendment No. 2 not fall consequentially?

Mr. Hawkins

Amendment No. 2 attempts to make provision for those transferred servants who may feel a sense of grievance that they have not been allocated to the equivalent of the position they occupied in the society. In order that they may have a court of appeal, I suggest that the Minister should be empowered to appoint a committee, the chairman being appointed by himself with a member of the trade union to which the person belonged before he became a civil servant and a member appointed by the Minister for Finance who, after all, has the final say regarding appointment to grades in the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

There again, I think, with regard to the realities of this transfer, there is not much difference between us. I have said sufficient, I think, to indicate that nobody is going to get a raw deal and that everybody is going to be treated fairly. I do not think there is any concern or worry in the minds of the staff that they will not get a fair crack of the whip as far as this transfer is concerned. I want to transfer these people inculcating into their minds at the time of transfer a feeling that they will be fairly treated. In that way you get the best and most satisfactory service. On transfer, they become members of the Civil Service, that is, certain clerical grades in the National Health Insurance Society will be assimilated into clerical grades in the Civil Service.

From that day, their old identity, their old classification is gone; they are clerical officers in the Civil Service with all the rights of the clerical officer class in the Civil Service. They have the right to participate in any benefits that come to the clerical officer class in the Civil Service. Looking at this question as Minister or stepping down from that position and looking at it from the point of view of a trade union adviser, I would say to the staff of the National Health Insurance Society that it would be better from their own point of view not to try to develop a separateness, an exclusiveness, from the rest of their own class in the Civil Service. They should play with their own team and not merely that but play for their own team. Instead of trying to find remedies here or there for illusory injustices which may never arise, they should pull with the rest of their own grade in the Civil Service and endeavour to improve conditions for the entire class. In that philosophy, I think, they will find more dividends than in trying to create for themselves an exclusiveness which can have no durability whatever and which would be impossible permanently to maintain and which is more likely to beget enmity towards them than goodwill. At all events, if at any time after transfer to the Civil Service, they have any grievance, I have said to them "If you feel that the transfer is operating in such a way as to chaff on you—not to cause any burdensome injustice—to the extent that you feel you are not getting a fair deal, I will make the Assistant Secretary of my Department available to see you at any time to try to iron out any little difficulties. If that fails, I will make my secretary available to see you and if that fails, I will see you myself." Is not all that evidence of somebody actuated by goodwill towards the staff which is being transferred? I suggest to Senator Hawkins that in all that he has abundant evidence that there is no ground for fear, even remotely, of injustice for any of the National Health Insurance Society staff.

Bear in mind that even supposing faith in all these things collapses, there is still the Civil Service Arbitration Board to which they can take their case and get an independent judgement, the Minister having no right to weight the scales against them. I ask Senator Hawkins if he knows of anybody better circumstanced? I do not.

Dr. O'Connell

The remedy the Senator proposes would not be very satisfactory to the servant. He would not be helped by having the Minister for Finance on the committee. I would keep him out as much as possible and I think that any civil servant who had a grievance would do better to go to his own Minister than to bring the Minister for Finance into it. In any case it would be two against one if that committee were set up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

() An officer or employee of the society may before the transfer day resign his position under the society, and where such officer or employee had paid into the pension fund regular contributions he may apply to the committee of management to be retired on pension and the committee with the consent of the Minister may retire such officer or employee and add such number of years of service for pension purposes as they think fit but in any case not more than ten such years; the resulting increased charge on the fund not to cause any increase in the Exchequer contribution to the fund.

Up to the present we have been dealing with persons who are taken over to the Civil Service and this amendment proposes to make provision for those employees who, for one reason or another, are not anxious to become civil servants and who are already members of the pension fund of the National Health Insurance Society. It is usual when a person retires before completing his total years of service that the board or organisation concerned is empowered to show their appreciation of his services by adding years to bring him up to the full pension or as near as possible to the full pension.

The Minister will agree, I am sure, that no matter what inducements or how well he might paint the picture to persons, to become civil servants, that in the National Health Insurance Society at present there are persons who could not, and will not, avail of the transfer to become a civil servant. If they did, it would deprive them of some of the freedom that they now enjoy.

Mr. Norton

For instance?

Mr. Hawkins

For instance, there are agents throughout the country who are engaged in quite a number of activities apart from being national health insurance agents, and if the strict rules of the Civil Service are enforced quite a number of these agents will be compelled to break their connections with organisations, with public life in some cases, that they have built up over a number of years. Apart from all that, it is quite possible that, for family reasons or any one of a number of reasons, there may be one, two or three persons in the employment of the National Health Insurance Society at the moment who do not wish to become civil servants and, if that is so, provision should be made to give them the benefits which they would have got had the society been allowed to continue and had not been taken over.

Mr. Norton

I think Senator Hawkins was under a misapprehension as to the exact position of the staff of the National Health Insurance Society when he submitted this amendment.

Mr. Hawkins

I will admit that if the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment it would have to be redrafted.

Mr. Norton

This amendment is designed to provide pensions for persons who contribute regularly to the pension fund. If I accepted this amendment to give them pensions after ten or 20 years, they would get nothing at all, because they do not contribute to any pension fund, and the amendment falls on that. I take it that Senator Hawkins is not standing over the amendment but that he wants to argue the merits of the case as to whether we should allow people to retire from the service of the society and pay them pensions. We can probably deal with the position from that standpoint. Again, let us take the background against which we must consider this Bill. Where pensions or compensation have been provided in the past on the retirement of staff in the main, in fact, entirely, I think I can say, it has been where the amalgamation or transfer of staff brough about redundancy or brought about loss of employment. Consequently, if you are taking over people whom you are likely to render redundant or likely to have no further need for their services you promptly said to them: "You can go, I do not want you, and I propose to pay you a certain pension."

In that way you got rid of your liability to the person concerned. Very often, what you did was to put a person of middle age or perhaps less than middle age out of employment, give him a small pension, and leave the person concerned to find how best he could get another job in a highly competitive labour market. This is a different approach to the problem. In this case, I do not propose to render anybody redundant or to sack anybody. I propose to take them all over, and to provide them with their wages and salary each week. I will find work for them, but I am not going to make anybody redundant. I am not going to dismiss anybody, because of the transfer, so from that standpoint, I am guaranteeing the people their existing wages and salaries. There is no doubt they are going to get it, not the slightest. Is it wise as a matter of national policy? This is not a vast empire, and this is not the wealthiest country in the world. Is it desirable that we should give people of 22, 23 or 24 years of age, and up to 30 years of age the right to retire, rather than serve the Government of the people, and give them pensions, also? Now, if we are going to start a brigade of pensioners of 22, 24 and 26 years of age where are we going to draw the line? Does anybody think that is promoting the national wellbeing, to permit a number of people for whom good employment is available with definite guarantees, to permit them to say: "Oh, I do not want that employment at all. Write me a cheque for my pension. I will go off and look for another job, and if I get one at the same rate as I had, then, at least, I will have as good a job as the one I had, and I will have codded the State out of an annual pension for the rest of my life"? I see nothing in these economics to commend them to me. I do not think we ought facilitate people like that. Here, I am offering regular well paid employment to these people, in the main. There is no question of being paid off. They do not suffer from the fear of losing their employment or their wages if it is wet or if it is snowing. No matter what the weather is, no matter what the ups and downs of life are for the ordinary people in the country, these people will get a week's wages or a month's salary. That is what a lot of people have not got in this country. That is what a whole lot of people cannot count on with certainty in this country. These people can. Are we to say: "We do not want to hurt your feelings. The last thing we would have is to ask you to work under duress and, instead, we will ask you to go off and get a job somewhere else, and we will give you pensions to soothe you while you are looking for it"? Should we, on the other hand, say to these people: "You will be better off, the nation will be better off, and your family will be better off, if you just learn to work regularly, and enthusiastically, in the service of the State. You have guaranteed permanent employment and a guarantee of your wages or salary, each week or month." I think the latter approach is the best. I think we are on the slippery slope if we contemplate a situation in which a person can merely decide he does not want to work and that he can then get a pension.

With all the things we have tried to do with legislation, we have not yet hit that low-water mark, and I think we should try to keep away from it, as far as possible. Not only are these people getting guarantees, to which I adverted on a previous amendment, but I am divesting myself completely of any power to make one of them redundant or to dismiss one of them. Not only am I giving them definite guarantees, but I am divesting myself of any power to displace a single one of them. As if that were not going far enough, Senator Hawkins suggests that they should be given a pension as well. That, I suggest, is putting it on with a trowel. We ought to draw the line in this matter and say: "There is decent honest work for you. Take it and be glad you have it."

Mr. Hawkins

On the previous amendment, the Minister convinced the House that a majority of the employees of the society were eagerly and anxiously longing for the day when they would become civil servants. We accepted that the majority were prepared to be transferred, but here again it is not a question of the entire 600 employees or former employees, as they will be, but a possibly very small number of persons who have given long years of service to the society and who do not find it possible to come into the new scheme of things. In these cases, the Minister should be prepared to agree to give the committee of management power to give them pensions on retirement, provided they are satisfied that those resigning have good and sufficient reasons for doing so.

Business suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

In putting down his amendment Senator Hawkins gave us an opportunity of considering the general principle concerning pensions. Although the Minister has assured us that practically the entire staff of 600 of the National Health Insurance Society are eager and anxious to become civil servants, with such an amendment as this in the Bill I think the sluice gates of the water in Lough Erne would not stop all the people who would want to go out on pension. The granting of pensions to young people is a bad policy. You would have the same thing happening under this Bill as happened under Article 10, all sorts of people wanting to get out on pension, and taking advantage of such an opportunity to compete for jobs after wards.

I can imagine that if every young woman in the National Health Insurance Society to-day had the opportunity of going out on pension, with ten years added service, and if she had been ten years there, she would still be in "the thirties," you would have a queue of young men outside the office asking her "Have you resigned yet"? or "When are you going out on pension"? Such young women would be forced to go out on pension. If you accept the principle, which I do not, that everybody should have ten years added to their service for refusing to work, how could you conscientiously refuse giving ten years' additional service to people who want to go on working?

If you take the ten years mentioned for the 600 people, and give each of them the right to claim for working or not, an additional ten years service, you would make 6,000 years pensionable, not one hour of which anybody worked. If such was suggested outside there would be a hullabaloo. To add 6,000 years' service merely for the sake of giving people additional pensions seems to me to be a very bad policy. I think this question of pensions has gone too far in this country. I know that some people for special reasons when the Service was being set up were admitted to the Civil Service and had years added on. If everybody had the right to claim added years also when going out of the service, it would be hardly worth while going through the formality of taking up the job.

Mr. Tunney

I am delighted at the conversion of Senator Hawkins to the trade union movement. I should like to impress on Senator Hawkins this fact, that all those who are to be transferred now belong to the one trade union, of which I am a member. We have heard of no protest from the trade union that there was any injustice when these people were to be transferred. I would remind Senator Hawkins that some 13 or 14 years ago, when there was another amalgamation and transfer of officers, the attitude of the then Government, which the Senator supported and still supports, was entirely different. It did not give half the protection or the security that is being given by this Bill. When the Minister, who is now dealing with this Bill, proposed an amendment to give security and some protection to agents brought into the amalgamated company then, he was out-voted.

I am pleased to see the conversion of Senator Hawkins. If an injustice were being done to the agents, the trade unions would have taken the matter up.

There are some things I would like to see embodied in the Bill, but the trade union has accepted the Minister's word and is satisfied, and once the trade union has done that, I am satisfied. I would ask Senator Hawkins to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not wish to go into competition with Senator Tunney in relation to membership or support of a trade union organisation. The members of the House will understand that having followed a trade for quite a number of years it was hardly possible to be occupied in such a way without being a member of a trade union organisation. I have been as strong and steadfast a supporter of trade unionism and trade union principles as Senator Tunney. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings of the House except in relation to the matters contained in the Bill, but sometimes one is tempted off the straight and narrow path. If Senator Tunney has a complaint as to what happened 13 or 14 years ago, when private concerns were amalgamated into what is still more or less a private concern——

Mr. Tunney

When they were compelled by the then Government.

Mr. Hawkins

——and if the complaint were valid at that time, it still is an argument in support of my amendment. Senator Tunney says they were compelled. We are compelling, now, the employees of the society to become civil servants, just as Senator Tunney and his colleagues who were originally employed by individual insurance companies were compelled to become members of one insurance company.

Mr. Tunney

But they have not the same protection that these people have.

Mr. Hawkins

They had the protection of a trade union organisation. The Minister says that the trade union organisation catering for these people is satisfied. I think Senator Tunney is rather mixed up in his anxiety to support something to which my present amendment has no relation. My present amendment is not for those persons taken over but rather for those who, for one reason or another, cannot and will not be transferred as ordinary employees of the society so as to become civil servants.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hawkins

I note that the sum mentioned here is based on a particular year. I am not satisfied that it should not be based on the expenses of the running of the society year by year rather than by choosing a particular year.

Mr. Norton

The sum fixed here, £215,000, is according to the latest information available. It represents the cost of administration for the year ending 31st March, 1950, which is more likely to represent the cost in this current year or next year than would the administrative charges in any other year. We took the 31st March, 1950, because in our view it more correctly approximates to the cost of administration than the charge for any other year. There is an attempt to get reasonable accuracy.

In any case, as far as this Bill is concerned, it is stereotyping the regulations between the society and the Exchequer. Until such time as the comprehensive scheme is introduced, when we will look at the whole position afresh, this merely maintains the existing position. The figure of £215,000 has relation to a similar sum in another section of the Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

The increases of salary given as a result of the salary negotiations dated from the 1st February, 1949, so all the increases would be in the figure given.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

What is the position with regard to the actuarial valuation? I noticed from the proceedings in the Dáil that there was a certain amount of ambiguity in the Minister's replies to the points raised on that matter. Is it the intention to present us in due course with an actuarial valuation? I hope it is. I would point out in the case of a business or partnership being dissolved a special account is prepared to show the position at the time of dissolution. We have the same in regard to companies and it is only fair that in regard to this society we should be given a full and comprehensive view of its position at the time of the transfer. I expect that the necessary data is available for such a valuation and I think it is only reasonable to ask that the valuation should be carried out and carried out as early as possible.

Mr. Norton

Section 2 of the 1942 Act provides for a quinquennial actuarial review of the finances of the society. The purpose of that was to ascertain the amount that would be available for additional benefits in the subsequent five years. The position at the moment is that the last review took place on 31st December, 1943, and you are working on the actuarial review made available as a result of that actuarial examination. That examination was carried out for the purpose of ascertaining what money would be available by way of additional benefits or which could be available. In this Bill we are providing that the sum available for additional benefits is set down in that statutory form and, therefore, there is no question that that money will be available, if needs be, until 1952. We are safe, therefore, under this Bill in making the necessary provision for additional benefits up to 1952.

The intention is that in the meantime and before the period for additional benefits under this Bill expires a comprehensive scheme will be introduced. Senators will have observed from the White Paper that statutory provision will be made to provide for the allocation of moneys for additional benefits so long as these additional benefits are administered by the Department of Social Welfare. We are making the same provision for additional benefits until 1952 and provision will also be made under the comprehensive scheme for these benefits.

When this matter was discussed in the Dáil it was discussed from the point that Deputies wanted to get an actuarial view of the relationship of the society to the comprehensive scheme. The comprehensive scheme has already been actuarially costed. In so far as Senator Ó Buachalla wants information, I undertake to make available to Deputies and Senators every scrap of information I have available, but when you get it you will be no wiser, because the White Paper scheme has been costed and you can get the figures there. So far as the actuarial review is concerned, it need not in the future be undertaken for the purposes for which it was undertaken in the past, namely, to ascertain what moneys would be available for additional benefits. These benefits are being provided in this Bill and they will be part and parcel of the comprehensive scheme when it is introduced. As I said, I would be only too glad to make all information available.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I am not doubting the Minister's intentions or his ability to make additional benefits available, but I do think we are not unreasonable in asking that this last actuarial valuation of the society be made and that its results be published. It is quite true to say that by the time we get it it would have no practical value, that the whole scheme will have been changed. I accept all that, but I think in view of the peculiar circumstances of this Bill, and the transfer of the National Health Society, and of the criticisms of one kind and another, it is only fair that the Minister should cause that valuation to be made. If the Minister were to argue that there would be no point in making it because of the expense involved, then there would be some point in his argument, but I would not accept it. I think if this valuation were to cost £1,000 or £10,000 in the special circumstances, it would be money well spent.

I appreciate the Minister's offer to make available figures relating to stocks and shares and other securities held by the society, but these would be of very little use. The Minister knows that to make an actuarial investigation is a serious matter which can only be carried out by men of great experience. While I appreciate the Minister's offer to make the figures available, all I can say is that they would be of very little value to me. I do ask the Minister most sincerely to reconsider this matter, and I think that in all fairness this valuation should be carried out showing the position of the society at the time of its dissolution: that we should get at this dissolution its final balance sheet.

Mr. Norton

Senators will appreciate that they would not get the actuarial valuation of the society at the current date, even if I were to undertake to discharge the obligation imposed by Section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act of 1942. The last valuation was the one made on December 31st, 1943.

The next one is due to take place in respect of the valuation as at 31st December, 1948. It takes approximately three years after the date before you can get a complete actuarial view. It takes two years to assemble the data for the actuary. The 1943 valuation was based on the position as at 31st December, 1943; it was November, 1945, two years afterwards approximately, before the material was assembled and presented to the actuary. That is not because the job was long-fingered but because an enormous amount of detailed work is involved and it must absorb somebody's time. It takes a year before the work is completed by the actuary. If you want an actuarial examination of 1948 under the 1942 Act it will be the end of 1951 before you will get the report and when you get the report by the end of 1951 the comprehensive scheme in all likelihood will be in operation and the actuarial report will be of no value whatever because all the information you want about the assets of the society such as they are will be available to you in other forms. Even suppose you get that actuarial review at December, 1948, before you can get a review of the position in 1949-50 you will have to spend two years assembling the data and allow the actuary another year. If you want the position of the society in 1950 you must sit down and content yourself with a situation where it will be two years later before you get the figures. The figures will be meaningless in the circumstances and of no value. If I thought that they would be of any value I would be anxious to undertake it, but to divert staff to make long and involved calculations for two years in order to assemble the material and to employ an actuary to make an actuarial review and produce the figures would be no use to anybody. Any information I have and any information which Senators want I will undertake to give and I will tie myself to that promise now so that it can be recalled when we are discussing the comprehensive scheme. I hope that you will have dealt with the comprehensive scheme and enacted it long before you would be likely to get an actuarial review from the actuary.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I appreciate the Minister's explanation of the difficulties but nevertheless I am not satisfied. The Minister says that it would take two years to assemble the data. Suppose it does—since 1948 the two years have almost run. I know very little about the internal running of the society but I did have occasion to inspect it and my conclusion about it was—and it is the opinion of investigators of office organisation and routine—that it must be one of the most efficiently run institutions in this country. With the staff and their experience and with the machinery available there should be no very great difficulty in gathering the data necessary for the valuation. My own feeling is that if the society had been working in a normal way that material and data would be available by now. I have regard to the fact that it takes over a year to carry out the actual calculations and I agree that it is a very tedious and exacting job but I am also satisfied that it would be possible for the actuary to carry out his investigation in less than 12 months. Even if it did take 12 months I think we should still go ahead and present that valuation for 1948. Assuming that the comprehensive scheme will be in force I think that in view of all the circumstances it is only reasonable since this society is being wound up that we should be given this final valuation.

I do not know why the Minister said that it would seem to follow that there should be a valuation for the two years 1949 and 1950 and that there would be no point in having such a valuation made. I do not think there is any necessity for a valuation for 1949 and 1950. What I am concerned with is the quinquennial valuation which we should get for the year 1948. I still feel that the Minister does not quite realise the importance of the matter and the necessity of having the valuation made for the five years in question and made public. I again appeal to him to reconsider this matter. 1949 and 1950 will not be of any particular interest to me or anybody who is interested in these matters but we are genuinely interested in the conduct of the affairs of the society and the position of the society as at the 31st December, 1948. Again let me express the hope that the Minister will see his way to having the valuation carried out and presented to us as early as possible.

Dr. O'Connell

I am one who has no belief whatever in the value of actuarial investigations. I am one of the heretics because of long experience of the result of such examinations. When I am told by an actuary that a fund with millions of money is insolvent I wonder what is meant by actuarial investigation. Actuarial investigation is something different from a statement of assets and liabilities at a particular date. It is not a balance sheet. It is what is going to happen in the future to a particular fund. It is largely in the nature of guesswork about what is to happen. It is scientific guesswork if you could have such a thing. The actuary has to assemble a lot of data and say if this happens or if that happens what will happen to the fund. We should know what at a particular date are the assets of the fund, the amount of money in the kitty, if you like, and not what is going to happen, if and when something, that is not likely to happen at all, will happen.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Would the Minister have any remark to make?

Mr. Norton

I think Senator Ó Buachalla misconceives the position. The actual purpose of the actuarial review provided for in the 1942 Act was to see how much money could be made available for additional benefits, having regard to the pattern of expenditure over the previous five years. The only purpose was to see what amount could be made available for additional benefits. We have solved that problem in a very easy way. We say that there is a sum of money provided here for these additional benefits for the next two years, and before the two years expire there will be provision made under the comprehensive scheme; so that provision is being made for the continuity of payments for additional benefits under this Bill, and will be made under the comprehensive scheme. Why, then, switch staff which is urgently needed to work on the comprehensive scheme, and to integrate the society into the Department, to the task of collating statistics regarding membership, which will involve the expenditure of a considerable amount of time and, consequently, money in producing figures which are of no use to anybody, because the only purpose is to find out how much you could expend on additional benefits? We are providing for that expenditure under this Bill, and in the comprehensive scheme. I say this to Senator Ó Buachalla—I hope this year to produce the first Departmental Report on the work of my Department and, incidentally, a review of the finances of the National Health Insurance Society and, probably, the Senator will get more information in an up-to-date publication of that kind, than he will get by giving him information when it is of no value to him, information on what the finances of the society were five years before. I think he will get all the information he wants in that Departmental Report in due course, in a matter of a few months, I think. Clearly, there is no purpose in undertaking an actuarial examination for a particular purpose, when we have served that purpose, by the provision of the necessary sum of money for additional benefits in the Bill.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I think we can dismiss Senator O'Connell's views regarding the value of investigations of this kind. With regard to what the Minister says, I am not quite clear as to what he has in mind. Is it the Minister's view that he will make available under his scheme greater benefits than would be made available under the national health society scheme?

Mr. Norton

We will provide for the continuance of the present benefits.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Of the present benefits—good. That is the point. What I would be very anxious to know is, that when we get a line on the new benefits, we should be able to see to what extent the society, if it were to operate under the old way, would fall short of the new scheme. I think that there is nothing unreasonable in asking for information that will enable us to make a comparison. The Minister says that he will make available benefits as good as would be made available under the old scheme. I suggest he cannot make any such statement, in all fairness, since he does not know what we could make available under the old scheme, unless the quinquennial valuation is carried out in the way I was suggesting.

Mr. Norton

Would the Senator appreciate that I am tied to the present scheme until 1952, and I am tying myself to the scheme by this Bill? In the meantime, you will have the comprehensive scheme. You will have to look at the whole position again. The society, in the meantime, will have gone out of existence. The moneys will have to be made available from the contribution income and, under the new scheme, from exchequer allocations.

Liam Ó Buachalla

We will be left without the data on which we could make a comparison which, I think, we ought to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), line 7, after "Minister" to add "with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

An Cathaoirleach

May I suggest No. 6 seems to be consequential on No. 4, and that we can take the two together.

Mr. Hawkins

Section 21 empowers the Minister to make payments out of the funds in respect of the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment, but that a payment shall not be made under sub-section (1) on or after the 1st day of July, 1954, save with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The first point I should like to have clarified by the Minister is why 1954. The section empowers the Minister to spend the funds of the society on certain purposes, the acquisition of premises and so forth. It empowers him to do so, without the consent or without any obligation to consult or refer the matter to any other Minister, but on or after the 1st July, 1954, he divests himself of such powers. For any transaction carried out after that date the consent of the Minister for Finance is essential.

In the early sections of the Bill, we made provision for the Minister to make over the fund, and the fund is to be placed in charge of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance is empowered to invest the moneys, and he has an obligation to make available to the society the necessary finances to carry out its obligations to the insured persons. There is no other Department of State that I am aware of or no other Minister in this State that can undertake expenditure without the prior consent of the Minister for Finance. I should like to have, without detaining the House very long in the matter, some explanation from the Minister as to the reasons why he has taken on himself this responsibility; why he is prepared to divest himself of this authority after the 1st July, 1954. Finally, under sub-section (8), the section shall be deemed to come into operation on the 1st of July, 1949. If the Minister replies briefly to the points made, I think we will have a clearer indication of what the Minister is doing under the section. Has there already been some expenditure undertaken and is the Minister now providing the payment out of the society's funds that he is taking over?

Mr. M. Hayes

In several amendments to this Bill and, particularly, in this amendment, Senator Hawkins is endeavouring to protect people who have not asked him to protect them, and who do not seem to need any protection from anybody. He is now taking on the biggest task of all. He is endeavouring to protect the Minister for Finance. This is the first time I ever heard anybody in this House endeavouring to defend the Department of Finance, and endeavouring to say that the Department of Finance was getting less than it was entitled to. It should be remembered that this provision to which the consent of the Minister for Finance is not required is a temporary one. It applies only for a special period of five years, without the consent of the Minister for Finance, and his Department has already approved of the terms of the Bill. Now, what Senator Hawkins is saying is, that the Department of Finance erred in that particular respect, and that they should leave the provision here.

With their knowledge of all the circumstances, the fullest possible knowledge—and I speak with some experience—what the Department does not ask you and find out about you is really not worth telling anybody. The Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance know all about the circumstances, and, having investigated these circumstances, they have allowed this Bill to be put forward in this form, waiving the Minister's claim to give consent to certain things over a period of five years. I have the greatest possible faith in the Department of Finance, apart from the Minister or any Minister. My experience is that the Department is an unvarying quantity, no matter what the name of the Minister or of his Party. If, in this instance, they have agreed to do a particular thing, I do not know why we should set out to impose a responsibility on them which, in their judgment, they need not undertake.

Dr. O'Connell

I wish that other Ministers could get similar permission.

Mr. Norton

I thought that Senator Hawkins would see an element of liberation in this section and would congratulate me on it. If there is one gag with which Senators and Deputies are familiar, it is the gag about trying to get a decision from the Department of Finance. How often have we, as Senators and in our various capacities, ranted about the difficulty of getting decisions? How often have we expressed views that, if there were not so much red or green tape, the job could be done very much more quickly? This is a simple matter-of-fact approach to a realistic problem. We want to acquire and equip the Store Street premises. We want to enter into contracts to complete the Store Street premises. If we have to consult every other Department which is remotely connected with Store Street and go to the Department of Finance with every 2½d. tender for any particular fitting or type of fitting or any work done, Store Street will not be acquired and equipped in the next ten years.

I want to acquire these premises quickly and I want to complete the premises and equip them quickly because they are required for the accommodation of the staff in the Department in order to get on with the comprehensive scheme and to have a machine capable of administering it. I despair absolutely of trying to complete and equip the premises, if I have to go to the Department of Finance to have every single proposal X-rayed and double X-rayed by that Department, with a litany of questions on every simple proposition put to them by people who have not grown up with the problem and to whom the acquisition of Store Street is one of 1,000,000 other tasks and who cannot be familiar with them all. This proposition, therefore, is to allow us to purchase and equip Store Street within a certain period. Bear this in mind: the five-year period was put in as a period during which we felt all the work in connection with it would be cleared up. I hope to clear it up in a much shorter period and to shed this power which I want only for the limited functions set out in the section. Getting the power, I want to utilise it speedily and to complete the job of purchasing and equipping the Store Street premises.

It may be said that we should not buy and equip the Store Street premises. That is one point of view, but, if it is decided to purchase and equip the place, surely we ought to get on with the job as quickly as possible. This is a device to enable that to happen. Senator Hawkins is concerned about protecting the Minister for Finance in this matter. This Bill was approved by the Government and it was approved by the Department of Finance. To that extent, therefore, the Minister for Finance has consented to the exercising by the Minister for Social Welfare of these powers for this limited purpose over a period of five years. In other words, the Minister for Finance is perfectly satisfied that the Minister for Social Welfare will act prudently in this matter, and it is on that understanding that these powers are there for this limited function. To that extent, it may be said that the Minister for Finance has been consulted in the matter.

At all events, if we do want to get on with this job and to finish it, surely the thing to do is to give the Minister responsible for the Department the power to complete the job in the shortest possible time. That is what this section is intended to do. If we want to hamper the acquisition and equipment of the premises we can impose the obligation of going to the Department of Finance on every single matter and then Store Street five years hence will be very much like the Store Street of to-day.

Mr. O'Reilly

It strikes me that in this section the Minister is given a blank cheque from the Minister for Finance in respect of the expenditure of certain moneys and the doing of certain things. It is so seldom that people get blank cheques from the Department of Finance that I suggest to Senator Hawkins that he should withdraw this amendment which seeks to give the Minister for Finance the final word in the spending of this money. There seems to be an element of appeal and urgency in the Minister's remarks. He says it would take ten years to complete certain contracts if all the green and red tape had to be gone through. It might happen that there would be a change of Government before the Store Street premises are completed and the present Minister might never occupy them. I think there is a sinister villainy in the amendment by Senator Hawkins, in that he wants to create a position whereby the present Minister might never occupy these premises, and, having regard to the decisions he took in relation to it, I am sure that there is a desire on his part to preside in Store Street. For that reason, I ask Senator Hawkins to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I address another appeal to Senator Hawkins? The matter could be more adequately discussed and decided on amendment No. 5, which, as now appears, is much the same thing.

Mr. Hawkins

As Senator Hayes says, the whole question will probably arise on the next amendment. Senator Hayes suggested that I was making an attempt to defend people who did not require anybody to defend them. I will put it this way to the Minister and to the Seanad: I am attempting to defend the national health insured workers, of whom I am one myself. It is their money, their fund, which is being taken over and it is their blank cheque which is being issued to the Minister, as Senator O'Reilly has pointed out. It is not money provided by the Oireachtas. It is money accumulated to the credit of the national health insured workers, and it is in their interests and on their behalf that I speak. It is because I want to ensure so far as I can that before any of that money is expended there will be the closest investigation and a decision by more than one person, and particularly a decision by somebody other than the Minister into whose custody and care the money is being transferred.

It is all very well to say: "We are going to purchase a particular building and we are going to do a particular job." If the Minister gives a guarantee that he will extract from the Minister for Finance the sum required, as he should, for the purpose of acquiring premises suitable to house this new Department I will have no objection, if the Minister for Finance is prepared to give the Minister for Social Welfare a blank cheque and to say to him: "Acquire for yourself and the Department the best and biggest accommodation you can get in the city."

I am surprised at the attitude of Senator Tunney, who was so long a member of a trade union organisation consisting of insured workers in general. I am surprised that he would not join in support of a demand that if some of this money has to be spent it should at least be spent under proper care and supervision.

Mr. Norton

It will, Senator, and be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in due course.

Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

() Payment shall not be made out of the fund for the purchase or acquisition or in respect of expenditure by the Minister on the acquisition of premises the property of Córas Iompair Éireann at Store Street planned and partly completed by Córas Iompair Éireann as a central bus terminus.

We have already, on the previous amendment, elicited some little information from the Minister. We now know that sub-section (2), which provides that a payment shall not be paid under sub-section (1) on or after the 1st July, 1954, save with the consent of the Minister for Finance, is for the purpose of ensuring that Store Street may be purchased and equipped by that date. The purpose of this section is to give power to the Minister to acquire a particular building. I doubt if, from the reading of the section, members of either House would be aware of what particular building is in question or whether the Minister proposes to erect a new building. However, the Minister himself told us on the Second Stage, and quite definitely a few moments ago, that the purpose of the section is to purchase the building erected by Córas Iompair Éireann as a central bus station in Store Street. There are three or four very important aspects of this whole matter. There is, firstly, the fact that we have given power to the Minister to take over £6,500,000 of national health insurance funds. On a rough estimate, £1,000,000 of that money is to be spent on acquiring in Store Street a building erected for a totally different purpose. On the last occasion, the Minister said that Córas Iompair Éireann had decided to sell Store Street. I should like to get some information from the Minister on that point, and I am sure it is available, because this matter must have got very close consideration and negotiations must have been entered upon. Yet nobody seems to know at the moment what has been done or what progress has been made. I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of Store Street as against Smithfield. That question does not enter into the discussion at all.

An Cathaoirleach

No.

Mr. Hawkins

The matter before us is whether we approve of the proposal contained in the section to empower the Minister to purchase this building. I think the building is unsuitable for the purpose for which the Minister proposes to acquire it. It was erected at the outset for a totally different purpose. Nobody has carried out an inspection of the building, but I am sure the Minister and the officers of his Department must know that there is almost as large a part of it under ground level as there is over ground, that the building was designed to serve as a bus terminus, and that a considerable sum of money must be spent to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Minister as headquarters for his Department. It was decided some years ago that a central bus station was essential, and protests were made in this House, and in the other House on many occasions, in connection with the existing accommodation for bus passengers. The Minister, as was pointed out on the last occasion, occupies an important position, and being Minister for Social Welfare, I am sure that the question of catering for the public at large is just as much a matter of his responsibility as catering for the relatively small section of the community who will be transferred to his care under this Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the public at large under this section, Senator.

Mr. Hawkins

The public at large are very interested, and I am sure would voice their opinion in a most emphatic way in connection with this matter were an opportunity presented to them to do so. Now that it is proposed that the Minister should acquire these premises, we should have from him a very clear statement as to the estimated cost of erecting the building to the specification of Córas Iompair Éireann and what the estimated cost of adapting the building to his requirements will be. Is he prepared to issue a blank cheque to Córas Iompair Éireann to complete the building, or is the work of adapting it to his requirements going to be carried out by the same architect, the same engineer and the same contractors? These are all matters which the Minister should make very clear to the House.

Another consideration to which I think I drew the attention of the Minister on the last occasion is that we are dealing here with the fund of a very small section of the people who will benefit by the comprehensive social security scheme or who will come under the control, as it were, of the Minister for Social Welfare. Because that small section happens to be a prosperous section, because of the fact that they had £6,500,000 in investments—whether these investments are in black India, darkest Africa or in British securities elsewhere, does not matter so long as the moneys are there; if they were not there I do not think we would have this Bill before us tonight—a proposal is now made that the moneys of this society be utilised for the purpose of acquiring a building for the Department of Social Welfare. On the Second Reading the Minister suggested that it would be much better to have the moneys of the society invested in bricks and mortar here at home rather than in British securities. He went further and guaranteed that if the moneys were so invested, the society's funds would not suffer a loss as a result and that provision would be made for paying the same rate of interest on the money as would have been paid on it from the original investments. If the Minister can explain to me or to the House what benefit a transaction of that kind is to the Exchequer I shall be very glad to hear it. I am sure that if the Minister for Finance set about providing the £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 that may be necessary to secure accommodation for the Department, by erecting a new building or by acquiring some suitable premises, the Minister for Finance would secure that money at a much cheaper rate of interest from the community as a whole than the rate that will now have to be paid on the moneys of the National Health Insurance Society to ensure that they will earn as much by way of refund from the Minister for Finance, as they would earn if they were invested abroad.

The only difference is that the £1,000,000 is there to be withdrawn and the Minister for Finance will have to raise the extra £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 that may be necessary. I feel very strongly in this matter. I do not think it is right in principle to utilise the funds of this society for the purpose of acquiring the necessary accommodation for the Department of Social Welfare; secondly, I do not think it is right to deprive the travelling public of the facilities they require. Other speakers may wish to go into the question of the original decision to erect this building. I do not intend to do that since it might lead to a very prolonged discussion. I do press upon the Minister the acceptance of this amendment. If a building is necessary, there is ample space available elsewhere on which to erect that building. It is not even necessary that the building should be in Dublin, as I have already pointed out. Even at the eleventh hour, I appeal to the Minister to give serious reconsideration to the step he is taking, with a view to depriving the travelling public of facilities to which they have long been entitled, and also to the question of utilising the society's funds for the purpose of supplying accommodation for the Department of Social Welfare.

Dr. O'Connell

Much play has been made in this discussion upon the fact that this money belongs to the contributors. That is so. But nobody has shown how the contributors will lose as a result of the taking over of this fund. May I point out that it is not the first fund that has been taken over, and not by this Government? Other funds of £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 were taken over in the past. I do not think that the people interested in those funds lost anything. I do not think the people now will lose anything. Remember, the power which the contributors have over this fund is a limited power. If the contributors met together in the Phoenix Park to-morrow, they could have no say in the disposal of the fund, because it is under the control of the Government and the National Health Insurance Society works within limits imposed by the Government. Objection is taken to erecting a suitable building and taking the money out of the funds for that purpose.

Banking concerns, industrial companies and commercial firms put their money into buildings and those buildings are always shown in the balance sheet as a valuable asset. Even if £1,000,000 is used in the adaptation of this particular building, it will still be an asset to the credit of the fund, if the fund is there, and to the credit of the Government. It will not be thrown into the Liffey. Nobody has shown that the contributors will lose as a result of this action. I wonder would the same objection be taken if the Minister were to spend £1,000,000 in erecting new buildings in Merrion Street or Merrion Square. Is the real objection the fact that the money is being used in adapting this particular building? It must be admitted that some building is necessary. It must be admitted that money will have to be spent in providing some building. To me it does not matter a great deal whether that money is taken out of this particular fund or out of the pockets of the taxpayers. I do not think there is any real substance in the objection since it has not been shown to me that anybody will lose as a result of this action.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

Section 21, which we have partly discussed, empowers the Minister to spend money on acquiring premises. This amendment seeks to limit him by excluding one particular building. This amendment lays it down: "You can buy any premises anywhere you like, but this you must not touch." I shall not argue whether or not it is an ideal building for this purpose. Suppose the Minister does not buy this particular building. What will happen to it? Are there any other buyers in the market? Is there any guarantee that it will even be used for its original purpose? Will it be left lying there, like an unfinished symphony?

It has been said that a building is best suited for the thing it was designed to serve. That may be, but a great many of the buildings around us to-day were not designed for the purpose they now serve. Leinster House was never designed to house an Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament buildings were never designed originally to house the Bank of Ireland. The Georgian mansions were never designed to house tenement dwellers in Dublin. The morgue was never intended to be the Abbey Theatre or Conciliation Hall to be a newspaper office.

I could go on and give you a long list of buildings converted and adapted through the years which admirably serve the purpose for which they were adapted. This building might be converted to a bus station if there was somebody with sufficient money to buy it over and use it as a bus station. I do not want to see the Store Street premises left unfinished as a monument to somebody's lack of vision. A private company undertook to build a building somewhere; I shall not say where nor for what purpose. They had not enough money to finish it and they left it so. We have no power to compel any company to buy that building.

Now, accommodation must be procured somewhere. Is it worse to spend money buying a building half completed than to start from the ground up and build another? The fact that the Minister might be debarred from buying this building, if we pass this amendment and the Dáil agrees, would not reconvert it back to its original purpose. There is no guarantee that it would. There is no hope that if it is not used for the purpose for which it could be used it will be used for any other purpose. Mention has been made of how much is underground and how much is over the ground. I do not know, but I am sure it will be possible to utilise most of the premises as offices since that is the purpose for which it was originally designed.

Mr. O'Reilly

Underground offices?

Mr. S. O'Farrell

The underground portion will probably be used for storage. All Government offices need storage for the red tape and the files.

Mr. Tunney

They do in the Custom House.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

Senator Tunney mentions the Custom House. I do not know whether the Custom House was originally designed to look after old age pensions. This building in Store Street was designed and intended to house a clerical staff of 800. Surely it can be used for a staff of 1,000 and the portion which was not intended originally for staff can be adapted to accommodate them. I have not heard any arguments—I shall not enter into a discussion as to the merits or demerits of a bus station—that would indicate to me that this is not as good a bargain as one could get under the circumstances and that, having been acquired, it will not turn out to be as good a building as one could get in any other way.

Professor Stanford

In the debate on the Second Reading the Minister stated that he disputed all the facts and figures I gave him. I appreciate the merciful tenderness with which the Minister handled me in his reply, but I would have appreciated it even more had he been good enough not merely to dispute the facts but to refute them. May I ask him now for a clear statement on some of the points I raised then? As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to the voting on this amendment. I think it is closely relevant to what my constituents and the public at large would like to read in the paper to-morrow about the discussion of the Bill. First of all, is it a fact or is it not a fact that the public will lose £10,000 a year income by converting these premises into offices? Secondly, is it a fact or is it not a fact that 800 people could easily be accommodated in the upper part of the building, leaving the rest of the building for its original purpose —the 200 other civil servants who will need accommodation being easily accommodated elsewhere in the city? They must be working somewhere at the moment and I do not see why they could not stay there for a little while longer. Thirdly, is it a fact or is it not a fact that the Smithfield site——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Stanford should realise that Smithfield has nothing to do with this amendment. That is a different question altogether.

Professor Stanford

If the Chair wishes to rule against the public interest, I accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. M. Hayes

Might I say that that is an extraordinary attitude to adopt in respect of a ruling by the Chair? It is not against the public interest and it is unfair to say that the Chair is ruling against the public interest. It is a most unfair remark and it should be withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

We are discussing the suitability or the unsuitability of these premises for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. M. Hayes

Will the Senator withdraw his remark? Public interest does not enter into the Chair's ruling. It is unfair to make that remark and it should be withdrawn. The public interest is not the concern of the Chair now, it is that of relevancy. The Senator should withdraw his remark.

Professor Stanford

Does the Chair ask me to withdraw?

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair does not mind but it might be as well to do so.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is an excellent reply.

Professor Stanford

Where I was speaking, as I thought, in the public interest——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should not make his case any worse than what it is. Proceed to deal with the amendment, please.

Professor Stanford

I bow to Senator Hayes's objection that the Chair was ruling entirely on a matter of relevancy. To come back to what I was saying, has the Minister considered or has he not considered the compromise which I suggested at our last meeting? I submit that that is relevant to this amendment. I should like to receive a definite reply to that question. The Minister stated last Wednesday that Córas Iompair Éireann does not want the Store Street premises and cannot pay for them. My answer to that is that the taxpayers and the travellers want a central bus station.

An Cathaoirleach

Córas Iompair Éireann does not come into this discussion at all. We are dealing with the suitability or the unsuitability of the premises for one purpose and for one purpose only. The Senator should realise that Córas Iompair Éireann is not to be brought into this discussion, and I rule it out of order.

Professor Stanford

Is the Minister entirely satisfied that these premises are the best possible premises for his purpose? Has he realised that if there is a change of Government following on a general election, a vendetta may begin on this point and the next responsible Minister may decide that any station which may be half built by that time to house the buses of the city may be used for some other purpose—and the citizens of Dublin would, therefore, have to wait another five years for their bus station. I can only say very emphatically that every person with whom I have spoken since last Wednesday is now in favour of using Store Street for its original purpose—and that includes even those who dislike the site.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not on that question. I want to remind the Senator again that we are dealing with one point and one point only, namely, the suitability or the unsuitability of these premises for one particular purpose—not for buses or Córas Iompair Éireann connections, but for the housing of the staff of the Department of Social Welfare.

Liam Ó Buachalla

On a point of order, is it true that Store Street is mentioned in the amendment under discussion?

Mr. M. Hayes

Certainly.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order. We are dealing with this amendment for one purpose and one purpose only—the housing of the staff of the Department of Social Welfare.

Professor Stanford

Thank you for those enlightening remarks. I notice in recent legislation an increasing tendency in welfare measures to begin at the wrong end. In the name of public health, we have been providing good hospitals instead of good nourishment and good housing. Now, in the name of social welfare, we are going to provide premises for a staff to look after social welfare instead of giving decent shelter to the citizens of Dublin. The benefits of the Minister's comprehensive scheme, I hold, will bring little satisfaction to the men and women suffering from pneumonia or influenza or acute tuberculosis next winter from standing at Aston's Quay.

An Cathaoirleach

That does not come within the amendment and the Senator knows it.

Professor Stanford

Will the Chair rule that it is not a matter for social welfare?

An Cathaoirleach

It is not a matter for the amendment.

Professor Stanford

The Minister, in his remarks, during the course of this debate, referred to this comprehensive scheme.

Mr. M. Hayes

But not on this amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

We are dealing with one particular amendment on a particular section. The Senator may not now make a Second Reading speech on the scheme.

Professor Stanford

I shall conclude by asking the Minister for a definite statement on the questions I have asked. Unless he can be persuaded to give some satisfaction to the public on this matter I feel strongly inclined to support this amendment. I regret that much of what I have said was out of order. I am still only learning the rules and I must say that I have learned a good deal this evening.

Mr. Norton

The rulings of the Chair and the fact that Store Street has been discussed in the Dáil, in the Seanad and in the public Press for the past 12 months make it unnecessary for me, I think, to discourse on that subject at any length this evening. It is not my responsibility to provide a bus depot or terminus for those who travel by bus.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think the Minister should refer to that. We are not discussing travelling by bus but the suitability or the unsuitability of the Store Street premises for the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Norton

What alarms me is that a gentleman, a Senator of Professor Stanford's stature——

Mr. O'Reilly

We are all gentlemen here, Sir.

Mr. Norton

That has been very obvious from the moment you entered, Senator.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister should deal with the amendment.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Has Senator Hayes no advice to offer us on this matter?

Mr. Norton

What must be made clear is that the question of providing a bus depot in Dublin——

An Cathaoirleach

Has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Norton

——is not a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. We came into the Store Street business in this way. A company decided to erect the Store Street structure. They spent a certain sum of money on it, and they then discovered that they had no more.

Mr. O'Reilly

Why?

Mr. Norton

They said they could not pay for it, and they then decided to dispose of it. It was only after Córas Iompair Éireann decided to dispose of the Store Street premises that we decided to negotiate for its purchase. Córas Iompair Éireann could have kept the Store Street premises. We did not covet them.

Mr. Hawkins

Is the Minister in a position to tell us when Córas Iompair Éireann decided to dispose of the premises?

Mr. M. Hayes

We had all that on the Transport Bill.

Mr. Norton

May I say that most of the discussion is relevant to the Transport Bill rather than to this? They could have kept it if they wanted it. We did not covet the building. It was because they decided to dispose of it that we decided to negotiate for it— and they did so for the very simple reason that they could not pay for it. It was only then that we came in.

Professor Stanford

Perhaps the technical expression might be "an accomplice after the deed".

Mr. Norton

I see no reason why the Senator should doubt the accuracy of my statement. If Córas Iompair Éireann had held these premises, we would not have been interested. We did not covet them. If they could have paid their way, they were welcome to the premises which they had erected.

Professor Stanford

I am afraid that things are not settled in vacuo like that. Surely the Minister must think we are very naive?

An Cathaoirleach

Is that a point of order?

Professor Stanford

It is an interruption, Sir.

Mr. Norton

The negotiations commenced with Córas Iompair Éireann only after they decided that the premises were for sale. We did not covet the premises. They were not able to complete the premises and they said that in any case they did not want them. It was only then that we said: "If that is the position, we will negotiate to purchase the premises because we need a central headquarters." Now the question arises as to whether these premises are suitable. We are satisfied, after having surveyed the accommodation requirements of the Department and after having ascertained the number of staff that will have to be accommodated, that the Store Street building in its entirety will accommodate the staff of the Department.

It is because it will accommodate the staff of the Department and because there are invested funds which can be utilised to purchase the premises that we decided to proceed with negotiations to acquire them. The question of when or where a bus depot should be provided or as to who should provide it is not a matter for this Bill and is not a matter for me. With the utmost sympathy for the bus-travelling community, I have no power to erect a bus depot or to make Córas Iompair Éireann proceed with the construction of the present building and to pay for it when it is constructed.

Senator Stanford asks what would happen if we did not purchase the building. I do not know. I presume it would remain there as an aesthetic companion to the gasometer. Then all the artists would write letters to the Irish Times and the editor would write himself away lamenting that this companion piece was not completed as one of Ireland's 1950 art creations. My simple position in connection with Store Street is that we want a building and that this is a suitable building. If we do not buy it, it will be a rookery, a monument to those who ordered it and could not complete it. We propose to buy it and to convert it. I understand that the adaptation of the building will not cost very much money.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Minister has so often repeated that the company could not pay for the building that I am forced to interrupt him and say that the company would have completed the building were it not for the fact that they were forced into fictitious bankruptcy by their inability to increase rates and thereby earn more money.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing Córas Iompair Éireann. That is out of order. I would appeal to the Minister and to Senators to get away from the subject of Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am sorry. I accept your ruling.

Mr. Norton

I said to Senator Hawkins that some adaptation would be necessary. In consultation with the architect, we are satisfied that it will not be very costly. In any case, we will be able to dispense with some of the refinements which were contemplated by Córas Iompair Éireann and that will go against the cost of the adaptation. Therefore, one need not contemplate any extensive expenditure on adaptation.

The simple question is—Is this a good bargain from the point of view of the Department of Social Welfare and will it do the job we have in mind? We think it will. Bear in mind, when talking about invested moneys of the national health insurance fund, that Árus Brugha, the present headquarters of the society, was purchased out of moneys provided from the national health insurance funds. It turned out to be a good investment and I hope, in time, Store Street will be an equally successful investment.

Mr. Hawkins

Within the limits within which we are allowed to travel on this amendment, the Minister has failed to make a case for the purchase of Store Street. If completed by Córas Iompair Éireann the building would be completed out of funds provided by the taxpayer or the people of this country. There is no use in suggesting that if the present proposal is not carried out, there will be an unfinished monument left to 1950. If such a monument were to be left there, uncompleted, it would be a monument to a political campaign carried out in the last general election. The whole position in which we find ourselves in connection with Store Street and many other undertakings arises from that campaign.

The money to complete the building, whether it is expended by the Minister for Social Welfare for his Department or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purpose for which it was originally intended, will come out of the pockets of the people. In this case it will come out of the pockets of a certain section of the people who have contributed to a fund to provide benefits for themselves. If the members here were free to give expression to their views and to record their opinions by a vote in this House, they would indicate that it is bad national policy that because of statements made, sometimes without due regard to their seriousness or without a sense of responsibility or a sense of ever being in a position to give effect to them, people should be forced into a position such as we have to-day.

The Minister argues that Árus Brugha was purchased out of the funds of the society when the society was co-ordinated in 1933. That is correct; but that building was purchased to house the employees of the society and not to house the civil servants of a big Department. There is that vast difference.

Senator O'Connell suggests that if a bank proposes to build they put the value of the building against their assets. It will be very poor consolation to insured workers if they find in the balance sheet of the National Health Insurance Society, on the credit side, £2,000,000 investment in Store Street while at the same time if increases are to be given under the comprehensive insurance scheme they will come by way of increased contributions. The question, as the Minister said, has been argued both here and in the other House.

Finally, I would like to record that it is not true to say that Córas Iompair Éireann proposed to abandon the building or offered the building for sale. I have yet failed to elicit, either from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Social Welfare or any person connected with that organisation when the decision was made. It is quite possible that, if the building were offered to the public for sale in the morning, a buyer would be found for it who would convert it to some other purpose. A decision was made. The company were forced into the position of abandoning the building.

The Minister stated in the Dáil on another occasion that Córas Iompair Éireann were to complete the building and, having completed it to the satisfaction and the requirements of the Department of Social Welfare, the Department were to take over this building and the matter of cost would be arranged. If Córas Iompair Éireann are in a position to complete the building to the satisfaction, and to meet the requirements of, the Department, then, having got that far, and with the possibility of an income arising from the facilities that would be there —cinemas and restaurants and so forth —it would be a paying proposition, together with supplying accommodation for the clerical staff and supplying the public with a long-felt want.

Senator O'Connell asked would I object to the expenditure of this money in erecting a building in Merrion Square or elsewhere. I would object to the expenditure of the society's funds in erecting a building for the Department of Social Welfare because, while the Department may require a building, I think it is the duty and the responsibility of the Department to provide that building and not to fall back on one single unit to finance the whole undertaking.

Mr. Norton

Would the Senator prefer to see the money left in British Electricity or in 3½ per cent. War Loan or in British Savings Bonds or in 2½ per cent. British stocks or to see it invested in Store Street? Have your choice now.

Mr. Hawkins

That question does not arise. I have not the responsibility of directing the trustees of the National Health Insurance Society as to where they should invest their money. I am sure the Minister and every member of the Seanad will agree with me when I say that I give every credit to the trustees, the present and the former trustees, of the society for having been so wise and shrewd that they have built up this fund, wherever the money was invested.

Dr. O'Connell

I do not think it was the trustees who invested it in British funds.

Mr. Hawkins

The trustees had the responsibility, so far as I know, for investments up to a certain point and to a certain amount.

Dr. O'Connell

Not all of the investments.

Mr. Hawkins

We have to give them credit for the manner in which they carried out their duties.

Dr. O'Connell

We should not give credit to anybody for investing Irish money in foreign funds. That is a very poor type of statement to make in an Irish Parliament.

Mr. Hawkins

I am delighted to see we are becoming so very Irish. I hope we shall have a better effect and that not alone in future will we not be prepared to invest our money in British funds but that we will not allow ourselves to be in any way associated, whether through trade union organisation or otherwise, with anything British.

Mr. M. Hayes

Meanwhile, we are being diverted from Store Street.

Mr. Hawkins

Senator O'Connell asked would I object to the purchase of a building in Merrion Square. I would if the moneys were to be provided out of these funds. If a building has to be provided, it is the duty of the Minister to provide it and the duty of the Parliament and the Minister for Finance to provide the money.

Mr. Loughman

The Minister stressed over and over again that the reason this building is available to him for purchase is that Córas Iompair Éireann were unable to complete it for themselves and they do not want it. I wish to have it on record that I dispute that statement. I would like to repeat, if I could, what Senator Hawkins said. I never saw proof of that statement— we had nothing save the Minister's word. Córas Iompair Éireann has Government backing. If it wishes to complete the building, I believe it could do so. The old Córas Iompair Éireann and the present Córas Iompair Éireann were to a certain extent subject to Government direction and I believe the change in view with regard to the completion of this building occurred with the change of Government. I have not any doubt of that. If another Government were in power this building would be completed and it would be an addition to Dublin and the purpose for which it was being erected would be achieved. I protest against the conversion of this building into anything but what it was originally planned for.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Minister has stated that the Store Street structure was offered by the company to the Government. I am not satisfied that that was so and I would like the Minister to inform us when and by what means this structure was so offered. The Minister should back up that statement by informing the House when and how the offer was made. It is a matter in which the public and the members of this House are interested.

I am very annoyed with the Minister —probably he did not intend to make the statement—because of what he said about Córas Iompair Éireann— that Córas Iompair Éireann was a bankrupt concern and could not finish that particular structure. He started by saying "company" but he did not stick to that and he introduced "Córas Iompair Éireann." There are people who have an interest in Córas Iompair Éireann, irrespective of whether it is semi-nationalised or completely nationalised. It is not a good thing to hear a Minister destroying the reputation of a company or doing damage to the reputation of an important transport undertaking. I am not suggesting the Minister deliberately did it, but he certainly did so by accident.

I could not refrain from saying that if Córas Iompair Éireann did find itself in financial difficulties in regard to many of its activities, including the completion of this building, its reputation should not have been assailed in such a manner. Irrespective of where a building of this nature should be, I think it will be agreed that there is a definite need for a building of the type for which the Store Street building was planned.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is this not an amendment to prevent the Department from acquiring a particular building for its own purpose and is not the Senator going completely outside the ruling given by the Cathaoirleach? We discussed all this on the Transport Bill. The Minister for Social Welfare has no power whatever in this matter, and no amendment could possibly be proposed to this Bill which would turn Store Street or any other building into a bus station. There is no power in this Bill to do it and no amendment could be suggested which would do it. Therefore, in accordance with the ruling already given, the Senator cannot follow the line he is taking; he is bringing us back to the Transport Bill, where we had a division, and we decided this point.

Mr. O'Reilly

While I agree with Senator Hayes's point, I thought I was merely following what the Minister said in the course of his statement.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is the Senator in order in going along this line?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should confine his remarks to the subject matter of the amendment.

Mr. O'Reilly

I rose to ask the Minister specifically to inform the House as to the agent through which this building was offered for sale, and if the offer was made to any undertaking other than the Government. I should like to have the facts. As the Minister made that statement at least three times, I am sure he will not have any objection to give the fullest information to the House. I did not intend to make any statement which might be a reflex of the debate on the Transport Bill. If I erred in that respect, it is because people who are better parliamentarians than I, and who have more experience, went along that road, and it was a road I thought I could usefully follow up. I thought I was merely paraphrasing the Minister's statement; perhaps I was not doing so very correctly. I would welcome a statement from the Minister as to when the offer was made and under what circumstances. I should like to know if that offer were made to any other organisation, company or undertaking other than the Government?

Mr. Norton

May I say in reply to the last statement made by Senator O'Reilly that I am not going to transact business for Córas Iompair Éireann, nor am I going to keep records for them? Is it not as clear as daylight that Córas Iompair Éireann want to dispose of the property since they have negotiated with us?

Mr. O'Reilly

Have they offered it to you?

Mr. Norton

To whom do you think they offered it since they are negotiating with us?

Mr. O'Reilly

Can we have the details?

Mr. Norton

If the Senator wants to have a chat about this, I suggest that he had better go to the Kings-bridge and interview the general manager or the chairman and find out when they decided to sell it and why, and also when they thought of negotiating with us about it. The plain fact of the matter is that there have been negotiations between Córas Iompair Éireann and the Department of Social Welfare with a view to the acquisition of this building. These negotiations will, I anticipate, be brought to a conclusion at an early date. What does the Senator think Córas Iompair Éireann are negotiating with us about? The fact that these negotiations are taking place indicate clearly that they propose to sell the Store Street building to us. The negotiations are on that basis. Why Córas Iompair Éireann decided to do that is a matter for Córas Iompair Éireann. We simply came into the negotiations when they had decided the premises were for sale, firstly, because they do not want it and, secondly, because they could not pay for it.

Mr. O'Reilly

Can Córas Iompair Éireann terminate the negotiations at this stage?

Mr. Norton

The Senator had better ask them that.

Mr. Quirke

I am rather surprised that the Minister should take up that attitude with Senator O'Reilly. Surely, he does not suggest that if anyone were to knock at the door of Córas Iompair Éireann and say, "I want to see the secretary or general manager to-morrow morning to discuss with him what led up to the proposed sale of the Store Street premises to the Department of Social Welfare," that he is going to get a definite answer. I suggest, with all respect, that if Senator O'Reilly, or any other Senator, were to attempt to elicit information of that kind from the railway authorities, he would be thrown out—that is if he had been let in at all. I would not blame the people in Córas Iompair Éireann for not letting him in. There is no use in trying to side track the thing in that way.

A great number of people in this country believe that what is being proposed here is really a terrible mistake. We, on this side of the House, believe that. There are people on the other side of the House who, no matter what they say to the contrary, also believe it. As I say, a great many people believe this is a terrible mistake and that it is an attempt to justify speeches that have been made in the past. That may be a rather strong statement for me to make, but I believe it to be true. The Minister says that negotiations are taking place between Córas Iompair Éireann and the Department of Social Welfare and that if Córas Iompair Éireann did not want to get rid of the premises, that the negotiations would not be taking place. I would like to ask the Minister who made the first move. Did the Córas Iompair Éireann authorities approach the Minister and say to him: "Now, we would like very much to get rid of the Store Street premises; we believe it was a terrible mistake to build it and so would your Department please consider the possibility of taking it off our hands". If the Minister could tell us that that is so, it would change my attitude. To suggest that any information we want on a matter of this kind can only be got by rapping at the door at Kings-bridge and saying to the general manager or secretary: "The Táiniste sent me up to get an answer to the following questions; I am in a terrible hurry, as the Seanad is waiting to get the information", is not to take a question of this kind in a serious way. The Minister should take the House a little more seriously than that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Hawkins

Yes.

Mr. Quirke

Before the question is put, I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude. This is a matter which should be considered outside the realm of politics altogether. I would remind the House that when the people of the country were assembled in their thousands in Dublin for the Eucharistic Congress, they did not park their buses or cars in the Phoenix Park or out at Malahide, but at a point which would be regarded as providing the natural flow for traffic in the city. They were all concentrated in the vicinity of Store Street.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is another subject altogether.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• Ó Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Stanford, William B.

Níl

• Bennett, George C.
• Burke, Robert M.
• Butler, Eleanor G.
• Butler, John.
• Crosbie, James.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Finan, John.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Ireland, Denis L.
• McCartan, Patrick.
• McCrea, James J.
• McGee, James T.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Brien, George.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Farrell, Séamus.
• Orpen, Edward R.R.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Tunney, James.
• Woulfe, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Loughman and Clarkin; Níl: Senators Crosbie and McCrea.

Amendment declared negatived.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 7:—

Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Any officer or employee of the society may before the transfer day resign his position with the society, and may apply to the committee of management for compensation for loss of his office and the committee may if they are satisfied that such officer or employee had good and sufficient reason for so resigning grant with the consent of the Minister compensation at the rate of one month's salary as at the date of his resignation for each year of his service with the society.

(2) The society is hereby empowered to provide that the total amount of compensation under this section may be paid out of the funds provided for the administration of benefits and no contribution shall be payable under Section 3 of the Act of 1911 out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas in respect of such compensation.

Mr. Norton

This is pretty like one of those we discussed previously.

Mr. Hawkins

There is a slight difference. This proposes that where an employee does not wish to be taken over and where the committee of management are satisfied that the reasons given by the person are good and sufficient for his resignation, they may be empowered to grant him compensation for loss of office at the rate of one month's salary for every clear year of service. I think that is the usual system in the Civil Service. We have argued this on the other amendments in regard to pension rights. This proposes to make provision for those who may not be entitled to a pension. The Minister has serious objection to any person being put on pension. He must agree that, where a person has given service to the society and is not prepared to go over to the Civil Service, some compensation should be made to him.

I do not wish to go into the whole question of persons employed as agents in rural districts and what their functions will be when we get the new scheme. We may have an opportunity of debating that when the new Bill is before us. The Minister is quite aware that many agents throughout the country are and have been engaged in public life, some even as members of this or the other House or as members of local authorities. I mentioned earlier to-day that by transferring such persons to the Civil Service you are depriving them of certain rights they now enjoy. This is one of the rights I had in mind. You are taking these people into the Civil Service without their consent, by an Act of the Oireachtas, and depriving them of the right they enjoy at present of offering themselves as candidates before the public as members of local authorities or of either House of the Oireachtas. If there are such persons—as there are up and down the country—and for that reason or for any other good reason in the opinion of the society they are prepared to allow them to accept their resignation, I say that, having given such good service to the society in the past, having built up an efficient organisation, and with the knowledge that there is such a huge sum to the credit of the society, the least they would expect from the Minister is compensation as suggested in this amendment, which I would not say is too generous.

Dr. O'Connell

I wonder if Senator Hawkins sees that this proposition is not a practical one? The committee of management will disappear, I believe, within the next month or so. Then where will they be? Apart from that, I have some grave doubts that the committee of management would undertake that responsibility. It would be hard to satisfy them, as I know them, that anyone who is offered a chance of going over to the Civil Service should be compensated because he says he would not go. However, I am looking at it principally from the practical point of view, that the committee of management will not exist.

Mr. Hawkins

My view is that the committee of management will exist until the transfer date on which the Minister takes over the functions of the society. The agents and employees, with the knowledge of the provisions of this Bill and what it means to them, will have an opportunity prior to that date of tendering their resignation to the committee and the committee could then examine it in the light of their knowledge of the individual.

Mr. Norton

It seems to me that Senator Hawkins had some difficulty when he came to draft this amendment. According to the amendment he wants to provide compensation for the loss of office. There is nobody losing office unless by his own free will. A person might decide that he will not work in the Department of Social Welfare but he is not losing office by any regulations of mine or any of the provisions of this Bill. Instead he is being offered good regular employment and conditions with a regular income for working in the Department on transfer from the National Health Insurance Society. Are we seriously to contemplate that with that offer of work available we will say to the person concerned: "If you don't want to work there we will compensate you and give you one month's salary for every year of service"? Is there any precedent for that? Under the 1933 National Health Insurance Act which set up the present society it was provided that if an offer of employment was made to a member of the staff of the former society that offer of employment carried the same implication that a person did not qualify for compensation if he did not accept the employment. Here in this case the staff are being offered employment and there is no loss of money so far as they are concerned but there surely is no case to suggest, that if a person did not like working in the Department, that they should be paid compensation. Is there any case for paying compensation to any person just because they do not like to work for the Department of Social Welfare? This seems to be a case of the Brewster millions being enacted into social legislation. I put it to Senator Hawkins that from his point of view and from the national point of view, the best advice he could give members of the society is to go and work while they are able to work and be glad to be transferred under such good conditions. So far as I am concerned and so far as the provisions of this Bill go there is no question of anybody losing office and if people will not take the employment offered simply because they do not want to work in the Department there should be no question of giving them compensation.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister has made reference on more than one occasion to the fact that he is not depriving anyone of employment. We appreciate that, but he referred to the fact that the staffs of the present society were taken over from the former societies. They were taken over into civilian employment, but in this case by transferring them and making them civil servants, they are depriving them of many rights. Many of these people were 45 years and over and if such people feel that a transfer into the Civil Service is not suitable for them and deprives them of rights which they presently enjoy and therefore they do not want to become civil servants, I feel that those people should be compensated. Some of these people, for instance, engage in public life as members of local authorities and under the new arrangement they would not be permitted to continue as such after transfer. That might be the type of life from which they did not wish to change.

Mr. Norton

So far as those members of local authorities are concerned, while I do not propose to put any provisions in the Bill which would provide statutory rights, I propose to make inquiries as to the number of persons so concerned and we may be able to deal with the matter of preserving these rights for them, but that does not apply to membership of the Dáil or Seanad. It can be done by administrative action and is not a statutory function.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister would be prepared to make provision that persons who are members of public boards could continue membership and could contest further elections?

Mr. Norton

I am disposed to look into the matter and see how many persons are involved as members of local authorities.

Mr. Quirke

I think the Minister should go further. If there are a number of people who are members of the Dáil and Seanad and who are likely to be transferred I do not think they should be excluded from any benefits just because they happen to be members of the Dáil or Seanad. I believe that any man who loses his employment because of Government action should be compensated. To say that a man has the option of going into the Civil Service and should not be compensated just because he will not work in the Department is not a fair way to put the matter. To put it simply, a man who will not transfer because he would not be able to continue membership of local bodies or of the Dáil or Seanad in certain circumstances, should be compensated. It was not a question of giving compensation to men of 21 or 22 years, for there for very few of that category in either House. It was really a question of men of 45 years and over. I think if there any at all they must be around the 50-mark and I suggest that the Minister should include them in any provision he intends to make.

Mr. Norton

The Senator appreciates that if I do that I could not exclude a person who is a Deputy or a Senator from the disqualification from membership of the Dáil or Seanad if he is a member of the Civil Service. Another Act of Parliament will come into operation and disqualify him from being a member of the Dáil or Seanad.

Mr. Quirke

I may be very stupid but I do not quite understand. Is the Minister stating that if a man were a member of the Seanad and happened to have one of these jobs he would have to accept the job and resign from the Seanad?

Mr. M. Hayes

The other way round.

Mr. Quirke

If he were given the option to take the job or not to take it he would know that he would not be compensated because he was going to continue to be a member of the Seanad. That is not quite fair.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is there not an old prohibition under the Electoral Act prohibiting members of the Defence Forces and temporary and permanent civil servants from being members of the Dáil or Seanad? You cannot, under the Electoral Act, be a member of the Civil Service and a member of the Dáil or Seanad. That is the position, and the Minister would need, therefore, to amend the Electoral Act if he wants to make an employee of the National Health Insurance Society who becomes a civil servant eligible for the Dáil or Seanad. That is asking a very great deal indeed. The Minister suggests that when such people are members of local bodies he could, by an administrative act, let them continue, but to make a civil servant eligible for the Dáil or Seanad involves a very big principle. As a matter of fact, we considered putting down a motion on the fact that the general tendency in legislation is to take more people under the State and exclude more people from eligibility for the Dáil or Seanad. This would be a piecemeal example. It would be very difficult for the Minister to amend the Electoral Act so as to allow people who are employed in the National Health Insurance Society and who go into the Civil Service to be members of the Dáil or Seanad. It would be impossible.

Mr. Quirke

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I am suggesting is that if a man does not want to go into the Civil Service because of some private reason he should be compensated, and if he is compensated for the loss of his employment the Electoral Act does not apply. I would like to ask the Minister how many members of the Dáil or Seanad would come under any such arrangement. I have not the slightest idea.

Mr. Norton

One or two at the most. I do not know, as a matter of fact, whether these members give personal service as agents. I am quite sure that a Deputy who comes up to Dublin on a Monday for a Dáil sitting on Tuesday and goes home on Friday is not working as a national health insurance agent, or else pretty bad service is being rendered. I imagine that the person concerned would be the holder of the agency, but that in fact he is not performing the duties of the post. He certainly could not do so if he were required to be in Dublin for the purpose of attending the House. To that extent one cannot look at this from the point of view of an agent who is deprived of his position. The agent concerned does not render personal service in respect of his appointment.

Mr. Quirke

I do not think I could accept that explanation.

Mr. Norton

I am not offering it as an explanation at all.

Mr. Quirke

Of course the Minister has not to give me any explanation on anything, and neither has any other Minister, and a lot of Ministers in the present Government adopt that attitude. It is not fair of the Minister to say that he would not give me an explanation. We have brought Ministers to their knees before——

Mr. Hayes

To be fair, the Minister did not say that. The question he was asked was how many people would be in that position, and he answered one or two at most. He indicated what they were doing, but he did not give it as an explanation, and he did not say that he would not give an explanation.

Mr. Hearne

The Minister could have replied to that in exactly the same way as Senator Hayes, and it would come much better.

Mr. M. Hayes

We are getting very finicky.

Mr. Quirke

The Minister is very well served by Senator Hayes. I do not want to fly off the handle; I do not do it very often, but when I do I am serious. What I wanted to get at was: when a man was appointed to those jobs was it not understood that they were not whole-time jobs? I know several around the country and some of them run little shops, while others own a few acres and work them. In my judgment, the payment they were getting could not support them. The Minister said that they cannot work whole-time at their job, but the same thing might be said of school teachers. When a school teacher comes up to the Seanad or Dáil he does not close up his school; he gets someone else to run it, and I think it would not be impossible to get a man in a town who could run an office of that kind for three or four days of the week. We should not take the line on this that we have taken on other measures of allowing ourselves to drift into the idea that only the chosen few can become members of this House and the other House and that those who do must pay the penalty. I am not suggesting that a man should be allowed to remain in the job and at the same time remain a member of this or the other House, but in the specific circumstances and in view of the fact that as the Minister says there are only one or two who would come under the heading at all, I suggest that in all fairness those people should be given the option of getting in or getting out, and if they decide to get out they should be compensated. We should not have a whole lot of controversy or say that because a man is a member of the Seanad or Dáil he is one of the untouchables. We have too much of that.

Mr. Norton

I am willing to continue the Senator or Deputy as a member of the staff of the Department of Social Welfare. The job is available for him in the Department of Social Welfare. I will offer a job there to anybody who is an agent at the moment, but he must realise that another Act disqualifies him from membership of the Dáil or Seanad if he takes that job. That is not a matter for me to remedy, but I am prepared to continue his services as an agent.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Could the Minister prevail on the Government to change that Act?

Mr. Norton

That is another matter.

Mr. Loughman

Is there not the question of compensation?

Mr. Norton

I am not going to provide compensation for Deputies when there is no compensation for people who are not Deputies.

Mr. Quirke

I believe that the Minister is in considerable difficulty to get over this problem. I am interested in the man who is a member of this or the other House and in seeing justice done. I do not care what side he is on. Would the Minister go so far as to say that if a man, having seriously considered the matter, decided to stay a member of the Seanad or Dáil, as soon as he failed to be a member of the Seanad or Dáil he would still be offered his employment in the Department of Social Welfare?

Miss Pearse

I have listened to this debate with great interest and all I can say is that I think it a most outrageous imposition on anybody, not to speak of Deputies and Senators, that he should be compelled to become a civil servant or join the unemployed. Once you become a civil servant, you are tied down by certain regulations and your soul, as it were, must be kept in subjection. I would not be a civil servant under any Government for anything. Let us have freedom first. Possibly it is a very nice job, but your freedom is gone. In the case of the boys or girls who enter the Civil Service through an examination, they do so of their own free will, but I think that it is outrageous that any person should be compulsorily sent into a slave job— I use the word "slave" as referring to the mind and not in the physical sense. It is a most outrageous tyranny to compel people, young or old, to become civil servants, if they do not want to, or to join the unemployed.

Mr. Hawkins

I feel that the points made by Senator Hayes and Senator Quirke have brought clearly to the minds of Senators the necessity for some provision in relation to the persons I have in mind. You are depriving certain members of the staff of this society of rights which they now enjoy. I appreciate that an amendment of other Acts for which this Minister has no responsibility is involved in this matter, but the proposal I put before the House in this amendment is quite simple. We will all agree that a person now holding a position with the society, whether as an agent or as any other officer, who has a right to offer himself as a candidate for this or the other House has the chance of becoming not only a member of either House, but of becoming a Minister, or even Taoiseach, and quite possibly in the ranks of the 600 persons employed there are people who are capable of holding these offices, if elected. We are depriving them of that right.

It is all very fine to say that we are offering them secure positions in the Civil Service. In the case of a young person who voluntarily decides to enter the Civil Service and to adopt a Civil Service career, it is his own decision, but when you compel persons who have led a particular type of life, who are interested in a particular mode of life and who are probably interested in the national and political life of the country to do so, you deprive them of their opportunities. That is only one side of the matter. There are other reasons, such as family ties, small businesses in which they are engaged and so on, for which they would not feel justified in entering the service. No matter how glowing a picture the Minister may paint with regard to conditions of employment and pension rights, there is a large section of the people of the country who would not enter the Civil Service, if, to-morrow morning, the doors were thrown wide open to them to enter without any examination, as there are others who would rush to break down the doors in order to get in, but who would be doing that of their own free will. Senator Quirke put a proposal to the Minister that, where persons who are members of this or the other House, or of any local authority, might be compelled by the regulations to relinquish their posts while members of this or the other House, in the event of their ceasing to be members, they should be entitled to re-employment in their former posts which they lost through being transferred to the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

I do not think it is possible to provide for that in this Bill. Quite clearly, the Department of Finance, which is the authority for the recruitment of staff to the Civil Service, would have to be consulted, but I will have the point examined, and, if the Senator wishes, I will discuss the matter with him or with those members of the Dáil or Seanad who are affected by it.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

If there are at most only two or three persons whom Senators have in mind, would it not have been simpler to specify these people and the compensation to which they were entitled, as has been done in other measures? An amendment of this sort could not be confined to two or three people:

"Any officer or employee of the society may, before the transfer date, resign his position with the society ... for good and sufficient reasons."

The good and sufficient reasons mentioned in the case of the particular unmentioned number are that, if they remain in the society, they cannot continue as members of the Dáil or Seanad, but the same applies to every other employee. If they remain in the society and are transferred to the Civil Service, they cannot become members of the Dáil or Seanad. They undergo exactly the same disability and suffer the same penalty, and there is no proposal whatever to compensate them.

If it affects only two or three people, or half a dozen people who at present are members of the Dáil or Seanad and are thereby debarred from coming under the terms of the Bill, it would have been easier to put a clause in the Bill or to draft a different sort of amendment setting out that this particular provision does not apply to them or that compensation will be allowed in the case of temporary agents who, because of their position in public life, cannot be taken over. An amendment of this sort, however, though it is well intentioned—and I agree that there is a principle involved and that there are certain people who will suffer because they must choose between remaining in public life or being taken over into the Civil Service—would not provide for the exceptional cases, and there should be some way of providing for these cases. The intention is to provide for exceptional cases, but the amendment is wide enough to be taken advantage of by the whole 600 employees.

Dr. O'Connell

Perhaps it would be as well to make it clear that most of these agents who are employed, in the rural areas especially—excepting those employed in the cities and large urban centres—are part-time agents, with other jobs of one kind or another, as Senator Quirke has said. As I understand it, they will be taken over, but they will still be part-time servants, just as there are part-time postmen and part-time servants in other capacities. They will still be able to carry on their other businesses—their shops, their insurance work or whatever they may be engaged in. There will be no interference with their activities in that respect. Some of them may be county councillors or members of other local bodies, and the Minister says that he is inquiring into the position and he may be able to deal with these people administratively. The only question then that would arise would be that in respect of the person who wished to be a member of the Dáil or Seanad, or who is a member of the Dáil or Seanad at the moment, and, as has been explained, the Minister has no power whatever to say: "You may be a member of the Dáil or Seanad and, at the same time, a part-time agent".

Mr. O'Farrell

If I give a specific or a special case, can the agency be transferred to some member of the family?

Mr. Norton

That could be examined.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The Minister would be favourable to that?

Dr. O'Connell

It is quite easy. It is being done every day and it has been done by the committee of management repeatedly. As a matter of fact, it is the rule that, if an agent resigns or dies, a member of his family gets first preference for the agency.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I take it the Minister would be glad if he could find some formula to accommodate the people concerned to that extent?

Mr. Norton

Short of compensation.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The point then is that the Minister is agreeable to it, if he can do it?

Mr. Norton

Short of compensation. I shall examine any possible suggestion which will provide compensation in another form for the one or two persons who may be affected.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I wanted to get to the point mentioned by Senator O'Connell. Will people, who are part-time officials of the society, automatically become civil servants on the passage of the Bill into law?

Mr. Norton

They will be employed as civil servants, but that does not mean that they are permanent civil servants.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Since they will not be permanent civil servants, will the electoral law apply to them?

Mr. M. Hayes

It applies to people either in permanent or temporary employment in the Civil Service. Part-time employees are called temporary employees.

Mr. Hearne

The reply of the Minister to the point raised by Senator Quirke was that the Minister would consider any method other than compensation by which these people might be helped in some way. Senator O'Connell said it was the practice of the society to give first preference to a member of the resigning officer's family.

Mr. Norton

Assuming suitability, yes.

Mr. Hearne

I am not suggesting that an unsuitable person should be appointed. The Minister's attitude resolves my difficulty, but I am reminded that what the Minister himself said was that the Department of Finance would come into the question of the appointment of civil servants. Whether the Tánaiste can give any undertaking that his promise will be honoured by the Minister for Finance——

Mr. Norton

I was dealing with another point. When I said that the Department of Finance would have to be consulted, that was in reply to the point raised by Senator Quirke: would the person have a kind of right to go into the Civil Service if at any time he ceased to be a member of the Dáil or Seanad? That is a right which might not be exercised for ten or 15 years and, therefore, he would not be transferred under this Bill. The Department of Finance would have to be consulted on a matter of that kind. If, however, it was the desire to provide compensation, other than cash compensation, for the one or two persons who are members of the Dáil and who may be affected adversely by this Bill, whatever is done will have to be done before the transfer date. In other words, if we desire to compensate them by assigning one or two posts to the members of the families concerned, the resignations would have to take place almost immediately, and the society would be asked to appoint a member of the family in lieu of the person who is a Deputy. I guarantee to have the matter examined myself by consulting the wishes of the one or two persons concerned in the matter.

Mr. Quirke

I appreciate the Minister's attitude in this matter and I do not mind saying so, but I should like if the Minister would tell us that he will draft an amendment to cover the point on the Report Stage.

Mr. Norton

I do not propose to put down any amendment, but, instead, I shall have the matter discussed with the one or two Deputies concerned and I shall make an offer to them on the lines indicated, namely, I shall take any member of the family instead of the Deputy. If he will vacate the job, I shall take any person who is now doing the job for him.

Mr. Quirke

The Minister does not think it is necessary to have an amendment?

Mr. Norton

No.

Mr. Quirke

I think the Minister has gone a very considerable way towards meeting the point raised.

Liam Ó Buachalla

With regard to the possible new appointee, the wishes of the present holder of the position will be given due consideration?

Mr. Norton

Of course, provided the proposed appointee is suitable. You cannot expect us to accept a person who is not suitable.

Mr. Quirke

The Minister knows what is going on. Anybody cannot travel round the country without knowing what is going on. In some cases it is quite possible that a man's wife is doing the job or in another case a man's brother might be doing the job. I take it that what the Minister has in mind is that if a man's wife, brother or sister is suitable for the job, that that person would be accepted. I do not think that is asking for anything unreasonable.

Mr. Tunney

I should like to refer to the position of an official who is a member of the county council or the corporation. The Minister says that he can arrange with those who are members at present but what will be the position in future? Would such persons be eligible to stand for the county council or the corporation after going into the Civil Service?

Mr. Norton

My inclination is to look at the matter with a view to recognising the special position of those who are at present members of a local authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 22 to 28, inclusive, and the Title agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next stage?

Mr. Quirke

In view of the Minister's attitude, I do not think we have any objection to giving him the remaining stages now.

Mr. Norton

You will be very kind if you do so.

Mr. M. Hayes

The only business for next week, if we were to postpone the further stages of the Bill, would be the Fourth and Fifth Stages of the Bill. We have not got the Finance Bill and we shall not have it for next week so far as I can see.

Mr. Hearne

I should not like this to be taken as a precedent. We should let the Tánaiste know that we can fight, if necessary.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mrs. Concannon

It is not often that one takes farewell of a Bill of this character with any degree of sentimentality, but I have some such feeling now, because I was one of the three original trustees who took over from the committee of management which had carried out the preliminary work. They did their work very well. My fellow-trustees were ex-Senator Foran and Dr. Rowlette. We had the honour to be the first trustees of the society and, for that reason, I feel some responsibility in the matter of answering certain suggestions that were made during the debate about the investments of the society. I said that I approach this with some sentiment. Indeed, I feel like Grattan on a famous occasion when he said that he watched over the cradle of Irish freedom and wept over its doom.

I feel that I watched over the cradle of the unified society; now I feel as if I am being asked to take part in its execution and the confiscation of some of its goods and possessions for a purpose for which they were never intended. I refer to the use of this £1,000,000 of National Health Insurance Society funds, the property of the members of the society, for the purpose of purchasing and completing Store Street. That is a purpose of which a good many of them may not be in favour. Senator Dr. O'Connell said that they would not have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments on it. But they are part of the general public. There is a genuine feeling about the taking over of Store Street and, since that feeling is pretty general, I think it is most regrettable that this £1,000,000 of the society's carefully nurtured investments should be used in that direction. I feel that the moral implications of spending money while it is still in the possession of its legal owners are not such as we can readily condone. I have a conscientious objection to passing this Bill in order to make that possible.

The Minister advanced certain arguments in favour of the case he was making for the application of this £1,000,000 towards the purchase and completion of Store Street. He drew a certain analogy. It reminded me of the fact that Árus Brugha was originally purchased by the provisional committee on behalf of the committee out of society funds. That was right. That was quite legitimate and natural because the building was for their own use. I would like to remind the Minister courteously that the step he proposes to take is quite different. He proposes to devote the £1,000,000 towards providing accommodation for the Department of Social Welfare. The point he made does not carry conviction. I am more concerned, however, with the innuendoes made with regard to the investments of the society. For nine years I was a trustee of the unified society. We had charge of the bulk of the investments. We were real trustees. I believe that subsequent trustees waived their right in that respect and did not exercise that particular function. I and my fellow-trustees had the power to invest the money. We had frequent meetings with our brokers. We had frequent consultations. The Minister talked about investing the funds in Nigeria, in darkest Africa, in the territory of Seretse Khama and in the production of ground-nuts. Our policy was deliberately framed on quite different lines. From the beginning we determined that every penny of the society's money that could be repatriated should be repatriated. At the end, I think there was just one small amount outstanding of Bank of England stock. Gradually we got rid of all our external investments and we used the repatriated assets for the purpose of doing good both to the members of the society, who were the real owners of the money, and to the Irish nation. In that we had the inspiration of our wonderful chairman, Dr. Dignan. I would like to remind the House of a very interesting occurrence. When war broke out and everybody was a little panicky about finance, Dr. Dignan suggested that we should meet the Minister for Finance at the time, the present Uachtarán. He was not available; but Dr. Dignan and my fellow-trustees, together with our able secretary, Mr. Rory Henderson, had the opportunity of meeting Mr. McElligott, Secretary of the Department of Finance. He gave us a good deal of time, examined all our investments and congratulated us on the prudence we had shown. I think that should be borne in mind. So long as the trustees of the National Health Insurance Society had the power, they administered the affairs of the society most competently. The Minister was kind enough to furnish us with a memorandum. So long as we had charge of the society, there was no such thing as investing the money in ground-nut schemes.

During the course of this debate a tribute was paid to the management of the society. I am sure that, subsequent to my having my connection with it so summarily and unfortunately cut, my successors were just as concerned as we were; indeed, they so proved themselves in the running of the society, and the proof of that is that the investments of the society are so sound to-day. I think the success of the society in the past was mainly due to one man, Dr. Dignan. I hate to bring his name into the discussion since it has been hurled from every political platform and been the subject of a cheap, party warfare across the floor of the other House. I have no wish to do that. But before this Bill passes into the limbo of forgotten things, I would like people to realise what a truly great man he is. He devoted untold labour to the work and interest of the society. He had a very mixed pack to guide. The management committee consisted of a chairman, nominated by the Government, three trustees nominated by the Government, three representatives of employers nominated by the Government, representatives of the trade unions and elected personnel representing the insured members. They came from different parts of the country. They had a different political outlook and different social affiliations. They might have been a very hard team to drive, but we were fortunate in having this great chairman, who put before us the objects for which we should strive. In all his advice there was one end and one aim; that was the interests of the insured persons. We did what we could for the staffs, and we had a most loyal and devoted staff.

His lordship worked them very hard, and all of us very hard, but the response was magnificent. Even when he was doing all that there was the cruellest setback. A paragraph appeared one day in a leading morning newspaper to the effect that the affairs of the society were not going well and that his Lordship, the Bishop of Clonfert, was chairman and then it was suggested that another would take over. We could never trace the origin of that paragraph, but it was a most outrageous thing for a newspaper to print. Then, after Dr. Rowlette's regrettable death, we got the idea that the Department had some feelings that we were very extravagant people and that we spent money uselessly. We had the great advantage of having Mr. Keady, one of the greatest personalities in national health insurance in the world. To our great advantage he took the place of the late Dr. Rowlette. He was a man of tremendous ability, of great honesty and insight. We asked him to look over the affairs of the society. He did so and he had to admit that it was being run most efficiently and most economically. Many a time the Bishop would prevent the expenditure of a penny when he could, unless it was absolutely necessary. He was most careful of the funds of the society. Mr. Keady is a man of great honesty. He admitted at a meeting that he had had ideas that we were an extravagant society. He discovered, however, that when he went through everything, he was wrong in his ideas and he gave us the greatest praise for the way in which the financial affairs of the society were managed. That was a great satisfaction to us all. I think that most of everything we did was due to the Bishop. I could not describe what an inspiration he was. Every member of the committee of management venerated and loved him.

We all came from different parts of the country and we all had our different political opinions but we left these differences of political opinion outside in O'Connell Street before we entered the committee room. In the committee room we differed and it was one of those committees where you could differ and differ with the chairman. I have often differed with the chairman on most important points but he was such a great man that, even though certain matters were very dear to him he would respect our different opinions. He knew our opinions were honest. Therefore we were a very happy team. It was rather pathetic that after eight or nine years his Lordship said: "I did not feel those years passing. I must have been very happy." We were indeed all very happy. I wish I could convey all that I personally owe both to his Lordship and to my fellow trustee for what I learned from them and from the other members of the committee of management— Labour men, employers and industrialists. We all learned something from each other. I do not think I ever spent more educative years. I came from writing books at my desk and I did not know a great deal about public business. My education was advanced during those nine years and I consider that they were the most fruitful years of my life. For that reason, I should like to say farewell to the society and I hope that in the days to come the work of the National Health Insurance Society will be done as well as it was done under Dr. Dignan.

Senators

Hear, hear!

Mr. Norton

I should like to add my voice to the tribute which has been paid by Senator Mrs. Concannon to the trustees and the committee of management of the National Health Insurance Society, not merely the existing trustees of the committee of management but all those who, since 1933, have served the society with such conspicuous ability. I think there is no doubt that the society was well and efficiently served by the committee of management and by the officers and staff of the society. All helped, and indeed vied with one another to make the society the efficient organisation it is to-day. All can, I think, feel satisfied that they have made, each according to his own ability and resources, a contribution to the development of the society and have, by that development, helped to hasten the day when the society is now undergoing a transformation so that it may fulfil a bigger and still more useful part in assisting those workers who have got to be covered against sickness, and who are not able to make adequate provision to insulate themselves against the financial hardships inseparable even from short periods of sickness.

The passing of old institutions like this is naturally an occasion for regret because round their names cling all kinds of memories. Notwithstanding the revolutionary times in which we live, and the constant world-wide eruptions which we experience there is still always to be found a pang of regret at the passing of anything or any organisation with whose activities we have become familiar. The society, however, has one consolation. The members of the staff and the committee of management will have one consolation, namely, that if the society is disappearing as a society, it is only disappearing so that it may take on new functions, so that it may attain a new and a higher status. Those who have served it in the past and who are serving it to-day, can feel satisfied that the part which the society will play in the future of comprehensive social security in this country will be one in conformity with the aims and aspirations of many of those who served on the staff and on the committee of management of the society. Senator Mrs. Concannon can, therefore, feel that if the society is leaving its old form it is for the purpose of taking on a new form with new and higher responsibilities, and I feel sure that the efficiency which has characterised it since its advent in 1933, will stand it in good stead in respect of the tasks which it will have to discharge in the future.

So far as the society's moneys are concerned, I should like to assure Senator Mrs. Concannon that every penny of the funds of the National Health Insurance Society is being used in the form of investments on behalf of the society. What will happen in connection with the Store Street premises is that certain moneys which are invested in foreign investments to-day will be liquidated and will be invested in Store Street. I would emphasise that not less than the amount of dividends which these investments bring in to-day will be brought in on the new investment in the Store Street building. Therefore, the fund and the insured contributors will not lose one brass farthing on that transaction. The same amount of dividends will be provided in the future as is provided to-day. For that reason, I should like Senator Mrs. Concannon, who has taken a very deep interest in the society, to feel assured that nothing is happening which will in any way do violence to her high sense of financial rectitude. I think I speak for the whole House in paying that tribute not only to the existing committee of management staff but to all those who, in various ways, have helped to make the society the worth-while organisation which it is to-day.

Question put and agreed to.