Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 1950

Vol. 120 No. 2

Social Welfare Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill, described as the Social Welfare Bill, 1949, is a simple and self-explanatory Bill. The main object of the Bill is to clear the ground for the implementation of the wider social security scheme. When the Department of Social Welfare was first established, it was recognised that its function would be to merge and integrate the various social activities which up to then were administered by separate Departments and administered in an unco-ordinated way. As a result of the activities which led to the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare, all these activities in the form of unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances were all brought within the scope of the Department of Social Welfare. The only social service which was not then included in the Department of Social Welfare was the National Health Insurance Society, that is the society which administers the National Health Insurance Acts.

I should imagine that those concerned with perfecting the organisation of the Department of Social Welfare at that time realised that that was a regrettable deficiency in the setting up of the structure now known as the Department of Social Welfare. It was then realised, and I think my predecessor recognised the fact quite frankly, that it was only a matter of time until the National Health Insurance Society would be integrated in the Department of Social Welfare, because at that time it was visualised that the continued existence of the society was an impediment and would continue to be an impediment to the smooth implementation of a scheme of social security.

This Bill, therefore, is designed mainly for the purpose of dissolving the National Health Insurance Society and transferring its functions and its liabilities to the Department of Social Welfare. In any case, the National Health Insurance Society must be absorbed in the Department as a preliminary to the introduction of the wider social security scheme and it is obviously better that the society should be taken into the Department at this stage, which is ripe for its absorption, so that the society can form part of the foundations on which it is hoped to rear the wider structure of social security. It is necessary, therefore, to integrate the society in the Department, so that the society and its machinery can be welded together with the other activities of the Department and thus form the basic framework on which the new structure will be reared. It will be necessary, as those who have given any consideration to the problem have realised, to build an efficient administrative machine in order to operate the new scheme and that machine can best be planned if, at this stage, the Department has within its own control the various social activities which will call for expansion under the new scheme. It is proposed, therefore, in this Bill to dissolve the National Health Insurance Society and to transfer all its functions to the Department of Social Welfare, it being considered, especially by those who have given careful consideration to the matter, that that is a necessary preliminary to the clearing of the ground and the building of the administrative machine for the wider social security scheme.

Part 2 of the Bill provides that the existing position of the Exchequer in relation to National Health Insurance will be maintained until the new scheme comes into operation. In other words, the each-way payments by the Exchequer and by the National Health Insurance Fund have been stabilised pending the introduction of the new scheme, when these payments will again come under review.

A necessary corollary to the dissolution of the society and the transfer of its functions to the Department is the transfer of the staff at present employed by the society. This Bill, therefore, provides that the staff of the society will be transferred to the Department of Social Welfare, except in so far as two or three members of the professional and technical staff are concerned. The society has at present a staff of approximately 600. This consists of statutory officers such as the secretary and treasurer, and also the administrative and clerical staff and certain other miscellaneous staff and field agents. All these, with the exception of two or three of the professional and technical staff will be taken over and transferred to the Civil Service. Those who are pensionable at present in accordance with their employment in the National Health Insurance Society will be taken over, and become established and pensionable civil servants. Those who are non-pensionable will be taken over, and will fall into their appropriate classes in the Civil Service.

So far as the headquarters staff of the society is concerned, that is the officers, the administrative and the clerical staff, I will, in due course, seek authority to assimilate them into the general service grades. As pensionable officers of the society they will become pensionable officers of the Civil Service and will be given the benefit of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts which, I think, are better than the terms provided by their existing employment.

Section 21 of the Bill is important inasmuch as it makes provision to enable the funds of the National Health Insurance Society, which are at present invested in various investments, to be used for investment in the purchase and equipment of premises to be used by the Department of Social Welfare; but provision is made in the Bill which will enable repayment to be made by the State of not less than the income at present received on the moneys now invested by the society and which will be used for the purpose of investment in new premises for the use of the society. That section of the Bill, therefore, will ensure that there will be no loss in earning power compared with existing investments and that, in fact, under the arrangement which is being made, the balance in all probability will lie in the direction of giving us a higher investment yield than that which is secured to-day.

Anybody who knows anything about the Department of Social Welfare knows that its various activities are at present scattered over approximately ten separate buildings in the City of Dublin. The Secretary of the Department and the Minister with their small staff are in one building in Merrion Square and the other offices of the Department are scattered all over the place. It is not possible to have a conference of the higher officials of the Department without collecting them from the variety of buildings in which they at present work. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the patchwork and unsatisfactory relations involved in the present disposition of the staff over so many and so inconveniently situated buildings. That inevitably leads to a lack of co-ordination and to an absence of smooth administration. In particular, it leads to a lack of those personal contacts so essential to the smooth administration of a Department.

In order to overcome all these difficulties, in order to co-ordinate the various activities of the Department and in order that these activities may be housed in the one building, giving all the efficiency which necessarily goes hand in hand with the closer integration of staff, it was decided that the Department should acquire for its own use a central building capable of accommodating the entire staff. As the House is aware, the premises which have now come to be known as the "Store Street" premises were offered for sale by Córas Iompair Éireann, and, as they were offered for sale, it was decided to purchase these premises for use as a central headquarters for the Department of Social Welfare. Negotiations are at present proceeding with Córas Iompair Éireann to complete the transaction. I hope that these negotiations will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion at an early date.

The acquisition by the Department of the Store Street premises will enable the Department for the first time to have a central headquarters in which all its staff can be accommodated. That, in turn, will enable the Department to shed its tenancy of many buildings at present occupied by the Department in various parts of the city, thus making these buildings available for other public purposes. I hope in that way we shall do something to arrest and, if possible, reverse the tendency so noticeable for many years past of acquiring private houses for the accommodation of Government staffs. The acquisition of a central headquarters will facilitate that process. It is bound to make for greater efficiency both in the control of staff and in the working of the administrative machine.

As I said at the outset, it is a simple and self-explanatory Bill. Apart from these main features, the rest of the Bill deals purely with machinery designed to implement the main provisions to which I have adverted and we can perhaps, therefore, agree to discuss the machinery aspects of the Bill on the Committee Stage.

I cannot see any objection to the principle of this Bill but I do not agree that it is a perfectly simple and straightforward Bill. The taking over of the National Health Insurance Society and merging it in the Department of Social Welfare is a step with which we all agree. It is a necessary part of a comprehensive scheme of insurance and is a principle to which we must subscribe.

It must be remembered that the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan put forward a scheme of social welfare. At the time that scheme was published the Fianna Fáil Government made it quite plain they did not agree that it was either a suitable or a workable scheme. The Opposition Parties at that time gave it their unqualified approval and for years the Fianna Fáil Government suffered a veritable barrage of opposition because they did not adopt the scheme. Every Party in Opposition, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Clann na Poblachta, gave it their approval. In the Clann na Poblachta address to their electors in 1948——

May I make a submission? I do not want to deprive the Deputy of an opportunity of discussing the merits or the mechanics of social security. I hope to provide him later on in the year with a full opportunity of doing so, but at this stage we are not discussing social security as such, its virtues, its weaknesses or its mechanics. We are discussing the acquisition of the society and the purchase of a particular premises. I understand the Deputy is in full agreement with that. I submit it is hardly relevant to discuss the mechanics of social security, and perhaps the Deputy would agree to defer his contribution on that matter to a more appropriate time.

I have no intention of dealing fully with the scheme presented by Dr. Dignan, except in one particular respect.

In respect of national health.

It is relevant to this Bill. May I preface my remarks by saying that the other Parties gave, not only their unqualified support, but kept up a persistent barrage against our Government for years because we refused to adopt the scheme? The principle underlying that particular scheme was that the National Health Insurance Society would take over all social services. In other words, that the committee which up to that time had been controlling national health would also control thenceforward unemployment, widows and orphans' pensions, children's allowances and health services generally. The Fianna Fáil Government decided the scheme was unworkable and unsuitable. The Opposition Parties of the day, the Parties now forming the Coalition Government, stumped up and down the country blaming our Government for not adopting that scheme. We knew at the time that these Parties did not believe in the scheme. There is ample proof now that the Coalition Parties will support the Tánaiste in this Bill. I agree it is a proper principle to put control of national health under the Department of Social Welfare instead of taking the advice tendered by Dr. Dignan and giving social welfare over to the National Health Insurance Society. We shall see an about turn on this question and the Coalition Parties will now vote in favour of a policy different from the one they advocated during the election. We know the reason why they went to the country advocating Dr. Dignan's scheme. It was published by a Catholic Bishop.

The simple reason was that they did not believe in the scheme at all, as they are going to prove now, and that they wanted to confuse the issue and to give people to understand that the Fianna Fáil Government were flouting a bishop; that they were anti-clerical, anti-Catholic and so on. As far as they could work that stunt they did it to the best of their ability. Now they are going to vote the other way. I think a statesman once said that religion is the last refuge of the ruffian. I hope the Parties on the other side will remember that now.

There must have been an awful lot of ruffians among the people who now sit on the opposite side of the House.

This unified society has been in operation since 1933. Deputies who were in the House at that time will remember that the Fianna Fáil Government had a very hard fight to get the Bill, that was necessary to set up the unified society, through. The debate went on here, I believe, for two days. The Government was opposed by the Fine Gael Party and, in particular, by the Independents. It was supported in the vote at the end by the members of the Labour Party of that time, including the Tánaiste, who is now introducing this Bill. It is well to remember that we had the very bitter opposition of Fine Gael in bringing in that Bill and that we are now able to report, after 17 years, that the unified society was a complete success. The operations it carried out during these 17 years were very creditable. The financial provisions, as laid down in the Bill of 1933, were wide, and the society was put on a very good, sound basis. Not only was it able to pay its way, but it was able to give extra benefits after practically the first two years and from then on down to the present time. Our thanks are due to these people who are changing over now. Our thanks are due to the committee who managed that society and to the staffs, both indoor and outdoor. Probably the Tánaiste will be asked some questions with regard to the provisions that are being made for the staff, when we come to examine this Bill in more detail.

I have said that this Bill is not, as the Tánaiste has tried to give us to understand, a simple measure by any means. I think everybody in the House will approve of the Bill in principle but there are certain aspects of it on which we must at least get some more information. I am not satisfied with some of the provisions but I admit that I may be mistaken. For instance, there are references to the Act of 1911 but I find it impossible to lay hands on it. As a matter of fact I do not think it is to be had. In a case of this kind, and especially when we are legislating by reference to an Act that is not available to the ordinary Deputy, I think it would have been well if the Minister had given us some explanation in a memorandum—at any rate wherever the 1911 Act is mentioned. I feel that wherever changes are made in the Act of 1911 Deputies should have a memorandum telling them what the changes are.

I should be glad to make all the information I have on this subject available to the Deputy before the Committee Stage. I assure him that they are only routine alterations.

I may say, however, that we are in a position to examine the 1947 Act, the 1943 Act, and so forth, but we cannot lay hands on the 1911 Act. It is quite possible, I admit, that they are only routine or formal changes.

I assure the Deputy that they are purely routine.

We would be glad if the Minister would give us a note on the matter before the Committee Stage. I have been asked to-day, in connection with this Bill, if it would not have been better to postpone this measure and to bring it in as part of the comprehensive scheme—in other words, part of the Bill which, I presume, will be a fairly extensive Bill, dealing with the comprehensive scheme. Probably the Minister has a good reason for that but I should like to hear why he is bringing in this Bill now.

The Deputy will appreciate that last year on my Estimate he himself indicated that he thought it would be better to introduce the measure before the comprehensive scheme.

Probably I would do so again, if I heard some arguments in relation to the matter. However, I mentioned it because that question was put to me to-day.

The financial provisions are not very clear. I quite admit that in most Bills the financial provisions, when they are in legal form, are not so easy to understand. Take, for instance, Sections 14, 16, 17 and 19. Section 14 refers to the investment of surplus sums in the fund. As far as I can see, it is laid down that the funds of this society, when it is wound up, will go to the Minister for Finance, to be used by him for the ordinary purposes of the Exchequer. However, it lays down that a certain amount of working capital, as it were, will be left with the society—enough money to meet current expenditure. I would point out that that does not seem to fit in so well with Section 21. It is difficult in a case like this to read through whole sections and to explain what I have in mind. However, I would ask the Minister to take a note of the fact that Section 14 and Section 21 do not seem to tally. If he is going to give us a memorandum before the Committee Stage I would ask him to give us in it some more minute information in regard to these financial provisions.

Any funds handed over to the Minister for Finance will be handed over to him in a trustee capacity. They will not be for general purposes at all. They will be held on behalf of the fund, in the same way as he holds part of these funds at the moment. As Minister for Finance, he will hold them all, but purely in a trustee capacity. I assure the Deputy that that is the position.

Very good. I thought I saw in the Bill "to be used by the Minister for Finance for the purposes of the Exchequer". Then take Section 16. I have prefaced my remarks by saying that it is not easy to follow these financial sections but, as far as I understand the section, the Exchequer will contribute £215,000 towards the expenses of running this society. I should like to know if that will be taken in lieu of the amount voted every year up to this? For instance, the highest amount voted for national health insurance was voted in respect of the year 1947-48 and the sum was £727,000. In the present Estimate the amount is £481,000. If the Minister for Finance is getting away with it, as it were, in that he will not have to ask the Dáil to vote these moneys any more, and is, instead, going to give £215,000, it seems a very good bargain from his point of view. I should like the Minister to explain further the position under Section 16 if he intends to circulate a memorandum before the Committee Stage.

Section 17 deals also with expenses of administration. I was looking up some old Acts and, as far as I could gather, a certain amount of money comes to the National Health Insurance Society as a windfall—stamps not used, and so forth. It is like unclaimed balances in the bank or bank notes that are lost. In the same way, in respect of the National Health Insurance Society, people purchase stamps, apparently, and never use them. Of course, that is a gain to the society against which there is no liability whatever. As the law stood up to this, the first £15,000 of that was diverted in one direction and anything above that went in another direction. It appears that under Section 17 now the first £15,000 will be taken for national health insurance and anything over that will be taken for the Exchequer. Again, it appears to me the Exchequer has the advantage.

It is the opposite.

Again under Section 19, so far as I can read it, these additional benefits will be payable up to and including the year 1952. It appears that they will then stop. If the contributions and benefits were to remain as they are at the moment, there would be a surplus for additional benefits. If the contributions and benefits are to be increased it is quite possible that after a few years' experience there would be a surplus which would in the ordinary way go for additional benefits. If this Bill is implemented as it stands, it appears to me that the surplus if any would go to the Exchequer after 1952.

I assure the Deputy that will not happen.

Very good. I am only asking for information. The Tánaiste will give us that information in the memorandum. The next point about which I want to ask information and to protest against, perhaps, is that so far as I can read Section 20 it gives the Minister very wide powers. In fact, it gives him power to alter the Act, if it is necessary, to make things fit in, and I do not know if that were done before.

It was done in another Act not so long ago.

It appears to be ruling by decree as it were. If the Minister gets power to alter legislation, if the legislation does not suit the new arrangement, then he can alter Acts so as to make them fit in with his idea of what the new situation should be.

The Deputy no doubt has read sub-section (3) of Section 20?

Yes. The Order will be laid on the table of the House, but when the Minister was speaking over here in opposition, he always said that that was no great safeguard. An awful lot could be done under an Order before it came up for discussion in the Dáil. These are the main points I have to make with regard to finance, modifications and adaptations.

There are some smaller points which I should like the Minister to make a little more clear when he is winding up. For instance, in Section (6) the meaning of the section so far as I can see is that this Bill when passed will apply not only to insured persons but to others. I do not know what is meant by that, because if a person is liable under the law to insure for national health, both his employer and himself are bound to see that that is done. I do not know what can be meant by that section, because it says that it shall apply not only to members of the society but to all insured persons. Are there people insured for national health who are not members of the society? If there are it is understandable, but I did not think there were. I thought that everybody who was insured for national health was a member of the society, and that when we transferred the society we transferred the members. Who are these other insured persons? Perhaps the Minister could explain that at a later stage.

Coming to Section 7, I think that in sub-section (3) (b) we are embarking on a new principle. I thought it was quite obvious that the employees of the society would be made civil servants. The provisions laid down cover them by making them civil servants straight off by bringing them under the superannuation fund, but when we come to those on probation paragraph (b) says that on the completion of the period of probation, and if then deemed satisfactory by the Minister, they will be admitted as civil servants. I think that is a new principle. I do not think there is any instance where a Minister can decide whether a person is qualified to be a civil servant or not. It is a very dangerous principle. Possibly again the Minister will be able to explain this in such a way that it will turn out not to be so serious as it appears to be at first sight. Unless he is able to explain it in that way I think we should resist this provision, because we have succeeded in this country in building up a Civil Service which is above reproach and we ought to try to keep it so and keep the appointment of personnel outside the control of Ministers.

The Minister explained to some extent sub-section (5) (b). He referred to it in his opening speech, but I think he might have proceeded to tell us why it was not necessary to take in these professional and technical people. I do not know how many there are, but we should like to know what is the explanation of this provision.

One is an accountant paid a retaining fee. The other is a solicitor who is paid a retaining fee.

They are only part-time?

They have other employment.

Coming to Section 8, sub-section (6) has given me a little trouble. Perhaps something the Minister has already said may explain it. I may be under a misapprehension about the funds handed over, because each spring if the Minister for Finance is going to get the funds it does not matter if he is given first what is detailed for superannuation and the remainder of the funds afterwards. The Minister probably may be able to explain that what is due to the superannuation fund by the society should be fixed up first before the remainder of the fund is handed over. I should like him to take note of the necessity for explaining what exactly is meant by that particular sub-section. Again, sub-section (3) appears to me to be rather strange, because it speaks about "existing liabilities" and "contingent liabilities". So far as one can read this legal language, it says it would have been paid over were it not "for this Part of this Act"; but if it were not "for this Part of this Act" the thing would not arise at all. I would like to have some enlightenment on that, so that a layman could understand it.

What is the precise point the Deputy is interested in?

Section 8 (7) says, "any sum, which, but for this part of this Act" would have been paid over. If it were not "for this part of this Act" the thing would not arise at all and therefore I want to know if the Minister could explain in some plain language the meaning of the sub-section.

The Minister in introducing this Bill said that the employees when they are taken over as civil servants will be treated as well as they are treated at the moment. What I take it he has in mind is that if they are on a scale at the moment that scale will operate, if not something better, and that the pension rights will be as good. These pension rights are very tricky and I would like the Minister to give us a little more precise information with regard to what the pension rights were in the society and what the superannuation rights will be when they come into the Civil Service. As we know, there are two systems of superannuation in the Civil Service, one, the old system, and one which was introduced back in 1930 or about that time. I would like the Minister to tell us which type of superannuation will apply to those employees when they come in from the society.

The only other point relates to new premises. It was mentioned by the Minister that there were certain funds available and he was quite frank in telling the House what his intentions are. On the Vote on Account I referred to decentralisation. I mentioned that when I was Minister for Social Welfare I thought there would be an opportunity of applying this principle of decentralisation and I could not see much difficulty in having the Department of Social Welfare housed in Cork, Galway, or somewhere else. It is a Department that practically runs itself so far as administration goes. There are no very big decisions for the Minister at the administrative end. There are certainly decisions for the Minister in regard to legislation and that type of business, but not at the administrative end.

This National Health Insurance Society has run very successfully for some years and we can presume that it will run just as well for years to come. Having that in mind, I thought it would be possible to have this Department placed in another town rather than in Dublin. In fact, the secretary of the Department when I was there had some conversations with the authorities in Cork or Galway with a view to finding out if there was an available site and if the housing problem of a large staff being moved down there could be got over. So far as I could learn the thing was feasible, and I think it should be pursued further.

Are they not short of houses in both places?

They are short here, too, and wherever you go there will be a shortage of houses. I thought the thing was feasible. We talk about decentralisation but you may be sure, although we are asked to decentralise, that there will always be some difficulties put up. I believe that in this case the difficulties are no bigger than they would be in relation to any other proposition that might be put up. This Department is one that could easily go to some other place, because administration in it is a thing that does not require very often a decision from a high level.

Would it not be a serious matter to tear some hundreds of people away from their homes and send them, say, to Galway?

All these things are serious. Everybody talks about decentralisation, but whatever proposition is put up there will be objections. I do not believe the objections in this case would be any bigger than could be put up in other cases.

If the Deputy mentioned the Department of Lands or the Department of Agriculture, I would back him more quickly.

The Department of Agriculture is a Department where the Minister is called upon to give important decisions every day.

Would you not like to see the Minister going with them?

No, it is not necessary. When I was Minister for Social Welfare I thought the idea was feasible and the secretary had discussions with at least one of these authorities and, as far as that city was concerned, they thought they could provide a site and cope with the housing situation necessary. It is a pity the idea could not be pursued further.

It is a great pity the Deputy did not get agreement among his colleagues to set that headline.

There was agreement as far as that goes. The Minister told us he proposes to purchase Store Street. I notice a provision in the Bill which leaves the Minister free for a few years to come in making the purchase of a premises for headquarters for his Department. It will be much more easy for the Minister concerned than for the Minister for Finance, because the Minister for Social Welfare is in a rural constituency and there are no complications arising as between Store Street and Smithfield, and he can make his purchase without the slightest hesitation. But it is a great pity that he should do this. There has been a great deal of discussion about Store Street. I do not know much about the merits of that case at all, but my appeal to the Minister would be to consider again the arguments pro and con decentralisation, and placing this Department in another city before he proceeds to purchase a premises in the City of Dublin.

I think there are many people in the country who will agree with me that this Bill has been somewhat hasty. I believe the right thing to do would be to absorb the society in the comprehensive social welfare scheme which the Minister has promised. I am rather disappointed at the Minister's speech. I believe that he should have in that speech paid a compliment to the headquarters staff of the society who certainly deserve from any Minister or Deputy or any other person in this country the highest credit for the great job they have achieved since 1934. At that time they took over bankrupt and semi-bankrupt societies, many of them reeking with fraud, and, after making a microscopic examination of the whole position, they put the National Health Insurance Society, which this Bill now proposes to annihilate, in one of the soundest and strongest positions imaginable. If there is one institution that the Fianna Fáil Government can be very proud of it is the National Health Insurance Society. Therefore, I say I had hoped that the Minister would apologise for the execution of that great instrument of State.

The Bill clearly indicates that the headquarters staff, and others, will become civil servants. I would like to ask the Minister if there have been any discussions between the Minister and the representatives of the Civil Service Clerical Association. Has there been any agreement, or any assurance, that those people will be welcomed into the Civil Service? If there has not, then for the future you are going to have even the most junior civil servants looking down their noses at these people for the rest of their lives. I would like to be assured that that is not going to happen.

I fail to see anything in the Bill to assure me that the conditions governing the rules and regulations of the society, in so far as the members are concerned, will not be worsened. I would like to have an assurance that the rates of benefit and all other conditions governing the society will not be altered to the detriment of the insured person. Has the Minister made sure that the position of the staff will be bettered as from January, 1950, under Section 22? I wonder is the Minister aware that there are automatic increases in the payment of many employees? I hope he is not going to prevent those who are entitled to increases as from January, 1950, getting the increases. Last year, perhaps, an argument of that kind would have been much more necessary. This year, we know that the membership of the society has decreased.

The Deputy will have read sub-section (4) of Section 22, no doubt, for an answer to the question.

We have heard in this House during my time and long before it many arguments advanced in favour of democracy. This Bill can scarcely be described as one which will extend democracy, for while on the one hand we have the committee of management abolished, on the other hand we have been told that the power taken under the County Managerial Act must be given back to the people. Again the members will find difficulty, as time goes on, because the National Health Insurance Society will now be administered like the Civil Service. That will certainly mean that many members will have to get accustomed to Civil Service regulations instead of those obtaining up to now. That will make a difference to them.

I think that, on the whole, this Bill could have remained over until the Minister was prepared to absorb it in the proposed scheme. It looks as if the Minister is not going to produce that scheme very quickly. Perhaps he was anxious, under Section 21, to get hold of the £7,000,000. That will save the Minister from going to the Minister for Finance and saying that he wanted £1,000,000.

The Deputy has not read the Bill.

The Minister, under Section 21, clearly indicates that he is going to spend some of that money on the purchase of premises in Store Street. I think he also made it very clear that, if he did not spend some of the £7,000,000 in reserve, he would have had to ask the Minister for Finance for £1,000,000 and another £500,000 for alterations, furniture, and so on. However, that money is the members' money. I hope that will be borne in mind at all times by the Minister. The reserve fund is certainly the property of the members of the National Health Insurance Society, and whether the Minister considers the purchase of new premises is a good investment or not I do not know. Time will tell. I believe that that money should have been invested in the best possible way, but the purchase of buildings can hardly be described as the best possible way in which to invest it.

I, like Deputy Ryan, feel disappointed that this Bill was not accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. The Minister claims that it is a straightforward Bill. I cannot agree that any Bill which contains references to Acts going back some 40 years, as well as to Acts passed in the intervening period, can be a straightforward one. I think it is only fair to say that Deputies should have been supplied with an explanatory memorandum to enable them to examine the Bill properly. I am not sufficiently conversant with the problems related to the administration of the National Health Insurance Society or to the Department of Social Welfare proper to decide whether this amalgamation, or take-over, will provide a better administrative machine for the Department. On general principles, I believe that such a scheme will make for better administration generally.

The Minister stated that there was a staff of something like 600 men and women in the society from the secretary and treasurer down to the ordinary clerical grades and field agents. I take it that the staff they will now be joining will be something like three times as great as that 600. I believe that many of the 600 people who are now going to be civil servants proper will find that their conditions will have worsened, possibly not from the point of view of immediate remuneration, but certainly from the point of view of their opportunities of promotion.

What opportunities have they at present?

I can give the Deputy at least one instance that I know of personally. The Deputy will appreciate what a section leader means in the Army and I believe there is something corresponding to it in the National Health Insurance Society. He is something like a staff officer who has immediate control of six or eight people. The Deputy will appreciate that there is no corresponding office in the Civil Service. The Minister has stated that the staff will be taken into the general service grades. I should like to elaborate further on the suggestion I have made that their opportunities of promotion will be worsened. I take it that out of a staff of 600 there would possibly be a falling off by death and retirement of about 60 per annum. Therefore, the immediate opportunities presented to these men are about one in ten. They are now going into a vastly bigger Department and, from that point of view, their opportunities of promotion will decrease.

The Deputy should remember that about 300 of the 600 are outdoor agents, the bulk of them part-time, and that once they are agents they are always agents for whom there is no promotion at present.

The Minister did not make it clear in his opening speech that half of the 600 were only part-time. Section 7 provides for the taking over of the staff. The section is arbitrary, even though in sub-section (5) it purports to give a person who is not willing to be taken over as a full civil servant an opportunity of refusing. But what is his alternative if he refuses to become a full civil servant?

Are they not anxious to become civil servants?

Is that the purpose of the Bill—to create more civil servants?

It is not.

That is the feature which appealed to Deputy Cowan.

I should like to see them improving themselves.

That is the purpose of the remarks I am making. I know that there are members of the staff of the society who are not as keen to become civil servants as Deputy Cowan thinks. First of all, as civil servants and as a consolidated group of employees, they are being deprived of a very valuable weapon in procuring for themselves better conditions of employment—that is, the strike weapon.

Will you vote against the Bill?

I am not saying I will vote against the Bill. I am trying to point out that I consider the staff of the society should be provided with more safeguards than there are in this Bill. It is not a matter for a joke. I know that there are members of the staff of the society who are not very anxious to become civil servants. I believe the Minister has had some consultations with representatives of the society, and I presume that he has given them some assurances, if not ample assurances, that their conditions will not be worsened under the amalgamation. But, if he did have these consultations, he should have elaborated on them to some extent in introducing the Bill, as one of the big features of it is that men who undertook a contract of service ten or 20 years ago will now find their contracts compulsorily altered, and I think that is an important principle. Whether my fears are justified or otherwise, I think the principle is there and the Minister should have given us a more complete picture of the negotiations which took place before the Bill was introduced.

There is one sad aspect of the Bill, and that is that by its introduction the provision of a central bus terminus for the people of Dublin and the country is further put off. The Store Street premises almost certainly will be housing an army of civil servants, premises that were never designed for that purpose. I am not going to elaborate that.

I submit that it was pretty well discussed on the Transport Bill, although the Deputy is in order in referring to it.

I would have submitted that I am in order, but I am not going to elaborate on it to any extent. The Minister has glibly said that the premises are available for purchase. That is putting it very mildly. He might reasonably have used the term which we often hear in connection with land acquired by the Land Commission or under the Housing Act—compulsorily acquired. The Minister has also pointed out that the premises which are now to be vacated by several other branches of his Department will be available for other public undertakings. I should like to know if there are other Departments looking for premises at present. It seems to me that at the moment most civil servants are housed within the ambit of their own Departments or within the scope of supervision so far as possible. If these premises are to be taken over for sections of other Departments, it will be only creating another evil in trying to cure one, and whatever Departments will take them over will have their staffs diffused all over the city.

On the question of decentralisation referred to by Deputy Dr. Ryan, I do not think that Deputies opposite should have scoffed at the idea in the manner in which they seem to have done.

How could you do it?

That was part of the Clann na Poblachta programme.

It is part of it, and nobody here scoffed at it.

I saw Deputy Lehane smiling almost contemptuously as Deputy Dr. Ryan mentioned it.

I told Deputy Dr. Ryan that I was sorry he could not find agreement amongst his colleagues for the proposal to decentralise.

Mr. de Valera

What is the basis for that statement?

Surely Deputy Dr. Ryan would not have chanced mentioning it if it were generally known that there was not agreement amongst his colleagues. From the mere fact that he mentioned it, I take it that there was agreement amongst his colleagues, and still is, for decentralisation in certain circumstances.

I resent strenuously that there was any scoffing at the suggestion of decentralisation.

This is not a bickering Party.

They bicker pretty well amongst themselves.

I apologise to Deputy Lehane if I have misrepresented his smile when Deputy Dr. Ryan mentioned decentralisation. I accept the fact that he agrees with decentralisation in so far as it can be achieved. I also agree that if the Department were decentralised and established, for instance, in Cork that would create hardship on those people who have been living with their families in Dublin for several years. If a start has to be made in decentralisation one must create hardship in some direction.

I think that would be even worse than the problem of promotion, as far as the officials are concerned.

I quite agree. I would suggest that possibly some other Department could be housed outside Dublin. As far as Cork is concerned, the housing situation is relatively as acute there as it is in Dublin. I do not believe, however, that the people of Cork would resent a Government Department, or portion of it, being set up within the walls of that city.

Their own people could go back to them.

As has been pointed out, there are several people in Dublin from Cork on what has been described as a single ticket. I was a single-ticket man myself and I was glad to buy a return ticket. I am sure many of my fellow-men from Cork would be equally glad of an opportunity to return there.

I have already dealt with Section 7. It is an arbitrary section. Under sub-section (5) of that section may I ask the Minister what will happen to a man who, if he feels strongly enough about it, refuses to accept the terms of this Bill and become a civil servant? Will there be alternative employment for him? Will he find himself without employment, lining up in the queue possibly outside the building in which he once worked?

Before I speak, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. I have to do so because of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the explanation the Minister gave of this Bill and of the proposals contained in it in his introduction and also because of the fact that the Bill, contrary to custom, was not accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. May I ask the Minister to explain them before I speak?

The Minister is at liberty to reply or not.

I take the definition section and I would like the Minister to answer me——

The Deputy knows there will be a Committee Stage on this Bill.

This is germane to the principle of the Bill and I think we should have some explanation from the Minister. The definition section says:—

"the expression ‘the guarantee fund' means the guarantee fund set up for the purposes of Section 26 of the Act of 1911."

I have that Act here and I do not see any reference in it to a guarantee fund. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain to me how the guarantee fund referred to here in the Bill, which he proposes to grab, has been set up.

The Deputy is a very knowledgeable person and, no doubt, reading a Bill presents no difficulty to him. If he reads the remainder of the Bill before him he will see what the guarantee fund is.

I see a proposal to grab the fund.

In case the Deputy is not able to grasp the Bill, may I tell him that the guarantee fund is a fund created by the 1911 Act, which he apparently administered for a long number of years without knowing anything about it. The fund is designed to make good deficits in particular societies which then existed separately. I shall endeavour to have this written for the Deputy in simpler language, and submitted to him well in advance of the Committee Stage, so that he can discuss it to his heart's content.

As was said very aptly by a Deputy on these benches last night, it is not for his own purpose that a Deputy asks questions, but for the purpose of eliciting information for the Dáil and the general public interested in the Bill.

Everybody understands this Bill except you.

The Minister does not understand what the guarantee fund is, but will he explain to me how it came to be set up?

I take it this discussion will proceed in the usual way of speech and not by way of question and answer.

The Deputy, of course, is an unusual Deputy.

Is the Deputy finished?

Mr. de Valera

The Deputy may ask rhetorical questions.

It is very desirable we should know the amount of money involved.

The procedure here is conducted by means of speech.

Will the Deputy allow me. A Deputy rises in his or her place and makes a speech. If Deputy MacEntee does not continue by way of speech, I shall call on some other Deputy to continue the debate.

May I ask a question as to what has been the custom in the House. Is it not generally allowable, when a Minister concludes his speech introducing the Second Reading of a Bill, to ask the Minister questions if the information given by him has not been sufficient, so that the Minister may furnish the necessary information in reply to such questions? Is not that the general procedure?

I am asking Deputy MacEntee if he proposes to continue his speech. If not, I shall call on some other Deputy.

I am asking you to rule on that point. Do you now say it is not customary in this House for a Minister to furnish information when he is asked?

I am not saying anything as to what a Minister may or may not do. I am merely indicating the order of procedure. It the Deputy does not wish to continue his speech, I shall call on some other Deputy.

As Deputy Dr. Ryan said, this is a very interesting example of the unprincipled political somersaults to which the various Parties in the Coalition have made us accustomed. Public life under them has degenerated to the level of the circus arena.

The white elephant!

And in that arena we see the politicians, who were at one time in opposition, not amusing or entertaining but scandalising the general public by a series of political somersaults and handsprings. If this Bill represents anything it represents the complete abandonment of the Dignan plan—a slap in the face, if one might so describe it, to a member of the hierarchy who had almost been elected as a patron saint by the members of the political Parties now forming the Government.

Can you not leave Dr. Dignan out of it?

Among them was no less a person than the Minister for External Affairs. The House will remember that the principal proposal in Dr. Dignan's plan was that the National Health Insurance Society would administer unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and even the normal health services and hospitals of the country as well as national health insurance. For that purpose its powers of indirect taxation by way of weekly contributions were to be extended and, correspondingly, the powers of the Government in relation to these social services were to be contracted. Among those, as I said, who were breast high for that proposal was the Minister for External Affairs. As proof of that I should like to quote a statement which he was reported to have made and which was published in the Irish Independent of the 24th January, 1948:—

"Side by side with policy of full production and employment, it is proposed to institute a comprehensive scheme of social security on the lines recommended by Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, whereby adequate provision will be made for those who are unable to work through illness, old age or family duties. Again, here it will be necessary to base the benefit on the cost of living."

I held, after full and careful examination of Dr. Dignan's proposals, that they were, in our State as we have organised it on a democratic basis, completely impracticable. That, as Deputy Dr. Ryan has told the House, was denied by the Minister for Social Welfare, by the Minister for External Affairs and by practically every other member of the present Government. They stumped the country. As Deputy Dr. Ryan has told you, they stumped the country—using the Bishop of Clonfert as a political weapon in order to do what damage they could to the credit of the then Fianna Fáil Government.

This Bill is, as I have said, an example of the political somersaults of the Parties opposite since they took office. There is something more than that in this Bill. Section 21 of this Bill is, in itself, an admission of the wisdom of the Fianna Fáil Government in planning to provide the people of this State with an economic and efficient Civil Service by housing them economically and efficiently. The Minister has told us a sorrowful tale about the present position of the Department of Social Welfare.

That I was handed over.

He said it was spread all over the City of Dublin.

Thanks to you.

He said that it is quite impossible to get a conference of higher officials without a considerable waste of time on their part and a considerable waste of time on the part of the subordinates who sometimes have to accompany them. He said that there is a lack of co-ordination between the various sections of the Department of Social Welfare, a lack of co-operation, a lack of personal contact, which makes for inefficiency and misunderstanding and delays and, of course, a great deal of aggravation and annoyance on the part of the public who have to deal with these officials. That was recognised by the previous Government. All these grave disadvantages which arise from the dispersal of public departments all over the city and the housing of them in buildings that were never intended to be used as offices but which were, as the Minister for Social Welfare has himself admitted, originally designed as dwelling-houses, were recognised long ago by the Fianna Fáil Administration——

They were going to spend £11,500,000 on it.

——and a long time ago we had this problem under examination and investigation. As the Minister for Finance admitted the other day, we had actually prepared tentative plans, well in advance, to provide the people of this State with the same sort of up-to-date office accommodation—as any first-class commercial concern would provide for itself in order that it might save money for its shareholders and for the people interested in it.

At a cost of £11,500,000.

At a cost of £11,500,000—and ultimately, perhaps, of even more than £11,500,000. But who were the people who were telling us that we should plan in advance in order that, when unemployment came and when depression came there would be a pool of public works available upon which we would be able to employ persons who would otherwise be workless and hungry?

First things first.

The Minister for Social Welfare, when he was a member of the Labour Party—I say when he was a member of the Labour Party because I doubt if he continues to be one—and when he was sitting on this side of the House as a member and as Leader of the Labour Party, was one of those who used to blame us because, he said, we were not devoting attention to that problem. What Party in this State at the last general election came along with the most flamboyant plans? The Party to which Deputy C. Lehane is, I understand, the deputy-Leader.

Not for luxury offices but for productive works.

The people who had the plan of plans, we were told, were the Clann na Poblachta people. Now, Fianna Fáil is being blamed because it had a plan to house Government Departments——

That comes under the heading of unproductive work.

——which the Minister for Social Welfare has told us, are now scattered all over the city.

This Party does not contribute to the idea of folie de grandeur.

Deputy Lehane continues to interrupt. He ought to stop babbling sometime and listen, if he can. I do not wish to have to deal with his incoherent and disjointed interruptions.

Mr. de Valera

The Deputies opposite do not like to hear the truth.

You did not like it the other night when it was disclosed.

We will never hear it from you.

Deputy MacEntee, on the Bill.

One of the justifications for it is section 21. The Minister for Social Welfare, in introducing this Bill, referred to the fact that it was necessary to grab Store Street in order to bring together his scattered Department. He has tried to ascribe to Fianna Fáil responsibility for the fact that the Department is dispersed. I propose, as the Minister for Social Welfare, when introducing this Bill, referred to the matter, to deal with that point. It is quite true that the Department of Social Welfare is scattered all over the city. We are not responsible for that. We are responsible for the fact that we set up a Department of Social Welfare to co-ordinate these various sections of the social services that were previously administered by a considerable number of other Departments. The Minister for Social Welfare, who now blames us because he finds the sections of his Department scattered all over the city, was one of those who, with the Labour Party, opposed the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare to co-ordinate all these services, to secure co-operation and to bring together these officials.

On a point of order. Deputy MacEntee has accused the Labour Party of having opposed the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare. I want to brand that statement as a falsehood. We not only supported it but, long before the Department was set up, we advocated its establishment, as the records can prove.

That is a matter of fact and not a point of order.

The fact is on my side.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn