The amendment of Deputy Dr. Ryan on this section has been ruled out of order.
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1948—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
There were a number of amendments ruled out. I wonder if we might be told exactly why they were ruled out.
The Ceann Comhairle has ruled this amendment out of order, and I daresay he indicated to the Deputy why it is out of order.
Yes, but I want to know what the principle is.
Where there is a potential charge, even though there is not an actual charge, it is out of order.
That goes a long way. One would like to know why certain others were not ruled out in that case.
I cannot discuss that.
I accept your ruling.
The Deputy may, of course, speak on the section.
I would like to know why it is necessary to postpone the bringing into operation of the particular scheme until the 7th January. Deputy Keyes said that there would be a comprehensive social welfare scheme introduced in a couple of months' time. If that is so, it appears to me that the comprehensive scheme will outpass this one, because this scheme is not going into operation for six months and the comprehensive scheme will be introduced in a couple of months' time. It seems rather a waste of time discussing this now if the comprehensive scheme will be introduced in two months' time.
Let me correct the Deputy on that. Deputy Keyes was not told by me that a comprehensive scheme would be introduced or in operation in a couple of months' time. I think he was referring to the White Paper and not to the Bill.
I am glad the Minister has enlightened me on that.
Would not the Deputy have had a fair suspicion even if I had not told him?
I can only take it that Deputy Keyes was speaking on his own when he referred to a couple of months' time. I find it difficult to accept the Minister's contention that a fairly long period of time is required in order to bring in this increase in old age pensions. Last year when we were bringing in a scheme of increased pensions for the old, the increased payments were made within a period of about six weeks from the time the decision was taken and the Order passed. The Minister, of course, will quite rightly say that there are greater difficulties in the present instance.
Last year we merely had to add on automatically a certain amount to each pension. Here we are faced with the necessity for a reinvestigation of means. But it can hardly be contended that that will apply all round. Over 80 per cent. of the old age pensioners are getting the full pension. They are, therefore, below the means level and the means test will not apply in their case. There is no reason why the Minister should not make an Order implementing these increases in respect of these old age pensioners at the beginning of October next. They have already been investigated and their means are below £15 12s. 6d. a year. The 2/6 or the 5/- increases will automatically apply. That puts the 80 per cent. of the more deserving cases out of the way because undoubtedly the old age pensioner who has no means requires the extra 2/6 or 5/-more than the man who has means. If it is not possible to do it in the way I suggest, would the Minister consider amending the Bill by Order in order to give these increases to the 80 per cent. as early as possible? It may require a little more time for reinvestigation of the cases between £15 12s. 6d. and £39 5s. 0d. per year. Some adjustment may be required there. If they have to wait until the 1st January that cannot be helped, but we can at least assure ourselves that they are not as deserving or necessitous as those without means. There is then a third class between £39 5s. 0d. and £52 a year which will come in for pensions for the first time. They also, if necessary, can wait until the 1st January. I make that plea to the Minister.
There are something in the region of 140,000 people in receipt of pensions here. They are all over 70 years of age. The average expectation of life of these people would be only a few years. Three months is a very considerable period in an average expectation of two, three or four years. I think for that reason the Minister should make every endeavour to implement these increases as soon as possible. Now that he has undertaken the good work he should carry it out with the greatest expedition.
When this Bill was being considered the question arose as to when it would be possible to make the scheme operative. I discussed the matter with the officials of my Department. They are the same officials who had to implement the scheme of my predecessor for the cash supplements last year. I pressed my officials to give me the earliest possible date as to when this scheme could be put into operation. It was not a Government decision at that stage that made it operative as from the 7th January next. If it could have been brought into operation earlier it would have been brought into operation. The officials of my Department were told that. I pressed them to take every possible short-cut they could to bring the scheme into operation at the earliest moment and it was only when they saw how anxious I was to get it into operation early that they finally gave me a date which was early next year. Even then every one of them indicated that it would be a tough job to get things going. Deputy Dr. Ryan knows the officials of my Department probably better than I do. They had an opportunity of measuring what was involved under his cash supplement scheme. They had an opportunity of measuring up what I was asking them to do this year. They came to the conclusion that what I was asking could not be done earlier than the date set out in the Bill. It is because of that we decided on that date.
Deputy Dr. Ryan suggested that we should pick out this or that class, because you could probably deal with them more quickly than with other classes. I suggest there is a fruitful source of friction there. It is undesirable to have people who qualify for pensions being paid those pensions at different periods. If you want to find the maximum amount of irritation, that is surely the way to find it.
Here is what would be involved in implementing this Bill. Even when it has passed this House, many officials will have a rather restricted holiday this year, if they have any, trying to operate the provisions of the Bill. The Bill has yet to go to the Seanad and then a lot has to be done in order to keep the target date of the 7th January. There has to be an examination of the 25,000 existing non-contributory widows' and orphans' pension with a view to awarding new pensions, and we have to take into consideration the increased rates and the modified means test. There will have to be an examination of thousands of new claims for widows' and orphans' pensions and a review and adjustment of the 150,000 existing old age and blind pensions. There will have to be investigations of many new claims for old age and blind pensions.
Then we have to consider the production, preparation and issuing of 23,000 pension order books for widows and orphans, apart from some thousands for new pensioners. We have also to consider the production, preparation and distribution of 150,000 pension order books for existing pensioners under the Old Age Pensions Acts, together with some additional thousands for new pensioners. There will even be the recall and cancellation of upwards of 200,000 widows' and orphans' pension order books and 150,000 old age pension order books.
Deputy Dr. Ryan knows that that is a job of considerable magnitude, especially for a new Department. My whole fear is whether the outdoor personnel and the indoor staff will be able to do the work involved before the target date set out here. It will be a heavy strain on them and I am sure the Deputy realises that.
I quite agree with the Minister that there will be a heavy strain on the officials, but I cannot agree with one point he makes, that is when he suggests that taking out one class will be a cause of friction. If you take 80 per cent. of those who are assessed as having no means you say to them: "We will be able to deal with you, but it will take some time to investigate other claims." If you promise the others retrospective payment, they will have no grievance. This thing of reassessing claims appears to me to be the bigger part of the work. Every pensioner is subject to a reassessment of means at some particular time. If there was any suspicion about any particular case after the person had received the pension for a short time there could be a reassessment.
In order to keep to the target date, 7th January, I have had to suggest to the Department that instead of having a review or a reexamination of a certain percentage of persons when new books are being distributed, that ought to be dispensed with so as to get the books distributed as soon as we can. We have also decided, instead of the ordinary method of book distribution, to have the books sent out by post, because otherwise they might be late in delivery. Every point has been carefully considered and if it were possible to implement this scheme earlier it would be done. The Government made provision for the assumption of this liability as from 7th January, the earliest practicable date, and for that purpose suitable provision was made in the Budget. I can assure Deputy Dr. Ryan that I was as anxious as he to bring this scheme into operation earlier, if that were possible.
I raised a point on the Second Reading about agricultural workers and people who are in haphazard employment. The investigation officer is very exacting, and I have had the experience on old age pensions committees that these applications have been turned down. Take a man working on a farm.
That does not arise on this section. Perhaps the Deputy will get an opportunity of raising his point on a later section.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 5, page 6, to delete the words "and on payment of a fee of sixpence" and in line 6, page 6, to insert the words "free of charge" after the word "obtain".
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It sets out to provide that the birth certificate will be provided free of charge and not at the cost of 6d., as laid down in the Bill. The Department in charge of these certificates is a Government Department and the certificates are required for the purpose of investigating pension claims. Where the pensioner requires a certificate for the purpose of verifying his age to the investigating authorities, I suggest that that certificate should be issued free of charge. The Exchequer will not lose very much and it will be of some benefit to the pensioners. They will be saved a certain amount of trouble. The trouble of accounting for this 6d. in stamps or postal orders will outweigh the actual advantages in regard to the receipt of the money.
I had some experience in regard to this matter when I was in the Defence Forces. In the Army, for the purpose of marriage allowances, they required certificates of birth and of marriage. We ran across a situation where each one of these costs 3/7 and we made a provision by regulation whereby a soldier who wanted to have these births verified would simply furnish the required particulars and a certificate could be obtained free of charge from the Custom House. We found that worked satisfactorily and we saved substantial sums of money to the individuals concerned. In this case the fee is a small one, only 6d., and I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment and make the service free of charge.
I thought the Deputy would have complimented me on what I had done in the Bill. The present position is that there is no provision whereby an applicant for an old age pension can get a birth certificate, except by paying the same charge as anybody else. He has got to pay the registrar's fee of 3/7 before he can get a birth certificate. I propose to bring the charge of 3/7 down to 6d. in cases of that kind and, therefore, bring the charge into line with the position as it exists in the cases of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act. Under these two Acts, birth certificates are available at a nominal fee of 6d. and they will in future be available for old age pensioners at the same nominal fee of 6d. There will then be a uniform charge in the case of all three Acts. I think it is meeting the position reasonably. If it is decided that certificates should be given free in all cases, that can be done, but there is no purpose in abolishing it for old age pension purposes and still retaining it in the other cases. I have brought the fee down from 3/7 to 6d. It is a very nominal charge and it is in conformity with the fees charged under the other Acts.
The Deputy must also remember that registrars have got to live and this is one of their sources of income. In the past they got 3/7 for each certificate, but now they will get only 6d. Deputy Cowan wants to deprive them of any sustenance whatever. You have got to bear in mind that the registrar has still to issue the certificate and I suppose Deputy Cowan would not deny that he should get something for doing that work.
The Minister has just made a very interesting speech. We now understand that, as widows and orphans are going to be paid at the expense of the contributors, certificates at a fee of 6d. are going to be issued at the expense of the registrar.
We do not understand that.
Apparently, heretofore it was considered under a Fine Gael Government, first of all, that a fair remuneration to the registrar for issuing a birth certificate for old age pension purposes was 3/7. The Minister proposes to reduce the charge of 3/7 to 6d and is claiming credit for that as an exhibition of a benevolent attitude, but apparently the benevolence is being exercised at the expense of the registrar. The registrar who heretofore got 3/7 is now going to get 6d. Who is going to make good to him the 3/1? Is the State going to do it?
Does Deputy MacEntee want the old age pensioners to do it?
Deputy Collins is not yet in a position to answer. The person responsible for the proposal is the Minister for Social Welfare. I am asking him who is going to make good to the registrar of births the 3/1 of which he is being cut in respect of each of these birth certificates?
My answer to that is a very simple one.
Supposing this were going to be done by a lawyer, instead of by the local registrar of births, who, in some cases, may be a country doctor, a clerk of an old age pensions committee, or perhaps a clergyman— they vary all over the country—I can imagine every lawyer in the Fine Gael Benches would be up in arms against the proposal. Somebody is going to be at the loss of 3/1 per certificate and surely it should not be the man who does this work, who has to keep a register, who has to fill up the certificate, issue it and who has to be in attendance at his office in order to do that? Would it not be just and fair, since the Minister wants to be just and fair to everybody, to allow the fee for issuing the certificate to stand at 3/7 so far as the registrar is concerned, and if the Government feel that 6d. is a fair charge to make to the applicant, then they should pay the balance between 6d. and 3/7 to the registrar?
I am very grateful to the Minister for enabling me to clarify my own mind in regard to the amendment, because I was in some doubt when I heard Deputy Cowan proposing the amendment as to whom the charge was going to fall on. If the charge was going to fall on public funds, then I assumed Deputy Cowan's amendment would not be in order, but, in fact, Deputy Cowan is taking a leaf out of the Government's book. So far as he is concerned, it would be the unfortunate registrar who would have to issue the certificate free. It is possible, of course, that Deputy Cowan was not aware of that fact when he put down this amendment and that he assumed that the certificates would be issued at the expense of the Government and that the registrar would not be at any loss.
I should like to know what happens when a certificate is issued say in the Registrar-General's Department. It is possible to get these certificates at the Customs House. To whom does the charge for the certificate go then? If, for instance, I want a birth certificate I go to the Customs House and am charged 3/7 for it. If an applicant for an old age pension goes to the Custom House for a birth certificate, under this section he will not be charged 3/7 but 6d. Who will collect the 6d. in that case? Will it be the Registrar-General or will it be, in fact, the Minister for Social Welfare or the Minister for Health? I think in fact the Registrar-General's office has now been transferred to the Minister for Health so that it is the unfortunate Minister for Health who will now be made the pigeon for the Minister for Social Services to pluck. The Minister who heretofore got 3/7 will now only get 6d. and it is his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, who treats him in that unkindly fashion. Surely the Minister for Social Welfare was not as concerned as he pretended to be about the registrars down the country. Many more certificates, I think, are issued from the Registrar-General's Office than by registrars down the country. It might be that the Minister for Social Welfare is mean enough to be half Scotch and wants to pick up a nimble sixpence. I have full sympathy with Deputy Cowan's amendment as far as the Minister for Health is concerned. I think it could be made obligatory on the Minister for Health to issue certificates gratis and free of charge.
There is another amendment to that effect before the House. If the Minister for Social Welfare really moved in the matter and was not so concerned about the position of the Minister for Health nor so anxious that the Minister for Health should get 6d. every time he issued a birth certificate in respect of an old age pension applicant, he could persuade the Minister for Health to forego the 6d. in his own case and see that the registrars down the country to whom the fee is payable should be remunerated at a fair rate for the work of issuing the certificates.
The Deputy's sympathy is of a most promiscuous variety. He wants to whistle two tunes. In this connection he wants to ooze sympathy towards the old age pensioners, to be their friend, and to look after the interests of the registrars of births, marriages and deaths as well. He cannot have it both ways. He must drop on one footpath and drop this tightrope walking he has been indulging in for the last ten minutes. Under this Bill, we are bringing the charge down from 3/7 to 6d. in the interests of the old age pensioners. No matter who suffers, this Bill wants to bring it down to 6d. The Deputy who is now so worried about the registrars was not so worried when his Government brought in the Unemployed Assistance Bill compelling registrars to issue certificates for 6d. He did not suggest then that the registrars should be recompensed or that the applicants should get their certificates free. Similarly, when the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill was introduced, it was not suggested by Deputy MacEntee's Government that the registrars should be compensated for issuing 6d. certificates or that the applicants should get the certificates free. In both Bills it was required that the registrars should issue the certificates for 6d. and that the applicants should pay 6d.
You claim to be progressive.
You left out the position of the old age pension claimant who up to the present has to pay 3/7 for a certificate. This Bill is bringing that down to 6d. and I think that that is a reasonable provision that is in conformity with what is done under other Acts.
I agree that it is a generous reduction to reduce the charge from 3/7 to 6d., but 6d. is so small that I was hoping that the Minister would be able to meet me in accepting this amendment. However, as the position is that this Bill now brings the charge into conformity with these other Social Welfare Acts, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and leave it to the Minister to consider the matter when he is dealing with the comprehensive scheme.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
Question proposed "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 is ruled out of order?
Yes.
I was perfectly aware of that position——
Then we are in agreement?
——but the amendment was simply put down for the purpose of keeping the objective right.
You were not serious when you put it down then?
I was perfectly serious, but I wanted to make it clear that the reason I cannot get this before the House is that there are technical difficulties.
"Technical difficulty" did not prevent your putting it in your election address.
The Ceann Comhairle had not jurisdiction there.
No.
You were kind enough to notify me that you were ruling certain amendments of mine out of order, amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
We have not come to them.
I thought that the best place to deal with them would be Section 11 dealing with the means test, but they being ruled out of order, I want the Minister to deal with certain classes if he is dealing with the means test. Certain Deputies referred to a debate here last autumn on the means test and it was said by the Minister and by more than one Deputy that we voted it down. I am afraid that the merits and demerits of that particular motion would lead me out of order——
Yes.
——but there were three points in it and members who spoke about the motion did not know that two of these did not apply. In fact, the position of old age pensioners was not in any way worsened by two of the points, but there was one point which was argued more strongly than anything else, what are referred to as gratuities in cash. Under that heading, two classes are mentioned in particular; (1), a person who gets a pension as a result of his employment; (2), a person who gets a certain amount of cash from his children—his "dutiful" children, as was said. One of these two amendments which I put down was designed to meet the case of a man who gets a pension as a result of his employment. The case which is almost always mentioned is that of the man who gets a Córas Iompair Éireann pension. Under the Córas Iompair Éireann pensions scheme a man retires at the age of 65 with a pension of 15/-a week but when he reaches 70 his old age pension under present circumstances would be only 6/- in the city. In this case the Córas Iompair Éireann reduces the man's pension to 6/- and he gets 15/- from the State.
That is not a pension. It is an ex gratia allowance.
The Deputy is going to defend the Minister. He is going to pick holes in everything anybody says so as to bolster up the Minister. It is not a pension according to Deputy Davin. I must be careful about what I say with Deputy Davin there picking holes.
The amendment dealt with people who get a pension of 15/- up to the age of 70 and then get 6/-. Maybe I put the wrong word in the amendment as it is not a pension but an "ex gratia allowance”, so if the Minister puts in an amendment he must be careful to keep to what Deputy Davin said. A person who gets a pension or rather an “ex gratia allowance” feels that he is entitled to it and that he has earned it, but when he comes to the age of 70 he is no better off than the person who never earned anything by way of pension. They just get what is allowed within the lowest means test—6/- per week.
I do not know if the Minister has any figure as to the probable cost of an amendment of this kind. I do not know whether his officials can give such a figure. They would probably find it difficult. It might, however, be possible to ask Córas Iompair Éireann how many people are on their retired list and that would give the Minister some idea of what an amendment of this kind would cost. I think the Minister should consider this matter before the Report Stage and see if he could not cover that particular class of people who are entitled to a pension as a result of employment. I would, of course, put a limit on it.
I do not want a man who gets a couple of thousand pounds on retirement to get an old age pension. I would say that it should apply to people getting 30/- or £2 a week, whatever sum the Minister may think reasonable. In such a case the allowance should not be regarded as means. I do not feel that it is necessary to advance any further argument, because nearly every Deputy is familiar with the particular cases I mentioned. I think every Deputy who spoke in this House on any motion dealing with old age pensions or the means test during the last 15 or 16 years practically without exception said that this was a matter which should be remedied at the first opportunity. This is the first opportunity, and I should like the Minister to look into the matter before the Report Stage.
Another amendment which I have tabled deals with the smallholder. Nearly every Deputy who speaks here on old age pensions, especially if he comes from a rural constituency, talks about the vexatious inquisition into the means of a smallholder, how many hens he has, etc. I do not agree with that altogether myself. From what I learned before I became Minister for Social Welfare and since, on the whole I think the investigation officers are very fair and just and that they do not weight the scales against the applicant for an old age pension more than they are compelled to do by law.
In the case of a smallholder, I think it would be better if we did away with the investigation as to means. In referring to a smallholder, I mean a person whose only occupation is farming, because people with small holdings might be shopkeepers or professional men or anything else. But, where a smallholder's sole occupation is farming and, if you like, has been farming for whatever number of years you wish to prescribe and where his valuation is below a certain limit, there should be no investigation with regard to means. He should get the pension right away. I do not know what that will cost. I think it will be found from inquiry into these cases that practically every such smallholder gets an old age pension. Some of them get it after a great deal of trouble, but they all get it eventually after quite a lot of agitation. I do not think that it would mean a very big increase in expenditure, and it would save a lot in administrative costs. It would do away with all the complaints which are made about vexatious investigations. It would go further. It would tell these smallholders that this House regards them, having spent all their lives as small farmers, as entitled to an old age pension without question when they reach the age of 70. Although it is out of order at the moment I would ask the Minister to consider bringing in an amendment somewhat on these lines on the next stage of the Bill. I think that it would not cost a lot. I think every Deputy who lives in a country district and knows the smallholders around him will agree that there are very few of them who have not got the old age pension. All we are going to do it if we get an amendment of this kind put into the Bill is to bring in a certain small number. We would bring in the big number in future without any of these inquiries or investigations.
There are two amendments on which I personally am very keen. Many members of my Party are keen on them and I think I can say that Deputies on the other side would like to see such amendments passed. I do not think they would cost a lot. I do not know whether the Minister has any estimate as to the cost. I think the amendment with regard to smallholders would not cost very much. I do not think that an amendment covering those who are getting a pension in respect of employment would cost very much either.
On the Second Stage of the Bill, speaking about the means test in general, I pointed out that the Minister in raising the top level from £39 to £52 5s. was not doing as much as he would have done if he raised the lower level, and even left the top level as it is, because most of the trouble arises in connection with the lower level. The lot of a person getting a pension arising out of his employment would be greatly eased if the lower level were raised. If instead of being 6/- a week, it was raised to 12/- or 15/-, there might be no necessity for dealing with some of these cases I mentioned because such an amendment would cover them. I should like the Minister to tell us if since the Second Stage he has considered the possibility of doing something with regard to the lower limit of the means test. That certainly would be a step in the right direction. Personally, I think that raising the lower level from 6/- to 12/- or 15/- would cost a lot more than dealing with the two classes I have already mentioned. That is why, if the Minister thought that at this Stage we could not afford to raise the lower limit above 6/-, he might consider dealing with the two classes I have mentioned in particular at this stage. I am waiting for the comprehensive scheme to do the lot.
I join with Deputy Dr. Ryan in asking the Minister to consider these matters before the Report Stage. I see one difficulty, however, in regard to Córas Iompair Éireann pensioners. The difficulty, I understand, is that it is not the Minister or the Department that reduces their pensions, but Córas Iompair Éireann. I understand that the pension is 16/-per week but the moment 10/- old age pension is paid Córas Iompair Éireann deduct accordingly. I do not think that there is any machinery whereby the Minister could deal with that matter but, if there should be any such machinery, I should like to urge very strongly on him to endeavour to get Córas Iompair Éireann to allow these voluntary allowances, or whatever they may be called, to continue at the full amount. However, that is not a matter, apparently, for this legislation but it is a matter for consideration. I have been asked, personally, by a number of these individuals to make special representations in that connection on the consideration of this Bill and to ask the Minister to take such steps as he can to rectify the position.
I am in agreement with the plea made by Deputy Dr. Ryan. I would plead also on behalf of the old age pensioners who have no income whatever. The Córas Iompair Éireann men are not the only men who get pensions from their employers. Quite a number of employers are paying pensions but the trouble is that, in regard to such pensioners, their old age pensions are reduced accordingly. The result is that the employers say that there is no point in paying these pensions if the State reduces the old age pension accordingly. I have in mind, however, the old age pensioners who have no income whatsoever—men who are in receipt of national health disablement benefit up to 70 years of age, and, when they reach 70, are cut off.
The employees of Córas Iompair Éireann and other employees who get 6/- and 7/6 in order to qualify for a pension will, under the new means test, have at least 23/6 a week. On the other hand the old age pensioner who is in receipt of 7/6 national health insurance benefit, or maybe nothing at all, on retiring at 70 years of age from his employment may get no pension at all. I am referring to people such as dockers, county council workers and so forth. They have no income whatever and yet they will get only 17/6 per week. I do not know what it would cost but I would appeal to the Minister to bring these up to at least £1 per week as against the others who will receive 23/6 a week under the new means test.
I have much pleasure in supporting Deputy Dr. Ryan in his plea on behalf of Córas Iompair Éireann employees. I should like to draw attention to the methods adopted by investigation officers when investigating claims. In the case of a man who is practically depending on home assistance for his existence, if he happens to get an odd day's work now and again it is counted against him as means. We have been up against that difficulty very often and men have been turned down because of it. I should like the Minister to consider that matter.
The Deputy is going into administration.
I am going into the means test.
The Deputy spoke about the manner in which certain officers carry out their duties.
Did the Deputy not vote last year for the retention of the means test?
Other Deputies have already spoken in regard to the means test.
Quite. They spoke on the section—not in connection with the manner in which certain officers do their duty.
I shall confine myself entirely to the legal aspect of the matter. I have already referred to the position of farm labourers who work until they are, perhaps, 75 or 76 years of age and who prefer to work than to try and get a pension. When they are, eventually, not able to work they seek the old age pension but they are deprived of it—the money they drew the previous year being taken into consideration. I should like the Minister to consider their case and to do everything in his power for these people. As mentioned by Deputy Hickey we have in County Dublin too a number of people who give small grants to their employees but the same vicious circle is there so far as the means test is concerned.
I have in mind the case of an old age pensioner who was trying to keep his wife here a few months ago. He was drawing the old age pension and he happened to work for a few days. He was reported and his pension was cut off. I should like the Minister to consider points such as that. Even if a man is drawing the old age pension I do not think the law should deprive him of an opportunity of doing a day's work. A very small amount of money is involved. I had hopes that, as a result of the election promises of the inter-Party Government groups, we would have a bigger pension for the old age pensioners——
You had no hope of getting back yourself.
——but I am sadly disappointed in that connection.
The Chair would point out to the Deputy that Section 9 is being discussed.
I am only on the means test.
There is no means test in Section 9, though certain references to it were allowed.
Other Deputies spoke on it. I notice in the Bill, in Section 9 "means of the claimant or pensioner". That is what I am referring to. I raised, in relation to the means test, the position of road workers. I would stress that, in relation to the means test, the law as it stands is too rigid and is being too rigidly interpreted by investigation officers in a number of cases. If an old age pensioner is anyway thrifty and has a clean home, so much is allocated for that. The potential value of a laying hen is taken into consideration as is also the case if the applicant should have a few vegetables growing in his garden. I think the Minister, in administering the law——
This is not administration.
I would urge the Minister to make the position easier for these thrifty people when they reach the age of 70 years. The previous Minister for Social Welfare, when the Fianna Fáil Government set up that Department, promised that he would go into the matter. As a matter of fact, that was one of his comprehensive points. We have an opportunity now under this Bill of getting rid of some of the evils and the objectionable points. The Minister should do everything in his power to remedy the matter. The means test in so far as my constituency is concerned is definitely a headache. I am on a few old age pensions committees. If an old pensioner does a day's work that is calculated against him for pension purposes. If an old woman goes out and does a bit of washing that is calculated against her. In the long run they are puzzled as to what they should do. Under the means test system they can only earn so much and they have to be careful to earn that in a certain way.
The Minister has an excellent Department of Social Welfare bequeathed to him by Fianna Fáil. I appeal to him to avail fully of that Department as far as the means test is concerned. Whether the law is interpreted too rigidly or not I do not know. I think the law should be such that it could not be interpreted to the disadvantage of any individual. I am somewhat disappointed with this Bill. I had anticipated great results. We have, of course, to be satisfied with promises but, remembering all the promises that have been broken, our satisfaction is not very full.
I intervene in this debate only to urge upon the Minister what Deputy Dr. Ryan has already urged in this House. I appeal to the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the small landholder. I think the Minister should do all in his power to make pensions payable to these people irrespective of any means test. I do not know if the Minister would find it possible to do that before the Report Stage is reached. I would, however, urge upon him that he should consider it in the comprehensive social service scheme he envisages in the future. Because of the peculiar conditions in our rural life and the peculiar system of ownership where small farms are concerned I think these smallholders should receive special consideration. I think Deputy Dr. Ryan was sincere in the plea he made for that particular type of person. As far as my voice carries I support him in that plea.
I had an amendment down but I understand that it is not in order. There are two particular cases to which I wish to refer. One is the case where a wife reaches 70 years of age while her husband is still working as an agricultural worker or road worker. When the woman's case is investigated the husband's earnings are taken into account. I do not think that is right. Such a woman has probably worked very hard in her early years and reared a family. If she happens to be older than her husband she should not be debarred from pension at 70 because of her husband's earnings. I want the Minister to consider this, particularly in relation to agricultural workers, forestry workers and road workers. I do not include any others in the particular category.
With regard to smallholders, the average holding in the country of £10 valuation is hardly sufficient to maintain a family at any time. It is certainly not sufficient in the backlands on the hills and mountains. There you will find people with £10 valuation barely able to eke out an existence. I agree with Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Collins that these people should receive the old age pensions without any means test. Deputy Burke raised the point of the agricultural worker drawing a pension. There are periods in the year when these old pensioners are as valuable on the farm as any young agricultural worker. If such a pensioner goes out haymaking or harvesting some good neighbour reports that and the investigation officer comes along and the pension is subsequently taken away. I know one case myself where an old man of 80 years had his pension taken away from him because he was working with a farmer. I appeal to the Minister on the Report Stage to rectify these matters.
Is the Minister aware that a great deal of confusion exists throughout the country as a result of the increase of 2/6? The impression has been created that each group will get an automatic increase of 2/6. One would naturally assume that the man with 15/- would get 2/6 and likewise the man with 12/-. Under the system of scaling the man who has 9/- a week would receive 12/- under the old scale. Under the new scale the man with 12/-a week will receive 12/6, an increase of 6d. Naturally, those pensioners will be very disappointed. I suggest that there should be a further scaling and a reduction of 1/- rather than the 2/6 as at present. There is a defect in the system at the moment. If the increases had been worked out under the old scale the increase would be at least 2/-I suggest the Minister should examine that matter.
Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Under the old age pensions legislation which is in operation there are many anomalies and one of the most outstanding is this question of the upper limit. That has been particularly evident, as every Deputy is aware to his grief, during recent years. Wages and the cost of living and prices generally have increased and the £39 of an upper limit had little relation to that increase. The £39 that was fixed in 1938 bore a relation then to wages and prices. At that time a man could have 15/- a week and still qualify for a pension. That amount is now being increased to £52. If the £39 were operating since the emergency started, scarcely anyone could qualify for a pension. That amount was not taken into consideration by the pensions committee or the officers of the Department. Assuming the £52 will be operated rigidly in the future, it will be a serious matter for applicants for pensions. If there is to be a new calculation based on present wages and prices it will be difficult for any person to qualify for an old age pension. Were it not for the fact that the £39 had to be ignored in order to let a person get a pension, there would have been very few pensions granted within the past six years.
I suggest that if the new figure is rigidly adhered to, fewer people than ever will qualify for pensions. I am sure the Minister is well aware of that. During the past five or six years Deputies who had occasion to make representations on behalf of old age pensioners found that the £39 had no relation either to wages or prices. Has the Minister considered the agricultural labourer, the road worker, or others in a low wage category? Suppose such a person was working in 1947 and decided to retire and applied for an old age pension, his means would be calculated at £150 a year. His wages for the previous year would be taken at that figure. He must go on home assistance or exist as best he can for six to nine months before he can qualify for a pension.
This is an important matter for the people in the country. A farm labourer or road worker earning from 50/- to £3 a week applied, let us say, in January, 1948, for an old age pension. He would not be granted a pension in January. This £52 of a limit will create difficulties in the future. We have good grounds for fearing that, because of another section in the Bill, where the Minister sets out that pensioners, irrespective of the new valuation, will continue with their existing pensions. That is to save the existing pensioners and not have their pensions reduced.
Obviously the Deputy did not hear what I said on the Second Stage.
I read it all.
Let me catch that hare for all time. I said on the Second Stage—and I cannot understand why the Deputy did not read it in the Official Report—that so far as this Bill is concerned the increase in pensions would be based on the existing assessments.
For existing pensioners?
For existing pensioners.
Not for future pensioners?
How could you have an existing assessment for a future pensioner? How can anyone say to-day what the means of a pensioner next year will be?
We understand quite clearly the purpose of that section—it is to safeguard existing pensioners. I grant that to the Minister. Existing pensioners will get the increase based on the old assessment value but new pensioners have much to fear, I am afraid, if their pensions are to be assessed on present wages and values. I make the prophecy, and I hope it will not be realised, that we will find five years from now that the number of pensioners coming under this legislation will be fewer than came in on the average during the past 20 years.
My task this evening would have been extremely pleasant if the members of the Opposition who now want to abolish or modify the means test had done so during the 16 years they were in office. Deputy Burke told us the means test is a headache. Of course it is, but the Deputy had 16 years during which he could have got rid of that headache, and he did not do so.
You have the opportunity now.
The Deputy's Party had 16 years in which to cure themselves and the nation of that headache, but they did not do it. Now, in a period of five months, he wants us to get rid of the headache and the means test, having been left the hefty headache of trying to find or save £8,000,000 somehow in order to balance things after the Deputy's Party went out of office.
You caused unemployment.
You are talking about Deputy Lemass's decisions now. Do not put your foot into it again.
We are expected to do in a few months what the Party opposite did not even attempt to do in 16 years. In 1919 the maximum income to qualify for the receipt of a pension was £49 17s. 6d. It came down in 1924 to £39 5s. and was at £39 5s. in 1932. It has stood at £39 5s. during the entire period that Fianna Fáil was in office. Now somebody ought to explain why it was allowed to remain at £39 5s. for 16 years. I, at least, have pushed it up to £52 5s. in five months, which is not a bad performance. I should like to have pushed it much higher, and I hope to succeed ultimately in pushing it much higher but I am not going to be jockeyed into defending a means test. I dislike a means test and I hope to get rid of it ultimately.
The position is that I have got £2,500,000 for the purpose of improving social services. I would have lifted the ceiling above £52 5s. or I could have said: "Do not move the ceiling too high above £39 5s. and use some of the money to increase existing old age pensions". By doing that we make sure immediately that 130,000 old age pensioners who at present receive the maximum rate of old age pension, whether at 12/6 or 15/-, will be lifted up to a pension of 17/6 per week under this Bill. To give an additional half-a-crown to old age pensioners costs approximately £1,000,000. A considerable sum of the £1,500,000 available for old age pensions—because the other £1,000,000 goes to widows and orphans —will go to increasing the existing rates of old age pensions. By far the lion's share will go towards giving the 130,000 old age pensioners, an increase of 2/6 to 5/ per week because at present they have no means of a character calculated for the purposes of means under the Old Age Pensions Act.
I should like to travel the distance that other Deputies have suggested here and to meet amendments designed to exempt income at a certain level for the purposes of the means test. I have sympathy with every Deputy who pleads that point of view here, but the great difficulty is that I have only £2,500,000. In other words I have got a £2,500,000 cake. If I give some of that cake to people not covered by the Bill, then some of the people covered by the Bill will not get their share of the cake. If we had another £500,000 or £1,000,000, it might be possible to go further. It is because I have only £2,500,000 and not £3,500,000 that on this occasion it is not possible to do as I would like to do, as I feel should be done and as will, I hope, ultimately be done, namely, lift the ceiling for the purposes of the means test.
It has been suggested that those who receive a pension of not more than £100 a year, as a result of former employment, might be exempted from the means test. I frankly should like to be in a position to do that but it is not possible seeing that the total sum available of £2,500,000 is absorbed by the provision of the Bill as it stands. I do not think in any event that it could stop just there. If you exempt from the means test a person who has a pension of £100 per annum, then you must carry that exemption not merely to pensions but to every other class of income no matter what that income may be. It would obviously be anomalous to exempt a pension of £100 per year from assessment under the Old Age Pensions Act, if you were assessing, £70, £80, or £90 income which a farmer earned from his agricultural activities. If it is to be £100, it has to be £100 for everybody.
I cannot see, in equity, that you can say that a certain class can have £100 a year income which would be disregarded for old age pension purposes, if you have a £60, £70, £80 or £90 income from other sources counting for pension purposes. If you are going to draw the line, it has to be a national line and not a sectional line. It is not possible to deal with this in a kind of vertical fashion; you have got to have a horizontal line through the whole nation. I do not see how it would be possible to exempt a Córas Iompair Éireann pensioner or any other class of pensioner because means are means no matter what source they come from. It is not possible to discriminate between different classes of means, whether they be means in the form of a pension or means from any other activity.
The question of smallholders has been raised by some Deputies and there has been some advertence to the amendments which have been ruled out of order and which seek to regard a person, with a holding of a valuation not exceeding £10 as automatically entitled to an old age pension—in other words, that where a person has a holding of not more than £10 valuation, his means should be assessed as nil. I suppose if a man has a holding with a valuation of only £10 that would be prima facie an indication that there was very little on that holding. When the matter was being discussed, my mind travelled back to a case which I handled recently where a man had 44 acres of land with a valuation of £29 10s. 0d. and he was granted a pension of 5/-. If you regard that as the normal case—and it is very typical of a number which I have seen—or even if you regard that case as indicative of the way in which means for old age pension purposes are assessed, I would say that a £10 valuation would be regarded as a case where the means were nil if there were no other sources of income. Here again I should like to see the whole question of the means test examined.
Another suggestion made on Second Reading was that these cases should be dealt with on the same basis as that on which agricultural holdings are dealt with for income-tax purposes. I do not know at the moment which of these courses would be the best. The present means of assessing a man's income is not by any means a scientifically accurate method of measuring the applicant's means. At best, it is a rough and ready method of measuring the means of the applicant and the best I can promise is—I do not think it can be done in connection with this Bill— that I will undertake to have the whole question of the means test examined from the point of view of devising some method which will simplify the inquisition into a person's means and at the same time see in connection with the comprehensive Bill what can be done to ease generally the application of the means test to applicants for old age pensions.
Deputy Burke raised the question of agricultural labourers who are old and unable to follow their employment. I think he indicated that when they sought old age pensions, their income for the previous 12 months was taken into consideration in ascertaining their means for the future. A somewhat similar point was made by Deputy Allen. I made it clear on the Second Stage of the Bill that where a person had reached the age of 70, and was seeking an old age pension that person is assumed to earn the same income he earned in the previous year unless there is evidence to the contrary, that he will not earn that money. If therefore, a person is employed as a road worker and reaches 70 years of age and if it is clear by his own statement, and by his employer's declaration that he is no longer employable, his means for the previous year should not be taken into consideration and his income for the ensuing year should be assumed to be nil unless there is evidence of means from some other source. The investigation should be satisfied that he will, in fact, get means from some other source, especially in view of his own statement that he cannot work or does not intend to work and his employer's declaration that there is no work for him or that he cannot be employed in view of his age.
A declaration is never made. Employers are not asked for it.
I am taking an applicant who is unemployed or idle. If he is idle, surely he can get in touch with a county council official and ask for a declaration that he is no longer employable? He has the whole day to do it and there should be no difficulty. That is a simple way of having this matter put right. The pensions officer has no authority for refusing the grant of that pension where it is clear that a person will have no income during the ensuing 12 months and where there is evidence of unemployability.
Deputy Seán Collins raised the question of the means test for small farmers and I have covered that by what I said in respect of the means test generally.
Deputy Walsh raised the question of the recipient of the old age pension who, while receiving the pension, has an occasional day's employment. Again you come up against the question of means. If it is only casual employment very infrequently secured, I take it that it would have to exceed the amount set out here before the pension would be taken from him. There might be need for revision of his pension in light of his ascertained earnings, but unless it exceeded the maximum of £39 5s. 0d. he would be entitled to a pension. Income from any source, while it could be reckoned against him, could not be so reckoned if he did not earn more than the amount set out in the existing Act which is a lesser sum than that set out in this Bill.
Deputy Allen raised the question of the method of valuation for old age pension purposes in future. Quite frankly, I got the impression while the Deputy was speaking that the Deputy would be disappointed if somebody did not conspire against the future applicant.
I hope that it will not happen.
It is my responsibility. In the existing assessment of means, the assessment that has been applied in respect of pensions already granted could not be disturbed for the purpose of the increase in pensions under this Bill. That is to say that anybody with 12/6 pension weekly in a rural area will automatically get the increase he is entitled to. I propose to issue no instructions to pensions officers to apply in future any different type of assessment from that applied in the past. As I said on the Second Reading, it is my desire that if there is any doubt at all an applicant for the old age pension should get the benefit of the doubt and should not be put through a rigorous investigation as to his means.
With regard to what the Minister ended on, there appears to be an impression among certain Deputies that certain pension officers are not giving to applicants the benefits that they should get. As far as the law is concerned it is fundamentally in the principal Act that you assess the income that a person expects to have during the coming year, but if that is impossible, that you take the income of last year. That appears to be a very fair way of doing it and it is applied by the great majority of pensions officers. I certainly agree that the Minister should not interfere with those men, but it might be well if those things were pointed out so that there would be no want of uniformity in assessing means. The Minister might think it well to have a circular sent out to pension officers to ensure uniform treatment.
I undertook on the Second Reading to do that, to have the matter examined so that the test would not be applied in an unfair way.
I mentioned two classes and I have to admit that the Minister made a very good case. If he were to exempt one person he would have to apply it all round. I think his reason was very sound. In any case it would have to apply all round where the income was earned, although there might be a distinction made regarding the person who was carrying on with investments.
I am afraid that I will have to agree with the Minister that we must wait for a comprehensive scheme to make that matter right.
He was not, however, so convincing with regard to the smallholders. He had not any good argument for making a certain level of valuation. In the amendment which was ruled out of order I put down £10 poor law valuation, but if the Minister wanted £8 or £12 I would have no objection. There was no strong argument against it except the argument the Minister started on, that there was a certain amount of money and that he cannot do more with it than he is doing. I do not think, however, that that amendment would cost very much because there must be very few people with a £10 valuation who are not getting the pension and my only object in putting it down was to see that they would get it without question and without various methods of application.
Would not the Deputy agree regarding the qualification "some other source of income"? The fact of having a valuation of under £10 would not qualify a person if he were disqualified according to that.
I would not mind having it read "whose sole occupation is farming and has been farming" for 25 years or 30 years. I do not care how far you go back.
The Minister told us the history of the means test. It was £49 17s. 6d. in 1919, but the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1924 brought it down to £39 5s. 0d. If the Minister is making amends for what they did—in the 1919 Act £26 5s. 0d. was the lower limit and it was brought down by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to £15 12s. 6d.—it is a pity he did not do the whole job.
You kept it there.
You pledged to take it away.
You keep quiet.
The Minister says that we kept it there, but I am saying that it would be an act of restitution if the Minister and his Government made good the harm that was done by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1924 in changing the 1919 Act. He did change the top limit but not the lower limit. It is a great pity that he did not bring it back to £26 5s.
Deputy Allen does not agree with you.
I do agree.
It must not be assumed that Deputy Allen and I agree on everything, or that I and everybody else in this Party agree on everything. We all have our own opinions about things and we hope to keep them. The last argument the Minister falls back upon is: "You did not do it". Surely, the people did not put us out and put you in unless you were to do something better.
We are doing it well.
One thing we had promised the people, and which we would have carried out, is a comprehensive scheme of social welfare. I do not think we would have been as long about it as the Minister is. That is a matter, of course, which nobody can know for certain. We would have introduced that comprehensive scheme in a reasonably short time.
You did not do it in 16 years.
We did a great deal in 16 years.
We were keeping the Blueshirts in order.
Only for the Blue-shirts we would not be here. We did not miss the train to Mallow, anyway.
Whether we came back, or whether the other Parties came back as the Government, the people expected that something more would be done for social welfare. We are discussing this Bill now.
We are discussing a section of it.
We are discussing a particular section on the Committee Stage. The Minister appears to me to be adopting an attitude which makes it almost impossible for us to make any suggestion, because the answer he gives us is: (1) "I have no money; I cannot do it"; (2) when things are going fairly hot with him he says: "You were here for 16 years and you did not do it".
Perfectly correct.
Deputies opposite are evidently quite satisfied with this Bill, forgetting the promises which the various Parties made during the election about social welfare.
Will the Deputy not admit that it is a step in the right direction?
Will the Deputy make a connected speech and cease interrupting?
I understood that Deputy Rooney was going to rise and I was waiting to hear him.
I am waiting to hear the Deputy first.
This Section 9 is a remarkable section, because it represents the crystallised policy of all the Parties of the coalition in regard to two vexed questions: (1) the rate of pension, and (2) what used to be described as "the iniquitous means test". Before those who constitute the majority in this House had the responsibility of power and before they were in a position to make good their promises to the people, they were lavish in what they undertook to do after the election. I have here the election address issued by the present Leader of the Labour Party, which said:—
"The Labour Party has a social security policy to meet these natural afflictions of the old age pensioners. There is one immediate demand— pensions of 25/- per week and no means test."
I have here the election address issued by the one-time director of finance of Clann na Poblachta:—
"Increase in old age pensions to 26/- per week at 65 years; the means test to be abolished."
I am not permitted to speak on the age question.
Will the Deputy keep in mind that this is not the Second Stage?
We are in Committee and this is a section which deals with two questions. I am addressing myself to these two questions.
In Committee or on the Second Stage?
In Committee, on the question of the means test. Section 9 provides for the means test and part of the section provides for the rate of pension.
It struck me that the Deputy was repeating exactly what he said on the Second Stage, as if this were another Second Stage.
I did refer to these pledges that were given.
Then I am mistaken in thinking that the Deputy made these quotations on the Second Stage?
I did refer to the fact that certain pledges had been given. I am going to refer to a number of hard cases which have been raised. Deputy Kyne, quite properly, pointed out, as I did on the Second Reading, that under the means test as laid down in Section 9 many people will receive pensions representing only an increase of 6d. per week over and above what they were receiving under Fianna Fáil. Deputy Hickey referred to the sad case of a man who has been living, I think he said, on disablement benefit, and who hoped that he could be dealt with so that he might receive a full pension. Other Deputies referred to the case of a man who, having reached the age of 70 and having qualified for a pension, takes an odd job or two and finds himself reported and disqualified from receiving a pension. The Minister dealt, I understand, with all these cases and his stereotyped reply to every case of that kind is: "There again we are up against the question of means." Why are we up against the question of means? We are up against it for one reason only—that the Deputies who are supporting the Minister stand for the means test. Each and every one of them is supporting the Government and each stands for the means test and is backing the Minister for Social Welfare who has justified the means test in the debate on this section.
It was quite a change from last year when they were all of them convinced that the means test should be abolished. Deputy Hickey used the phrase that he would like to see one or two of these hard cases, which he knew of, dealt with, if it could be done. Why can it not be done? Deputy Larkin believed last January that it could be done. Deputy Cowan believed last January that it could be done. Deputy Hickey, when he was a member of this House before, used to try to convince us that it could be done. If it could be done in January or February of this year, why can it not be done now? Why is it that we are still compelled to have this means test in this Bill? We are told that it would not cost very much to abolish it. We are told that the Minister has millions for social services. Why allow it to remain in the Bill if it could be abolished? Deputy Hickey used to tell us that the money did not matter. That was the view also, I think, of those who are now sitting in this House as members of Clann na Poblachta.
I never made such a statement.
Why can it not be done? Is it because the National Labour Party is now represented in the Government?
That was a big disappointment.
Is it because the Irish Labour Party is now represented in the Government by the Minister for Social Welfare? Is it because Clann na Poblachta is now represented in the Government by the Minister for External Affairs and by the Minister for Health? Surely, if these things could have been done in 1947, they can be done much more easily in 1948, when all the Parties that believe the means test should be abolished are now represented in the Cabinet. Now we are going to be told that we have left them in a mess. However, you have stopped spending money. You have been saving money. You have told us that. You have cut down on the shortwave station and all the other things. Why can you not find the few hundred thousand pounds that are necessary to abolish the means test? It is here in Section 9. You are all applauding the Minister; you have praised him; he is the greatest Minister for Social Welfare. Yet, just a few months ago you were all of the opinion that the means test was unfair and unjust and ought to be abolished. It has not been abolished.
But it will be.
It is not. We do not know what will happen in the future.
It does not matter whether you do.
It will, within a few years.
All we know now is that——
You missed the train again.
We are confronted by a Government 50 per cent. of which believe that the means test should be abolished.
A hundred per cent.
A hundred per cent. Well, I never heard that the Taoiseach —I will be just to him—or the present Minister for Finance, or the present Minister for Defence, or the Minister for Education ever said that the means test could be abolished.
Should be abolished.
Could be or even that it should be abolished. On the contrary, they were all rather concerned about the expenditure upon social services in this State. I understand that the Minister for Finance, speaking elsewhere, only last week, when this Bill was being introduced, decried the amount of money being spent on social services. Surely you are not going to ask me to believe that the Minister for Finance feels that the means test should be abolished. The point about it is, however, that for once we have a certain degree of unanimity in this House in regard to the means test. We think that since money can be provided to make beer and tobacco cheap we can also provide, at any rate, to ameliorate very considerably the means test. We believe we can do that. We are asking you gentlemen who believe that it should be abolished to join with us in demanding that it should be abolished. There is no use in getting up, as Deputy Hickey did, and saying: "I should like to see it done if it could be done".
There is no use in putting down a sham amendment, as Deputy Cowan put down to Section 9, and then contenting himself by saying: "Well, I merely put it down as a sort of gesture to show the direction in which we ought to go." You can go all that road now. You are the people who are now controlling the purse strings of this nation. You are people who control public money. You can spend public money in giving pensions without a means test and you can give them—not at the miserable rates you provide here in Section 9 of the Bill so that they represent, as Deputy Kyne told us, an increase of only 6d. per week. You can give them at 26/-per week or, if that is too much, at 25/- per week, as the more prudent Deputy Larkin believed when he was talking on the hustings. You can do that. You are not doing that. You are giving, at most, a miserable half-crown. Where Fianna Fáil gave 15/-you are proposing—only in some cases —to give an additional 2/6. In others the means test and the rates of pension are being so adjusted that in certain circumstances no increase at all will be given and it is quite clear from a later section in the Bill that some people would have been in danger, if it were not for the saving provision of the Bill, of having their existing pension reduced. That is the position of the Parties now who a few short months ago wanted old age pensions at 25/- or 26/- a week and the means test abolished. Was there ever a more hypocritical exhibition——
Than yours.
——on the public hustings when they went around the country saying they wanted the means test abolished? We are not allowed to put down an amendment to abolish the means test because——
You had 16 years.
——it was ruled out of order. The Minister for Social Welfare can put down that amendment and you are the people in whom the Minister for Social Welfare has confidence, or, at any rate, on whom he depends for support. If you go to him to-morrow and hold a corporate meeting and say: "We must honour our pledges to the people. We must abolish the means test," he will have no option but to come in here and move the amendment which we are not allowed to move. I say that you are bound to move it if you are going to keep faith with the people.
I cannot see for the life of me what the purpose of Deputy MacEntee's contribution on this Bill is. Either we have got to accept this or we have got to reject it—one or the other.
Or try to make the Minister change it.
Which we cannot do because we are not allowed to.
And you never will.
You had 16 years.
The Bill which is now before us has received a Second Reading. It is now in Committee, when certain sections or clauses may or may not be amended. On the Second Stage we have all spoken with regard to this particular Bill. I made it perfectly clear then and I made it perfectly clear here to-day—and it was accepted at the last stage by the Minister—that the amounts that are mentioned in this Bill are not the maximum amounts that I should like to see in it. I confess frankly that I did stand in the general election for an increase in old age pensions to 26/- a week. I still stand for that and, in so far as this section falls below that, it is an unsatisfactory section to me but, in so far as it does increase the pensions of approximately 130,000 old age pensioners by 2/6 a week, it is undoubtedly a welcome step in the right direction. I should have liked to have had my amendment discussed but the Ceann Comhairle ruled it out of order.
The purpose of that amendment was to show that, as far as I was concerned, I was not withdrawing one bit from the case I made on the hustings before the general election. I am up against the difficulty that, while on the hustings, I did recommend and advocate 26/- a week, I had in mind a completely different Government from the Government that is now in office and I had in mind a completely different approach to the problem of employment and the problem of finance. I admit that unless you have a Government with the ideals and objectives of the National Labour Party and ourselves in regard to finance it will be impossible to bring up social welfare benefits to the appropriate figure. In the process of time I hope that we shall be able to tackle these problems of finance and employment in such a way as to make it possible to pay the benefits that ought to be paid. That is the position. I want to make it perfectly clear.
There is a further step that might be taken. In my view, there are people whose incomes are excessive. I would have no objection whatsoever to slashing those incomes in order to make money available for old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions.
We are not concerned here with how the money will be got; we are not concerned with taxation now.
No, but I want to know if Deputy MacEntee will agree with me that these increases that we sought should be got by slashing incomes.
It is to the Minister you should address that question.
I would like to have the support of Deputy MacEntee.
He has nothing to do with it.
Taxation does not arise in this and the slashing of incomes does not arise.
On the contrary, I am reading the Deputy's address and I see that it is proposed, among other things——
We are not concerned with Deputy Cowan's address. The Deputy is addressing us now.
I would be very happy if you would allow Deputy MacEntee to finish.
I will not.
Because it might be very helpful to me in making my contribution now. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing artificial in my support of this Bill. I think it is a substantial advance, but it does not go far enough. It is certainly not the advance for which I hoped during the general election. If we are to achieve the objective that the great majority of us on these benches have, we shall require a completely new outlook on matters of finance. I hope that in the near future we shall achieve that change of outlook, and when we do achieve it, I hope that we shall have the support of the majority of the Deputies, particularly the younger Deputies, on the Opposition Benches.
Listening to the Minister's reply to the proposals made in regard to the valuation tests, I must say that I was definitely disappointed at his attitude. Surely, it should have been possible for him to have examined a large number of specimen cases, old age pension appeal cases. He could have taken samples of the £10 to £15 valuations to see how far the rate of pension was affected by the agricultural means and excluding the remainder of the means. We can argue for the moment that there is some justification for calculating means other than agricultural, in the case of an applicant for a pension who lives on a holding of between £10 to £15 valuation. My memory of looking at a good number of old age pension appeal cases is related to the fact that agricultural means do apply in those types of valuation as an absolute deterrent to high production per acre. A huge proportion of holdings in this country are under £15. Very often the density of stock on the holding, the amount of poultry and eggs, turkeys, pigs, vegetables and fruit sold make the absolute difference between a holding that is being worked for all it is worth and a holding which is being worked on an extensive as distinct from an intensive production basis. If the present Government is sincere in its desire to increase agricultural production they could do something to establish valuation test whereby agricultural production, the amount per acre and stock density per acre would not be considered in valuations below a certain figure.
It would be an excellent thing to encourage the head of the family before he passes on his property to his son to maintain a high rate of production. That would be an excellent stimulant to pig production and poultry and egg production, all of which are vital to the nation's future. That would save an enormous amount of administrative work. It would save adminitrative expenses if, when an inspector went to see an applicant for a pension on an appeal from a decision of the investigation officer or the committee, he simply had to examine what the non-agricultural means were on valuations of less than a certain figure. It would bring to an end also what I have always considered to be a relic of the old system of pauperism in this country.
I do not know whether the Minister has any figures to give the House in regard to the examination of agricultural valuations. I think that he would find he could even go above the £10 valuation in certain areas. The whole problem is related, of course, to the fact that land needs revaluation urgently in this country. Nevertheless, surely the Minister could strike a figure and, in so doing, eliminate the considerable and extensive administrative examination that is required at the present time. I hope that before this Bill passes through the House the Minister will reconsider this matter. Even if the result were to very slightly increase the amount of money required for pensions, surely he could persuade the Minister for Finance in this instance. The accrued benefits in agriculture from poultry production and pig production are alone liable to make the difference between a full pension or a part pension in these cases. I do hope the Minister will reconsider this matter.
With regard to Section 9, I was absolutely amazed when I discovered that there was still to be a means test. Irrespective of the published statements as to promises made in the election which have been referred to by Deputy MacEntee, a great many speakers from these various Parties promised far more than 26/- a week. In the case of a great number of them the sky was the limit. Pensions were to be such as to afford a complete guarantee of being able to find all the necessaries of life for an old age pensioner living in the country even though he might be living with his family and supported by them. There was practically no limit to the promises made. I was amazed to find in this Bill, therefore, that there is a means test. A very large number of people are as a result going to have their pensions increased from 15/- to only 17/- a week. I think the Minister has not yet explained satisfactorily how he can relate the change in the means test to the increase in the cost of living. There was a great volume of criticism at one stage that the means test had been left at a figure of £40 in spite of an increase in the cost of living of 86 per cent., or thereabouts. Now, we find that the £40 is stepped up to £52. That is in no way related to the increase in the cost of living. I can see no defence for it at all. If the cost of living has gone up by 86 per cent., surely the income level at which the pension begins should be increased still more. If you take the case of a man and his wife and have the income and realise that it has gone from £20 to £26 the figure seems even more ludicrous.
I thought, perhaps, when I saw the Bill, that maybe the Government had some other plans for bringing the cost of living down by 30 per cent. That was the promise clearly made by one Party which maintains the Government in office. That, combined with the tremendous subsidies costing the taxpayers some £50,000,000, would make more reasonable this new means test allowance of £52 instead of £39. I see no effort on the part of the Government to reduce the cost of living by means of subsidies. Indeed, the cost of living has gone up slightly and this figure has no relation to it. I would ask the Minister to consider again this question of valuation, above all in the interest of high production in the small farm areas.
It was almost touching to listen to Deputy MacEntee this evening. He shed crocodile tears, of course —they are in plentiful supply with the Deputy—over old age pensioners, and then we had his passionate solicitude for the abolition of the means test. The Deputy is nearly as bad an actor as he is a disastrous Deputy. We had an exhibition of acrobatics from him. He was teeming with sympathy for the pensioners and demanded the immediate abolition of the means test. He could not understand why it had not been abolished already. He wanted everybody in the House to enter into one mass whoopee in favour of the abolition of the means test. Does the Deputy believe even what he says himself?
I know the Minister does not.
What are the facts? For 16 years Deputy MacEntee sat on these benches and, during the best part of that period, was either Minister for Local Government or Minister for Finance, with considerable power to influence the scale of old age pensions and whatever type of means test was to be applied, but although he sat here for 16 years with all the power he needed to abolish the means test or substantially to modify the test, there was no such modification or abolition. Indeed, that aspect never entered the Deputy's head. The position to-day is that after 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government the means test is back where it was in 1924. Between 1932 and 1948 Fianna Fáil left the means test exactly as it was.
We did not make promises, but you did.
From 1932 to 1948 the means test underwent no modification, and during that period Fianna Fáil was in office.
Was not Section 7 of the Act of 1924 repealed under the 1932 Act?
The means test in 1948, when Fianna Fáil left office, was the same as when they came in in 1932.
The Minister knows that that is not correct.
It is not correct. Section 7 of the 1924 Act was repealed by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932, which meant in effect that the means of any person in kind was abolished completely; and, further, where a transfer was carried out on the occasion of a marriage, that transfer was not accepted. There was no means test there and that was a very big thing.
The ceiling for means test purposes under the Old Age Pensions Act is the same to-day as it was in 1924 and in 1932.
That is not so.
I do not mind Deputy MacEntee denying it, but it cannot truthfully be denied. Now, Deputy MacEntee is bursting to abolish the means test. To abolish it for old age pensions purposes would cost £3,500,000, in addition to what is provided in this Bill.
The Minister promised to abolish it.
In due course and to your sorrow the Minister will abolish it. That rod is in pickle for you yet. It would cost £3,500,000 to abolish the means test, apart from the money which is being made available under this Bill, and which in the aggregate amounts to £2,500,000. Deputy MacEntee said we remitted taxation on cigarettes, beer and cinema seats.
I did not mention cinema seats.
Well, we will drop that. The argument will hold all the better without that, because the last Government taxed the cinemas and got in less revenue than before the tax was imposed. That was one of the brainy things done by Fianna Fáil. Let us take tobacco and beer. The last Government r a i s e d approximately £6,000,000 in taxation on beer and tobacco. Whilst you had the £6,000,000 —an amount which is not available to us because we remitted the taxation —you could not put up another penny to increase old age pensions or modify the means test. We remitted £6,000,000 taxation on cigarettes and beer definitely and deliberately and we are still making available £2,500,000 for improving old age pensions and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. All Deputy MacEntee's histrionics here will not conceal from the people that under this Government they have had £6,000,000 remitted in taxation on cigarettes, tobacco, beer and cinema seats and, in addition, are getting £2,500,000 extra to improve old age pensions and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions.
Deputy MacEntee read some election addresses in which he said certain members of various Parties stood for increasing old age pensions.
Yes, including the Irish Labour Party.
I think I stood for that in my election address. It is a wonder the Deputy has not a copy of it from which to quote. I still stand for that. We did not promise better old age pensions within a month or two after being returned. We never promised to introduce a scheme of old age pensions of the kind referred to by the Deputy in election addresses in any particular period of time. We did promise a comprehensive scheme of social services and that scheme will be introduced and for those who will be affected by the scheme I hope the means test will be abolished entirely. When Deputy MacEntee talks about old age pensions of 25/- and 26/- a week and regards this as something that will shake the foundations of the nation, I hope we will provide old age pensions of 25/- and 26/- a week, and I hope we will provide them at 65 as well.
I do not want to run away from anything said in the election on behalf of myself or the Labour Party. As soon as we can do it, a comprehensive scheme of social services will be introduced and I hope it will abolish the means test and step up old age pensions to 25/- and 26/- a week. I hope it will provide them at 65 years. So far as I can do it, it will be done and I think I have got the support of the rest of the inter-Party Government.
You are lying down under another policy. The Minister has declared he is standing for a policy of no means test and now he is lying down under the policy of a means test.
No, what I am doing is something my predecessor never intended to do. If Deputy Dr. Ryan were in the House at the moment he would not attempt to challenge the accuracy of this statement, that Fianna Fáil did not intend to step up old age pensions after the recent elections if they were returned. They did not intend to step up widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. These were things that were put down well in the queue for consideration later. I am doing something now by giving £2,500,000 to people who would not have got a penny if Fianna Fáil were in power. I challenge anybody to deny that. The old age pensioners and the non-contributory widows and orphans were being put down low in the queue to wait there until something else turned up.
I say this is a good Bill; it is a movement towards a better code of social service. I do not say it is the best Bill in the world. It is a considerable improvement on what we have had up to the present. It is one of the many steps which we hope will be taken further to improve our social welfare legislation, even though it annoys Deputies opposite. We must remember that under the Bill 130,000 persons who at present receive 12/6 or 15/- of an old age pension will get 17/6 per week, an increase from 2/6 to 5/6 per week. Some people will even get an increase of 5/6 per week. These facts cannot be gainsaid. These are the outstanding features of the Bill.
Some people may not get any increase.
There might be a handful of people who might not get the increase, a mere handful out of almost 160,000 persons. Some of these did not get because of the action of the Fianna Fáil Government which did not since July of last year give them cash supplements in lieu of the food vouchers which they were previously given. One hundred and thirty thousand persons will have their pensions lifted to 17/6 per week by this Bill. If the Fianna Fáil Government had done that there would not be enough white horses in Galway to take Deputy Killilea home.
One hundred and thirty thousand millionaires in this country!
Deputy Childers raised the question of farmers in connection with the means test. It is not possible in the time available to have this matter examined with any care or precision and, in any case, it is not possible or desirable that we should at this stage launch out into a revision of the means test in that line alone. I think the whole question of what counts as means and the best way of getting a simplification of the means test will have to be gone into in detail. I have undertaken to do that in connection with the comprehensive scheme which I hope to introduce next year. At this stage I do not think it is possible to do it and I think it would be dishonest to do it when the time available does not permit of a thorough examination of the problem. However, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of excluding small farmers from the scope and purpose of the means test, but I should like to have the matter examined with great care before we come to any decision in the matter.
There is no doubt that Section 9 of the Bill has been most disappointing, not alone to members of the House, many of whom are interested in a special way in the schedule governing the means test, but is a great disappointment to thousands of old people all over the country who believed, from the propaganda of many of the people who now form the Government, that they were sincere in their promises to abolish the means test or certainly to alter it in a considerable degree. The worst feature of the Bill is that the lower figures as regards the means test have not been altered at all. I had hoped that the Minister might have restored the figures in the means test to those obtaining even at the time when Fine Gael were in office in 1924, when they were altered from £26 5s. to £15 12s 6d. If there is one Section more than another that would stand to benefit by that it is the old road worker, who, when he attains the age of 70 years of age and is able to work, will get, say, two days' work on the road. According to the present scale, if he works two days he is not entitled to the maximum old age pension. I should like the Minister to take cases of that kind into consideration because a man who has been accustomed to earn, say, 55/- per week—many of them have been able to earn more in the past—will be very hard hit under this Bill.
Again, I had hoped that that other section of the community to whom this State owes much—the mountainy farmer with a small valuation who has poor land, perhaps a large family and has very often to undergo terrible hardships—would be brought within the scope of this Bill. We owe much to them and anything that the State could do for them would never sufficiently repay them. They converted their homes into barracks in the past and many of them have never recovered financially from what they spent and lost, in order that this country should regain its independence. I believe it behoves any Government——
The economic war hit some of them even harder.
They were not the first to flinch in the economic war. They did not flinch in 1920 or any other period, and if they were asked to-morrow morning, they would do the very same thing. I thought that that very deserving section of the community would be brought within the scope of the Bill. We have heard a lot about the extent to which 130,000 people will benefit. Most of them will benefit by 2/6 per week. Fianna Fáil raised old age pensions in many cases from nil to 12/6 per week because previous to the Fianna Fáil amending Act of 1932 no matter how a farmer was situated, his support in his own house counted as means, and the result was in many cases that his means exceeded the amount that would entitle him to receive 1/- pension. Many workers, after years of toil in the agricultural industry or otherwise, when it came to the stage when they were no longer able to work, were still maintained by their old employers. These generous Irish families would never allow them to go to the county home. But they kept them, and the fact that they kept them in their home counted as means and they were not entitled to the old age pension. That is an achievement of Fianna Fáil that they can be very proud of, and if they had never done anything else during their period of office they can be very proud of it.
I am afraid that the Minister for Social Welfare is too tender-hearted about taxing the people of this country a little more to help the old age pensioners. He forgets, I am afraid, that there is hardly an old age pensioner who does not take a smoke of tobacco or a pint of stout if he can afford it and that goes back into the taxes again.
A Deputy
You forgot that last year.
We did not forget it in 1932. I suggest that the Fine Gael Deputies should read the 1924 Act.
You forgot it in 1947.
We gave you your business back by taking the tax off the beer and tobacco.
I advise the Deputies not to be drawing me out on those things. I advise the Fine Gael Deputies before criticising Fianna Fáil administration to get familiar with Section 7 of the 1924 Act. The British in their day did not do it, but under that section anything transferred for three years before the man reached the age of 70 or any time after it was taken into consideration and it was taken for granted that he had that means he had transferred. That is a very sore point.
We had hoped that the question of the £10 valuation would be accepted, and, if it is, we will be bringing within the scope of the Bill many of the small farmers of the country. The trouble with small farmers is that they have probably four or five in family, but their financial circumstances do not allow them to transfer to any of them, whereas the well-to-do man can settle his family, transfer his holdings and give dowries to his daughters. I do not say that he does it for the purpose of qualifying for the pension, but he does it in the ordinary course of events and it does qualify him for the old age pension.
There seems to be an idea in the minds of many Deputies that the previous year's earnings are put against the applicant and will be put against him for six months after he reaches the age of 70. I agree with the Minister that that is not correct, and I would like to disabuse the minds of Deputies who think otherwise. I would ask the Minister to alter the schedule even to £26. It is not asking very much; it is in his power; it is not going to cost very much to the country and the ultimate result will be that the country will benefit and that a really deserving section of the community will come within the scope of old age pensions.
I want to say only a few words expressing my approval of the attitude taken up by the Minister in relation to this section. The Minister has stated on this section and earlier in the discussion on this Bill that he was not going to be forced into the position of having to attempt to defend or justify the means test, that his aim and the aim of the Government would be the complete abolition of the means test and that an intermediate step, or at any rate a step, towards achieving that object is this provision contained in Section 9 modifying the means test.
I must say that I am impressed by the way in which the Minister has dealt with this Bill. He has explained quite frankly to the House that he had a certain amount of money at his disposal on this Bill and that it was his suggestion how that money should be spent. I merely intervene to appeal to Deputies opposite, if they have suggestions to put forward of a concrete and constructive nature—and Deputy Dr. Ryan did that in a number of cases this afternoon—if they have suggestions to put forward which they believe should be supported, they should have the courage to face up to the position and say to the Minister: "We press you to accept our view on this and we would ask you to cut out the money you are going to give to that other point." I think that that is the only fair way for the Deputies opposite to meet the Minister in view of the manner in which he has approached this measure. I would like the Deputies opposite to understand that if they are putting forward suggestions they must be prepared to point out to the Minister what saving he is going to make in other sections of this Bill if their particular viewpoint is to be met.
I was very glad to hear Deputy Davern admit what the Deputies opposite have hotly denied for the past four or five months, that there are people in this country, even in the category of old age pensioners, who smoke a pipe or a cigarette and who drink a pint. That admission has come now four or five months after the attitude taken up by Fianna Fáil that the worst thing that could have happened was the removal of the taxes under the Supplementary Budget. I want to say that Deputy Davern's admission not only is that this Bill has improved in a direct way the conditions of the pensioners, but also that the action which was so much criticised by the Deputies on those benches in relation to the removal of the taxes imposed in the Supplementary Budget has also considerably improved the position of the pensioners. I think that it is due to us to stand up and thank Deputy Davern for that admission. He is the first Fianna Fáil Deputy who has made it.
I want to say one thing further before I sit down. I endorse the attitude that the Minister and we on this side of the House are not justifying the means test. I would like to see the day when the means test will go entirely, but the Minister has explained why it cannot be done at the moment, and he has given reasons which, I think, are in every way sound and logical. I would like to see the day when the means test would ultimately go. I do not think it is unfair of us, speaking from these benches, to remind the Deputies opposite that the step taken by the Minister in modifying the means test after being in office for less than six months is a very big improvement on the position obtaining under the Fianna Fáil Administration and that it is not very long since every Fianna Fáil Deputy who was in this House voted solidly against the modification of the means test.
I do not adopt the attitude that it is a good argument in all cases to say to Fianna Fáil: "You were there 16 years and you did not do it". It is not an argument that might convince other people, but it is a good argument and a valid argument when dealing with matters put forward by Deputies on the opposite benches. They had the responsibility, they had the authority and they had the power for 16 years. Now that the Minister is making an effort and a big effort in the right direction, I think that he is entitled to ask their support and to ask them, in view of the explanation he has given of this Bill, if they are putting forward suggestions that they are particularly anxious that he should accept that they should point out to him what reductions he will make in other parts of the Bill—with their support. That is a point that should be met in an honest way by the Deputies opposite.
I think that everybody should admit, irrespective of politics or of any other consideration, that this measure is a great advance. I am anxious to raise one point and one point only. Assuming that the Bill will not become effective until the end of this year or January, could the Minister see his way to have any retrospective regulation covering claims that are now being made? Pending such an arrangement, he should have some more liberal interpretation given to these claims. The claims are now being heard and for the next few months will be considered on the basis of the existing means test. I have come across some cases in the past week where the interpretation was very rigid and where the people cannot appeal for six months. I should like to know if some provision could be made in this Bill whereby, when their claims are being dealt with, they could get the benefit of the new legislation. I realise that it is a difficult problem but, in the circumstances, I ask the Minister to consider the matter carefully.
This social legislation which we are putting through the House is going to be the permanent law of the country. The Minister told us that he had a comprehensive measure in view. The position, however, is that we have an opportunity now of discussing a very vexed question in a constructive manner. All that we have heard from the Minister is about the 16 years. The Minister now has an opportunity of doing something to alleviate the means test on the point I have already raised this evening. Under this Bill the agricultural worker is being taxed to the extent of £1 6s. 0d. more. I know some of these workers in the County Dublin who are working beyond 70 years of age and up to 78 years of age. They are trying to carry on. Now the Minister has an opportunity of saving a number of these people from further distress by making some change in the means test. They have now to wait a year although the Minister is asking them to contribute £1 6s. 0d. more for old age and widows' and orphans' pensions. They will possibly get national health benefit if they are not able to work, but when they come to old age they have to go on home assistance. I put it to the Minister that he has an opportunity now of doing something, even if it costs the State £100,000 or £200,000, which I do not believe it will. The Minister should do something now when he is framing this legislation and not be telling us what he is going to do next year. The Minister has an opportunity of doing something now which he may not have an opportunity of doing next year, because I sincerely hope that we will be on the Government Benches then. All these are matters which I come up against every day.
The Minister is giving an extra 2/6 per week to a certain section of the people. I hope he will give an assurance to those old age pensioners who are tempted to do an odd day's work in order to provide clothes or boots for themselves or their wives that that will not interfere with their pension. The Minister says he is going to deal with that under the comprehensive scheme. But this Bill will not give any help in regard to that matter. It is a case of "live horse and you will get grass." We have an opportunity now which we had not before of dealing with this matter. I spoke on this matter when I was on the Government back benches.
You voted against it.
Something should be done in regard to this matter. When he was in opposition, the Minister always spoke about it. He has the machinery now in his hands to do it and he should not fail to do it. I am also disappointed with this £52 5s. 0d. which is laid down as a maximum. That will not give very much relief. I agree with the Deputy who said that it would be better to give 2/6 all round and then bring in a comprehensive Bill which we would all appreciate more. There are many snags which I come up against at old age pension meetings. The Minister referred the other day to the question of the road workers. When I went home I looked up some claims which came before the old age pension meetings. The road worker gets an unemployment allowance for six months, but the position is that that six months, plus the six months he has worked, are taken into consideration before he will get an old age pension of 7/- a week. Then there is the case of the old age pensioner who does a few days' work. That man should not be prevented from earning a few shillings when he has an opportunity of doing so.
As to the means test generally, there are many things which require amendment. The investigating officers should not put an assessment on such trivial things as a few hens or apple trees which may be in a garden, as I have known them to do. Surely legislation could be framed to enable the Minister to do something about the means test and to eliminate all that. Now that legislation is being introduced by the Government, it would be a thousand times better if the Minister could say that he is giving £2,500,000 more rather than not meet the point at all, as is the case at present. The fact of the matter is that he is taxing the wage earner of the community—the agricultural worker. He is taxing him at the rate of £1 6s. 0d. per annum, and then, when he reaches 70 years of age, he cannot claim the old age pension for another year after that. The same remarks apply to a number of other similar cases. I should have liked the Minister, when he was introducing this measure, to do so in a more comprehensive fashion. I would point out that there is no difference in the means test under this Bill. You may say that you have increased the ceiling from £39 to £52 but, taking present wages and the cost of living into consideration, it is even a lower means test than the £39 was a few years ago.
The Minister is raising quite a lot of money. While he may say that he is giving £2,500,000, he is raising a lot of taxation from the workers and the employers generally. It is important for him to consider whether it is very wise policy to tax these people to pay the old age pensions or whether it should be a general form of taxation. The Minister, in reply to the points I made to him, made a personal attack on Deputy MacEntee and spoke a lot about 16 years. There is no point in going over what has happened in the past. The Minister has the ball at his toe now and he should kick it into the goal rather than side-step it.
Say a penalty kick, to make it easy.
I know that every old age pensions sub-committee throughout the country, when they read up the sections of this Bill, will not be a bit grateful because they are going to be in the same dilemma as they were before——
Not if you can help it.
——except for the £10 ceiling that has already been put on.
On a point of order, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would indicate if we are going to go beyond Section 9 to-night. It would convenience me personally if I knew that.
That is not a point of order.
We have listened to the Minister make his usual attack on Deputy MacEntee. It strikes me from time to time when I listen to the same Minister that, if we had not Deputy MacEntee in the House, he would be often stuck for an excuse or a way out of his difficulties.
Dear, dear.
He gave us a lengthy explanation as to why the means test cannot be removed at the moment. An explanation similar to that was given by the previous Minister, who was dealing with that particular problem two years ago. That explanation of finance was one thing that cropped up at that particular time and the present Minister heard it. In spite of that, and whether it was educational or not for him, he promised 26/- a week and the abolition of the means test, in addition to all the other promises he made. If he had considered the case made at that particular time I do not think he would have made such a wild statement.
We have heard him make another promise to-night and one which, because of the way in which he made it, he does not ever hope to fulfil, I think. He hopes that sometime in the future—he does not say whether next year, ten years, 15 years, or 30 years hence—the means test will be abolished. There is no indication as to how he proposes to do so or of what effort may be made in that direction. I think that while the present Minister for Finance is holding his economic axe over the head of the Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister for Social Welfare does not dare move in that direction. It was clearly indicated in all statements to which we have listened that we are disappointed that amendment No. 5 could not be accepted.
The reason why I am now urging the Minister to try and introduce a similar amendment to amendment No. 5 is that all over the country we have uneconomic holdings under £10 in valuation. Take, for instance, a father, a mother and a son living on such a holding. They are not able to pay that son any wages. Then they make an arrangement whereby the son is allowed by the father and mother to put a certain amount of stock—perhaps a few cattle; a half-a-dozen or a dozen sheep—if the land is able to carry as much as that—on the land. When the pension officer comes along to calculate the claimant's means we find that on a number of occasions the means of this son, daughter or whatever relative may be living with those old people are counted as means on behalf of the claimant. The position is, however, that the claimant has absolutely nothing whatever to do with them other than that they were given by way of compensation for the work the son or daughter is doing on the holding. I should like to put that case strongly to the Minister. I hope that he will find some way of getting over that difficulty. It is a big difficulty and it is one I am sure which has come to the Minister's notice, as well as to mine, on many occasions during the years he has been a Deputy here. The marvellous things that have been done by way of reduction of the tax on beer, cigarettes and cinemas are to-day again elaborated upon by Deputy O'Higgins and by the Minister.
It was raised by Deputy MacEntee.
I do not know that we can discuss that from the point of view that I should like to discuss it. We have, however, already clearly indicated the reasons why we were opposed to that. We pointed out on many occasions the amount of unemployment and so forth which was caused in order to get rid of those particular taxes.
You must have been reading to-day's Irish Press.
However, none of us ever expected when this Bill was being brought in that the labourer all over the country was going to be mulcted in his national health and unemployment contributions, and so forth, in order to compensate the old age pensioner or the widow. I think that if those people had an option to-day of paying something extra for their pint instead of on the insurance, it is very doubtful but that they would take the other way out.
Oh, no.
That is not going to be pointed out to them. They are going to be told that this is free, gratis and for nothing. Nobody is going to tell them that national health insurance is one of the things that will be brought in to compensate the old age pensioner and that the increase is not coming out of the national Exchequer through ordinary taxation on commodities such as the ones that have been referred to so often. The Government has tried to create the impression here that we are disappointed because this legislation is being introduced by them.
We are considering Section 9 only.
I am merely referring to statements made by Deputy Davern and Deputy O'Higgins. I welcome any increase given to the poorer sections of the community. I think that the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party should be somewhat shy of talking about social services, judging by the record of that particular Party. I shall not go into that now. Every member on this side of the House has always supported social legislation of this particular type. We were the first to come here as a Government and introduce legislation to help the poorer and more deserving sections of the community.
Apart altogether from the sparkling compliments so delicately phrased in relation to myself by the Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister has raised a number of matters in his last contribution to this debate which, I think, ought to be dealt with before we conclude on Section 9. Among other things, he made a few slighting references to the record of the Fianna Fáil Administration in regard to old age pensions. He suggested that the Act of 1932, which was passed, as the House will remember, against the opposition of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—as it used to call itself then—was an Act of no account. Deputy Davern, who is familiar with the Act, pointed out that it had brought about an epoch-making amendment in the old age pension code and that it abolished Section 7 of the Act of 1924. The Act of 1924 was, of course, the iniquitous Cumann na nGaedheal Act—one of the first passed by that Administration—under which the means test was intensified and made more rigorous, and the old age pension was reduced from 10/- to 9/-per week.
The Act of 1932 was passed by Fianna Fáil. It was very largely based upon the Act of 1931, which was introduced by Deputy Dr. Ward, as he then was, and which resulted in the defeat of the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government on the Second Reading of the Bill. That Act was, as Deputy Davern pointed out, epoch-making in many respects. It contained a great number of innovations in regard to the administration of the old age pensions code. It provided, among other things, that a person living in his own house or with his own family, would not have accounted as means the cost of his maintenance or the cost of his lodgings. Prior to the Act of 1932 the Party which now controls the coalition, the Party of which the Minister for Finance is one of the representatives in the Cabinet, had insisted that if a son kept his father in the house, which the father had handed over to him, the cost of the old man's board and lodgings would be accounted as means. We abolished that. The Minister for Social Welfare has had the hardihood to-night to suggest that when we abolished that iniquitous provision and that unfilial provision both from the point of view of the natural law and, more important still, the Divine Law, we had made no significant amendment to the means test. Similarly, by providing that when a farm was assigned to a son that assignment would operate for the purpose of the income-tax code to divest the applicant for an old age pension and would under the law, as it existed prior to 1932, be accounted against the applicant; and the Minister for Social Welfare has the temerity to tell us then that we made no significant amendment in the means test.
The significance of the amendments which were made by the Fianna Fáil Government both in the year 1932 and again last year can be demonstrated by a perusal of the Estimates for old age pensions which were presented to this House in 1931 and in this year. In 1931—I am speaking now from memory —the total cost of old age pensions under the old age pension code of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was £2,750,000. This year the Estimate which the Fianna Fáil Administration would have presented to the House for old age pensions would have been of the order of £5,280,000. That represents an increase as between 1931 and 1948 of £2,530,000—over £2,500,000. What is the Minister for Social Welfare bragging about? Is he bragging that this Bill which he proposes to introduce and, as has been pointed out here by a number of Deputies, towards the cost of which he proposes to tax the contributors under various other social insurance schemes, is only providing an additional £1,500,000 over and above the figure which would have been presented to this House for this year by a Fianna Fáil Government? That £1,500,000 is going to be provided next year—not this year.
Does the Deputy not admit that this is a Second Reading speech?
No, because the Minister for Social Welfare traversed the record of the Fianna Fáil Administration. You were not in the Chair, Sir, when the Minister for Social Welfare made a long speech on the subject. He said that during the 16 years we had been in office we had done nothing. Let me point out that we had already indicated—and the Minister knows this as well as I do—that we were preparing a scheme of social insurance and that the Estimates for this year were far below the Estimates we would have presented next year for a social security scheme dealing, among other things, with old age pensions.
You are always great fellows in the future.
Order.
Will the adolescents in this Assembly please keep quiet?
The modification of the means test was introduced by Fianna Fáil in 1932 and subsequently resulted in an increase in the amount provided for old age pensions of £2,530,000. I say that by way of rebuttal of the statement made by the Minister, who attempted wilfully to deceive the junior members of this House as to what had been done by Fianna Fáil during the 16 years that he was here, not supporting Fianna Fáil, because most of the things we did, we did at a period when we were completely independent of him. It is true that in 1932 the Labour Party, under his leadership, supported us, but we had introduced the Old Age Pensions Bill of 1932 in the previous Dáil of 1931 and we had beaten the Cumann na nGaedheal Government of the day upon it.
I come now to Deputy Michael O'Higgins. I am sorry he is not in the House. He is a most ingenuous speaker, the prolific progenitor of red herrings. He started off by saying that the Minister had announced on the Second Reading and subsequently that he was not going to be put in the position of justifying the means test. What was the speech which we listened to from the Minister unless it was one long justification of the means test? It is true that it was a poor justification enough. He said one of the justifications was that we had retained the means test. We retained it, but we did not promise the people last January and February that we were going to abolish the means test. On the contrary, as the Minister recalled this evening, when resolutions were put down by the Minister's associates and by members of the National Labour Party and the Irish Labour Party calling for the abolition of the means test, we pointed out why, in our view at the time, we would have to retain the means test.
What has the Minister been doing here this evening unless telling the House that he must retain the means test, not because Fianna Fáil retained it, though he seemed to think that was some justification for breaking the pledge he gave the people, but because he had a limited amount of money. He said his money was limited and within the money allocated to him he was trying to do the best he could. Surely that is a justification for the means test? If he says: "I can only spend so much and because of that I must have the means test," what is that but a justification for the test? It is a poor justification, coming from the Minister who, as a Deputy, was told that to abolish it would cost £3,500,000. It would not have cost quite that sum last year. It will under this Bill cost perhaps something more. The Ministers of the previous Government were discussing this means test on various occasions on motions that were put down for consideration here, and they disclosed that to abolish the test would cost a sum running into millions. When the Minister, as a candidate at the election, promised that he would abolish the means test, he knew it would cost £3,500,000. Surely, that does not justify him in retaining the test when he promised to abolish it?
I said that Deputy Michael O'Higgins was most ingenuous in his speech. He asked us to accept the limitations imposed on the Minister by the Fine Gael element in the Coalition. The Minister has been very eloquent indeed in telling the House that he hopes some day—it may be soon and it may be late—to abolish the means test. Therefore, we may take it that the Minister thinks the test ought not to be there. Though he does not believe in it he is accepting the condition imposed on him by the Fine Gael element of the Coalition.
That is an untruth—a typical MacEntee untruth.
If so, I have been grossly deceived by the Minister's back-bencher, Deputy Michael O'Higgins, who told us that the Minister had only a limited amount of money at his disposal and that if we wanted to have conditions ameliorated in one form or another we ought to suggest what provisions of this Act we were prepared to have deteriorated at the expense of the beneficiaries under it in order that we might gain our particular point. That is what Deputy O'Higgins suggested and I take it that when Deputy O'Higgins told us that the Minister had only a limited amount of money at his disposal he was speaking from inside knowledge. Now we are not going to accept that position. We are discussing this problem of the means test on exactly the same basis as it was discussed throughout the length and breadth of this country a few months ago. We are going to discuss it in exactly the same way and in the same terms as it was argued from the various election platforms by the present Minister and those who support him. The line they took then was that the means test should be abolished. Are they going to fulfil their pledges to the people?
They will.
Then let them fulfil them now when they have the opportunity. It is not after the next election, it is not next year, but it is on this Bill, their first Social Welfare Bill, that these pledges should be fulfilled. This is the time, now that they have got a chance of fulfilling their pledges, to carry out their promises and not to be running away from them. The Minister, who wanted to abolish the means test six months ago, has now told the House that he has not got £3,500,000.
A reply to election speeches is hardly relevant on a section of the Bill.
I am not replying to election speeches. I am replying to the Minister, who said that he wanted to abolish the means test. Why not abolish it to-day? After all, he told us that he is giving away £6,000,000 this year, and to abolish the means test would cost only £3,500,000. He could have abolished the means test if he wanted to fulfil his election promises.
And the Deputy is not referring to election promises!
If he wanted to fulfil his promises to the Dáil, if he wanted to abolish the means test, he had the wherewithal to do it in this £6,000,000 which he told us he was giving away. It would cost only £3,500,000—why, therefore, has it not been abolished? He has a majority in the House to follow him into the Division Lobby, some, perhaps, a little unwillingly, because many of them have a greater doubt of the wisdom of abolishing the means test than the Minister has. They will, however, follow him into the Division Lobby, because there is one who has been made an example of and they do not want to figure as outliers or Ishmaelites. They are going to vote with the Government if there is a division. Why do they not now, before this section is passed, say to the Minister: "You do not believe in the means test; we do not believe in the means test. There is considerable support for the abolition of it. You said you had plenty of money to give away last March. Why not abolish the means test with that money and allow us to face our constituents as honest men who have kept our pledges to the electorate?"
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 not moved, being out of order.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (4), line 23, page 7, to delete the word "April" and insert the world "July" therefor.
The Section as it stands provides a period of less than three months during which notice may be given to the pensions officers and that, I suggest, is insufficient. I, therefore, propose to substitute the 1st July for the 1st April. It is a very small amendment and I do not know that there can be any objection to it. The only objection I can possibly see is that if notification is received on the 1st April, it would be received within the financial year, but if it is received on the 1st April it would be obviously impossible to have it investigated before the 5th April, so that from the point of view of the financial year, that matter is of no great importance. The amendment provides that the class of people mentioned in the sub-section will have an extra period of a few months in which to submit their application for consideration.
The position in connection with this amendment is briefly that increases, because of alterations in the means test, will be made on his own initiative by the pensions officer on the existing record of means, but where an increased pension is claimed by a blind person, because of the exclusion of certain earnings from the means calculations, the initiative must be taken by the pensioner and the Bill allows three months in which he may take this action if he has overlooked taking it earlier.
It is possible for a blind pensioner, immediately after the enactment of the Bill, to say to the local committee: "Take notice of the fact that I claim that my means do not exceed a certain sum." Any such intimation by the blind pensioner will be taken as an intimation that his means call for revision and his pension will be adjusted in accordance with whatever means it is considered he is possessed of. He may do that up to the 31st December next. Under the Bill, he may do it up to the 1st April, so he has in all approximately six months in which to make representations as to the alteration in his means. That seems to be a reasonable period. I think that Deputy Cowan put down the amendment under the impression that the person could only start to ask for a revision of his means in Januay. That is not so; he can start immediately the Act is passed. To that extent he will have the six months which Deputy Cowan wished he might get under his amendment. Perhaps, in view of that explanation, the Deputy would not proceed with the amendment.
I did not think it was necessary to proceed with the amendment because I thought that after I had mentioned what was in my mind in connection with it, I could withdraw the amendment and let the Minister consider it between now and next stage. Probably it would be feasible for him then to grant these extra few months. I shall withdraw the amendment and leave it to the Minister to consider it.
If the Deputy wishes, I shall have it examined, but he should bear in mind that it is only blind pensioners who are affected by this and I am giving them six months in which to ask for a revision of their means.
I appreciate that, but it is an extraordinary thing that no matter what length of time you will allow there is always somebody who, for some reason or another, does not make the application within that time.
There would be the same difficulty if we added another six months.
The extra two months would not make a lot of difference.
If there is any doubt about it, I am prepared to agree to the Deputy's suggestion so that these persons will have a sufficiently long period. It means giving a person nine months now. I shall accept the amendment as it stands.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment No. 8 is not being moved, as it is out of order.
I understand that the ruling out of order of any amendment is due to the fact that there is a potential charge on public funds. I was reading the answer which the Minister gave to Deputy Aiken to-day, and I think that, according to the Minister's answer, the amendment might not mean a charge on public funds.
Would it not extend indefinitely the person saved under the section; and, if so, would it not mean a public charge on the Exchequer? If it increases the number of people saved under the clause, surely it will increase the charge on the Exchequer?
That is what I thought myself.
If it does not increase the number saved under the clause what is the effect of it?
According to the answer given by the Minister to the Deputy to-day it would not. His answer was that in certain cases old age pensions are increased from 12/6 by 5/- to 17/6. He said that some of these pensioners were formerly in receipt of food vouchers in respect of dependent children which were substituted by cash supplements under the Cash Supplements Orders, and he added, "These Orders which were made last year did not, however, make provision for similar increases in respect of children, to subsequent claimants." If the Minister is right in that, I submit that my amendment would not have the effect of increasing the public charge and, therefore, I claim it is in order.
The trouble of the Chair was what was the purpose of it. If it did not increase the number it would not increase the charge, but if it did increase the number it would increase the charge.
If the Minister is right, it does not increase the charge, and my amendment is in order. If the Minister's answer is correct I do not see what objection he could have to seeing the amendment passed. It would be a much cleanre section with this amendment in it, to say that no person etc., and so on, would receive less than he would receive if this Act had not been passed.
The position is that Section 13 as it stands ensures that no existing pensioner will have his or her pension reduced, if it happens, as it does in certain isolated cases, that the pension payable under the Bill is less than that payable under existing Acts and Orders. The outstanding case is that of pensioners who are drawing a cash supplement in place of food vouchers for dependent children. The Bill does make provision for dependent children, but their cash supplement will not be paid to them under this Bill. In some few cases for this reason the pension may be less than it is under existing Acts and Orders because of the food vouchers arrangement. But the changes in the means test may, in fact, eliminate the possibility, and in any event the present beneficiaries will not be prejudiced. In examining future claims to pensions, it would be necessary to examine each case under the old code as well as under the new one and that would be impracticable. I think that the Deputy is trying to provide for a situation which may not arise at all.
It does not mean an increased charge?
It could be held that it would.
Which leg is the Minister standing on?
I do not mind its being argued, and I do not mind its being voted on. There would, of course, be an increased charge. It depends on the way you look at it.
If it would mean an increased charge it cannot be moved.
This is an unusual kind of situation. We must examine it in view of the fact that food vouchers were issued for dependent children and were subsequently withdrawn. They were substituted by cash, but they were not the same as the vouchers.
What I was aiming at in the amendment was that blind persons would get certain allowances for their children which would not be less favourable than what they got last year. I think the Minister should take a sympathetic view of that. I am not very clear on this, I must admit, because it is very involved, but if the Minister is not doing as well for the blind pensioner with a family for the future as was done for him for the past three or four years, I think that he should bring in some amendment correcting that. He cannot use either of his two arguments here. He cannot say that Fianna Fáil did not do it or he cannot say that he has not the money, because it would cost nothing. The total cost would not be £1,000 a year, because very few people would be affected. If a blind pensioner has a comparatively large family or a very large one he should be treated as well as he was treated for the last four or five years and that is what my amendment aimed at.
Deputy Dr. Ryan says that he does not understand all that is involved. If he did he would see that there is nothing much in his amendment at all. The position was that the blind person received food vouchers for his children, and when the food vouchers were abolished, got a cash settlement. That position meant that you may have a certain number of blind persons who, because of the food voucher arrangement, are getting in the aggregate more than they would get under this Bill, which provides for a uniform rate of pension. What you have to bear in mind, however, is that there is a new type of means test for blind persons and you have a situation therefore in which a blind person gets an exemption in respect of his earnings of £52 per annum with £39 per annum for his wife and £26 for each child. Thus, blind persons are put in a specially privileged position with respect to the means test which does not apply to old age pensioners or to applicants for widows' and orphans' pensions. Many people cannot be affected by this provision, but I think it is clearly desirable to try to maintain throughout the country a uniform, maximum rate of pension such as the Bill provides, namely, 17/6 for blind persons with a standard type of means test. If the Deputy's amendment were carried there would be varying rates of pensions for varying classes of blind persons and I think on the balance it would be preferable to have a standard rate of blind pension rather than to provide for the peculiarities which flooded over to us through the food vouchers arrangement. As a balance to that, it is guaranteed that nobody——
No existing pensioner.
——no existing pensioner will lose and there is a new means test which will exempt a blind man with a wife and two children up to £143.
If he is able to earn it.
If he is able to earn it, if he gets it from a charitable institution, or if he gets it from a blind welfare scheme.
A point I want to make is that a blind pensioner with no means or very little means and with a big family will not be nearly so well off in four or five years' time as he would have been if this Act had never been passed and if the food vouchers arrangement had never been abolished.
The blind person has a saving clause against any possible reduction in his pension.
I agree with that. The Minister may even tell me—I think he did say it or if he does I will accept it —that the food vouchers Order would not affect future pensioners. I want to see the measure made right for blind pensioners, either present or future, and that they will get children's allowances.
The Deputy appreciates that he did not make it right himself in July of last year. He made it wrong by depriving new claimants of the value of the cash supplements.
I did not appreciate that when I was there. I am quite sure that it would have been drawn to my attention when it began to operate against certain people. I did not appreciate that that was being done. I do not think the Minister can use the argument that he has only £2,500,000 to spend. I am sure it will not cost much. There are only 7,000 or 8,000 blind pensioners altogether and the number of these with big families must be very small.
I will look into the matter again. I think the Deputy will appreciate, however, that there is some value in trying to get a standard pension code, particularly when you give an assurance that nobody will be adversely affected by the Bill. When I say adversely affected, I mean that nobody will be prevented from getting the increased rate of pension under this Bill and that the new means test may, in fact, eliminate those almost entirely. It certainly will eliminate a very substantial number.
It may eliminate certain people.
Will the Minister see that the local authorities will not assess this cash supplement as means, as happened in Cork, when the change in the unemployment assistance was made before the Minister came into office? The corporation passed a resolution deciding that the change over from food vouchers to cash supplements should not be taken into consideration as a means test in connection with rent. Despite the resolution passed by the corporation, the manager did take those cash supplements into account as means and I should like that this should not have the same effect now.
That is a matter for the Minister for Local Government.
I do not know for whom it is a matter, but I know that the people are losing by getting the cash supplement instead of food vouchers.
My difficulty is that I cannot interfere in any matter connected with rents. That will have to be done by the Minister for Local Government.
I should like to push an open door, if you like, in regard to this matter. The Minister spoke about the desirability of a uniform standard of pension. There is the case of a physically disabled person with a large family, as distinct from a person who is not physically disabled but has merely reached the retirement age. It seems to me that you could apply the same argument to a proposal for example, to vary the national health insurance benefit with the number of persons in the family. But, when the Minister comes to deal with the comprehensive scheme, he will perhaps not wish to vary the rate of the national health insurance benefit according to the number of children in the case of blind pensioners. I ask him to promise the House that in the case of a physically disabled person receiving payment from the State will not apply the idea of a uniform standard, as such a rate should rightly vary.
We are discussing the case of blind pensioners. Up to July last year there were persons who had a certain rate of pension, their basic pension, plus the supplement. Up to July those who had a basic pension, plus a supplement, were given a cash equivalent. As from July last, the previous Government said that future claimants would get no cash allowance in respect of dependent children. These pensioners got a cash supplement up to then for children, but in July last my predecessor denied new claimants the allowance which up to July had been paid. That is the situation since last July. It is suggested now that I should not only maintain the pre-July claims of new entrants, but that I should adjust the mistake made by my predecessor when he denied these benefits to new claimants.
Deputy Dr. Ryan will appreciate that a portion of this problem is a legacy which I involuntarily inherited. That is the position since July last. However, it is not a very big problem, as there are not very many people affected, but it involves going back over claims made since July last by persons who were cut off by the decision of my predecessor not to apply to post-July claimants certain benefits which applied to the pre-July claimants. I will have the matter examined, however, but there are difficulties.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To add to the section the following sub-section.
(2) The reference in sub-section (10) of Section 81 of the Principal Act to the difference between the amount of contributions actually paid by or in respect of a contributor at the rate specified in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act and the amount which would have been paid if those contributions had been at the rate specified in Part I of that Schedule shall be construed as a reference to the sum of 2d.
This is a very technical amendment with its roots away back in the National Health Insurance Act of 1911. Even when I explain the amendment to the House, I am not sure that I shall have conveyed to the House any great enlightement on the subject.
Sub-section (10) of Section 81 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, provided that the difference between the Irish and British rates of contribution for employed contributors should be deemed to be expended on benefits and that the proper proportion thereof (two-ninths) should be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The Irish and British rates of contributions were altered by the National Health Insurance Act, 1920, but Section 81 (10) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, continued to apply to the difference between the rates of contribution, which became 2d. under the 1920 Act. The Exchequer has, therefore, since the passing of the 1920 Act, contributed two-ninths of 2d. in respect of every contribution credited to approved societies and to the National Health Insurance Society.
The change in the Irish rates of contribution for employed contributors effected by Section 16 of the Bill renders necessary an amendment of Section 81 (10) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in order to provide that the Exchequer grant of two-ninths of 2d. per contribution will continue after the 4th October, 1948, when the new rates of contribution come into force. The total of this grant for the year 1948/49 is £47,000, which is credited to the National Health Insurance Society and is available for the payment of benefits and the cost of administration.
Briefly, the position is that in Great Britain originally the contribution for national health insurance purposes was 10d. and here it was 8d. because there were no medical benefits for national health contributions in Ireland. The twopence extra in Great Britain was the cost of the medical benefits and the Exchequer paid two-ninths of 2d., which was the difference between the British rate and the Irish rate. It is proposed in the Bill to continue the position.
I take it that is not the total amount which the Exchequer pays, that it pays 2/9ths of the total contribution, apart from this 2/9ths of 2d.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Speaking about these contributions brings us back somewhat again to the cost of the scheme. I have been told that the Minister, in my absence, said that I had not proposed to do very much about the old age pensions scheme and that it was low on the priority list.
I did not put it that way. I said and I assert definitely that the last Government contemplated the introduction of a comprehensive scheme, but the comprehensive scheme was only in relation to certain contributory classes and not to non-contributory classes. Perhaps Deputy MacEntee would like to say it for me.
I was here at the time and I did not hear the Minister preface his remarks by the statement he has just made.
Let me say it candidly and let Dr. Ryan judge the position. I say that the last Government had under consideration a comprehensive scheme which was obviously covering certain contributory classes. The big problem remained of what to do with the non-contributory class, namely, the self-employed and that large mass of persons who could be described as engaged in the agricultural industry with a fair amount of self-employed labour. That, I gather, was one of my predecessor's problems. I asserted that it was not intended, before that problem was dealt with, to introduce any proposals to step up old age pensions as they are paid to-day or non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions and that they were in the queue.
You said they were in the queue all right, but that they were a long way down.
Dr. Ryan knows, and he can deal with it.
In relation to what the Minister says now, let me say that he has made a fairly elaborate estimate of what I was doing in social welfare and the plan I was trying to draw up. It is true that there were certain big problems and one of them was the self-employed class, which is very much bigger in this country than, say, in Great Britain. We were drawing up a system of contributory and non-contributory social schemes. The question that remained unsolved was whether we could possibly get the self-employed into the contributory class or not. Personally, I thought we could not do so, but some of my officers were anxious that it should be done and made some suggestions accordingly, but I had not much hope. I do not believe it is fair for the Minister to say that we left the old age pensioners low in priority.
In the queue.
Whatever scheme we brought in, old age pensions, unemployment, sickness benefit, marriage and maternity allowances, and so forth, were all to be included.
But not for self-employed persons.
They would all come in together. There was no such thing as a queue. They all came in at the same time. The subjects of workmen's compensation, death benefit, and so forth were introduced before. They gave us a good deal of trouble. I am going to oppose this section very strenuously. I do not think the Minister is justified in bringing in a partial scheme of this kind before the Dáil or the country and putting a certain tax on individuals such as agricultural workers and so forth. If the Minister wanted to do something by way of an interim arrangement he should have done it as we did it last year—that was, £2,250,000, and we took it all out of taxation. We said that it was a temporary arrangement until a comprehensive scheme was ready. If the Minister wanted to go further than we went he could have brought in some sort of cash supplements over and above what we brought in and leave this matter of contributions until a comprehensive scheme was ready. I do not think it is fair to make these very big changes which mean a good deal to men with small wages without telling them what the comprehensive scheme is and what their lot is eventually going to be under social insurance in this country. As far as we can get the figures—it is not easy to get them—the Minister intends, under this Bill, to distribute £2,500,000 a year. Take this financial year and the next. That will bring us up to the 31st March, 1950. Over all that period—and that means that that Government will be there for over two years—what will they have done for social welfare?
They talk about having done a lot in a few months. They will have paid out £2,500,000 plus one quarter this year, which makes it little over £3,100,000, if the Minister's estimate is correct. They would have collected, on the other hand, £450,000 from the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund this year and, I presume, the same next year; £500,000 from contributors this year and double that amount next year— £1,000,000. So against their £3,100,000 they would collect £2,400,000. You have this Government, therefore, coming along and the Minister for Social Welfare repeating over and over again that they are providing £2,500,000 for social welfare the first year they come in, and so forth. Well, as a matter of fact, for the first two years in office, if they remain there, their total net expenditure on social welfare will be £600,000 in addition to what is already being spent. If the Minister wants to correct me he may do so. I want to give him the figures again. £2,500,000 a year—from the next financial year. One quarter of that amount this year—£600,000—for the last quarter of this year. That comes to £3,100,000. He collects against that £450,000 widows' and orphans' this year; the same next year; that is £900,000.
Why the same next year?
I presume that the Minister will do the same next year again.
Why?
If the Minister does that this year he will do anything next year.
That is a guess, is it not?
It is. If the Minister says definitely that they will pay this £450,000 next year I will accept his word that he will not take it out of the fund next year. I am afraid that a Government that would raid the widows' and orphans' fund this year would do the same next year. That would be £900,000 to meet their bill. According to the Budget statement, they expect to collect £500,000 from contributors this year and twice as much next year. That is £1,000,000 a year. That is a total of £2,400,000 to pay £3,100,000. In their first two years of office, therefore, the increases in social welfare expenditure will be £300,000 a year and they cannot make it more. There is a certain amount of misunderstanding and confusion about this section. I have tried to indicate what the position is and, because of the confusion and misunderstanding, I ask the Dáil to vote against the section.
Before the Minister replies, perhaps he would be good enough to tell us exactly what the increase in revenue in respect of contributions payable under national health insurance will be under the table to Section 16. I think that is a very important figure and one which we ought to have before we can discuss this section rationally.
Deputy MacEntee has submitted a question designed to elicit this information. He did not submit it in time; otherwise he would have had the information long ago. I understand the Deputy's question will be on the Order Paper to-morrow and he will get the information to-morrow which will enable him to make all the use he wants or cares to make out of it. He can, therefore, compose himself until to-morrow, when he will have all the information he wants.
Deputy Dr. Ryan proceeds to guess that next year £450,000 may be held back from the pension investment account—in other words, not put into the contributory pensions pool. Of course, the Deputy is deliberately guessing in that tortuous way, because he finds it suits the case which he is making this evening. But it is purely a guess. He has admitted it is a guess. The question has not been considered, nor is there any need to consider the matter at this stage, because it does not arise. Crossing bridges when you meet them in matters of this kind is a pretty sound code of conduct. Deputy Dr. Ryan guessed in the way he did, because it suited the argument he wanted to make.
The fact remains that when this Bill has been passed the aged and widows and orphans will get £2,500,000 per year extra. You may deal up figures any way you like, but what they will know is that, so long as this Government is in office, they are going to get £2,500,000 per year more than they got from Fianna Fáil. The people will have sufficient intelligence to know that and to weigh that against Deputy MacEntee's political ravings on election platforms.
Deputy Burke talked about taxing people by asking them to pay additional contributions under this Bill. We are putting this whole question of national health, unemployment insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions back on the basis on which it always rested, namely, an insurance basis. The contributors will now pay additional contributions. These additional contributions will ensure that the present temporary cash supplements, which were by no means a permanent feature and which were only introduced temporarily and were never made part and parcel of the existing basic benefits, will now be added to the benefits for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes, for unemployment insurance purposes and for national health insurance purposes, sickness and disablement.
In future the workers insured under these Acts will have a statutory right to the combined payment—that is, the basic benefit and the temporary cash supplement, the latter becoming an integral part of the main payment under the respective Acts. For that additional assurance that these benefits are there in a permanent form —their temporary character having been eradicated by this Bill—they will be asked to pay additional contributions of approximately 2d. per week for each of the three types of benefit, or 6d. per week in all.
Deputy Burke sought to state this was a tax. Deputy Dr. Ryan did not go that far. Suppose it is a tax. Let us examine it from that point of view. Deputy Burke says it would cost a person £1 6s. Od. a year if he is employed every week in the year and has to pay the additional contribution. That may be so. I do not deny it. Under the Fianna Fáil emergency Budget if the worker smoked ten cigarettes a day, and that was not asking too much from life, he was required to pay in additional taxes alone £3 per year. He had to pay that under the Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget if he smoked ten cigarettes per day apart from the taxation on cinema seats and on beer. He had to pay £3 and Deputy Burke now pretends to shed tears over £1 6s. Od., which is going into a pool created for the purpose of making sure that the worker will get permanent additions as a statutory right to his benefits under these three Acts. From the workers' point of view it is good business. He can now see what he is paying his contributions for and he knows that they are available to pay benefits when he wants them instead of being, as they were under the Supplementary Budget, thrown into the vortex of a gigantic campaign of squandering money as if we were an empire saturated with money instead of a people who could not pay more than 12/6 a week to our old age pensioners.
I have seldom heard the Dáil treated with so much contempt as I have heard it treated by the Minister for Social Welfare. I do not know whether Deputies are aware of what it is proposed to do under Section 16. Those who have been able to follow the Minister will perhaps have appreciated it. Under Section 16 it is proposed to increase the rates of contribution paid by workers and employers in respect of persons insured under the national health insurance scheme. What is the purpose of this exaction? The purpose is to relieve the Exchequer of paying the cost of the present supplementary benefits. The Minister himself has admitted that over the last seven years the costs of these supplementary benefits, representing 7/6 per week in the case of persons who were paying sickness benefit and 7/- per week in the case of persons who were drawing disablement benefit, are now going to be found by the insured persons and by the employers. You are, in fact, being asked to relieve the Exchequer and impose a tax upon the workers. The Minister for Social Welfare did not conceive this scheme overnight when he sat down to calculate what the cost of these supplementary benefits would be and what the increase in the rates of contribution exacted from the workers would be. He must have done that some months ago. He must have done it in consultation with the Minister for Finance, and he must now have in his possession the figures for which I ask; that is to say, how much money is to be taken from the workers and the employers under Section 16.
Surely those Deputies who represent the workers in this House are entitled to get that information from the Minister. Surely those Deputies who represent, perhaps, the employing classes in this House are entitled to get that information. In any event, all of us here represent the people as consumers and we may be sure that in one form or another this taxation is going to be passed on to the people as consumers. Surely we are entitled, therefore, to the figures for which I asked. The Minister must have those figures in his possession. I put down a question because I was driven to that course, since the Minister did not disclose that information last Thursday. The exigencies of Parliamentary business did not permit of my putting down that question until to-day. The Minister must have that information in his possession now. Why does he not disclose it to the House? Is he afraid to disclose it? Does he want the House to vote blindfold? There never was a measure of this type, containing a provision of this kind proposing to impose additional taxation on the people, introduced into this House without the Minister disclosing to the House what he expects to get from it.
I have asked the Minister a simple question, but the Minister has refused to answer. I cannot compel him, but the Deputies who are in the majority can, and I think they are bound, in justice to their constituents, to ask, unless of course they are afraid to get the information; unless Deputy Davin is afraid to let the railway men know what they will pay under this; unless Deputy Dunne is afraid to let the agricultural worker know what he has to pay under this, because the railwayman and the agricultural worker are caught in this net. They will be among the people who will pay. Surely the Deputies who profess to speak for the workers—if the Minister will not answer me—should get that information from him for the people interested, the people who will have to pay this tax?
I am not going to deal with the wider questions which the Minister raised, but I can say that it is quite clear in respect of one other section of the Bill that the Minister will not provide one penny piece more than would have been provided by Fianna Fáil for widows and orphans. In so far as the national health insurance scheme is concerned, he is not providing anything more than has been provided already for the beneficiaries under that scheme by the Fianna Fáil Government. What he is doing here under Section 16 is that he is going to tax the people to the extent of £325,000. He may be going to do more than that.
I have made a rough calculation, which does not purport to be exact, but I have estimated that Section 16 will impose taxation to the tune of £323,000 or £325,000 a year on the workers and their employers. The employers will pass it on to the consumer, and so too will the workers, because the workers quite naturally take into consideration, when dealing with the cost of living, the amount of taxation they have to pay in this particular form for the social benefits which they are supposed to receive. Therefore, all this will come back and it will affect everyone and the net result will be that the workers will get nothing more under this part of the Bill; instead, they will have to pay £323,000 or £325,000.
Is the differential rate in respect of agriculture being continued under this Bill?
Yes.
The differential contribution on the same basis as previously?
Yes. I offered, on the Second Reading, to consider the question of equalising contributions between agricultural and non-agricultural workers. Is the Deputy referring to widows' and orphans' pensions?
They will be all bulked together in this legislation?
The existing position will be continued. So far as widows' and orphans' pensions are concerned, I offered, if there was general agreement, to consider the question of one national rate of benefit for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes on the understanding that the agricultural workers paid a higher rate to secure what the agricultural worker's widow now gets under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I had no information from any part of the House that that was desired and, therefore, I did not proceed further with the consideration of that matter.
There would be no objection to that, I am sure.
The points raised by Deputy MacEntee are, I think, of a very fallacious nature and, as he has addressed some of his case to those who represent the workers here, it might be as well in passing to present an aspect of the case to him which perhaps he has failed to examine. He is concerned, he tells us, to elicit from the Minister the aggregate amount which the Exchequer will derive from the increased contribution of 2d. per week in each of these three cases, amounting in all to 6d. per week.
I am dealing only with Section 16.
He deems that there is some great merit in terming this taxation, an additional burden of taxation, but this is a phrase which hitherto has not been used in relation to these contributions.
Quite wrong.
If it is taxation now it must have been taxation in the past and there is little merit in that argument. The Minister explained that the whole purpose is to return to the insurable basis and, surely, if there are additional benefits to be gained by any insured person, that person is willing to pay an increased premium. Again, the Deputy's attitude could be interpreted as an incitement to the workers to pass this additional taxation of 6d. on to the consumer by way of demanding increased rates of pay. I would like to know whether, to the knowledge of those who have discussions about increased wages, whether employers, employees, the Labour Court or any other board, they have come across a case such as was instanced by Deputy MacEntee where a trade unionist under a Bill like this, who is receiving increased benefits under an insurance scheme, is going to demand an increased wage because he is charged an extra 6d. per week. I think it is fantastic to assume that anything of that sort would be done and from that point of view there is no reality in the case put up by Deputy MacEntee. There is no purpose served by the manner in which he presented his argument.
That is about the lamest intervention I ever listened to from a Deputy purporting to speak for the workers. It is a justification for taking money from the workers and giving them nothing in return. The position is that under the Fianna Fáil dispensation, which is so much condemned by Deputy Connolly and by the Minister, people insured for national health purposes get sickness benefit amounting to 22/6 a week. They get that without paying anything. After this Bill passes they will have their contributions increased by 50 per cent.
Deputy Connolly apparently does not regard that as a matter of any importance, but they will not get a penny piece more in exchange for that; yet Deputy Connolly is not sufficiently concerned about the workers of Louth, whom he represents, to ask the Minister to tell us how much he expects to collect—how much the National Health Insurance Society expect to collect under Section 16. I said how much the Minister expects to collect, because it will be only a very short time, I gather, until the Minister has absorbed the National Health Insurance Society. He has stated that he regards it in its present form as an anomaly.
We used to hear a great deal about the Dignan Plan. The Dignan Plan proposed that the National Health Insurance Society should take over all the other social insurance schemes. Now the Minister, who was a great Dignanite in his day, proposes to absorb into the official maw the National Health Insurance Society.
There is nothing in this section about it.
However, as I said, I was not very far out when I said that the Minister is going to collect——
The Deputy is out of order.
I agree I have gone beyond the border line, a bit on the offside. To get back to the real point which I wish to hammer home, the workers are going to get nothing for the additional contributions which the Post Office is going to collect from them and hand over to the National Health Insurance Society. That however does not appear to be of sufficient interest to Deputy Connolly to move him to raise any serious objection and he gets up and justifies the Minister's action in doing this. If that had been done by a Fianna Fáil Government, we would be told that the workers had enjoyed this for the last seven years, that they had established a prescriptive right to it and that nobody was going to go back and reverse what Fianna Fáil had done in the last seven years. That is what we would be told if we tried to increase the national health contributions by 50 per cent. but there is not a word about that from those who claim to represent Labour in this House, and who are going to support the Government in the division, because there is going to be a division on this and we are going to make it quite clear to the workers what their representatives are doing now. There can be no justification——
They know you, and they were beginning to know you before the election.
They are not going to be fooled very much longer by you or by those associated with you. In this division to-night it will be made quite clear that the workers of this country have been sold, lock, stock and barrel as they used to say over there, to the Fine Gael Party and they have been sold by those who were returned to this House to represent their interests.
I do not think the Minister's argument that he is maintaining the insurance principle in raising these contributions a valid one because I think it goes against the whole principle of social insurance. The element of insurance, in the technical sense, in each social insurance plan is a very limited one. The object of a social security scheme is to effect a compulsory saving from the whole of the national income in the interests of providing certain social services for the low income groups and it includes a contribution from the State by way of defraying administrative expenses, a direct contribution to the fund itself, a contribution from employers and a contribution from workers. It is not a logical argument, therefore, to state that when you increase the workers' contribution you are maintaining the insurance principle. The actual fact is that the workers are being asked to provide a higher proportion of the cost of these services than they were under the previous Government. In fact there is no such thing as a proper social service scheme because a feature of a social service scheme is that the State makes up any deficit.
The Minister is raising the contribution paid by the workers under this section, and he tells us that he is going to launch some time or another a comprehensive social security scheme. I have made a certain study of social security schemes throughout Europe, and my personal view is that it is going to be a very expensive scheme. When the scheme is announced, the three parties will have to make their contributions—the State, the employers and the workers—and it seems to me to be a foolish action on the part of the Minister to ask the workers to pay increases in their contributions at this stage when it would seem to me that the State will have to step in with a much more magnificent contribution to the scheme afterwards. I cannot accept the idea that the Minister is following insurance principles because the whole scheme is not based on any true insurance principle while the workers are being compelled to pay more.
I want to clear up one or two points made by Deputy MacEntee. Deputy MacEntee alleges that we are asking the workers to pay an additional tax. We are asking the workers to pay additional contributions in view of the fact that the cash supplements which up to now were a purely temporary measure are being consolidated with the basic benefits and thus guaranteed to the workers as a statutory right in future. The additional contributions which each will pay will go into a pool which will enable the new statutory benefits to be paid. To that extent whatever goes into the pool—put there by the workers, the employers and the State —goes out to one class, namely, the workers. It is they and they only who will get the benefit of what is in the pool. For anything they pay under this Bill, they know they are going to get in the form of a statutory right, the benefits which are enshrined in the Bill. They know, too, that in future they are going to see £2,500,000 extra spent in improved social services.
Deputy MacEntee talked about the workers being in enjoyment of certain facilities in the way of cash supplements in the past. Let us get back to the origin of this. During the emergency, workers' wages were pegged down and controlled by an Emergency Powers Order. We all know the vicious way they were controlled and then with the cost of living rising, it was obvious that something must be done for those who were dependent on social services for the means of sustenance and they got food vouchers. At a later stage it was discovered that it was not politically wise to give them food vouchers and that it would be better to give them cash. There is one ex-Minister on record as saying that an old age pensioner who got 10/- a week and a food voucher still believed that he was getting only 10/- and that it would be politically wiser to give him 12/6 in cash than 10/- with food vouchers. Later the food vouchers were transferred into cash supplements. That was obviously a temporary measure because if it were otherwise, it would have been done by a Bill of some kind. It was left there as a cash supplement, clearly indicating that it was a purely temporary measure.
We now under this Bill definitely and with our eyes wide open want to put it back on the original insurance basis, where the pool available for the payment of benefits was created by the contributions of workers and employers with a two-ninths grant from the State. The Bill is going back on that basis, which is the normal basis. Take it as you like; take it at its worst; call it an additional tax of 6d. per week on the workers and it is still a small tax, if you regard it as a tax, compared with what was imposed by Fianna Fáil's Supplementary Budget. Deputy MacEntee can rant throughout the country as long as he likes on this matter, but when he comes down to it he must realise that the workers are now given something, even if they have paid for it themselves, as compared with the tax that was imposed by his Government on their simple luxuries. There are no political tricks in that type of argument.
Under this section, the Minister proposes to raise the contributions for national health insurance by 50 per cent.
Twopence.
By 50 per cent., compared to what they were pre-emergency. The benefits from national health insurance compared with pre-emergency have gone up by one-third only. I think I am fairly correct in this. In the month of June, 1948, a person drawing national health insurance was entitled to 22/6 per week; in December, 1948, when this Bill is enacted a person who becomes ill will still be entitled to 22/6 a week, notwithstanding the fact that he will then be paying an increased national health insurance contribution towards it over and above what he was paying in June, 1948.
In other words, twopence.
Is not that true? The Minister agrees. All of us in this House can throw our minds back a few years and I am sure the Minister for Social Welfare who had a thunderous voice that made itself heard, not alone in this House but all over the country, told us, and Deputy Davin and his colleagues told us times out of number, that the amount received by persons who became ill in this country was something that a Christian State could not stand over. Here in his first attempt to bring Christianity to this country, to bring some of the fruits or some of the "sweets", as he said himself, of life to the ill person, the worker who is unfortunate enough to fall sick, the Minister proposes to increase the amounts which he has to pay and not give him one halfpenny extra.
There was nothing in the world to prevent the Minister continuing for the lifetime of that Government, let it be long or short, say even the full five years, to pay the full cash supplement. If he wanted to increase it by 5/- or 10/- he could do so by a simple order. He could put up the national health insurance benefit to 30/- in the morning without coming to this House and it was not necessary to have this Bill, good, bad or indifferent, in order to pay the 22/6 a week. As Deputy Ryan pointed out, the national health insurance recipients are going to get nothing, not one halfpenny under this Bill, but they are paying more.
All the Minister's colleagues behind him are quite silent, but I am sure that they are all dissatisfied and I am sure that the Minister is in the difficult position of having to defend something that he does not agree with. We know that quite well, but the ground was taken from under his feet in April last when his colleague, the Minister for Finance, announced this in his Budget speech. He told the House that one way to balance the Budget was to make people who would get this extra cash allowance for national health insurance and other matters pay for it. I have every sympathy for the Minister——
I beg you to keep it.
——in his present dilemma. The Minister stumped this country and came into this House with a white sheet round him as the only Christian, the leading Christian, in the country who was going to bring a new code of Christianity into operation in Ireland at the first opportunity.
This is not a bad instalment, you know.
He has the opportunity now; he can still wear the white sheet, we will allow him to do it if he brings the first instalment of Christianity, the sweets of life, to the unfortunate families where the breadwinner falls sick. He has not done so, and yet he brazenly stands over it. The Minister still has the opportunity, however, on the Report Stage. If he had even increased by 5/- or 10/- a week the amount payable in future to national health insurance recipients there would be some justification for his increasing the contributions, but he is going to demand the increase from the employees in order to bolster up and relieve the Minister for Finance in his difficult position. For the conglomeration of different units sitting over there to justify their pre-election promises to reduce taxation and increase social benefits, he will make the workers of the country pay out of their own pockets.
I saw on the cover of a well-known Dublin magazine during the last few days where a well-known lady said to an equally well-known gentleman: "Strange things are happening around here," and having listened to Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Childers and now Deputy Allen, there is no doubt whatever that strange things are happening round here. The only persons in this House who are concerned with the welfare of the workers are the members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
That was always the case.
That is well known. I do not want to go back, but I could go back to the Wages Standstill Order. The fact of the matter is that we are asked to believe that the Minister for Social Welfare and 14 or 15 other trade union leaders in this country who are directly representative of the workers and directly answerable to the workers are seeking to inflict a penalty on the workers and that the only people who are concerned to see that that penalty is not inflicted on them are the people on the opposite side.
We do not accuse them of seeking it; we accuse them of acquiescing.
Deputy Lemass does not believe that. Deputy Lemass knows quite well, if his colleagues do not, that the Minister for Social Welfare seeks in this Bill to do what should have been done when the contributions were originally increased but it was not thought politically expedient at the time by the Government. Deputy Lemass will agree that those additional benefits for the last six or seven years were held entirely at the pleasure of the Fianna Fáil Government. When this section of the Bill becomes law, it will be held as a statutory legal right, not depending upon the position in which any particular Minister for Finance may find himself in framing his Budget from year to year.
I venture to suggest to Deputy Lemass that if this was not intended as a purely temporary increase and Fianna Fáil had again been returned, they themselves would have to do what the Minister for Social Welfare is now doing. He is being attacked for doing the right thing. There is nobody over there who will contend seriously that it is not the right thing to do. I was surprised at the contention of Deputy Childers that this was not on an insurance basis. If the basic contribution and benefit were on an insurance basis since the institution of the national health insurance scheme surely this is keeping it on the same level basis.
There is no sacrosanct obligation.
Is it the Deputy's idea that the worker should be beholden to the charity of the particular Government of the day or that he should have a legal statutory right to a particular benefit?
Not necessarily one way or the other. It depends on circumstances.
If that is the type of argument put up——
The Government contributes two-ninths to the fund anyway.
Why should they not contribute it? That is like the argument of Deputy MacEntee, that this is taxation of the worker and the employer and that the employer and the worker will pass it on to the consumer, and therefore it is a tax on us all. Where is the money being found at present? Who is paying it?
Deputy Lemass has made it clear that it is not wholly on the insurance principle.
What is really wrong with Deputies opposite is that they cannot understand or appreciate that this Government, whether it is the workers or the employers who are concerned, are doing what they consider the right thing. The Deputies opposite think it will be an unpopular thing for this Government and the Minister. Apparently they are sure of that.
Do not mind about the unpopular part of it.
I am perfectly sure that if they thought that it would be something popular they would not try to make the political capital out of it which they are trying to make.
That is the way the Minister looks at things.
We are perfectly satisfied that this is the right thing to do, that it is a good straight deal for the worker, and we are prepared to abide by the workers' decision on the matter. So far as I am concerned, if it is a question of the welfare of the workers and trade unionists, I am prepared to follow the lead of the Minister for Social Welfare and the men who are directly representative of the workers and who are themselves trade union leaders, rather than follow some of the gentlemen opposite who are talking about their concern for the worker. This is a very simple matter. Certain increased benefits are being given and the workers who are contributing will have a perfect legal right to these benefits. That is the position in which we want to have them.
I cannot follow the Minister for Industry and Commerce's mind in this matter. I am not trying to accuse the Minister of undermining the interests of the worker. I am arguing the question on what might be called the philosophy of social insurance in connection with this section. When the Minister starts to examine in detail the proposals for the comprehensive insurance scheme, he may be up against this proposition—that if he wishes to provide benefits for persons who are sick and have a large number of children, it will be quite impossible for him to secure by insurance principles contributions from the worker and the employer to cover the national health insurance benefit applicable, shall we say, to every child above the fourth child; that the only way of doing it is for the State to provide the money out of general taxation on the general principle that all social insurance is really a redistribution of a national income effected in three different ways. Let us assume that in a national health insurance plan the money to support the third and fourth children while the head of the house is sick cannot be provided on the insurance principle. Is the Minister going to say that he is not prepared to give the third and fourth children national health insurance benefit when the breadwinner falls sick because he cannot collect his contributions from the worker and the employer; that the right to get that particular benefit cannot be made sacred to them or guaranteed to them, irrespective of whatever Government is in office; and that therefore he is not prepared to give the third and fourth children this extra benefit? I cannot see the argument. I can see a good argument in the circumstances of this year, because it is just as well that on this occasion the insurance principle should be maintained, that the employer and the worker, and not the State, shall pay for the extra cash benefits, and that perhaps on some other occasion it may be better for the State to pay the extra benefit. I cannot, however, see that there is any philosophy about it. I should like to ask the Minister what he will do in connection with the comprehensive national security plan if he finds that the insurance principle could not pay for the benefit for children above a certain number.
Deputy Childers is raising a very broad discussion on what is, after all, a very narrow issue. The simple position which presents itself to us—I am limiting my remarks to the National Health Insurance Acts—is that since 1911 national health insurance has been financed on the basis of a contribution from the employer, a contribution from the worker and a contribution from the State. That position continued from 1911 to April, 1947, when a cash supplement was granted to national health insurance beneficiaries for the first time. They got nothing extra before that. When the additional benefit came in the form of a cash supplement from the State, an entirely new element was introduced into the financing of the National Health Insurance Acts. I assert that was a purely temporary measure. It had its roots originally in the food voucher scheme. Nobody could be asked to pay an additional contribution for food vouchers. In any case, it was politically unwise when wages were pegged down to expect the workers to pay for such things as food vouchers. The food vouchers were given as an addition to the basic benefit. Then it was realised that food vouchers did not get home politically as well as the cash addition to the basic benefit and the food vouchers went and a cash supplement was given. It is still a cash supplement; it is still a temporary cash supplement. It is still an instrument financing national health insurance which, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce says, is dependent for its existence on the whim of any Government in office.
Recognising that national health insurance finance has been based on the principle of contributions from workers and employers, with a subsidy of two-ninths from the State, this Bill is putting the scheme back on its normal basis. It is getting rid of the temporary and unusual element of cash supplements which has been imported into the financing of the Acts since last year. It says frankly to the workers: "In future, instead of having a basic benefit and a cash supplement, you will have as a statutory right a consolidated rate of benefit which will be a 50 per cent. increase in respect of sickness benefit and 100 per cent. increase in respect of disablement benefit." We are asking the workers and the employers and the State, therefore, to pay additional contributions. This argument has centred on the workers. So far as the worker is concerned he will pay an additional 2d. per week which will enable him to get as his statutory right a 50 per cent. increase in his sickness benefit. The same 2d. per week will enable him to get 100 per cent. increase in his disablement benefit. It is sought, mainly by Deputy MacEntee and perhaps by some others to a less serious degree, to establish that this is a tax on the worker. This is putting national health insurance finance back on its normal basis on which it should always have rested and would have rested were it not for the fact that with this food voucher scheme converted into cash supplements the Government of the day did not start off with the idea of increasing the contributions in order to enable increased benefits to be secured. This Bill is doing that—and it is doing more than that.
Every contributor to the national health insurance is a potential beneficiary under the widows' and orphans' and old age pension legislation. If he is going to pay an additional 2d. he is going to pay it in the knowledge that as a worker he is having put at his disposal under this Bill £2,500,000 more than was put at his disposal for social legislation purposes last year. In a nutshell, the issue is that for an additional 2d. per week the member insured under the National Health Insurance Acts is having 50 per cent. increase as a matter of right—there is no element of chance and no temporary expedient about it —in sickness benefit and 100 per cent. increase of disablement benefit.
On a point of information, is the Minister correct in saying that recipients of ordinary sickness benefit ever got food vouchers?
Yes, quite.
Before cash supplements?
A small number of recipients of disablement benefit got it but, so far as the ordinary national health insurance person was concerned, no cash supplement was granted prior to the 1st April, 1947.
The argument of political expediency falls to the ground.
Of course, it does.
There were no food vouchers.
There were, on the disablement side.
No.
You have the facts; the least said the better.
What does the Minister mean by saying that those people will now be entitled to these additional amounts as a right? Are they not entitled to them now?
It is an extraordinary way of conferring a right on them.
Have they not a legal right?
One has only to look at the Departmental files to see that the whole concept of the food vouchers was a temporary measure to deal with an unusual circumstance. The same point of view applied to the cash supplements.
No.
You can say that if you like.
That is not the point. This Government can change its mind if it likes to do so, but at the present time the insured person is entitled to these additional amounts as a legal right. Is that not so? There is no element of discrimination in it of one person getting it and of another person not getting it.
Quite obviously the cash vouchers were made under an Emergency Powers Order.
Which has the full force of law.
Yes, for a short time.
For ever.
You can have a good spree while it lasts. The position is that you have a Cash Supplements Order made under a temporary Emergency Powers Act which itself has a limited life. It is in that way they get the cash supplements. Surely, if you intended them to have a statutory right to their benefit, the simple thing would be to say that so far as the benefits provided for in the main Act are concerned, these will be increased by means of an amending Act and lifted up to whatever level one desires to lift them. That is the normal way of doing a normal and permanent thing. The other device of the cash supplements was clearly a temporary expedient. I doubt if Deputy Dr. Ryan will admit to us that he conceived of a situation in which cash supplements would be regarded as a permanent method of financing benefits under the National Health or other Acts.
The Minister knows that, as Minister for Social Welfare, it was my intention that they should remain until something better was done by way of a comprehensive scheme or otherwise. As far as we are concerned we will give them the legal right but what we object to is these contributions before the comprehensive scheme is brought in. Let the Minister cut out the contributions until the comprehensive scheme comes in and that can be done by deleting the section.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Keyes; Níl, Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill".
On the section, would the Minister explain what the meaning of the section is?
This section is ancillary to Section 16 in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the National Health Insurance and Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1936. The Minister for Defence pays as a national health insurance contribution the sum of 4½d. per week in respect of each serving member of the Defence Forces. This contribution entitles the member to maternity benefit while serving in the forces, and on discharge therefrom to sickness and disablement benefit. The increase in contribution from 4d. to 7d. is necessary to support the enhanced rate of these benefits which will be available to these members when they return to civil life.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 10 is out of order.
I submit that the employers' contributions are so much, the employees' contributions are so much, and the State contributes so much. The State's obligation ends at that. Then, whether out of the fund there is a certain amount paid or not, the State is not made liable for any more. So I do not see where the extra charge on public funds arises in this amendment.
If there is an increase in disablement benefit and the State must pay its due proportion of such increase, is there not a State charge?
No. The State bears the contribution in proportion to the contribution from the employers and employees and the State contribution ends at that. For instance, if we sought to increase the contribution from employer and employee, we would be out of order, as the State would have to pay more; but the State has not to pay more if the fund gives more —unless a new Bill is brought in.
If there is no increase in contribution from the State, it is in order.
There can be no further increase as a result of this amendment, so I submit that the Deputy is in order.
If the Deputy's contention is right, that an increase in disablement benefit would not mean a further burden or a contribution from the Exchequer, it is in order.
The State is liable to pay two-ninths of the cost.
No, two-ninths of the total contribution.
Which is two-ninths of the total benefit.
But the contribution was fixed by this Bill.
If the higher rate of benefit is paid, there is a higher rate of contribution.
Is not the State contribution fixed at two-ninths in any event, and no matter how the fund is juggled around between one benefit and another, there is no increase in the State contribution?
I find in the Estimates, on page 227, the statement:
"The statutory proportion of the sums treated as having been expended on benefits in accordance with Sections 48 (2) and 81 (10 and 11) of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
That probably relates to the supplementary benefits, not to the national disablement benefit.
I suggest that the Deputies opposite are mixing unemployment insurance with national health insurance. The State pays two-ninths of the benefits under national health insurance, and if you increase the benefits the State contribution has to be increased.
Is that an authoritative view? If so, I accept it.
The Estimate says it is for certain grants:
"The Grants-in-Aid of the National Health Insurance Fund provided under sub-heads (a) and (b) represent the estimated Exchequer liability up to the 31st March, 1949."
That looks as if there would be a State charge, and the amendment is ruled out.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
The section provides a benefit during the first 26 weeks of 22/6 a week for a man and 18/- for a woman. The rate of disablement benefit in the case of a man is 15/- and in the case of a woman 13/6. In this and the subsequent sections referred to, the maximum rates are so small that there ought to be no difference in the amounts payable to men and women.
I regret that the amendment was not accepted. I was delighted to hear the Minister say on one occasion that he pitied most the unfortunate people who had lost their health and, therefore, I fail to see how he can give any excuse for turning down this amendment. He has fought ably against it. A person who has lost his health is paid 22/6 for 26 weeks, assuming that his contributions are in order. After being ill for such a long period, he becomes a chronic case and incapable of carrying on any further. Why there has ever been such a thing as disablement benefit, I do not know. People may say it is to prevent malingering, but there are officials of the society to see that that does not happen. I fail to see why any person should malinger in this country, where work would be available and when their earning capacity would be 55/- a week or more, rather than accept 22/6. There cannot be many such people. As time goes on, we must get a higher opinion of the insured contributor. Not alone does a man's physical position become worse but his financial position is worsened as a result of continued illness. Especially where a man is married and has children, it is a very unchristian thing to expect the family to exist on 22/6 a week, much less on 15/-, as is proposed under Section 18.
I have examined this Bill very closely and I fail to find anything that will give the insured person any additional benefits when he is ill. During the Fianna Fáil Government's period of office, the disablement benefit was increased—as the Minister said, and I think he was inclined to take the credit to himself—by 100 per cent. and sickness benefit was increased by 50 per cent. Those people have been getting benefit for a considerable period, not by way of voucher but by cheque. I have asked the Minister to fulfil the promise I heard him make during the bye-election in Tipperary. I admired his speech on that occasion, but if he turns down this proposed amendment I am afraid I will have no reason to compliment myself. Certainly the insured person will have very little reason to do so. There is no section which is more deserving than the people who have been ill, with, in many cases, little hope of recovery. In the case of people who have been ill for six months, the number who go off benefit is comparatively small. The position has been worsened in every way and I hope that the Minister will not show any lack of courage in putting this matter to the Government and in asking them to consider it. It is a very fair thing to ask and a demand which every fair-minded person will agree is not exorbitant.
This section does not meet the position at all. There is no improvement in it, good, bad or indifferent. I had anticipated more advanced social legislation in this regard from the inter-Party Government. I support Deputy Davern in his views. We have the cases of persons suffering from a chronic complaint, such as rheumatism—there are 4,000 or 5,000 rheumatism sufferers in the country—who are not well catered for, people who are permanent invalids and often fathers of young families. The Minister should have got some advice before framing this section, with a view to covering the particular cases I have in mind, but there is no improvement on the situation brought about by Deputy Ryan, who, as Minister for Health, increased the rate last year. It falls very far short of what is required. The Minister may get up and say that I am crying salt tears.
I do not even allege that they are salt.
They are possibly crocodile tears, but the position is that the Minister has changed very much since he went to that side of the House. We have the cases of people who have to live on miserable pittances, people whom doctors have certified as permanent invalids. I know that such people may be looked after by home assistance payments and in various other ways, but we heard so much from the various Parties during the election campaign about social reform that we expected that, in a Bill of this kind, these cases would have been covered. The type of case I have mentioned is to be found all over the country and the Minister has only to get a report from his colleague the Minister for Health to realise that this is so. The Minister possibly knows it already from the certificates going into the national health insurance section. If this is all the Minister has to offer in the way of advanced social legislation, I must say I feel very disappointed.
So far as national health insurance is concerned, this section does one main job, namely, consolidating the cash supplements with the basic benefits. That, in short, is the main purpose of the national health insurance section. It does not go further into the problem at this stage. It merely sets out to do that job and does it. I have every sympathy with folk who are insured under national health insurance who have to try to maintain themselves on 22/6 per week or 15/- a week disablement benefit and I hope, in the comprehensive scheme, to step up these rates of benefit. That will be done and any promise we made in that respect will be implemented. Deputy Burke need have no fears in that respect. I am wondering whether Deputy Burke and Deputy Davern have been living in the moon or whether they have had their feet on solid earth for the past 16 years.
We have been living with the people.
Let us see how much sympathy you had with them Let us see how much practical sympathy you had with them prior to 18th February.
Always had.
In 1920, the scale of sickness benefit was 15/- per week, and, during the long years from 1920 to early 1947, it remained at 15/- per week.
It was increased by 50 per cent.
We will come to that. From 1920 to 1947, it remained at 15/-per week. Of that period, 15 years were under Fianna Fáil, and, for 15 years, from 1932 to 1947, you gave the people 15/- per week as a maximum. In 1947, you realised that the position could not longer be defended and you gave 22/6 per week. That is what they had up to 18th February and that is what they had last year. For 15 years prior to that, under Fianna Fáil, they had 15/-.
Is that why you say they have enough now?
Of course not. That is why I detest it and intend to get rid of it at the earliest possible date and disappoint Deputy Burke when I do get rid of it.
You will not disappoint me.
People were sick in 1932, 1933 and 1934. They suffered from rheumatism and from the various other diseases, of which Deputy Burke now apparently has a card index. All these things were happening for 15 years. Deputy Burke was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party; he had a Fianna Fáil Government here; and notwithstanding all the sickness, all the human suffering as indicated by national health insurance records, 15/- per week was the most that Fianna Fáil could give these people. Now Deputy Burke comes in here, rather touched by the suffering of these people and bursting, now that he cannot do it, to increase their benefits. Why did his own Government not do it for 15 years?
You promised to do it and it is now August, 1948.
And I will do it. Everything I promised to do I will do before this Government is out of office. The Deputy need have no doubt in the world about that. This comprehensive scheme which will be introduced will step up national health insurance benefits.
And contributions.
Yes, as my predecessor intended. I beg the Deputy not to get into these deep waters, because he is quite unqualified to pilot his way through them. Let him leave the subject alone for the moment. Every promise made to step up national health insurance benefit will be kept. We will do it in the comprehensive scheme, and if I had no doubt as to the ability to pass the comprehensive scheme through this House within a reasonable period, I would tackle this question of national health insurance benefit separately, so as to make sure that the people would get a better rate of sickness and disablement benefit. One thing I can promise two such pessimistic Deputies as Deputy Burke and Deputy Davern—I feel sure that it is only politically pessimistic they are —is that it will not take 15 years to give them an extra 7/6. Those who, unfortunately, are afflicted with sickness or a continuing sickness which compels them to draw disablement benefit may take this assurance from me that this Government, given a reasonable period of time, will step up sickness and disablement benefit and that will be done with the utmost expedition.
I do not know what the Minister is talking about.
I told you that a few moments ago.
I do not think he does himself. Otherwise, he would be a little less emphatic about what was done over the past 15 years and what was done from 1920 until 1932.
In respect of national health insurance?
In respect of national health. We must remember that when the State was set up and Cumman na nGaedheal first took office it had the support of the Deputies who sit on the Labour benches. It had the support of Deputy Norton's Party. When we came in, in 1927, we were sitting here where we are now. We were invariably faced in the Government lobby by members of the Labour Party, going in there, keeping in office the Cumann na nGaedheal Government that did nothing from 1923 to 1932.
Is this in order?
The Minister has been talking about——
National health insurance.
And what was done over all that period. I am merely reminding the Minister of this, that it is not the first time that the Party which calls itself in Irish politics the Irish Labour Party supported the most reactionary Government that this State was ever cursed with.
Would the Deputy deal with national health insurance?
To get back to what was done in national health insurance, the Minister for Social Welfare was in this House in the year 1941. He knows that we introduced the food voucher system which gave virtually the equivalent of the cash supplement.
That was not done for ordinary national health insurance beneficiaries.
It was done for people on national health disablement. It gave it, not merely in respect of persons disabled, but also in respect of their dependents. Perhaps the Minister might disclose that to the House.
Did it give it to the people with 15/-?
It gave it to the people who were drawing disablement benefit.
Did it give it to the people with 15/-?
It gave it to the people drawing disablement benefit and at a much more generous rate than is in this Bill.
Do not talk nonsense.
And the Minister knows that. He got up here and told us his heart was bursting with sympathy with persons who were receiving only 22/6 disablement benefit.
I told you not to get into these waters.
What does his own memorandum show?—That he is not increasing the disablement benefit rates by one penny piece, nor the sickness benefits either. I am sorry. I said disablement benefit was being paid at the rate of 22/6. I meant sickness benefit. What does page 3 of his memorandum show? He sets out there the present weekly rates indicating that sickness benefit is paid at the rate of 15/- plus cash supplement of 7/6. I suppose the Minister can add. He does not appear to have a very good head for figures even when set down on paper.
I will send for the Deputy when I want advice.
He was not able to tell the House how much he expected to collect from the workers under Section 16. Whoever prepared the memorandum for him disclosed to the House that under Section 18 the people are not going to get a penny piece more in cash than they are getting at the present time whether in the form of sickness or disablement benefit. That is the position, even though the Minister's heart is bleeding. He has been talking about how little Fianna Fáil has done. He has been six months in office. He has had the benefit of all the work done by his predecessor and he has not been able to improve on what Fianna Fáil——
Nothing was done on this matter.
——had already done in respect of sickness and disablement benefit.
He settled the strike, anyhow.
At the expense of the contributors. That is probably one of the reasons why he has to increase contributions now
It has nothing to do with this section.
That is probably one of the reasons why he has to increase contributions now.
That is a grotesque untruth.
It is not an untruth.
A grotesque one.
It has nothing to do with this section.
The Minister, I suppose, is perfectly in order. The Minister has no other argument in trying to defend this Bill and the proposals which he is standing over, except abuse. He never attempts to give a figure.
No wonder Deputy Burke laughs at you.
He never attempts to give a figure. He never attempts to produce a reasoned argument. All he can say is that over the past 15 years such and such a thing was not done and in most cases when he produces that argument it is a completely fallacious one. During half of the period to which the Minister has referred in his statement this country was engaged trying to maintain the Defence Forces of the State up to the maximum strength we possibly could. During the preceding period we were fighting the economic war and trying to put down Blueshirt revolution.
Killing the calves.
For their part in which many of the members opposite have been boasting recently.
Who brought the economic war here?
Barracking is not Parliamentary procedure.
The Deputy had better go and ask his uncle what he was doing.
I would like to know what was meant by that.
Had not the Deputy people who served in other forces?
Will you have the honesty to state what you meant by that?
Had not the Deputy relatives who served in other forces? I am not ascribing that as anything disreputable to them but they were there.
It has nothing to do with this section.
They were there. It is quite true that the Deputy has relatives who rendered great service to the State.
It has nothing to do with this section. I do not know whether the Deputy heard me or not. He is quite out of order.
He has contempt for the Chair, as usual.
Would the Minister explain what is meant by sub-section (3)? It is not difficult to get recent Acts but it is extremely difficult to get the old Acts. I would also like to put this point to the Minister. I think the Minister will agree that any comprehensive scheme will give the same benefit to disablement as to sickness. I do not think any Minister would contemplate otherwise. I think the same benefit will extend all through a man's sickness, even to the stage of disablement. In other words, disablement goes and sickness will be continuous.
That is one of the things that ought to be laced up.
I do not know if Deputy Davern was asking too much. Why not amend it now as when bringing in the comprehensive scheme? If the Minister is not prepared to do that now, I want to know what sub-section (3) means.
Sub-section (3) says:
"It is provided by sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, as amended by sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1920, that if less than 104 weeks have elapsed since a person's entry into insurance and less than 104 contributions have been paid, sickness benefit is to be paid at the reduced rate of 9/- a week for a man and 7/6 a week for a woman. These rates were also supplemented by cash allowances and with the abolition of the latter as from the 4th October, 1948, this sub-section will enable the lower rate of sickness benefit to be raised to 16/6 a week for a man and 13/6 a week for a woman, subject, as at present, to reduction on account of arrears of contributions."
Will the Minister say if, under the section, there is any possibility of paying the same rates to women as to men?
If the Deputy wishes it is a balance, but I shall have the matter specially examined.
I should like if the Minister would consider it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I think that the Minister some time ago, in answer to a question in the Dáil with regard to home assistance officers who carried out certain functions when the insurance strike was on, said that they would be rewarded. Who is going to reward them and when?
When the strike among the national health insurance staff took place it was obviously desirable to maintain in some form the payments which were being made to insured contributors under the National Health Insurance Act—both sickness and disablement benefit. Means were devised by my predecessor whereby these payments would be made by the home assistance officers throughout the country. The intention was that they would ultimately be paid for undertaking that kind of work. The work was undertaken, and, in due course the strike was settled. The question of the remuneration to be paid to those officers was then pursued. Proposals were submitted to the Department of Finance for authority to pay. That authority has now been received, and the payments will be made through the National Health Insurance Fund.
This section only appears to cover the local authorities, not their employees.
The local authorities will be recouped for these payments out of the National Health Insurance Fund, and the home assistance officers will also be paid out of that fund.
I do not think that is covered by the section.
They will be paid out of the Exchequer subject to a refund. I should like to check up on that, but the intention is to pay them 5 per cent. on their payments during the period. The local authorities will be fully reimbursed in respect of any payments during the period. The local authorities will be fully reimbursed in respect of any payments which they made.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 11:—
To add at the end a new sub-section as follows:—
() Every rule, and every revocation or amendment of a rule which receives the approval of the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after such approval is given.
My object in putting down the amendment is to ascertain from the Minister what exactly he has in mind in putting this section into the Bill. I would like to know from him if the National Health Insurance Society asked him to put it in in order that they might be able to make certain new rules or to amend existing rules.
Section 22 deals with a situation which I think required to be met. The National Health Insurance Act of 1933 which established the unified National Health Insurance Society empowered the provisional committee of management which was then appointed to make rules for the administration of the affairs of the society. I have been advised that the committee of management under the permanent constitution set up by the Act of 1936 has not the powers to make rules or to amend the existing rules. This section clarifies the position and gives the committee of management the necessary powers.
In the recent Social Welfare (Reciprocal Arrangements) Act, 1948, the committee were given, as a matter of urgency, the limited power to add to or alter the present rules for the purpose of giving effect to reciprocal arrangements with other countries affecting national health insurance.
I assume that my predecessor was similarly advised as to the doubt which existed regarding the power of the committee to make rules or to alter rules. This provision gives the committee the power to do that, subject to the approval of the Minister. The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be that the society, which exercises statutory functions the same as any local authority, would be required to lay every alteration or revocation or amendment of a rule which had received the Minister's approval on the Table of the House. I doubt the wisdom of requiring a body set up under statute to do that when dealing with the routine matters affected here. Every member of the society gets a copy of the rules. Perhaps it will meet the Deputy if I give an assurance, without there being any legal obligation on me to do so, to send to the Dáil Library a copy of every rule or Order made under the section and approved by me.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5th August, 1948.