At the present time local government and public health are under the one Ministry. The idea in regard to this Bill is to appoint a second Minister. At present there is one Minister and two Parliamentary Secretaries. We know what happened during the last session, that a lot of time was wasted on a Public Health Bill which is now to be scrapped. In my opinion, there is a good deal of overlapping. I think that, instead of having a second Minister, it would be better if we had more co-ordination. It might be better, instead of the proposal before us, if we were to appoint a manager or a Minister who would have control over all. We are discussing local government and public health. We have, for example, public works and water control.
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
We are not discussing social services at all. At least, we should not be. We should be discussing whether or not it is advisable to appoint two new Ministers to administer schemes which come under local government.
When the second Minister is appointed you will have local government and social services. Water control will come under these.
Under the judisdiction of a Minister to be appointed, who will be subject to question in this House when appointed.
That is the point I am dealing with. Water will be under his control—town water, village water and, I would say, rural water.
Yes and he will be subject to questions on these matters, but he has not yet been appointed.
We have the Arterial Drainage Act, and if you drain the rivers and do away with the water, where is the Minister to get water in the rural areas?
We are not discussing water supplies.
Will not that be a function of his?
The Deputy agrees with me that the Minister has not yet been appointed. That being so, I do not see how his administration can be discussed now.
I am thinking of the duties that he will have to perform. My point is that co-ordination of Ministries would be very much better. I think there is too much overlapping. For instance, I am one of those who believe in the County Management Act. I think it is a great Act. We were at sea in the county councils until a manager was appointed. Now you have someone that you can approach. You can ask the county manager why this thing or that thing was not done. I think there is overlapping, and that each Minister is a law unto himself. The managerial system has been on trial now for some years, and in my opinion very good work has been done under it. As I have said, a lot of time was wasted on the Public Health Bill in the last session and now it is to be scrapped. If you had the co-ordination of services that would not have happened. I suppose that we have the highest tuberculosis population in the world. I take it that the future Minister for Public Health will pursue the scheme already drawn up for the building of three tuberculosis sanatoria. This is a paramount need at the present moment. But I would suggest that the root cause of tuberculosis in rural Ireland is impure water. I maintain that one out of every ten of the present rural water supplies would not bear an analytical test.
I am afraid the Deputy will have to come out of the water.
It is too cold.
I might find myself in the soup then. The functions of the newly-appointed Ministers are the matters in which I am most deeply concerned. I do not want to have overlapping of functions. That has been a great weakness in the past. Some attempt must be made at co-ordination of the services.
I welcome this Bill on two points mainly. The first is that there will be more expedition in the discharge of the services undertaken by the new Ministries. Secondly, new and unrelated matters, some of which have been referred to as the stepchildren of other Ministries, will now be brought together in such a way that they will receive more personal attention and so ensure a better service to the community. This discussion has travelled over a very wide field and it has intrigued me to hear members, more junior even than I am myself, making charges of incompetence and indolence against State Departments in a most reckless manner. In my experience these services have been efficiently conducted in the past. Undoubtedly, because of the emergency, and for some other causes too, there has at times been considerable delay and disappointment occasioned to local authorities. But the fault cannot be laid at the door of the Minister or his Department in these matters. The emergency has ceased now, even though some of the emergency conditions still prevail. I think it is a very welcome change to establish new Ministries for the discharge of these social services.
I have heard Deputies talking of the tuberculosis scare and other matters of that kind. Some of them were prepared to make the wildest statements in this House reflecting on the community in general and on their country without any regard to facts and figures. I think our race is just as healthy, if not more so, than any other race on the earth. At home and abroad our people have engaged in the most hazardous enterprises and have come through them with credit to themselves and to their country. No doubt in this community, as in all other communities, there are defects. These defects can be remedied partly by a better education of the people themselves and partly by the efforts made by the State to make conditions at home more hygienic and more sanitary.
I give Deputy Morrissey credit that at all times his contributions to the House are impressive even though they may not always be convincing. I must admit, however, that I consider his contribution to this debate in no way convincing. He maintained that housing could not be divorced from public health. I think even the public bodies themselves, if they were canvassed in this respect, would still advise a separate Ministry for housing alone. Housing is a vital need all over the country at the present time. That is the function of the Minister for Public Health and I think it could be in no more capable hands than it is at the moment. I take it that it will continue to be his function in the future. The local authorities are the people who will make recommendations for the provision of housing for those persons who for accommodation or health reasons are most in need of new homes. Even in the local authorities themselves I think it would be wise to have a completely detached section dealing with building, repairs, subsidies to private individuals and public bodies, rent collections and so on. I think that is a service which will require all the energies of the local authorities. The matter is urgently in need of a certain amount of reorganisation.
I heard some Deputy last night speak of a medical administrator for public health. I hope that public health administration will not be taken out of the hands of the local authorities and passed over to a medical administrator. Medical administrators both in the dispensaries and in the other county services are very necessary. At the present time they give all the necessary assistance to the local authority. I think, however, that no medical administrator should have direct responsibility to the Minister in matters concerning public health. The voices of the duly appointed public representatives should still be heard. County homes and hospitals will in future come under social welfare.
Whether the home assistance patients in the hospitals will be paid for by the public assistance authority on a per capita basis, or by some other method, is something that will have to be worked out and I can see that it will present some difficulty. However, taken in general, I think that suggestions made in the Bill are very wise and timely, that the public will in the very near future get more expedition in the administration of local government, that the delays and inconveniences that now occur will in great measure be removed. Also, by reason of more personal contact with the services which are administered, I am sure that the new Ministers will see the defects, both financial and in the matter of administration, and they will be able to improve the services in a way that has long been calling out for attention.
I do not think there is much else that I need say on the matter. I am sure the House will approve the steps that are being taken and that the administration of these services will be a credit both to the State and to local authorities.
I welcome the Bill because I believe the population of this country, and particularly the population among the necessitous classes, has increased to such an extent that it is necessary to have an additional Department which one can approach when making an appeal for the necessitous people that we can see around us Therefore, without making any complaint with regard to the past I think it is well, because of the increase in the population, that these services should be provided.
Looking over the explanatory memorandum, I am tempted to ask the Minister if there is anything in the Bill that does not show itself clearly to the average mind in the House. For instance, in the middle of the explanatory memorandum this appears:
"These functions will include the supervision of the direct preventive and curative health services which are at present the responsibility of county councils, county borough councils, sanitary authorities and public assistance authorities."
If the word "supervision" is on one line in that paragraph and the word "responsibility" only two lines down, I should like to know if there is any effort being made, through some method not plain to be seen, to take certain administrative powers from the local authorities and give them to some Department?
We have 360 old age pension committees functioning all over Ireland. Will any effort be made to interfere with those democratically elected committees, which form a sort of appeal board between the Minister's Department and the applicant for a pension as regards their system of administration? I hope there will be no attempt to remove or interfere with that type of committee, which arbitrates between the Department and the applicant for an old age or blind pension. I should like the Minister to clear up that point. I hope he will give us an assurance that there will be no effort to interfere with these democratically elected bodies.
The last speaker must also have something in his mind along these lines, because he referred to the question of public health and the medical services being taken from the local authority. For instance, public assistance and unemployment assistance hinge together. I will ask the Minister to look up a very short file I sent him some time ago in connection with what was known as the Knockmaroon Relief Scheme, which was dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce because of unemployment benefits, and by the Department of Local Government because of home assistance. About 20 men went out to Knockmaroon from Dublin to engage in relief work. They were told there was to be no wet time.
The Deputy is travelling away from the Bill now.
I will merely deal with the point where two Departments clash, with resulting loss, to the extent of £7 or £8, to 20 men.
How does that enter into the consideration of this Bill?
There are two Ministers about to be appointed and in the case I am dealing with I had the misfortune to be referred from one Department to another and I could never get the matter cleared up. I will deal very briefly with it. An officer said that the men had refused work and he would not give them unemployment benefit. When they were refused that benefit another Department gave them home assistance but stopped the vouchers. When the men were not getting unemployment assistance they could not get the relief vouchers from the other Department. Eventually three arbitration courts decided in favour of the workers. Let me call the officer the first court, then there was a supervisor and then there was an unemployment court.
The men eventually won their case, but the home assistance authority put in a claim against the workmen's benefits and got paid for the vouchers which they gave them. I hope, whatever Minister takes over the administration of public assistance in the city, will see that that kind of investigation and victimisation will not take place. The memorandum goes on to say:
"It will also take over other services for the relief of necessitous persons."
I implore the new Minister who will come to take out of the hands of the relieving officers and the inspectors——
Perhaps he is here and perhaps he is not. How is the new Minister to hear all this?
I hope he will read it.
When the new Minister is appointed, the Deputy, I am sure, will be vocal and will make this representation.
Will I not be allowed to refer to the reasons we are anxious to see a new Minister taking up certain responsibilities?
Another Deputy was prevented from pursuing the same line.
I may be a little longer in public life than that Deputy. I see in the explanatory memorandum words that I would like to be clear about, because I may be told in a month or three months: "You agreed to let it go and it was referred to in the memorandum." This memorandum is full of new duties for the new Ministers. Surely, a member of the House who has to vote one way or the other can draw attention to the dangers he sees in this and the fears that he will be told he agreed to, if he does not draw attention now to the duties of the new Ministers and ask if those duties will cover up certain points that we feel should be covered up and in regard to which we have a grievance.
The Deputy will agree with me that he is endeavouring, under the guise of discussing the duties of the new Ministers, to discuss details of cases already administered.
Simply because they are described in the memorandum that has been issued to us, giving reasons why these new Ministers should be appointed. Again I say I welcome the new Ministers, I am glad they are coming in and that we will not have somebody who is as busy as the present Minister to appeal to to remove the grievances we know exist all round us. For instance——
Now, the Deputy must realise he cannot discuss the grievances that already exist. The memorandum points out the duties which will be assigned to the new Ministers, if they are appointed. That is all. How the Minister will administer his affairs when he is appointed is a matter for later discussion. How the present Minister administers those affairs may not be discussed now.
Yes, a Chinn Comhairle, we know the Ministers will be appointed. We know the Minister's majority here and that he has only to say the word and get what he wants. I say this is an opportunity, because of what I am reading here and because of the explanations given to us, when I should, to the best of my ability, put forward the existing grievances to which the new Ministers should attend.
That is not in order.
Well, if it is not in order, I must respectfully abide by your ruling.
The Deputy was present when others were prevented.
There were other things I wished to deal with—the treatment of blind pensioners and the School Meals Act. However, when the new Ministers have been appointed, I may ask for an opportunity to draw attention to those things which are growing up around us in the city, due to the increasing number of the very necessitous classes, who are unable to obtain employment, in addition to which we have discharges from our Army of men for whom there is no work.
Health, we have been told, is the greatest wealth and charity is among the first of virtues; but health and charity, if the speeches in this debate can be taken as indicating their true minds, count for nothing with the Fine Gael Party and count for nothing, too, with the allies of that Party who have lumped themselves together under the nominal leadership in this House of Deputy Blowick. That is, I suggest, the reason why this Bill has been opposed in the insincere and, in some cases, grossly ill-informed speeches which have been delivered against it.
Take Deputy Cosgrave's speech as an example. The Deputy is undoubtedly a young man of promise who, in the short time he has been in this House, has made his mark. Before, however, he ascended to the questionable elevation of the Opposition Front Bench, he committed himself to a statement—a wise statement, a far-seeing statement, one which I cordially approved of at the time. It is given in Volume 91, Column 1510 of the Official Debates. The statement was made in the debate upon the Estimate for the Department of Local Government and Public Health on the 3rd November, 1943. Deputy Cosgrave said:—
"I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the separation of Local Government and Public Health and have two separate Departments. I do not know if, in doing that, I am advocating legislation, but in view of the necessity for increasing attention to the requirements of public health, I think it would be advisable to have two separate Departments. I would not like the Minister to consider just separating himself and his Parliamentary Secretary. I think it would be advisable to get a new Minister for either one or the other of the proposed new Departments."
Now, in expressing that view, Deputy Cosgrave was almost inspired, because for some time previously the question as to whether there should be or should not be a separate Department of Health had been engaging the consideration and attention of the Government. It was a good thing for the Minister, who was urging upon his colleagues the need to set up this separate Department, that he should be fortified and supported by a Deputy who normally might be found in opposition to such a proposal.
But that was Deputy Cosgrave in November of 1943. Deputy Cosgrave in November of 1946 is a changed man. He has made the transition from one of the back benches to the Front Bench and, in doing so, would appear to have undergone that process of metamorphosis to which Dean Swift alleged the Irish bishops used to be subject when they were crossing Hounslow Heath. If you remember, the saintly men, the good men, the Dean alleged, were held up by highwaymen and their outer garments appropriated by ruffians who descended upon this country in the guise of bishops. That would seem to be the position with Deputy Cosgrave. I am sure that, when the Deputy advocated the establishment of the Department of Health and the constitution of a separate Ministry in 1943, he was speaking with all the sincerity of youth. When he opposes that proposal in 1946, I must assume that he has been contaminated with the insincerity which informs every public declaration of the Fine Gael Party in regard to any measure which may be put before this House by the Government for the improvement of the conditions of the people.
At that time, you had as Parliamentary Secretary Dr. Ward.
There is another member of the Opposition Front Bench who distinguished himself in this debate in the customary way peculiar to that Deputy. Deputy Hughes is a member of the shadow Cabinet. His utterances in this House in that capacity remind me how truthfully he spoke who said: "Shadows we are and shadows we pursue." He is ambitious to be a member of the Government of this country. Yet, in his speech, he showed himself to be grossly ignorant of the constitutional position of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, respectively. Last night, Deputy Hughes said that Parliamentary Secretaries were responsible to this House in respect of their administration. It is upon that unfounded assumption that, apparently, some part of the opposition to this Bill in so far as that opposition may be sincere, is based. Therefore, I want to show how erroneous is the argument which would ask this House to reject this Bill on the ground that matters relating to health and social welfare could be handled as well in the House and in the Government by Parliamentary Secretaries as they could by Ministers. Deputy Hughes said last night that Parliamentary Secretaries were responsible to this House for their administration. That statement is without foundation either in law or in fact. While he was making it I endeavoured to prevent Deputy Hughes from committing himself to this untenable and foolish proposition. I regret to say that my charity and goodwill and concern for the Deputy's public reputation were completely misplaced. In quite the most boorish way, the Deputy brushed aside my kindly intervention and, by reiteration of the statement that Parliamentary Secretaries are responsible to Parliament, continued to make a fool of himself. If Deputy Hughes were the only member of the Opposition to display ignorance in this matter, I should not waste my time or the time of the House with the matter, for the Deputy, as the House knows from experience, is, by capacity and temperament, incapable of learning. But Deputy Hughes was not the only member who showed by his speeches on this Bill that, though now, at least, two and a half years in this House, he has not yet taken the trouble to inform himself in regard to certain elementary principles which regulate the whole government and administration of the country and the procedure in this House.
For the benefit of those members who are anxious to know the truth in regard to this question and in the hope, particularly, that Deputy Cogan and other members of his Party may grasp, at least, the essential relationship between a member of the Government, a Parliamentary Secretary and Dáil Éireann, I propose to set out the position.
There are three documents which govern that relationship. There is the fundamental law of the State—the Constitution. I know that certain members of this House have little regard for the Constitution. I know that the Constitution under which we live to-day was carried in spite of them. I have some reason to believe that that applies, particularly, to many members of Clann na Talmhan. But, whether with their goodwill or against their active opposition, the Constitution was enacted by the people, is the fundamental law of this State and governs, in the first instance, the relationship of the Executive to this House. Section 4 (4)——
Let us have a count of the House now.
Notice taken that twenty Deputies were not present. House counted and twenty Deputies being present.
For the benefit of those members who have just entered the House, I may say that I was dealing with the assertion made by a member of the Opposition Front Bench that Parliamentary Secretaries are responsible to Parliament and that, therefore, the business of the proposed Departments of Health and Social Welfare could be carried on by Parliamentary Secretaries with no disadvantage and with the practical advantage, from the point of view of economy, that the person entrusted with that administration would be paid the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary instead of the salary of a Minister. Linked up with that suggestion by Deputy Hughes was the other one which he also made—that one of the reasons why we were creating this Department of State was the self-aggrandisement of the Ministry. I do not think it is worth while to deal with that argument. It is worthy of Deputy Hughes. I mention it so that the House may be aware that that is one of the reasons why that Deputy opposes the Bill.
I was saying that the relations of the Government to Parliament are determined by Article 28 of the Constitution and I was going to point out that Section 4, sub-section (1) of that Article declares that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. A Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Government. The Government consists of those members who are nominated by the Taoiseach to be heads of Departments of State. Therefore, since the Constitution prescribes that only members of the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann and that only the Government collectively shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann, it would be quite inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution to make a Parliamentary Secretary responsible to Dáil Éireann.
The special position of Parliamentary Secretary is dealt with in two Acts, one of which is the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924. The power to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary was first conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of that Act which provides:
"The Executive Council may from time to time, on the nomination of the President of the Council, appoint so many persons, being members of the Oireachtas and not exceeding seven in number, as the Executive Council shall consider necessary, to be Parliamentary Secretaries to the Executive Council or to Executive Ministers, and may at any time remove any Parliamentary Secretary so appointed."
A Parliamentary Secretary is appointed by the Government.
He gets a pension.
A Parliamentary Secretary is appointed by the Government and, in so far as he is not responsible directly to his Minister, he is responsible to the Government but he is not responsible to Dáil Éireann, neither under the Constitution nor under this Act. Section 7 of the Act of 1924 states further in sub-section (7):
"Each of the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under this section shall by his appointment be assigned to act as Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council or to a Minister and shall have such powers and perform such duties as the Executive Council or such Minister with the consent of the Executive Council may from time to time delegate or assign to him."
A Parliamentary Secretary carries out duties which are not assigned to him by Dáil Éireann, not assigned to him in any statute, but assigned to him either by the Government or by his Minister. Therefore, once again let me say that, under the Act of 1924, despite the ignorant assertions of Deputy Hughes on Wednesday night, a Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible to Dáil Éireann.
The matter is carried further, however, in the Act of 1939 where any doubt or ambiguity which may have resided in the provisions of the earlier Act is completely removed because Section 9 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1939, provides:—
"It shall be lawful for the Government, by Order made on the request of a Minister having charge of a Department of State, to delegate to the Parliamentary Secretary to such Minister all the powers and duties of such Minister under any particular Act, or any particular statutory power or statutory duty of such Minister."
Sub-section (2) of that section goes on to provide in paragraph (d):—
"Every statutory power and duty delegated by such delegation shall be exercisable and performed by such Parliamentary Secretary in his own name but subject to the general superintendence and control of the Minister on whose request it was made and subject to any condition or restriction stated in such delegation."
Who was responsible to the Dáil for the Public Health Bill?
I was.
Why did the Minister then not come into the Dáil and stand over the Bill if he was responsible for it?
Because the Bill was in competent hands.
That is why it has been taken away and buried.
I shall deal with that.
Is it being buried by competent hands?
Order, order.
The Minister is discussing at length the duties of Parliamentary Secretaries and their standing in the House.
The Minister is in order in answering a point made in debate. As for the time occupied in doing that, it is not for the Chair to decide.
I was pointing out that paragraph (d) provides that the exercise of a statutory power by a Parliamentary Secretary under a delegation order shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Minister on whose request it was made. Paragraph (e) of the same sub-section goes on to provide:—
"Every statutory power or duty delegated by such delegation shall, notwithstanding such delegation, continue to be vested in the Minister on whose request such delegation was made but shall be so vested concurrently with such Parliamentary Secretary and so as to be capable of being exercised or performed by either such Minister or such Parliamentary Secretary."
Finally—and this is the conclusive argument against the assertion of Deputy Hughes—paragraph (f) of the same sub-section declares:—
"Such delegation shall not remove or derogate from the responsibility of the Minister, on whose request it was made, to Dáil Éireann or as a member of the Government for the exercise or performance of the statutory powers and duties thereby delegated."
It is well that we should have that point cleared up. I hope that those who, as leaders of the various Parties, purport to guide, direct and advise their followers in this House will in future be under no misapprehension whatever as to who is and who is not responsible to this Parliament or responsible for any legislation which may be submitted to it. These two great Departments of State which it is proposed to set up cannot, in view of the developments which are now visualised, be administered by Parliamentary Secretaries, whether they act under a delegated order or not, and that is the conclusion to which the Government has been driven after the most searching investigation into the problems confronting us and into the measures which should be taken to deal with these problems.
And the young fellows are becoming impatient with the older members of the Cabinet because there is no promotion.
Deputy de Valera, in the very thoughtful speech which he delivered on this measure, went to the kernel of the matter when he said that this Bill is an administrative Bill, a Bill which seeks to provide for the better administration of certain public services and their further development upon lines which will be acceptable to the people and which are dictated by our people's necessities. Deputy Hughes argued that this Bill was going to create a top-heavy structure. He stated, and stated truly, that we cannot take out of the pool of production more than is put into it. This Bill does not propose to take anything more out of the pool of production. Whether anything more will be taken out of the pool of production or not will depend upon the policies which are formulated by the new Ministers. But it is quite possible that, in some respects, something more may be left in the pool of production, and yet, at the same time, those who have been beneficiaries under the several Acts now administered by separate Ministers may derive greater benefits and advantages than they have enjoyed heretofore.
Take, for instance, the Ministry of Social Welfare. At the present moment, measures which may broadly be termed social services, measures which come within the broad category of social services but are concerned with one kind of social service, the provision of relief in cash or in kind for those who, by the vicissitudes of life, are unable and, in some cases, even unwilling, to maintain themselves——
Unwilling?
——are now under the control and administration of three separate Departments of State. The amount of money which is taken out of the pool of production, with which Deputy Hughes is so rightly concerned, for these services, is over £12,000,000 per annum. The number of separate individuals who benefit under these income maintenance services or relief services is certainly not less than 600,000, and may be almost 700,000. It would be right to say, however, in that connection that no fewer than 340,000 of these individuals are children, in respect of whom children's allowances are paid. Now, whatever we might hear about extravagance, whatever we may hear about too much being taken out of the pool of production, there is one expenditure at any rate in regard to which Fine Gael, Deputy Dillon or Clann na Talmhan cannot disown responsibility, that is, children's allowances. I am glad that this Administration was able to put that social measure through, but let us hear no more about extravagant expenditure upon social services when children's allowances is one of the largest of them. Let us hear no more about pauperising the people and let Deputy Commons be as silent as Deputy Cogan is now, because I did not hear either of these Deputies or any other member of the House oppose the expenditure which it was proposed to undertake in order to provide children's allowances, under which, as I have said, 340,000 children and their parents in this State benefit.
Does the Minister describe that as pauperising?
Then, we are to have under that Ministry old age pensions. The number of persons benefiting under that service is, I think, 140,000. Under that service, they draw directly as old age pensions a sum of almost £4,000,000 and, in addition, the vast majority of these old age pensioners draw supplementary allowances, either in cash or in kind.
It is not enough though.
That may be.
It is; there is no "maybe" about it.
Yet the Deputy is one of those who got up, and, like the jackal, re-echoed the roar of the lion, if I may describe Deputy Commons as a lion and Deputy Blowick as a lion, when they talked about the social services pauperising our people. I know the Deputy has two faces, and, therefore, it is comparatively easy for him to speak with two voices.
To what Deputy is the Minister referring?
Deputy Flanagan's ignorance is inexplicable.
I do not seem to be learning much from the Minister.
I do not think any other member of the House is in any doubt as to what Deputy I am referring to. Old age pensions account for an expenditure of almost £4,000,000 directly and immediately as old age pensions. They account for a much greater expenditure than that, because there are supplementary allowances given under other Votes in cash and in kind for the relief and for the benefit of old age pensioners, and the number of persons who are in receipt of old age pensions is 140,000.
Could the Minister say how many widows are in receipt of 1/- per week widow's pension?
Deputy Commons said he objected to the establishment of this Department—and I must say that, though I criticise the speech of Deputy Commons, I sometimes admire his speeches because he speaks clearly and lucidly, and has a point of view to put which sometimes appeals to me, although not in this case.
Deputy Commons said that he objected to the establishment of a Department of Social Welfare because he saw that, as this State was heading, the inevitable outcome of it would be to provide all our people with spoons to eat out of the pauper's bowl. Yet, the Deputy who opposes the establishment of that Department upon these grounds is the Deputy who wishes to give not merely those who are in need but everybody in this State, whether they are as rich as Croesus or as poor as church mice, 10/- a week of an old age pension, on the ground he argues that there would be a considerable saving in the administration if we did so. Deputy Commons' remedy for our social ills is that everybody should be fed with his own tail, in the belief that, when that has been accomplished, there will be a considerable saving in administration.
At present, over 75 per cent. of all persons over 70 years have pensions. If the Deputy's suggestion were taken, there would be added about £1,200,000 to the pensions bill and the whole cost of administering the old age pension service is £145,000. But we would not save the whole of that. If we adopted Deputy Commons' suggestion, perhaps we would save some part of it, a comparatively small part of it, as the officers who, in the first instance, investigate means for the purposes of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts also carry out investigations on behalf of other Ministers who are responsible for the administration of other social services. Therefore, we might diminish the number of investigation officers by adopting Deputy Commons' suggestion, but we would not abolish that service altogether.
There are two services—children's allowances and old age pensions— which account for practically one-half of our total expenditure upon social services. Deputy Hughes says that our social service structure is top-heavy and he accuses the Government of drawing out of the pool of production for these services more than we can afford. I challenge Deputy Hughes, or Deputy Blowick, who talked about the army of officials who are administering these services, to put down a motion on the Order Paper of this House providing for the abolition of the old age pension service and providing for the abolition of children's allowances. If they do, and if, by any mischance, that motion were to be accepted by the House, they would save the Exchequer £6,000,000, but I think they would lose their political life in securing that economy. Let Deputy Blowick be honest with himself and with his own people, let Deputy Hughes be honest, if he can, with himself and with his own people. Let us face up to this fact: that so far from the Government being extravagant in regard to the administration and the provision of these social services, the Government, which has to have regard to the position of the taxpayer and to the size of the pool of production, is the only element in this State which exists to prevent unjustifiable expenditure of public moneys for the benefit of individuals. Every other Party in the State, in the hope of buying a little political support, puts down extravagant demands for the extension of the social services in the hope that the Government will save the community from the consequences of their demands.
Surely, if we have, as I pointed out, a considerable number of services costing in the aggregate over £12,000,000, benefiting not less than 600,000 individuals, and administered by three separate Departments of State, it would tend to economic administration, to efficient administration, and, from the point of view of the beneficiaries, to more advantageous administration to put all these under the control of one Minister. He would examine the anomalies which undoubtedly exist between them, and would co-ordinate these services and the activities of the officers administering them, with the result that we should have services the administration of which might not cost a great deal less because, as I have shown, the implementation of these services is in many cases carried out by officers of one Minister as agents for another Minister. It would not, as I have said, considerably reduce the number of persons involved in their administration, but would make for easier and smoother, and, from the point of view of those for whom these services are intended, more expeditious and, therefore, more advantageous administration.
That is one of the proposals contained in this Bill. That is why, after long examination, the Government have been persuaded that the logic of events, the pressure of existing circumstances, compel them to set up a Ministry of Social Welfare. There is nothing top-heavy about that. On the contrary, it is a rearrangement of a considerable number of services, costing, if you like, a vast sum, in a rational and logical way, which ought to react ultimately in economies and in a more efficient service. Yet, Deputy Hughes is going to oppose that and Deputy Blowick is going to oppose that—Deputy Hughes because we are going to have a top-heavy structure, Deputy Blowick because, although he as the Leader of a Party might be assumed to have some knowledge of the manner in which the services of this State are administered, he contends, it is going to lead to the recruitment of between 6,000 and 7,000 additional officers.
In my opening statement on this Bill I was concerned to point out that many of the existing services are already administered, even though they are under different Ministers, by the same corps of officers. The officers administering old age pensions are there in the service already. The officers administering unemployment assistance are there in the service already. So are those who are administering unemployment insurance, those who are charged with the administration of widows' and orphans' pensions, those who are responsible for the supervision and control of national health insurance. They are all there. So are the Post Office staffs who pay the benefits to the individual recipients. So are the headquarters staffs. What it is proposed to do is to bring all these bodies of officials, all these separate corps, under the control of one individual who will carry undivided responsibility, sharing, of course, in the collective responsibility, to this House, for the administration of these services. There will not be one additional officer——
What?
There will not be one additional officer recruited into the service in consequence of the establishment of the Ministry of Social Welfare if those services are to be continued as they are to-day.
The inflated Civil Service of the emergency can carry it on.
Again, Sir, one would expect that the Leader of the principal Opposition Party, a Deputy who was once Minister for Local Government and Public Health, would know this, that there has been no inflation in the personnel of the officers administering old age pensions, of the officers administering widows' and orphans' pensions, of the officers administering unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance in consequence of the emergency condition. I would have thought that, whatever mistakes Deputy Blowick might have been guilty of in a matter of this sort, at least the Leader of the Opposition, with all his experience behind him, would not make the same blunder.
The Minister is making a very serious blunder.
Of course, when Deputy Mulcahy says things which can be easily controverted, we are not always to assume that he has made a mental blunder. The Leader of the Opposition is very calculating. He knows that once you get a false statement started in this country, like the one to which he has given utterance here to-day, it takes a long time to catch up with it——
Who taught me that?
It is an easy parrot-cry to say "oh, more and more officers will be appointed." It is easy to assume when you go down to the crossroads like Deputy Blowick, and there is nobody there to take up the challenge, that you can get away with that sort of thing. But that sort of argument and that sort of assertion is not worthy of this House where the statements should be made as by informed men to informed men and where we should not rate our colleagues so low as to think we will get away with fictions such as I have referred to. I was saying, however, that the officers administering old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, medical services and all the other services, as they exist to-day, are already in the service of the State. All that it is proposed to do is to bring these several bodies of officers together and to put them under one control. There will be no recruitment of additional officers. On the contrary the possibilities are——
That they will be reduced?
——that they may be somewhat reduced—slightly reduced.
You must think you are talking to an awful crowd of fools.
We are not so daft as to believe that.
But, as I was careful to point out in my opening statement, I am not basing any case for this Bill on the fact that an assured economy in personnel will follow its passage, but I can say that undoubtedly there will be no expansion. There will be a reorganisation and I hope that, as a result of that reorganisation, there will be an improvement, and considerable improvement, in the social services and in the lot of the people for whom this Oireachtas and this Government have devised them.
Would the Minister say, in relation to his last statement, if he has read the statement of the Taoiseach in the Seanad on that matter, that no improvement can be brought about by this kind of coordination and reorganisation?
Can the Minister say that, in the event of the new Ministers being appointed forthwith, they will have time to qualify for the full rate of Minister's pensions before the next general election? Has that got anything to do with the date on which this Bill was introduced and the speed with which it is sought to put it through?
There will be an amending Bill introduced, probably.
No. They will qualify, I think, for the full scale.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 43; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Keating, John.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donnell, William F.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Ciosáin and Ó Cinnéide; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
When is the next stage to be taken?
On next Wednesday.
I would ask the Minister to give some longer time. We have put in a motion asking for a discussion, in Government time, on the tillage position, and it is desirable that as early an opportunity as possible should be given for that discussion. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to postpone to a later date the Committee Stage of this Bill which has now got a Second Reading.
Very well.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th December, 1946.