I stated at the beginning of my speech that the attitude of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Seán Lemass, towards this measure, and towards the Government, would well bear examination. As we have now an opportunity of reading the official report of what he said, it becomes, in my opinion, even more important that we should examine the viewpoint expressed by him. His contribution to the measure was, as would be expected from a man of his calibre, of first-class importance and the attitude of the House as a whole could be seriously affected by the statement he made in regard to this Bill.
His first approach is one that is very difficult to understand. It represents, as far as I can see, a sort of somersault of reasoning. He states, in column 61 of the parliamentary debates, that if this Bill is accepted by the Dáil without a division, the public will be led to believe that the Bill represents the best that the combined wisdom of the members of the Dáil could produce, and it would make the implementation subsequently of a better scheme more difficult. This viewpoint seems to be contrary to the usual practice of any assembly dealing with legislation, particularly in democratic countries, where we are accustomed to the principle of broadening down from precedent. It does not provide, I think, any valid reason for opposition to this Bill.
No case is made that the public would be differently minded if the Bill were allowed to go through without a division, than they would be if it went through with a division. Therefore, it appears to me that we could dismiss that contention of the ex-Minister when he tries very valiantly, but at great expense to his own reasoning powers, to make a case for the Opposition not accepting the Bill. He describes the attitude of the Opposition to the Bill as being affected by the tone of the speeches made by members of the Government and their supporters. He says that there appears to be among them a desire that Fianna Fáil Deputies should vote against the Bill so that they can be represented as being opposed to the principle of improving social services.
There is no evidence whatsoever given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition on this point. We do not know to whom he refers. He has not cited any Deputy as having expressed a wish that Fianna Fáil should vote against this Bill, and allow me to disabuse the mind of the deputy Leader of the Opposition that there is any such desire on the part of any member of the Labour Party, whatever may be the desire, hidden or overt, on the part of other Parties for whom we cannot speak. Our attitude is that, in the present state of the development of the country and of our Party, we are only too pleased and too anxious to have every major Party socially conscious. We are only too pleased, if it is necessary to state our belief, that the Fianna Fáil Party, as one of the major Parties in the House, has in general, despite fluctuations and despite contradictions in their attitude from time to time, supported the idea of improvement in the social services of this country.
Naturally, as a Party linked to the idea of inter-Party Government, who seek allies in different parts of the House, we are extremely anxious that Fianna Fáil Deputies, instead of voting against the Bill, should vote for the Bill, should show their agreement with us on the principles of social welfare, the necessity for it at this stage, whatever differences there are, and there have been differences, which I need not refer to, cited by Deputy Lemass, in regard to the details of the Bill, in regard to some of the minor as well as some of the major matters in the Bill, such as the question of whether there should be increased contributions or not, whether there should be a retention of the age limit at 70 or its recession to 65. Such matters, to my mind, would be more correctly assessed and discussed on the Committee Stage. At this stage of the Bill, in opposition to the hard core of conservative opposition outside the House, by those who support privilege and profit, who have very little regard for the under-privileged in our community, we want to present all the major Parties in this House as agreeing to the principle of an extension of social welfare.
Despite the fact that many members of my own Party, from time to time, have made suggestions in regard to Fascist and dictatorial tendencies and the leadership principle of the Fianna Fáil Party, I have always maintained the view that Fianna Fáil is a democratic Party. I do not think that any arrangements that are made at the present time, which may have given colour to the type of Government we have now, are by any means or necessarily immutable. Having regard to the allies we may seek in future, it is just as well that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other major Party in the House should be of one mind in regard to this question, that there should be common ground between all the Parties in regard to the necessity to secure the welfare of the State by providing social security and the necessity to provide the under-privileged with the benefits which are intended for them in this Bill.
Having said that, it would appear that I agree with the deputy Leader of the Opposition on the question of taking out of Party polities these questions of social welfare. The deputy Leader of the Opposition said at column 77:—
"But, if the Minister would intimate the willingness of the Government to accept our proposals as an alternative to the Bill, not merely would he get the advantage of putting the question outside the limits of Party controversy, but we could, I think, expedite its enactment, nor do I think that the Minister, by doing so, would damage either his own reputation or political prospects. I think it is very undesirable, from every point of view, that the political Parties of this State should appear to be bidding against each other in matters bearing on social welfare."
We, too, are of that opinion, despite the fact that certain people will be rather cynical when they hear a professed politician talking about a subject such as this being taken out of the realms of Party controversy. We admit the correct intent of the deputy Leader of the Opposition in regard to this, but would like to submit to him that the method which he suggests is by no means feasible and would not be correct.
We know perfectly well the tenor of political life in this country. We know that, if the Minister were to accede to this request and withdraw the Bill, then the irresponsible members of the Opposition, if not the responsible, would trumpet abroad that Fianna Fáil had compelled the Government to throw over its own measures for social welfare and accept instead those proposed by Deputy Dr. Ryan on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. Everyone will admit that in such circumstances, if the matter were arranged in that fashion, it would be disastrous to the Minister and his reputation, whether he cared for it or not; it would be disastrous to the political prospects of the Government for which he should have a care. Therefore, it is not as simple as the deputy Leader of the Opposition puts it.
It is hardly likely that any Government, having devoted nearly three years to this question, having had it debated from every point of view, thoroughly threshed out in the inner circles and in the Parties that compose the Government, having had it discussed in extenso over that period, would, at this critical stage of the proceedings, withdraw the Bill in favour of an outline scheme—and no more than an outline scheme—proposed here rather hurriedly, it appeared to us, by Deputy Dr. Ryan. The alternative proposals would require very serious examination and would appear to me to be in a better position to obtain that serious consideration at a later stage in the proceedings. I am certain that there is no other Minister in the House who would so like to accommodate the Opposition as the present Minister in charge of this Bill would be, no Minister who would, more than he, like to make certain that throughout the country it is thoroughly established by all Parties that there is a need for and a recognition of the principle of social welfare but, accommodating as he would be, he could not, I submit, without serious damage to the prospects of those whom it is intended to benefit, suddenly throw over a scheme like that and grasp at and accept another proposition.
If there is any serious intent behind this suggestion of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, there are other means of approaching the Minister than across the floor of the House. I suggest that the Second Reading should be granted to the Minister, and that by conference between the Minister, Deputy Dr. Ryan and those who are competent to judge this question, it might be possible to hammer out an agreed measure which would redound to the credit of the Minister, the Government and the Opposition. I submit it would not be done in the manner suggested by Deputy Lemass.
On the Adjournment, I was dealing with the question of the low-wage group. I propose now to refer briefly to some constructive aspects of the scheme which are of importance. I was discussing whether the level of the low-wage group was correct in accordance with the ruling economic circumstances of the time. I submit to the Minister that, with the rapid raising of wage rates, scales, and so on, it might be necessary to re-examine this question. It is a very difficult question, I know, and it was suggested by Deputy Lemass that it might provide a great deal of trouble in working it out. That is not an aspect that concerns me. That administrative aspect, I feel sure, will be worked out as correctly and as efficiently as other aspects of the Bill. It is the actual level that would appear to me to require further consideration. It appears to me that the answer to the Opposition point of view, as to whether there was any need for the creation of such a group, is fairly simple. The new scheme provides much larger benefits than were previously available and the contributions had to be substantially increased to do so, as it was primarily an insurance scheme. If there was no departure from the flat rate contribution system, the Government would be faced with two irreconcilable points of view. Firstly, the contribution would have to be sufficiently low to enable the lower paid worker to pay it and, secondly, the contribution would have to be sufficiently high to maintain the insurance fund out of which these new benefits have to be paid.
On examination, it becomes clear that if the contribution is pitched at a sufficiently high level to guarantee benefits at the new rate, it will impose an unbearable strain on the resources of the poorer sections of the community who fall within the scope of the low wage group. At the same time, the Government was unwilling evidently to introduce a scheme of lower benefits than those contemplated at present. In these circumstances, the only solution appeared to have been a compromise. Contributions have been made lower, very considerably lower for members of the low wage group but apart from disability and unemployment benefits, all the other benefits will be available to the members of that group at the full normal rate. As an illustration of what that means let me say that the normal contribution for a man is 3/6 a week. For the man in the low wage group, this contribution is reduced by 1/- or almost 30 per cent. For a woman, the normal contribution is 2/2 a week but the same cut of 1/- operates again for a woman in the lower wage group with the result that her contribution, as compared with the normal contribution, is being reduced by more than 45 per cent. For these reductions in the contribution rates, the benefit rates for disability and unemployment are being reduced only by 25 per cent. and the benefits under all other heads are being paid at the full normal rate. In other words, the members of the lower wage groups will receive the other benefits—maternity, death, etc. —at the full normal rate so the new scheme is a much better proposition for the members of the low wage group than for the other classes.
Socially considered, and I think the Opposition will agree as is evident from several of their speeches, the lower wage members of the community are those who should be most favourably considered in any legislation of this type. In the case of a man who is at present insured under the three schemes of national health, unemployment and widows' and orphans' pensions, the increase under the new scheme for a member of this low wage group will be only about 1d. a day. In the case of a woman—and it is very important to remember this—there is no increase whatsoever. That appears to me to be most equitable and most in accordance with social teaching, having regard to the nature and the economic stature of these different types of workers. The woman's new contribution rate of 1/2 a week is exactly the same as the contribution which she pays at the moment for which she has no hope of obtaining a retirement pension.
The final point on this question of the value of the scheme to the low wage group is that, in the case of an unmarried man, and in the more unusual case of a married woman, not dependent on her husband's earnings and herself working, the rates of unemployment and disability benefit are slightly below the existing rates but that is not the whole story. It is not sufficient merely to compare rates of benefit. One must also compare the qualifying conditions under which benefit is received. I think such a comparison will show beyond question that the new scheme represents a considerable advance for those two classes to which I refer. Thus, under the National Health Insurance scheme at present, the full rate of sickness benefit is payable only for 26 weeks after which it is substantially reduced. Under the new scheme there will be no such reduction. A person fully qualified for sickness benefit will continue to receive benefit after that period.
Now, take the case of unemployment benefit. At the present moment each unemployment stamp entitles a person to one day's benefit. Under the new scheme, after the payment of 26 contributions, he will be entitled to six months' unemployment benefit. After the payment of a further 13 contributions he becomes entitled to another six months' unemployment benefit; in other words, the 39 stamps—26 and 13 —will carry with them title to a full year's unemployment benefit as against the present system where 39 similar stamps would carry title for only 39 days' benefit.
While on this question of the unemployment benefit, a further point should be borne in mind and it is a very important point. It is stated in the White Paper that for one reason or another the present unemployment insurance scheme operates in such a fashion that benefit is paid only in respect of about half the unemployment that occurs among insured persons. This means, in fact, that for practical purposes we can regard the present rate of unemployment benefit as being halved, because, needless to remark, the worker has more interest in the actual money which he receives than in any theoretical rate of benefit to which he may be said to be entitled under the Act. The fact is, as is shown in the White Paper, that the theoretical rates under the present existing Acts are halved and the position of the worker therefore is much improved under the present Bill owing to that fact. If we take into account that the true rate of the present unemployment benefit is only about half the theoretical rate set out in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and if we also take into account the fact that the new scheme will bring into being the far greater proportion of unemployed among insured persons, we see that even in the case of the slightly lower rate for members of the low wage group, the new scheme still represents a very substantial improvement.
There is one point on which I am not quite clear in regard to this extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the lower wage group which, as I conceive it, will mainly operate among agricultural workers. Under the present Acts, these agricultural workers did not come under any insurance benefit. They were provided for by unemployment assistance at certain periods only. At other periods there were what were known as employment period Orders, which rendered ineligible for unemployment assistance any worker in a rural area during certain seasons in the year when it was held, owing to the structure of our economy, that any worker in those areas could easily obtain work. It was held that there was no shortage of work. In fact, there were cases, however, that we are all aware of, where even workers with the best intentions could not find employers in those areas. This is a matter on which I should like some guidance and assistance from the Minister. As I conceive it, those particular workers in the low wage group who will come under this unemployment benefit as insured persons, once they qualify according to the conditions, will, even during a period when normally an employment period Order operates, be eligible to receive unemployment insurance. I take it that the actual fact is, even though the Minister has not stated it and even though it is not in any document I have seen, that this Act will abolish the employment period Orders. Would I be right in contending that that is a fact?