When I moved to report progress, I was indicating that what was known as the Norton Bill was killed and deliberately killed by the Fine Gael Party for no other purpose than to discredit and destroy the Labour Party, thus winning from it seats for Fine Gael. In order to emphasise that point more strongly, I should like to point out that no provision was made in the Budget last year for the financing of the Norton Social Welfare Bill, thereby clearly indicating that the Fine Gael Minister for Finance knew that the Norton Social Welfare Bill would never see the light of day as an Act.
Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Did you read his speech? It contains £1,500,000.
I read it carefully and I am quite satisfied that no provision was made for it in last year's Budget.
What did he mean when he was leaving £1,500,000 aside to meet that and other matters?
The fact is that the Fine Gael Party achieved their purpose. To a certain extent they killed the Norton Bill, they took three seats from the Labour Party, they wiped out the Clann na Poblachta Party and worked themselves out in the process. We are now faced with a position in which the Minister for Social Welfare is introducing a Bill which, I believe, he intends to put through this House and bring into operation at the earliest possible date. I am confirmed in that belief by an assurance which he gave a short time ago and I think he repeated it to-day, that administrative machinery has been set up for implementing this measure and that the Bill can come into partial operation, at any rate, by the 1st July.
Was it not Fine Gael that put you into this House?
Deputy Davin can make his own speech.
Deputy Davin dared to interrupt me with the suggestion that Fine Gael put me into this House. He does not live in County Wicklow and he does not know that Fine Gael have fought me ruthlessly and unscrupulously in County Wicklow for 13 years. Deputy Davin has the technique when a Deputy says something which he does not like of interrupting in the most childish and silly way. It would be a good thing if some person would take Deputy Davin outside. Perhaps he might go to sleep.
It would be a poor tribute to your speech if I fell asleep.
The Deputy knows that Fine Gael "codded" his Party. They took three seats off them. They kept them dangling for three years, refused to let them get their Social Welfare Bill through, and forced them to go to the country with nothing to show except, perhaps, a green-painted window and letter-box in a certain public-house in a certain town in my constituency. That was the sole achievement of the Labour Party as far as anyone could see. Here we have a Bill which does try to achieve something for the workers and the community generally.
The fundamental difference between this Bill and Deputy Norton's Bill is that the contribution demanded from the workers is 1/3 in this Bill as against 3/6 in Deputy Norton's Bill. The total contribution demanded from the farmer and the worker in respect of each worker employed is 2/6 under this Bill as against 7/- in Deputy Norton's Bill. Will anyone seriously suggest to me that 7/- a week is not a considerable amount of money in the budget of both the farm worker and his employer, who, in many cases, is a small farmer, not much better off than the man he employs. I think it is a realistic approach to the social problem to cut as severely as possible the levy being made upon the agricultural section of the community through the workers and the farmers.
I do not entirely agree with the Minister when he says that this represents another subsidy to agriculture. I should like to have that proposition analysed because of the fact that agricultural workers, being always available for work which may be provided by the State on roads and afforestation and national work of that kind, are not likely to draw heavily on the unemployment benefits under this Bill, or should not, if the country is well governed, draw too heavily upon those benefits, and, therefore, should not be asked to make as high a contribution as other more specialised workers.
There is a wide variety of ways in which the agricultural worker can be helped if he becomes unemployed other than by giving him a weekly dole or benefit. It is the duty of any Government in power in the future, by all possible means at their disposal, to provide, not benefits for unemployed workers, but work for them. You can do that effectively as far as agricultural workers are concerned, because, if they are not able to find sufficient employment in agriculture, they are manual workers, and, therefore, work of a suitable nature can be provided for them always on roads, on afforestation, on drainage or any other national schemes of that kind. That is why I think it is quite fair and proper that the contribution demanded from the agricultural worker should be less than that demanded from other types of workers.
Having demonstrated that the essential and important differences between this Bill and Deputy Norton's Bill is that the levies upon workers and employers are far less in this measure than in the previous measure, I should like to refer briefly to complaints which have been made in regard to certain modifications in the scheme of benefits in this Bill as compared with the previous Bill. Deputy Norton in the course of his speech cried out: "Is there anything wrong with a retirement pension?" I think that this is a matter for very serious consideration. We are a small nation and, to a great extent, a nation with undeveloped resources. If things were right, we should by development of our resources to the full, by advancement of our industrial programme and by improvement of our agricultural industry be able to employ all available workers in this country. That is the ideal we ought to strive for rather than to seek to maintain a large number of people who are permanently unemployed.
The whole basis of the case against this Bill and in favour of Deputy Norton's Bill is that we will for all time have a large number of people who cannot find employment. I refuse to believe that. I think that we can eventually overcome the unemployment problem by development of our national resources. Therefore, I think it is not a valid argument to say, because at the moment there is a substantial number of unemployed, that that is a justification for making permanent provision for a large and ever-increasing number of unemployed people through all the years to come.
I think that any person over 65 who wishes to work should get every inducement to work. It may be said there was nothing compulsory in the Bill last year but we all know that under a pension scheme of that kind retirement at 65 is very likely to be made universal. I think it would be far better to approach the problem in another way, that is, to say to a worker, as we can say under this Bill: "If you are out of health at 65 or at any other age for that matter, you can obtain disability benefit equal to the retirement pension included in the Labour Party Bill." We have got to face the fact that the span of human life has extended.
Whether that is a benefit or not is another matter. It is true to say that, in the main, people are living longer than was the case 20 years ago. For that reason we have to ask ourselves is it right to saddle the community with an ever-increasing number of people who will be precluded, to a great extent, from adding anything to the sum total of the goods, commodities and services for the benefit of the people. I feel that is a matter which has got to get serious consideration.
There is no merit in shortening the working life of the ordinary person. We can say, from the arguments I have used, that we should not fix 65 as a retiring age: "Why fix the age of 70 for old age pensions?" We must remember that the age of 70 for old age pensions has operated for a long number of years. Nobody would suggest for a moment that it should be altered. There is no need to bring the retiring age for an ordinary worker down to a lower level. There are a great number of people in constant employment who would feel completely lost and whose lives would be probably shortened if, through legislation of this kind, they were forced to retire. They might not have developed other interests in life or hobbies which could keep them occupied. The net result of forcing them into retirement would be to force them to an early grave.
There is ample provision under existing legislation, and certainly under this Bill, to ensure that the people who are unable to work can derive the full benefit provided in the disabilities section of this Bill. Therefore, I feel that it would be wrong and, indeed, almost criminal to compel a young married man with a young family to pay 3/6 per week, at a time when he is finding it extremely difficult to support his family, so as to ensure that he would be able to remain idle when he reached the age of 65. At the age of 65 he might be just as healthy and just as well able to work as he was when he had to pay 3/6 a week out of a modest income. In my view, the approach to this problem under this Bill is a reasonable one, and it is absolutely consistent with the stand that the Minister took when he was in opposition. It is also consistent with the stand I took on this particular section when the last Bill was going through.
There is one matter on which I feel rather strongly, and that is in regard to disability arising from accidents to workers in the course of their employment. The Minister referred to the fact that there was a suggestion in the original draft of the White Paper for the inclusion of this form of disability in the proposed Social Welfare Bill. I think it is a pity that it is not included. A man who becomes unable to work, whether his disability arises through illness or as a result of an injury— whether the injury is caused in the course of his employment or outside the course of his employment should be a matter of indifference—should be entitled to benefit from the State. At the present time the law in regard to workmen's compensation is that the employer is solely responsible. This means that a very heavy liability is placed on the employer, and particularly on a small employer, who must transfer the liability to an insurance company or otherwise face bankruptcy. The net result of the whole position is that when a worker is injured there is a general scramble on the part of the medical profession, on the part of the legal profession and on the part of the insurance companies in an endeavour to find out who will be able to secure the most benefit out of this particular scheme. I feel that the whole thing is utterly and completely demoralising, demoralising to the medical profession, demoralising to the worker and, if that is possible, demoralising to the legal profession——
I was wondering if you would miss that reference.
——and demoralising to the insurance companies.
I was about to say that Glaring cases of fraud on the worker were proved in many cases, which could be counteracted by a little fraud on the insurance companies. The whole thing is very objectionable. For instance, if an employer could have his liability covered by an insurance stamp so that the worker would be compensated by State benefit under this Bill, that would do away with a considerable amount of fraud. We all know, human nature being what it is, that if a worker finds he is recovering from an injury and if he knows that by keeping up the pretence that he is still disabled he may get what is called a lump sum settlement. Therefore, there is a strong temptation for the worker to keep on pretending that he is still disabled when, in fact, he is not. On the other hand the medical doctor is tempted. He is going to get a substantial slice out of the insurance if a lump sum settlement is made. There is a temptation on him to overlook the fact that the worker has completely recovered.
The limit is £5 for a doctor.
If a provision for this particular type of risk is included in the Bill, the worker will know that he cannot have a lump sum settlement, but that he will have a weekly benefit for the period of his disablement. I feel that will get over a good deal of the trouble, a good deal of the dishonesty, and a good deal of the fraud which exists at present in the operation of workmen's compensation. The Minister should consider that aspect of the matter. It might add somewhat to the cost of the Bill, but as far as the employees section of the community is concerned, I feel they would be prepared to consider an increase in their contributions in order to cover this risk or liability.
I do not believe there is anything very much in the complaint that was made by some members of the Opposition in regard to the maternity benefits that are given under this Bill. The Minister indicated, in introducing the Bill, that it is intended to take further measures in that respect, and that a Health Bill will be introduced which will make further provision in regard to childbirth and in regard to maternity cases generally. Therefore, I fail to see that there is anything serious in the objections raised.
In regard to the death benefit, there are very few people anxious to insure against the death of their children. People are not adverse to paying insurance for the funeral expenses of aged people. Death, I suppose, is the natural termination of life and a natural eventuality in the case of the aged, but I do not think any working man or any small farmer would take up the payment of a weekly, a monthly or a yearly contribution merely to cover the eventuality of having to bury some members of his family. If you look at it in that light, you will see that there is not much in the complaint.
Have you any evidence to back up that statement?
I have, of course. I know as much about human nature as any Deputy in this House. I know that when a child of even the poorest parents dies, the thing that the parents feel most is not the cost of burying that child, but the loss of that child.
Naturally.
The bereavement is the most important consideration. If an insurance company went to the average person who had a young family and said that he would insure him against the death of his children if they died before they reached the age of 20, I do not think there is anyone who would contribute 1d.
Have you any idea how many workmen are now paying insurance to safeguard themselves against that?
Deputy Hickey is sincere in this regard, I know, but he is trying to cloud the issue. The main type of policy for which people insure are endowment policies, upon which the benefit is paid when the child reaches a certain age. It would be entirely different if the benefit was paid only in the event of the death of a child.
That may be true of the country, but I do not think it is true of the city.
I do not pretend for one moment to be an expert on city matters, but I know rural Ireland fairly well, possibly as well as any other Deputy, and I have been in Cork and know it quite well. If you went around from one worker's house to another and asked the worker to insure against the death of his child in order to obtain sufficient money to bury that child, he would throw you out.
That is not so.
The Deputy should be allowed to make his statement in his own way without interruption.
I am sure the Deputies are sincere so far as this matter is concerned but I think that if the matter was examined it would be found that there is very little advantage to be gained from those death benefits that would justify the increasing of the contributions in the case of the agricultural worker from 1/3 to 3/6 per week.
Death grants do not increase the contributions to that extent.
That is one of the things that would be added to the cost of the Bill and it is by the elimination of a few matters of this kind and by other alterations that it has been found possible to reduce the drastic and crushing levy that was provided under the Norton Bill.
I do not think there is anything very edifying in Deputy Norton's whitewashing of Sir Basil Brooke. We have nothing to learn from the Six Counties as far as social welfare and social administration generally are concerned. They have their own problems and as an intensively industrialised area have very different problems from those which affect us. We are in the main an agricultural community and if left to our own common sense we can devise schemes for the benefit of our people which will be very much superior to those in operation in the Six Counties. We have nothing to learn from that area and we do not intend to go to that area to learn lessons in regard to social welfare.
The mistake that has been made by the Labour Party in the past and up to the present, is that they have been looking too much to Northern Ireland and to Britain for their social education. They have been looking too much to the British Labour Party instead of looking to their own people. The approach made to these problems by the Minister is more in keeping with the realities of the situation that exist here in this agricultural country than the approach made by Deputy Norton when he sought to copy the legislation of the British Labour Party, legislation designed in the main for an intensively industrial country.
I am glad there are improvements provided in this Bill in respect of old age pensions and that the means test is being further modified to the benefit of the old age pensioners. That is right and desirable and we can all look forward to this Bill coming into operation at an early date and to its benefits being of a widespread nature. It will be appreciated by every section of the community, particularly, I would say, by the working people whom, I think, Deputy Norton gravely misrepresented in his speech to-day.
When the inter-Party Government was formed, one of the principal items of its programme was the introduction of a comprehensive scheme of social security. The reason for this item in its programme was well known to anybody who had studied the many deficiencies which existed, at the time the inter-Party Government was formed, in the social legislation in our country. These deficiencies existed by reason of the haphazard nature of social legislation over the last half-century. The inter-Party Government set itself to try to remedy those defects, in so far as it was within the means of the community so to do. The principal defects which existed in the social legislation were that the classes of people who benefited from social insurance and from schemes of a social security nature were limited, that the unemployment and disability pensions and contributions were of an uneven character and that pensions were of a too limited nature and that the administration of the scheme was too complex and too confused.
The inter-Party Government recognised that it was necessary to remedy these defects and that a comprehensive scheme of social security was desired. I am of the opinion that if it was possible to point out that a family wage, as it is sometimes referred to, was being paid to the vast majority of our people so that they could provide for themselves against the contingencies of unemployment, ill-health and old age a scheme of social assistance would be unnecessary.
We have got, however, to deal with reality. We have got to deal with the situation as we find it at the present time and that situation makes it quite clear that the vast majority of people living in this State to-day cannot afford to provide out of their own incomes for the contingencies which arise in the lives of everybody—unemployment and, perhaps, ill-health and almost certainly, old age.
For those reasons, I think it is justifiable for the State to step in and provide for schemes by which people can help to provide for themselves against these contingencies. For that reason, I think a scheme of social security, as comprehensive as possible, was necessary and was desirable and that the last Government went a long way towards remedying the defects and the deficiencies which had existed up to the time they came into office.
Modern thought on the question of social security schemes has all been in favour of remedying the defects by means of social insurance. The International Labour Organisation of which this country is a member held its 26th session in May, 1944, at Philadelphia and recommended that the proper way to tackle problems of social security was by methods of social insurance rather than by social assistance.
That, I think, is the generally accepted thought on the subject to-day. In 1938, New Zealand passed a social security Act which did away with the assistance scheme for old age pensions and introduced a scheme of contributions for old age pensions and medical benefits. In England, which has produced by far the most comprehensive scheme of social security, insurance is the basis of the whole scheme and assistance schemes have been used only as merely ancillary and supplementary to the major scheme of social insurance which they introduced in 1946.
The White Paper, which was published by the last Government, gave, I think, the main arguments bearing out the necessity and the desirability of bringing in an insurance rather than an assistance scheme into this country. Deputy Ryan, as he then was, dealt with the arguments put forward by Deputy Norton and put forward in the White Paper but I do not think that he really got over the two principal arguments in favour of a contributory rather than an assistance scheme.
These are that insurance schemes help to safeguard the self-respect of the beneficiary and they provide benefits on a contractual basis. They provide a certainty for the contributor of the benefits which he will receive if certain contingencies arise. Assistance schemes, on the other hand, necessarily involve a means test of some sort and I am at one with many Deputies in this House in disliking many schemes which include a means test.
When there are schemes of an assistance nature means tests are inevitable in view of the resources of this country and any scheme of assistance, whether it is an old age pensions scheme or not, does require a means test of some sort in order to make it work. It was pointed out in the debate on the last Bill that was before this House and in the White Paper that one of the advantages of bringing in a scheme of social insurance was to do away, as far as possible, with means tests in social legislation.
I think, under the Bill introduced by the last Government, that the Government was going a long way towards doing away with means tests in our social legislation. The scheme, as it then provided, provided for many benefits, some of which were existing, some of which were new, but all of which would be given to the insured contributor, irrespective of his means.
There was a sharp distinction between the views of the then Government and the views of the Opposition at that time. Deputy Ryan spoke for the Opposition on the Second Reading of the debate and made the Opposition's point that they were against including in a contributory insurance scheme widows' and orphans' pensions. They were against including in the scheme old age pensions. He made it quite clear that his policy and the policy of his Party was to meet the expenses of these schemes out of taxation and to have, of course, a means test involved.
I will not go into the ethics of making promises and then not carrying them out. Deputy Ryan, as he then was, several times in the course of his speech—he was followed later by Deputy Lemass, who made the same statement—said that if they were returned to power they would introduce a scheme which would not increase the contributions. He also said that their scheme would be, as he suggested, one which would not include widows' and orphans' pensions and old age pensions. The Minister did not bear out the statements he made then.
In regard to the inclusion in his scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions, I welcome that change of front. I only regret that he did not go further and bring in retirement pensions as well. He has seen fit, in the meantime, to bring in now into a scheme of contributory insurance widows' and orphans' pensions. He argued on a theoretical basis against doing that on the Second Reading of the Bill last year for the same reasons he argued against bringing in old age pensions. There can be little consistency in bringing in widows' and orphans' pensions now into the scheme and leaving out old age pensions.
The many defects in the present scheme have been put forward by the Labour Party in the statement they issued to the Press some days ago. I agree with everything that was included in that statement. I think that this Bill is bristling with defects. One of the greatest defects is the omission of retirement pensions, which were granted under the Bill of the Minister's predecessor. The Bill is not as comprehensive as the last scheme. There is a ceiling of £600 now in respect of contributors. From figures given in this House by the Minister a few days ago, in reply to a question, I understand that 20,000 or 30,000 people will be excluded from this Bill. For the sake of excluding these 20,000 or 30,000 people I do not see why the Minister imposed this ceiling. The Minister should reconsider this matter and make the scheme as comprehensive as that of his predecessor.
Another defect in the Bill is the fact that female workers in domestic service are omitted from some of the benefits of the scheme. The death grant has gone. The lump sum maternity grant is reduced from £5 to £2. It is obvious that the method of financing the Bill is different from that in respect of the Bill brought in by the Minister's predecessor.
Under the scheme introduced by the last Government there was no provision for self-employed persons. There is no provision for self-employed persons in this Bill either. An effort should be made to bring self-employed persons into a scheme of social insurance of this nature. There are almost 250,000 self-employed persons in this State. I do not know how many of these people it would be practicable to bring into a scheme of social insurance but it should not be beyond the powers of the Minister's Department to devise a scheme whereby small farmers organised into co-operative societies, inshore fishermen who number nearly 10,000, small shopkeepers and professional people would be in a position to contribute, if they so wish, to a scheme of this nature.
Under the British scheme, self-employed persons are included in a compulsory capacity and greater contributions are paid by them than by employed persons. Even if the contributions from self-employed persons should be greater than those paid by employees, it should be possible for these types of people to insure themselves, voluntarily, under this scheme. I understand that under the present national health insurance scheme it is possible to become a voluntary contributor and I do not see why it should not be possible to do so under this scheme also. I should like a provision in this Bill whereby voluntary contributors may join this scheme if they so wish.
I regard the omission of death duties under this scheme as another great defect in the Bill. This scheme will be very comprehensive and I understand that it will cost the Exchequer over £2,000,000 this year. According to the White Paper produced by the last Government, it was estimated that the cost of the death grants would amount to £100,000. For the sake of saving this sum of money I do not think the Minister should have left out the provision in respect of death grants. Deputy Cogan must be completely ignorant of the circumstances obtaining in this country when he talks of the desirability of omitting the death grants. Anybody who is acquainted with the circumstances of poor people, particularly in Dublin City, realises that one of their greatest fears is that they will die destitute and that they pay sums of money into so-called insurance companies in order to insure themselves against that possibility. One of the great benefits, I think, under the last scheme was the fact that this fear, which is a constant and a real fear with poor people in this country, would be removed and that a grant of upwards of £20 would be made to insured contributors under this scheme. The Minister may be saving a comparatively small sum of money. For the amount involved, I do not think it is worth it. If necessary, the Minister should cut out the marriage allowance in order to substitute the death grants because I consider that they are much more urgently required in this country to-day. I do not think a grant of £10 in respect of marriage will make a very great dífference to insured persons whereas a grant, amounting in most cases to £20, would make a very real difference to the poor people of this country.
The Minister has made no provision in this Bill for the payment of health benefits to insured contributors. I do not know why the Minister has been so silent about his proposals for improving the health services of this country. I can only hope that he is preparing a comprehensive insurance scheme to cover health benefits to insured contributors in this State. The Minister has had many months in which to draft this Bill and he has had an opportunity of incorporating in it health benefits to insured contributors. Recently the Irish Medical Association worked out a scheme of their own. It is not necessary to go into the scheme here and probably it is not relevant but one interesting fact which emerges from their proposals is worth mentioning. It is that the many benefits which they propose—they worked this out on an actuarial basis—could be brought into operation by the payment by insured contributors of the small sum of 8d. a week and of 4d. a week by employers. That is a small sum for the benefits which it was proposed to give insured contributors under that scheme. When drafting this Bill the Minister had an opportunity of incorporating in it provisions such as those contained in the New Zealand Act of 1938 in respect of medical benefits of a comprehensive nature. Even if it meant that insured contributors would have to pay more than they are paying under this Bill, I think it would have been worth it. If the Minister is contemplating the introduction of legislation to deal with the health problems of this country I hope he will do so on an insurance basis.
Speaking on the Second Reading of the Social Welfare Bill last year, the present Minister, who was then in opposition, informed the House that his Party would bring in an improved scheme of social security. I do not see that, in any respect, this scheme is an improvement on the scheme brought in last year by the last Government. It is true that the contributions are less. I think, however, that the people who were to come under the scope of the scheme introduced by the last Government would not have regarded the contributions which they were to be asked to pay as in any way excessive in view of the benefits which it was proposed to give them under that scheme. To my mind, this scheme—while providing for reduced contributions from employers and employees—takes from the scheme of national insurance some of the best benefits which were being introduced by the last Government.
As I have said, I regarded as one of the most important aspects of the last scheme the fact that it included death grants. I regarded also as an important aspect the fact that it was comprehensive and that no ceiling was put in regard to the income of wage earners who were to be covered by it. The method by which this scheme is to be financed must be open to suspicion by the Opposition. It is to be sincerely hoped that the fear which has been expressed that the Minister will use the existing insurance funds for the purpose of defraying the costs of this scheme will not be realised and that this scheme will be run on a businesslike basis. The danger in the existing financial set-up is that any future Minister for Finance, who may not wish to live up to the obligations imposed on him by this Bill, can get out of these obligations by raiding the insurance funds. I would regard that as a retrograde step. I think that the Government has failed to grasp in a courageous fashion the problems presented to this country to-day. They have failed to introduce a comprehensive plan of social security. All they have done is to add merely another patch to the patch-work quilt of social legislation of the last 50 years.
This Dáil and the Government elected by it have many responsibilities to the people of this country, the provision of a social security and welfare scheme being one of them. The introduction of such a scheme is a very important matter at present because we have suffered over many years from a lack of social security in any kind of comprehensive form. We had a number of uncoordinated schemes which merely touched the fringe of the problem so far as the people of the country as a whole were concerned. Plans lay dormant for many years during which the people waited for some co-ordinated comprehensive measure. Such a scheme was attempted by the inter-Party Government some couple of years back. An early indication of their intentions was given when Deputy Norton introduced a comprehensive plan to increase the allowances of the lowly paid old age pensioners and widows and orphans. He indicated that the then Government wanted to come to the rescue of the poorly circumstanced sections of the community, pending the introduction of a more comprehensive scheme. The preparation of such a scheme could not be speedily brought to conclusion. In a neighbouring country with all their efforts, it took them three years to prepare such a scheme.
Deputy Norton put his scheme before the House last year. That scheme was resisted by the present Minister, who moved an amendment in the following terms on the Second Reading of the Bill:—
"To delete all words after ‘That' and substitute the following:—
‘Dáil Eireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill, because (1) it does not provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community, and (2) it would impose greatly increased burdens on both employees and employers whilst providing benefits little better in many cases than those now available.'"
To-day we find the Minister who, as Deputy Ryan, moved that amendment, introducing a Bill, the terms of which have forced the Labour Party to move an amendment in the following terms:—
"To delete all words after ‘That' and substitute the following:—
‘Dáil Eireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it proposes to establish an income limit, coverage is not provided in respect of unemployment for female domestic and female farm workers and provision is not made in the Bill for the following benefits:—
(1) retirement pensions without a means test at 65 years of age (60 years for women),
(2) death benefits as provided for in the Social Welfare (Insurance) (No. 2) Bill, 1950,
(3) increased maternity grant,
(4) maternity attendance allowance, and
(5) increased children's allowances.'"
I wonder if anybody in the country who takes a serious interest in the legislative activities of their elected representatives, will consider whether this gross delay in dealing with a serious problem is due either to sheer negligence on the part of the present Government, to the fact that great bodies move slowly, or will be inclined to attribute the delay to some motive with a deeper tinge of character. Personally, I am inclined to take the view that it is because of the change of Government and that great bodies do move slowly. Listening to the document put across to the House this morning by the Minister for Social Welfare, which purported to be a Second Reading speech on a Bill of such importance as a social security Bill, I can only say that it was a most unworthy document and that it bore on the face of it the imprint of its author. One would not be surprised at that but I was rather disturbed to think from the enthusiasm displayed by the Minister that he seemed to compare the terms of that document with those of a document prepared by another gentleman. That does indicate fairly clearly, I think, that it was not because of negligence that the people have been kept waiting for this Bill but simply as a political subterfuge and that Dr. Ryan was moved to oppose the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton for no other reason than as a political gesture. He was a Minister of a political Party who, for 16 years, had failed to do anything to provide a system of social security for our people until Deputy Norton was moved to do so on behalf of the inter-Party Government.
The Fianna Fáil Party had power in their hands for 16 years, but they niggled and evaded every attempt to increase the lot of even the old age pensioners and kept their allowance to a maximum of 10/-. The only effort they made was to provide a miserable increase of 2/6 for certain old age pensioners, a bonus which was to be administered by the local assistance officer during the time of the emergency at a period when prices had soared skywards. To get that 2/6 one had to be absolutely derelict and destitute. No two persons could get it in the same house. Where there were two married old age pensioners, only one could get it, and it was paid then only as a result of a visit to the relieving officer, but it was never brought to the Statute Book. That was the be-all and the end-all of the advance in social security made by Fianna Fáil apart from the widows' and orphans' pensions which were introduced under pressure from the Labour Party.
The Deputy is wrong.
I could cut off practically all my digits and still have enough left to count the social measures introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party. They provided widows' and orphans' pensions as the result of a strong urge by the then Labour Party. I am making that statement with the full knowledge of the facts.
We had a clear majority.
The Taoiseach promised the Labour Party that they would introduce it. In fact, a Bill was moved in this House by the late Deputy Murphy for that purpose. The "irresponsible Party" still persisted in what they believed to be a rightful policy for this country.
We make no apology for proceeding with our programme irrespective of the political theologians who have denounced us as being utterly irresponsible and with having no regard for the finances of the country. All that is completely unrealistic. A lot of people have discovered that our programme is a good one and is in the interests of the country. I say that Fianna Fáil have only paid lip service to these social services. They gave the widow a pension of 5/- a week with a means test on it. She was not entitled to earn anything to supplement the 5/-. If she earned 3/-, then 1/- was deducted from the pension while the deduction was 2/- if she earned 4/-. We had inspectors in high powered motor cars going around the country examining into the means of those widows. I remember myself drawing attention to the fact that a widow in County Limerick had her old age pension slashed because she committed the cardinal sin of keeping a goat. The next time the inspector came around he found that she had a cow and then her pension was completely cut off. Even the hens were taxed. I quoted figures here before relating to widows who kept a few hens or a goat. In fact, if a widow kept any kind of conceivable animal at all she was visited by the inspector. Her means were examined and her pension was slashed. That went on under the Fianna Fáil régime. I say that any Government which would apply such tests as these has not its heart in social welfare or social security. It was only against their grain and their conscience that they left the 10/- to the old age pensioners. At a time when money had completely lost its value, they grudgingly gave an additional half-crown to be taken away at any opportunity that presented itself later.
The first genuine and honest effort that was made in the case of the old age and other pensioners was that made when the inter-Party Government came in. The Fianna Fáil Government had made a declaration in the previous October that they could not possibly remit the means test in the case of the old age pensioners. They said it would cost £500,000. That was the declaration they made in October, 1947, when we brought forward our motion. They resisted it and said they could not afford it, that it would cost £500,000. The motion, as Deputies will remember, was defeated. But in a few months' time, after the change of Government and when the finances of the country had undergone no change, the inter-Party Government were able to remit the taxation that had been put on by the Supplementary Budget of 1947. That remission amounted to between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. We remitted the taxes on beer, cigarettes, tobacco and cinema seats. The Fianna Fáil Government had said that they could not afford £500,000 for social welfare, but the inter-Party Government could afford to provide £2,500,000 straight away for widows, orphans, old age pensioners and the blind. I admit that it is rather bitter for the Government that I have to repeat these things here, but they are true.
If they were correct I would not mind.
The leopard does not change his spots very easily. Fianna Fáil became perturbed when they found that their thunder was being stolen. Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he was at the time, told us that he had plans and schemes prepared. He said his plans were ready all the time. Fianna Fáil is never slack about planning. I remember Deputy Dr. Browne saying in the House that when he went to the Custom House, the only thing he found there were plans. In fact, he could hardly get inside the door. Plans were piled high and he could not push the door in. Deputy Norton told us that when he went to the Department of Social Welfare he found no such schemes there. He found nothing except the heads of schemes.
Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he was then, opposed the Norton welfare scheme on the grounds that it was not good enough. Another reason he gave was that he wanted to do something better. He did not think that Deputy Norton had gone far enough, and he said: "We will do better than that." I agree that he was like Lanna Machree's dog. He was prepared to go a bit of the road with everybody, but he would agree to nothing in the finish. He agreed with certain items in the Norton Bill, but his argument all the time was: "Anything that you can do, we can do it better." He said that the Fianna Fáil Government would introduce a better scheme. Well, the Norton Bill did not reach its final stage and a change of Government took place. I think that anyone reading last year's Bill and the Bill which has been presented this year will have to concede that the Minister has fallen down completely on his promises. He was to give us a better Bill than last year's Bill and was going to make it much more comprehensive than Deputy Norton's. He was going to do all sorts of things. I want to deal particularly with the death benefit for which provision had been made in the Norton Bill, and which has now been slashed. Deputy Cogan did not see anything wrong in taking away the death benefit. I think he must be living in the clouds, particularly since he slipped over to that side of the House.
It is noteworthy to mention that insurance, in regard to death, was being attended to in this country long before any provision was made by the State in regard to social welfare for the people. As long as most of us can remember, we have had insurance in regard to death, not by the State, but by the insurance companies. We know that our people have been accustomed to insure their lives against the time when death would come to them and against the danger, as Deputy D. Costello has expressed it, of dying destitute and not being able to provide decent funeral arrangements. Our people have always had a proper respect for their dead, and every family, irrespective of its station in life, desires to pay respect and honour to a deceased member. It was not an uncommon thing for families to plunge themselves into debt because they felt there was a bounden duty on them to bury their relatives decently. That was one of the principal reasons why people insured their lives, so that money would be available to meet the funeral expenses. I had personal experience myself of seeing charitable neighbours going around and making a collection in the case of poor people so that the funeral obsequies would be properly carried out.
I regard that provision in the Norton Bill as one of the most important and fundamental features in social insurance. Yet, it is one of the items taken out of this Bill. One is inclined to ask why. Is it because it cuts across a big national industry? Is it that the State has no right to interfere with some vested interest? I have a grave fear myself that the reason is that we want to preserve this little happy hunting ground for people who have been doing this business for half a century and, in the financial sense, have been growing well on it. I have never yet heard of an insurance company that was not doing well. Whether or not it cuts across the business of insurance companies it is, in my opinion, one of the first things that should be included by any Minister or Government when dealing with a social security plan for the welfare of the people. I regret that this death benefit was one of the first things that has been slashed in this Bill, and I cannot compliment the Minister on doing that. I would like to join with Deputy Costello in the appeal which he made to have it put back into this Bill. Unless that is done, no one can honestly or justifiably call this Bill a social welfare plan for the benefit of the people.
The big case made is that the contribution under this Bill will be less than in Deputy Norton's plan. That is agreed. Last year the Minister told us that he was going to do all this by means of taxation. He did not agree with the contributory method except in rare instances. Now he has reduced the contributions. Deputy Cogan was eloquent in praise of the fact that the farm worker had only to pay ? per week and the farmer ?. I think he is more interested in the farmers than in the workers' side of the matter. What have the insured persons lost as a result of the reduction of the contribution? Under Deputy Norton's Bill they would have got old age and retirement pensions at 65 for men and 60 for women. That is now gone and these people must now wait until they are 70 years of age. Anyone interested in insurance could determine the value of a contribution which will ensure people the old age pension five years for men and ten years for women before it will be payable now.
I think the age of 65 could easily be justified as the age for retirement. The Minister says that people ought not to retire at 65, that they ought to be kept working. He says that they could make arrangements to get sickness benefit up to the age of 70. Surely that will be an encouragement to malingering. Men may want to retire from work at 65 and have a reasonable pension in their declining years. That would provide an opportunity for earlier promotion for others in industry and an opening for youths to get into industry. The Minister thinks that a man should work until 70. Employers think differently. How many employers in the cities and in the country are inclined to keep people at work over the age of 65? In the biggest industry that we have, Coras Iompair Éireann, which is controlled by the Government, the retiring age is 65. If you are strong as an Apollo you will not be allowed to work there after 65. They are the biggest employers of labour in the country. What is the sense of the Minister telling us that he would like to see people continuing to work after 65 when the fact is that more and more employers are putting people on the road at 65? Coras Iompair Éireann give pensions to men going out at 65. When these men are 70, the pension is cut from 37/6 to 6/- when the men are supposed to get the old age pension. I admit that that is a pretty reasonable pension when compared with that given by other employers.
There is a strong case to be made for the retirement of men at 65 to give them a chance in their declining years of enjoying a rest. Under Deputy Norton's Bill women were to get the retirement pension at 60; now they have to go on until 70. In the country there may be some difficulty about that. The Minister referred to that last year. But, even in the country districts, I say that retirement at 65 would be more desirable even than in the cities because it would encourage farmers to transfer their holdings to their sons and thus give them an opportunity to marry earlier than they are marrying now. In that way the birth rate, which has been declining at an alarming rate, would increase. We all know of the problem of late marriages in the rural areas. That is attributable almost entirely to the impossibility of a young man marrying until such time as his father hands the holding over to him. There may be two or three sons in the family, but nothing can be done because the old man will not get out. If he were given a pension at 65, he would be able to hand over his farm. It is generally conceded by everybody who knows anything about the conditions in the rural areas that that would be a vast advantage to the country as a whole.
That was not proposed for the smallholder by anybody.
I do not see the point. There is five years of a difference between us.
That is a new proposal; it is your own proposal?
The farmers were included.
The farmers would be encouraged to hand over their holdings to their sons.
That was not in the Bill last year. That is a new proposal.
In this Bill there is a complete ignoring of domestic workers. The reason adduced for that by the Minister last year, as reported in column 1,118, Volume 124, when speaking on the 2nd March was:—
"The Bill also brings in farm workers and domestic workers. I do not know about this question of domestic workers coming in. What strikes me is that, if you can believe all the talk that goes on, and I think you can, there is never a domestic worker unemployed for want of a job. If that is the case, a domestic worker cannot qualify for unemployment benefit, so it is unfair to put up the contribution. She can never qualify in present circumstances, and I am quite sure that they are not going to change so that they will be looking for work and cannot get it. I would be inclined to leave them as they are."
He has left them as they are. The fact is that the domestic workers are not here, and the scarcity is attributable to the fact that they are the biggest section of the workers who are emigrating. That particular section of the community are pariahs who are ignored here. They are welcomed, however, by the housekeepers in England for service there. In every metropolitan and provincial paper we see advertisements for workers for hotels and domestic service in England who are recruited from the girls who should be in this country as domestic servants, but who will not remain here owing to the unfair and unreasonable conditions obtaining. Therefore, they are pushed outside the door.
They are not worthy of inclusion in this measure of social welfare for protection against unemployment. They are not waiting to get employment here. They go where they will get the best of terms. These girls should, if possible, be kept here and they could easily be kept here. I do not think they have any desire to leave this country if it were not for the magnet which attracts them. A girl from a village here goes to England and writes home telling of the grand time she has, the fine wages, the outings and the general conditions of social welfare.
I suggest that we have a serious responsibility in this matter, and that for the small amount involved it is suicidal for the Government to leave out that important section of the community. In that way they are reducing the possibility of increasing our population here. These girls are getting married in England, not to Irish boys as a rule, but to Englishmen and men of other nationalities. I take a very serious view of the ignoring of the position of female workers and I think they should be included, both the female domestic workers and the female agricultural workers. What is the sense of including the male agricultural workers and excluding the female? In certain counties, particularly in the dairying counties, the female agricultural worker is at least as important as the male worker. What is the justification for including the male agricultural workers and excluding the females? In the Constitution we are supposed to recognise the rights of men and women, but we only pay lip-service to that. There is very little respect for the women in agricultural or domestic service.
These are the complaints which I have to lodge against this Bill which is alleged to be an improvement in every way on Deputy Norton's measure. Last year the Minister, in one of his facetious moments, said that Deputy Norton could not look with any complacency on his handiwork; that after three years of office he could not look with complacency on what he had produced, that it was nothing more or less than the Beveridge plan truncated and cut. If that was true, the present Minister has very little ground for complacency when he presents this Bill. He got a Bill which he did not improve but which he has disimproved and now he can sit back with all the complacency he can command, having taken over the Beveridge plan which he says the Norton Bill has slashed, to the detriment of the people of this country.
I am very glad that Deputy Keyes has spoken in this debate in such a reasonable manner. While not agreeing with many of his views I am grateful that he has at least been constructive in his criticism. I am always very interested in this question whether people should retire at 65 or 70. I expressed certain views on that subject when we were discussing the past Old Age Pensions Bill, and I still hold the same views in regard to the retirement benefits. My grievance has nothing to do with the age of a person. It has to do with his physical condition. There are many unfortunate people in this country who are deformed from birth; there are many others who are deformed from some misfortune or other during the course of their lives. I do feel while we are arguing here as to the merits or otherwise of giving a pension or retirement benefit at the age of 65, we are forgetting those who are incapable of qualifying for any benefit for the reason that they are incapable of doing any work.
They are the unemployed.
They are not the unemployed. They are the people who are unemployed by the force of God's providence and not by force of any economic circumstances. Still, it is one of the things that agitate my mind whenever I consider the state of the law in this country as regards social welfare.
The question has been raised about the attitude of insurance companies, and I am prepared to bet—a very small amount, say, half-crown—that over 50 per cent. of the insurances that are paid by insurance companies in this country providing for benefits payable on death are effected on self-employed farmers who never contribute a penny and never will contribute a penny so long as the present state of the law exists. I am not blaming the Minister or the Government or Mr. Norton for this. We have to crawl before we are able to walk. We have made strides, and it is not for me to repeat the record of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance and the various other Acts which have culminated in the Bill which is before the House to-day. I am interested on behalf of a section of the community which is not even compensated either in this Bill or in the Bill that was introduced by Deputy Norton—the self-employed farmer who has only himself to depend on and who, incidentally, has only the commercial insurance companies of this country that he can use as a lever or as a means to provide himself with at least a decent burial.
In relation to domestic servants I must say my feelings are very much on the side of the Minister that most of them will not, in fact, get any benefit from the Bill. Surely Deputy Keyes can see that if there are such great inducements to domestic servants to go over to England and if he believes and knows that most of them do go to England, then he should realise that there is little point in asking them to contribute anything while they are in this country because they will never get anything as a result of those contributions.
One suggestion I have to make to the House with reference to domestic servants is that we should coin a new word and that we should for ever banish the words "domestic servant" in the hope that the connotation that they have might also be banished from the minds of the people of this country. They are human beings and they are entitled to be regarded as such and to be treated as such. It is all right if you are a factory worker; it does not matter what kind of menial job you have in a factory; it is all right to brush or sweep or lie on your back against nails on a fair day. It is not all right to be a domestic servant. Could we take a selection of words from the dictionary, shuffle them together, deal them out, see what we get and use that word in our ordinary language in future in referring to those unfortunate beings?
I notice that no reference is made in this Bill-there was a reference made by the Minister—to the fact that it would be a concealed form of taxation to force employers to insure their domestic servants. That brings me to the point that so far as I know there is no allowance made to the employer for any amounts that he contributes towards national health insurance or unemployment insurance. Under this new Bill, which will involve a combined contribution of 2/4, the employer contributes over £6 in the course of the year. He also has to pay income-tax at the present rate of 6/6 in the £ on the same £6. That means that if he is paying at the full rate he contributes £2 income-tax and £6 insurance contribution, making a total of £8, while the employee, and I am not against him for a moment, receives the benefit and at the same time does not have the amount so contributed taken into account as part of his income.
I do think that there is some unfair discrimination there between the employer and the person whom he employs. I do not know what suggestion I could make to remedy it. Perhaps it would meet the case if the £6 which he contributes were to be taken at the bottom like ordinary insurance and six sums at half the standard rate were taken off his gross income in the way in which the premiums which are payable on an ordinary life-insurance policy are taken off at the present time.
Deputy Norton had a great deal to say about the provisions of the Bill which was introduced by him in 1951. I am not going to enter into any controversy about the intentions or motives of the then Minister for Social Welfare. What occurs to me is this; no provision was made in the 1951 Budget for the money which was supposed to be spent if and when the 1951 Social Welfare Bill became law.
There is no provision in the Estimates now.
The Budget and the Estimates are two different things.
I would remind Deputy Davin that I am not talking about the Estimates but the Budget. It will be obvious in a week's time that provision will be made for this Social Welfare Bill in the coming Budget.
Are you sure?
I do not know.
Then, what are you saying?
I said you will find it you wait for a week that provision will be made. It will certainly be found that there was no provision made for Deputy Norton's Social Welfare Bill by the Minister for Finance who introduced the 1951 Budget. It may be rather footling to mention that under this Bill the person having a means of £1 per week will be entitled to an extra £1, making a total of £2, whereas the person who has already got a means of £2 per week will be entitled to a pension of some sort, say, 5/- or 10/- per week, which will make a total weekly income of £2 5s. or £2 10s.
I feel that if there is going to be discrimination it should be on the side of the person with the lower income. In other words if a person has a £1, he should be entitled to have £2 5s. If a person has an income of £2 per week I feel he might be left at that. I would far rather see no discrimination against a person who has lower means for the purposes of calculation in the Bill. I might also mention that, so far as I know, a very meagre provision was made for social welfare officers throughout the country when the Coalition Government introduced the Social Welfare Bill in 1948. Obviously every Act of this kind puts a great deal of extra work on social welfare officers. Apart from the pensions which already exist, many thousands of applications will have to be considered if and when, this Bill becomes law.
It was said they would get them automatically.
There are sure to be applications from people who did not come into the ambit of the previous act.
They will not come in according to Dr. Ryan.
I am quite sure the Minister never said anything like that. It seems perfectly obvious to me, since the ceiling has been raised for the purposes of means far above what it has ever been at before, that new applicants will come forward. All this additional work will fall to the social welfare officers. I am quite sure that Deputy Norton, or whoever advised him, made very scant provision for the social welfare officers. I know they will be told to shoulder their burdens and keep on smiling. I would appeal to the Minister to make a generous provision in the way of a lump sum for each social welfare officer in the country when he has completed the heavy work which will be entailed when this Act comes into operation.
Finally, I would like to deal very briefly with the statement made by Mr. Norton that we were the worst-off country in Europe, I always hate to hear such statements made about this country.
The worst off, from a social services point of view.
We have the highest standard of living of any country in Europe.
We are not the worst-off country in Europe either from a social welfare point of view or from any other point of view. We must crawl before we can walk, and we have certainly made great strides since we got our freedom. We are still making strides and, please God, we will continue, no matter what happens in the outside world, to make those strides in the future, no matter what any member of the Opposition may say.
Or the returned Yanks.
95 per cent. of the advances made in this country have been due to the activities and to the energy of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not saying, nor do I believe that the Minister or the Government feel that this will be the last Social Welfare Bill that will be introduced into this country.
I am sure maternity allowances will be dealt with by the Minister in the Health Bill which is to be introduced later on.
Where will he get the money? We are supposed to be bankrupt.
What are you grumbling about then? To my understanding, this is only part of the scheme which will involve both social services and public health. There are matters which cannot be dealt with in detail in this Bill, but which will be dealt with when the Public Health Bill is introduced by the Minister in a short time.
I should have said already, but I will say it now, that I hope the Minister will re-examine the position of the branch managers in the employment exchanges throughout the country. I feel that they also will have an increased burden to bear as a result of the passing of this Act and that they deserve greater consideration than has been given to them in the past. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister to consider their position and to treat them generously. They have to handle the vast bulk of the work which is done in the employment exchanges in the smaller towns through the country.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the Minister again for having made this further advance along the right road. I hope the day will come when another section of the community— the farming community, who are self-employed as well as the workers, of whom we hear so much from the Labour Party—will be able, as a result of legislation enacted in this House, to get some of the benefits received by their colleagues, who work in the factories and shops, are now getting.
Deputy Davin is very annoyed. He is in bad humour. I cannot blame him, poor man. Let me say that I think the Minister and the Government are deserving of the best congratulations this House can possibly give them for the manner in which they have introduced this Bill and for the many worth-while provisions in it. I am not at all surprised that the Labour Party are a bit annoyed having regard to the fact that for three and a half years they had been promising to give the country a comprehensive Social Welfare Bill. The Labour Party is like the old man who dangled a carrot in front of the donkey and said: "Lady, if you work well to-day, you will get this carrot very soon."
Hear, hear!
Like the man and the donkey, White Papers and all sorts of explanatory leaflets emanating from Deputy Norton's office when he was Tánaiste were dangled before the people but the goods were not delivered. There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. At long last we are to have a Social Welfare Bill. It will be the fault of the members who are not on this side of the House if the Bill does not become law in the next few weeks.
I remember well when Deputy Norton, then Tánaiste, introduced his Bill. The present Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, offered to take the Social Welfare Bill out of the realm of politics a very fine and sensible suggestion, in my opinion. He offered to agree to a Select Committee of 15 similar to that which we have examining the Defence Bill. That was turned down. Again, an offer was made, in view of the straitened circumstances of the unfortunate people in receipt of national health insurance, sickness benefit and, especially, of those in receipt of disablement benefit, that a special Bill would be rushed through to give those people a desired increase. That, too, was turned down. It fell on deaf ears notwithstanding the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government had handed over the social welfare organisation to the Coalition Government with a surplus of almost £8,000,000 in the national health insurance.
The money is still there.
It may have gone like other moneys entrusted to them. If Deputy Rooney would grow more tomatoes he would get more money and there would be still more money to give to the people.
The Deputy ran back to the Irish Press with a scheme on the 2nd March.
Deputy Davern is in possession.
The many false charges made by Deputy Norton were definitely refuted to-day in this House, when the present Minister dealt with the many files that were there prior to 1948. That, in itself, gave the lie that nothing was being done to implement the Social Welfare Bill. Deputy Norton referred to those files as a scrap of paper. I like Deputy Norton's idea of a scrap of paper! It is no wonder that paper is scarce if Deputy Norton's idea of a scrap of paper covers files upon files. That false charge has been nailed to the mast and I hope that no Deputy in this House will again resurrect any false charge against any Minister of State, you had the word of Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he then was, and you have his word to-day. Not alone had you his word as Minister but, in addition, the Minister produced the very files that were in the Department in connection with the proposed welfare Bill before he left office in 1948.
He produced a blue book —Beveridge.
If the Minister produced a book on which we had to take an oath, Deputy Davin would not believe him. We will forgive Deputy Davin in his present position because he knows that the fate of the Parliamentary Labour Party is now almost completed by the fact that we are going to implement the Social Welfare Bill for the benefit of the people which he and his Party failed to do during their three and a half years.
The Deputy should not depend too much on the present Minister's memory.
Deputy Keyes is a very responsible man in this House and I pay tribute to him. He has always been a very decent man in debate whether as Minister or as a Deputy. Deputy Keyes is a very decent man but his memory failed him to-day.
That is a diplomatic way of stating it.
Deputy Keyes stated that Fianna Fáil did nothing for old age pensioners during their 16 years of office.
Neither did they.
What did they do in 1947?
The Deputy is bringing my mind back now to the time when the old Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal Party reduced by 1/- the old age pensions. They passed the 1924 Act by Section 7 of which they assessed any person who had transferred property or income within three years. That was done in accordance with the Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal Bill of 1924 and their subsequent measure in 1928. That is what Fine Gael did for the old age pensioners.
We have doubled them since.
They made it almost impossible for any person, except a destitute person, to get the old age pension and Deputy Davin knows that well, because—to give him his credit— he fought hard with those on the opposite benches in those years.
What did the Deputy do for them?
You were hanging up your stockings for Daddy Christmas that time.
The Deputy sent them along to the home assistance officer and tried to make paupers of them.
The Deputy should allow Deputy Davern to continue. The Deputy can make his own speech later.
In regard to the false charges made that Fianna Fáil did nothing for the old age pensioners, the Opposition forget that the first act of Fianna Fáil in 1932, supported as they were by a very fine national Labour Party, was to introduce an amendment restoring the 1/- to the old age pensioners. There were many other sections of that amendment which were of great benefit to many of the old age pensioners in the country.
I remember well how the blind people were catered for during the régime of the old Fine Gael Government. No person under 50 years of age could claim a blind pension. Again, Fianna Fáil came to the rescue and altered that from 50 to 30. Then we are told that Fianna Fáil did nothing.
They could not do that without our help at that time.
During the period prior to 1932 the total amount paid by way of social services was £3,250,000. That was during the régime of the old Fine Gael Government. That was one of the legacies we took over in 1932.
How much for property damage?
Tomatoes were not a good price then. Like Deputy Murphy, Deputy Rooney was attempting to put his stockings on the Christmas tree for Daddy Christmas at that time.
You should not be jealous of the young Deputies.
They should behave themselves. After 16 years, expenditure rose to £11,250,000. If you calculate it, you will find that £500,000 was added every year by the Fianna Fáil Government in respect of the social services with a view to bringing our social services to a state we could be proud of.
Remember October, 1951, and the means test.
During the three and a half years of Coalition Government the expenditure on social services in this country rose from £11,250,000 to £12,750,000. Now, is that what you were doing all the crowing about—the fact that you added £1,500,000 in three years? Our annual contribution was not less than £500,000 each and every year of our 16 years in office.
They jibbed at the last £500,000.
We heard officials attacked because, we were told by Deputy Keyes, they counted the hens and the chickens and everything else on the farm when assessing the means.
And the cocks.
And the ducks and the asses. Can any Deputy on the benches opposite tell me that there was any relaxation of the investigation in respect of the means test during the three and a half years of Coalition Government?
Deputies
Yes.
Of course there was not. The hens and the ducks were counted, just the same as every other item on the farm, for old age pension purposes.
But the ceiling for the means test was raised—and the Deputy knows that quite well.
Deputy O'Sullivan does not know, of course, that the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government reduced the ceiling from what it was in the time of the British.
What?
You are shocked, are you? May I inform the Deputy——
Are you making a case for Britain now?
They were a damn sight better to the old age pensioners than the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government. It would be very hard for them to be worse.
Make your own case now.
May I inform Deputy O'Sullivan, for his information, that the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government reduced the ceiling from £49 0s. 5d. a year to £39 a year——
It was nearly as bad as the standstill Order.
——and that, from £26 a year, it was further reduced to £15.
There were a few bridges to be built up in the interim.
We are proud of the bridges. We never apologised for anything we did in the civil war and we never will. Were it not for the civil war we should still have the Oath of Allegiance and the annuities, and so forth. You were prepared to die for the Treaty but we made smithereens of it.
On a point of order. Could we relate the Oath of Allegiance to the discussion?
I cannot relate the interruptions from the Opposition side of the House to the discussion.
The pensioners paid for the damage.
And you took the 1/- from them.
Deputy Rooney must cease interrupting. Deputy Davern is entitled to make his speech without interruption.
Let him get back to the Bill.
I did not mention the Treaty until it was mentioned but I am ready at all times to defend my attitude in regard to the Treaty. As I was saying, there was no relaxation of the means test. If people on the Opposition side of the House assert that there was a relaxation of the means test during the inter-Party Government régime I say emphatically that there was not. No order was sent to the investigation officers or to the surveyors or the supervisors—certainly no order that we know of. Therefore, any assertion that there was some relaxation of the means test is not true. The same procedure which operated during the lifetime of the previous Fianna Fáil Government was continued. You will find that the officers who have to do their job will do the very same thing to-morrow regardless of what Government is in power. They will investigate, they are bound by the regulations to investigate, and they will do their work efficiently. Therefore, any charge that they are unduly hard is not quite fair.
One provision under this Bill, above any other, which I think should be palatable to the jealous people and to everybody in the country is the fact that we are going to give something decent to the widows by way of noncontributory pension and, further, that there will be a relaxation in the means test.
It is the same as last year.
That, above all other things, should commend this Bill to the House. Instead of trying to play politics and to gain Party advantages we should welcome this Bill and every Bill of its kind that comes along, as they will eventually, which seeks to improve the lot of the people concerned. They are the people who deserve the money most. Some people may say that £1 is not much. I can assure you that if you should find yourself in this city or in any part of the country without 1/- you would consider 1/- a lot of money. Most of us have seen that day. Instead of playing Party politics we should try to be constructive in our criticism. We should endeavour to discover if the Bill can be improved upon in any way because after all, we are here to represent the interests of the community and not to make allegations about something that happened 30 years ago.
We received many rosy promises during the three and a half years of inter-Party Government. When I was sitting on the Opposition side of the House I welcomed the Social Welfare Bill of 1949 because I saw that it was a step forward and because, at that time, I was quite sure that the then Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Norton, was serious about it and meant to implement it regardless of the consequences. I felt that he was ready to push that Bill through this House even if it meant the smashing of the Coalition Government.
You voted against it.
He did.
I am very sorry to think that Deputy Norton was not serious but was merely playing politics again. Possibly the dead hand of Fine Gael had something to do with it. It is possible that they said to him: "Thus far shalt thou go and no further"—and that they were not prepared to lose their conservative adherents by doing something that was in the interests of the plain people of the country.
There has been some grievance about not including people over 65 years of age in this Bill. I know many people of 65 who are more active and more anxious to work than men who are very many years younger than them. In the past few months I have met many people who have reached the age of 70 and who now have a grievance that the county council have let them go because they are 70. These men are as active at 70 as they were 25 years ago.
What about rate collectors?
Deputy Rooney, you will be an old man long before your time because you worry too much.
An important pronouncement.
Mention has been made of Córas Iompair Éireann workers. Córas Iompair Éireann workers were discharged with a pension at 65—and most of them got a better pension than Deputy Norton proposed.
No.
Their pension was not 24/- a week. Deputy Norton's proposal was 24/- a week on retirement. The Córas Iompair Éireann worker, suffering from an infirmity of one kind or another, is entitled to benefit under the National Health Insurance Act until he reaches the age of 70 and the benefits payable under the National Health Insurance Act are far away and beyond those proposed in Deputy Norton's scheme of 24/- a week. If he is a married man with a wife and children still a liability on him, that is taken into consideration. That will mean that the Córas Iompair Éireann worker will get under this Bill more than he would get if he were to enjoy a retirement pension under Deputy Norton's Bill. As it is with the Córas Iompair Éireann worker, so also is it with any other person who attains the age of 65 and who, because of infirmity, is no longer able to give his services to an employer.
We hear again criticism because domestic employees are not included in this Bill. If we are to be honest with ourselves and with the country. we shall have to agree that most of the girls in domestic employment in this country get married at an early age. Are we going to ask them to contribute heavy sums to a fund out of which they are going to get nothing? The vast majority of them will get nothing out of it nor will they ever have any hopes of getting anything. Therefore I think it would be grossly dishonest to extract from domestic workers moneys which they would have no hope of getting back to any appreciable extent; it would be grossly dishonest to dangle before their eyes benefits which they would scarcely have any hope of enjoying.
Take the position of the spinster, the domestic servant in employment who prefers to continue in employment on her own rather than join the order of St. Benedict. There is in this Bill ample provision made for her when she reaches the stage at which her services are not acceptable to employers in this country. The increased national health allowance is there to tide her over her days of illness. If there is one thing in regard to which we can all join in saying: "Thank God it is finished," it is disablement benefit. Up to the present we had the sick person getting 22/6 per week national health benefit. That continued for six months until he became what was known as disabled. Then he was paid disablement benefit at the reduced rate of 15/- per week. I have argued and pleaded in this House on more than one occasion that when a person has been 26 weeks in receipt of sickness benefit, his physical and financial position is much worse than it was six months previously. Is that the time to reduce his benefit? This Bill obliterates that system, I hope, for ever and I hope no future Government will ever dream of reintroducing such a section or regulation under which there will be a reduction in benefit at the end of six months' illness. The financial and physical position of a person who has been sick for six months is getting progressively worse and surely his benefit should not be reduced at the end of six months. This Bill will do away with that, I hope, for ever.
That reminds me of the charge that Fianna Fáil did nothing by way of extending social services during 16 years. Deputies forget that Fianna Fáil in their 16 years of office increased sickness benefit by 50 per cent. and disablement by 100 per cent. Despite that, by good management and supervision and fearless tacties, they handed over £8,000,000 to the Coalition Government a couple of years ago. There is one particular type of benefit that I would urge the Minister to reconsider and that is the marriage benefit. I believe that a domentic servant who has been paying national health insurance for a number of years, whether she got benefit during that period, matters not—should get an increased allowance.
She is going to cease membership when she gets married, for ever and a day, but she has been paying weekly contributions, perhaps, for quite a while. I think she is entitled to a little more than is provided and I would urge the Minister to increase the marriage benefit beyond £10. Most of our domestic servants when they get married find that their pockets are not too full. Let us give the domestic servant something to help to buy the old dresser, the table and so on. Certainly I believe a little more would help in a big way to purchase many of the kitchen utensils that are so desirable in a new home. I think that the Minister should re-examine the position to see if they could be helped in any way.
I am very pleased that we are not going to have any great increase in contributions. I believe that increased contributions would lead to more unemployment. Many decent employers —and there are still many decent employers in this country—have never deducted, from the wages of their domestics or other employees, the insured person's portion of the weekly contribution. They paid it themselves. That I know would be a heavy burden on some people if the cotributions were increased and perhaps it would be mean that they would let some of their employees go. I think that would be a disastrous thing. The alternative, of course, would be to begin to deduct the insured persons' portion each week from the wages of employees, who were not heretofore in the custom of paying contributions. That would extract from them a heavy weekly contribution such as was desired under the 1949 Social Welfare Bill.
That was going to disorganise the little weekly household money of many of our workers in the country. I am very pleased that we are not going to demand under this Bill any very heavy contribution that, perhaps, would have detrimental effects on unemployment. Again, the means test has been considerably altered. We find that in future the man with the £1 a week to-day will be entitled to get that £1 from the State.
Is there not any means test?
Remember not anything including £52 a year.
We made it £65.
I know that the Deputies opposite are finding it hard to digest what I am saying. I am trying to educate them. The greatest boast that we can make is the political education we have given the Fine Gael Party. Some of the Deputies opposite were not here when we were doing that. There are some fine sensible people on the benches opposite, and they know they were educated by Fianna Fáil even to the extent of raising the cost of social services from £3,150,000 to what it is going eventually to be—over £21,000,000.
Under this Bill the man with £104 a year is going to get his slice of the old age pension. If he is a married man, and has £208 a year, he still will get a slice of it. That represents a great advance. I agree that an income of £4 a week is not too high for a man, yet the principle is there, that the State is prepared to consider such a person in his old age. I know that if the old age pension code were to be fully examined—that would take many months of serious thought—it could perhaps he made more acceptable to the people. You meet with cases of this sort. There is a farmer living on one side of the road who is able to meet his obligations. He transfers his farm to his son on the occasion of marriage regardless of what the valuation is. At the other side of the road, there is a person with a lesser income and he gets the pension. I wish that a remedy could be found for that situation. I have often tried to find one myself, but I must confess that I have not succeeded.
I have on many occasions seen people not exactly deprive themselves of property but hand over property. I think the section in the Bill dealing with that is a good one. It will encourage people to get their sons or daughters married, and will enable them to meet their obligations to their families. The Deputies opposite will find it hard to swallow this Bill because the goods are now going to be delivered. On the 1st of July next, a new era will dawn for old age pensioners, for sick people and more especially for unfortunate widows who have been left penniless. That is not any empty promise. It is here now, and it is being backed up by Deputies who are sincere, honest and brimful of giving hope to the needy. I would beg the Deputies opposite not to obstruct this Bill.
Mr. O'Higgins
The same as you obstructed the last one.
If Deputy O'Higgins obstructs it then we know there is something damn good in it.
Mr. O'Higgins
That certainly is a certificate.
The Bantry band playing up the streets of Cork.
Mr. O'Higgins
It educated you.
It caused more dissension than anything else.
Order!
I would say especially to the Labour Party not to obstruct this Bill but to give it the support it deserves. If they do that they will get the blessing of many poor people. If they adopt the other attitude, then they will simply be depriving deserving people for many months of the many good benefits in this Bill, and so will get what they deserve, the curses of the people.
I am delighted, in a sense, that Deputy Davern takes the line that there are some good things in this Bill. He did not, however, tell the House, or his supporters, the bad parts that are in it, and he did not tell them the good parts in Deputy Norton's Bill which are not in this Bill. When Deputy Norton's Bill was before the House, Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he was then, put down a motion proposing that the Dáil decline to give it a Second Reading. In view of that, I cannot understand how any Deputy sitting behind the Government to-day can support this Bill. The reason why Deputy Dr. Ryan then objected to the Social Security Bill and asked the Dáil to decline to give it a Second Reading was because "it did not provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community" and because "it would impose a greatly increased burden", etc.
Is it permissible for a Deputy to quote without telling the House what he is quoting from?
I understood that he had not finished the quotation.
The quotation is finished.
I am very glad that Deputy Cowan has reminded me of the fact that I did not give the reference because the reference is the motion that was moved by Deputy Dr. James Ryan.
I ask for a ruling as to whether it was right for the Deputy to quote without giving the source of his quotation. Obviously, from what the Deputy has said he had clearly finished giving the quotation.
The practice has been to ask the Deputy to give the reference, if requested to do so.
If my quotation is challenged, I submit that I can be called upon to say what I am quoting from to prove that I am quoting correctly.
That is a complete and absolute misconception of the position. If there is a quotation, the source of the quotation and the reference must be given and it should not be necessary for a Deputy to have to draw attention to that fact in the House.
The practice has been to ask the Deputy to give the reference when requested.
I am delighted that Deputy Cowan is such a stickler for order. I am glad that there is no question that he will not look after in future. The House is improved considerably by his attention to duty and I want to compliment the Deputy on his keen mind. If I have been guilty of any breach of order in failing to quote, I am delighted that the Deputy has drawn my attention to the omission because it makes what I am quoting more important. I am quoting from Volume 124, of the 2nd March, 1951, column 1092, of the Official Reports. After Deputy Norton, the then Minister for Social Welfare, had concluded his second reading speech on the Social Welfare Bill Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he then was, moved an amendment, I presume in the name and with the support of the Fianna Fáil Party. I know that he had not the support then of Deputy Cowan, but times have changed and Deputy Davern and he are now on the same side of the House. Deputy Dr. Ryan said then:—
"I move: To delete all words after ‘That' and substitute the following:—
Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because (1) it does not provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community..."
That is the first part of the amendment. The only thing that was wrong with the inter-Party Government's Bill was that it was not comprehensive enough. Yet, the Government now come in with a Bill that is considerably reduced in very important aspects. At that time they went forward with the Party Press and showed what they would do if they were the Government. I do not say that it is Deputy Cowan's Press, but it is the Press of the Party to which he now gives support and which he helped to put in office. That is a freeman's right. I do not blame him for that. He has every right to do that if he thinks fit. The only thing wrong with it was that the Fianna Fáil Party led the electors to believe that, if they were returned to office, they would bring in a Bill on the lines outlined by the present Minister in the speech which he delivered as reported in this volume.
Deputy Davern and Deputy Seán Flanagan said that the self-employed farmer was excluded from Deputy Norton's Bill and they appealed for his inclusion in this Bill. Of course that is incorrect. There was a scheme devised by which the farmer could obtain the benefits under Deputy Norton's Bill. If small farmers, or even large farmers, joined a co-operative society they could secure the benefits from that Bill. That is conveniently forgotten.
As to the death benefit, I do not know where some Deputies were reared. I do know that when death comes to the family of a worker or to a small farmer, it is a cruel hardship in two ways. There is first the loss of the dear one. The next difficulty is the cost which arises on that occasion. Where it is possible, an insurance policy is taken out to cover that. In some cases, it is true to say that it is an endowment policy. Whether it is an endowment policy or not, it is true that certain people, if they are able to do it even in a small way, try to make provision for that sad event when it arises.
I remember Fianna Fáil stumping the country advocating pensions at 65. They outdid the Labour Party in shouting for that. They had 16½ years to give effect to that but they never did it. Again, we know that when a motion was put down to increase the old age pensions in 1947, we were told that it would cost £500,000 and that it could not be done. Of course, it was a blessing when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government cut the old age pension by 1/-, because if they had not that argument Fianna Fáil would never have become the Government. It was a gift then. Of course, nobody who has any political sense would approve of it. The fact remains that from that day to this we have never been let forget it. It is a great blessing that it is not debatable now. As I say, that was a gift to Fianna Fáil because, to give them their due, they have made full use of it from that day to this. Every time they get an opportunity to throw it at an old fellow or a young fellow, it is thrown, as if that was a criminal act and the only one of the whole Administration.
It was not the only thing we threw at you.
You would not know about it, you would have to get second-hand information. Deputy Norton did make a comparison with the benefits in Northern Ireland and he has been attacked for that. Why should we try to hide our heads in the sand? When I was in Northern Ireland during the last election a poster was put up opposing the anti-Partition candidates. What would be the effect on the Northern Irelander who would look on the picture here and on the picture depicted by the poster?
They did not put up a poster showing now they were taxing the people?
It was Shakespearean.
It does not matter whether it was Shakespearean or not; the benefits were very striking as compared with ours. Deputies may say that there was high taxation but that did not matter to the beneficiaries, who were paying. There were being appealed to stay where they were getting these great benefits. When Deputy Norton's Social Security Bill came for the consideration of this House, it was a source of satisfaction to me that the benefits under the Bill were very close to, if not as good as, the benefits which were available in Northern Ireland. It was also a source of delight to me that the Bill would prove of some inducement to our fellow countrymen in the North or, at least, that it would remove one of the arguments against uniting with the South. Whether the worker in Northern Ireland is a Unionist or a capitalist he is very fond of the "Crown" or of the "half-crown" in particular.
What about the cigarettes?
They think a lot about the mother and child scheme up there.
We do not know what Deputy Dr. Ryan thinks about it yet.
It is only the Unionist who thinks about the Crown.
If Deputy Cowan wants to interject points about the mother and child scheme in this Bill, I am prepared to take him on.
It is not in order on this Bill.
I hope Deputy Cowan will be able to impress his views on the Fianna Fáil Party, and that he will not be like the fox who lost his tail and have Fianna Fáil as bad as himself. I will leave it at that. I do not think they will be very happy with him as a bed-fellow in that respect. However, that is their responsibility. If they take him on I have no objection.
He stuck you for three years.
When he was with us he suffered a great deal from your tongues. We did not get off easy no more than we got off in regard to the 1/- taken off the old age pension. We were told all about it by the present Minister for Finance or somebody of that character with a good tongue.
To come back to the Bill. The comparison which I saw in Northern Ireland was a severe jolt to me. I was not aware that the advantages were so striking. It is true that this Bill will go some of the distance. I am not saying it is not an advance. It is an advance, and I would like to say that the Labour Party has done a great deal of work. They have succeeded in doing at least two things; they succeeded in getting the Fianna Fáil Government to drop the Standstill Wages Order. When they got them to introduce a measure such as this, it was not bad work.
They also increased the Fine Gael representation in this House.
I know that that is a sore point with the Deputy. Should there be another general election, I want to inform the Deputy that there will be a lot of new faces opposite. If you doubt that, advise the Taoiseach to dissolve the House immediately and we will back you up with a heart and a half. Fine Gael and Labour will be able to march shoulder to shoulder to the hunt.
That is what finished Labour and increased Fine Gael.
Labour formed a Coalition Government with you people in 1932 and how did you treat them? They came in with you in good faith and you promised them what you are now promising "the spoiled five". You got them to vote for you but you gave them the rat very quickly. Labour put Fianna Fáil into office in 1932 and they are regretting that act from that day to this.
There are 75,000 unemployed people in this country while we waste the time of this House.
You wasted it for three years.
If Deputy Hickey will allow me to continue, I could finish my speech. If we could keep the Corkmen quiet, we could get on with the job. It is true that this Bill is an advance. I am not going to say that this is not an advance upon the existing position. It is also a complete reversal of what Fianna Fáil said they were going to do during the election campaign and what they said they would do in this House when they were moving a refusal to give a Second Reading to the Norton Bill.
Is the Deputy in favour of the Bill or against it?
I am the type of person who believes that once you get an improvement you should take it and consolidate it.
That is a sound military maxim.
I know that Captain Cowan subscribes to that view.
I always subscribe to it.
Why talk about what is a well-known fact?
Then you do approve of the Bill?
It could be better. What I am going to try to do is to get the Government to make it better if I can. I have heard supporters of the Government saying that their Bill is better than the one brought in by Deputy Norton. I am satisfied then that they are not going to urge the Government to improve the Bill. The object of the amendment put down by the Labour Party is to improve the Bill. Surely, it is not meant to go against the Bill. It is meant to make the Bill a better one and our appeal to the Government is to make it a better Bill, thereby giving the people who are so interested the benefits to which they are entitled, whether they be the aged, the widow, the orphan or the disabled.
The benefits have been withdrawn from them. I think that Deputy Norton was perfectly reasonable when he asserted that the insurance companies were opposed to them. It is a well-konwn fact that every time the British Government attempted an improvement in the social well-being of the people the big insurance corporations of Britain rushed in and attempted to prevent the Government from doing their duty. We all know that it is said of a particular Prime Minister in England that he delayed action to enable the insurance companies to rectify their position.
The principle of insurance companies is the same all over and if this sort of insurance was taken over as a State responsibility it would lessen their takings and interfere to a great extent with insurance company interests. I know well that the insurance companies in this country dislike these two benefits that have been dropped and I suggest to the Government that they should carefully reconsider this matter and restore them to the Bill. No Opposition Deputy can put that down as an amendment, in my opinion, and therefore it must come from the Minister himself. It is true we can talk about it but we may not move it as an amendment.
The question of omitting domestic servants from the benefits is again, I submit, a serious one. It is true that it has some bearing on the question of emigration, because if they were protected fully here and had the amenities here that they should have there would not be the same desire to emigrate that exists at present.
The case has been well made and I subscribe to it that when you include the male agricultural worker, there is no reason why you should exclude the female agricultural worker. I doubt if it is constitutional to do so, because there must not be sectional legislation; when the law is passed the benefits should be for all, that is, where classes like this are concerned.
Deputy Flanagan has been able to tell us what will be in the Budget. He said that this Social Security Bill will be catered for. That is some information for us and I hope it is correct. It would be very wise if it was catered for in the Book of Estimates. However, I suppose Deputy Flanagan knows and, therefore, I will not challenge his information on it.
We were asked for constructive criticism. We will criticise as far as we can and we will put down amendments. The motion that is before the House is a constructive one. It indicates what should be in the Bill and we are asking the Government to consider that matter. But from the way in which the Government's supporters and the front bench have met it, it is quite clear that no matter what amendment we put down it will not be considered. That would be a pity and a mistake. I advise the Government to consider carefully every amendment put down by Labour, by Fine Gael and by the Farmers' Party— Clann na Talmhan—to this measure, to improve it and extend its scope.
No matter what we do there will be still sections excluded that we would like to benefit. There will be people left out who will have to be protected by the charitably-minded people of the country. You cannot cater for every individual. There will be people excluded and there will be border-line cases that you would like to see coming in. It is a pity that we cannot be perfect but we can make the Bill as perfect as can be. The nearest approach to perfection that you can get was the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare, sponsored by the inter-Party Government and supported by the various Parties composing that Government.
There was no brass hat in Fine Gael who opposed that, because the brass hats of Fine Gael are the people who, in spite of what some of the youngsters over there say, subscribed to the democratic programme of Sinn Féin when this country had the first Irish Government in 1919. Each and every one of us subscribed to that. Why sneer at us as brass hats? The brass hats were the people who did lead the country. I, for one, take the description of a brass hat with honour. I do not think it a reflection. It is fired sneeringly at times. To put on a brass hat in the service of this country or of any other country is something to be proud of. I am proud of the fact that I am a brass hat. Let me say I hope that I never abuse that brass hat and that every time I ever wore it I dealt with all the questions that came before me with a sense of fair play and justice. I can say that truthfully. I hope that everybody else wearing the particular brass hat he wanted to wear can say the same.
It is a regrettable thing that in discussing an important matter like this we should have such Party politics during this day. It is regrettable also to see here members trying to take advantage for their Party because of what they are doing under this Bill. We are accepting the principle of the Bill and the reason we put down the amendment is that we wanted to make it a better Bill and at least as good a Bill as the Bill the inter-Party Government introduced in 1951.
What was done in 1951? Does Deputy Davern or any other member of the opposite side think that we, as a Labour Party, believe that we are doing full justice to those whom we are anxious to help? In these discussions here to-day we had members trying to score Party points over each other. What are we doing for the 74,000 unemployed, the 152,000 old-aged and blind pensioners, the 60,000 or 70,000 widows and orphans, as well as the 62,062 people on home assistance at the present time? Is this the occasion to indulge in Party politics and to try to secure advantage over each other about the miserable things we are doing for these people? What do the provisions of either the 1951 Bill or this Bill mean to the unemployed man with a wife and two children? Under the 1951 Bill, which every member of the Fianna Fáil Party voted against, the unemployed man with a wife and two children got 50/- a week. That man has obligations and rights equal to those of every member of this House or equal to those of any man in the land. He was expected to provide three meals a day for each of them which means that he has to provide for 64 meals in the week at 9¼d. per meal per person. In Cork City that man has to pay 6/- a week for rent. Coal is 8/6 a bag and electric light 6d. a unit for the working man while the industrialists of this country pay only 1d. a unit. What would it cost that man to clothe himself, his wife and children? If the two children are going to school it imposes still further expense on him. Yet, that was the best we could do as an inter-Party Government. In this present Bill the working man will get 50/-, which means 9¼d. per meal for the seven days of the week. They cannot get many eggs for that amount. Eggs are 5½d. each and you would pay 10d. each in the restaurant of this House for them. Everybody knows that the working man is not going to have any rashers for his breakfast nor can his wife and children. He will not be able to buy salmon, which I saw displayed in some of the shops in Dublin, at 10/- a lb.
We should think of the unemployed, the sick and the people on home assistance. Are they any less worthy than any member of this House or any person in the Irish nation? I was surprised to hear Deputy Davern say that a new day would dawn for the widows and orphans on the 1st July, 1952. I want to say to Deputy Davern —and I intend nothing personal—that I think it was a work of the greatest insincerity and humbug to tell that to the people who are as anxious to rear their children, carry out their obligations to their wives and build a home as any of us.
A drink is an lawful lot to a thirsty person.
It is but what is this we hear about the old age pensioners? We are giving the old age pensioners £1 per week which when divided over the seven days of the week allows him something like 2/4 a day. If he tries to get three meals for that 2/4 it will work out at 9d. a meal. If he goes to any hostel or to any kind of a restaurant he will have to pay at least a shilling for his meal.
We should bear in mind that the poor, including the unemployed, the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and the blind pensioners, do not live. They merely exist. Nobody can deny that truth. We endeavour in this Bill, to ensure that where a man was thrown out of employment and had to go to the labour exchange he should be paid unemployment benefit or national health benefit on the day he fell ill or the day he became unemployed. The best we could get agreement on was that for the first three days he would get no benefit whatever. In other words, he could live on the air. However, it was an improvement on the procedure that existed before when he had to sign for six days and get nothing.
Another drawback is the absence of any provision for the payment of pensions at 65. For my part, I do not believe that men who reach 65 want to retire from work. This Bill or the last Bill did not compel such men to retire at 65. We know and every Deputy knows that industrial concerns will not keep a man in their employment longer than 65 years. Men employed by Córas Iompair Éireann, gas companies, flour milling companies, the Electricity Supply Board, and bakery firms must retire at 65.
It would be a good thing sometimes if some of us would take a walk round on our own and have a look at the situation. It would be a good thing if some of us paid a visit to the libraries and some of the hostels or county homes where you will find decent honest men who have worked and toiled for the last 50 years in the service of the community. Because the industrial system was unable to extract a profit out of these unfortunate men when they had reached a certain age they were scrapped. We are now trying to come to their assistance and yet we are told that you cannot get a retiring pension until you reach the age of 70.
Have any Deputies any idea of the number of men who are laid up at 60 and 55 years of age? If Deputies went into any of the hospitals or county homes they would find there men who are thrown on the scrap heap from our soulless industrial system. They would find men who have laboured and toiled with the sweat of their brows in different occupations thrown there as mere patients. And what will they get? We are told they are not going to get a retirement pension at 70 years of age. I have seen men laid up with rheumatism at 60 years of age.
I have reports in my possession concerning our mines. We have not so many mines in this country but the medical officer's report in regard to the men employed in our mines digging up the coal is a most tragic story to study and read. Many of them have to retire from work before they reach the age of 60. The percentage of them that draw the old age pension is hardly worth mentioning. These are the people who cannot get a retiring pension at 65. They must go to the labour exchange and stand in a queue to register so as to get this benefit.
I appeal to the Cabinet and the back benchers of Fianna Fáil to reconsider this Bill and change these three clauses. In a matter of this kind we should not play at politics. This is above and beyond Party politics. Are these unfortunate men and women to be told that they must go to the labour exchange every morning and sign on in order to get a retiring pension? I would suggest, not for any Party purpose or for any other purpose, that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party should do justice to those people. They should reconsider this Bill and meet the amendments we have put down.
In regard to the death benefits removed from this Bill, are we not all aware of the amount of money that the people to whom I am referring pay insurance companies every year not alone in respect of the father and mother but in respect of the little children? The sum of money they pay is very high. During the past two or three years, we have been agitating for pensions in the different industrial concerns for the workers. As time went on, we got some big firms to agree to institute a pension scheme. The result was that 2/6, and in some places 2/- a week, was deducted from their wages. This was in order to give them a pension when they reached the age of 65.
We had a good deal of objection to that from the workers because they did not want to be contributing 2/6 of their wages while at the same time contributing to national health and unemployment insurance. I endeavoured to discover what their real objection was. On several occasions, I asked at these meeting how many men had taken out insurance with the different industrial insurances and, without exaggeration, I do not think six men out of 60, or even 70 men present at these meetings were paying insurance premiums to insurance companies for their families. The next question I asked was how many men were paying at least 2/6 per week for insurance, and about four hands went up. I then asked if I was to understand that they were paying more than that sum. One man said that I would be nearer the mark if I mentioned a figure of 6/6 or 7/6. I then asked the men at these meetings how many of them were paying insurance in respect of themselves, their wives and their children which amounted to more than 6/- per week and I was alarmed at the response which showed that the majority were paying over 6/- per week. I say to the Fianna Fáil Party that here is the kernel of vested interests. The insurance companies were 100 per cent. opposed to this measure in 1951.
Are the Fianna Fáil Party not aware that Deputy Norton had deputations awaiting him from insurance representatives to drop this death benefit? Were they asking Deputy Norton, as Minister for Social Welfare, to drop the death benefit provision in the interests of the country or in the interests of the worker? Not at all. They saw that we were doing something which would put money into the pockets of the men who were going to pay for the death benefits. I suggest to the Minister and to the Fianna Fáil Government that if they study the amount of money paid by the workers and their families in insurance premiums they will find that the cost of administration of that alone is anything from 55 per cent. to 62 per cent. The Bill, as introduced last year, would cost about 12½ per cent. the cost of administration. If anybody would take the trouble to study Lord Beveridge's report on unemployment in Britain he would see that Lord Beveridge proved beyond any doubt that for every pound sterling collected in industrial insurance only 7/- is given in benefits. That is the reason why we have put down the amendment. We want the Bill to be what we consider it should be. I hope sufficient pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to compel the Minister to bring in these provisions which have been omitted.
Sometimes when I sit here day by day and week by week and listen to the speeches made by the different Deputies and Minister—all the talk, talk, talk, —I reflect that one would think we were dealing with inanimate objects. Do not forget that 74,000 people in our Twenty-Six Counties are compelled to go to the Labour Exchanges just now and register every day for unemployment benefit—though some people have the audacity to say that they are going for the dole. I spent a number of years on the Court of Referees at the Cork Labour Exchange and from my experience there I know that there is nothing so humiliating or so repugnant to a decent worker than to have to stand before four or five people who will ask him how it is that he has not been able to get work in the past two years or why he is idle for the last six months or whether he has made any effort to get employment.
These are the types of questions that are asked. I think I read something to the effect that the Parliamentary Secretary said that if the welfare State comes to this country it will kill the incentive to work. I often compare the people who get thousands of pounds without lifting a finger to produce any kind of article in this country, and the people who go to the golf courses, to the race courses, and who loll in the hotels on high fare with the people who are unemployed and who have to exist on a few shillings a week. I saw a fur coat in a shop window in Cork recently and the price was 1,150 guineas. I wonder if the lady who will put that fur coat on her back was deprived of the incentive to work? Does anybody suggest that she has done anything useful for the country? If you look at the shop windows you will see a fur coat for 149 guineas— and yet we ask the unemployed man and his wife and two children to eke out an existance on £104 for a whole year. We talk a lot about Christianity but is it not time that we put some of its principles into practice? I think it was Chesterton who said that Christianity was never tried and found wanting but that it was found difficult and was not tried. What an appropriate remark to apply to us to-day. If an industry cannot make a profit out of a worker they throw him on the labour exchange and ask the community to maintain him—and if he is a single man he gets 18/- a week. Does anybody expect that such a man can have respect for the State and the institutions of the State? Why do we expect these men to be so docile? I suggest, from the experience which I have gained over a long number of years, that the Government—not alone this Government, but Governments in other countries as well—is based on the patience and the ignorance of the mass of the people. But let us be careful. That will not last always. We have 74,000 unemployed in the Twenty-Six Counties and there are 53,000 unemployed in the Six Counties. Add these two figures together and you will find that 127,000 people in this island are deprived of the opportunity of producing the goods which they need and of producing the necessaries of life for their families. Suppose these people start to organise. What would be the position then? Would all the talk which goes on in this House and all the Party politics that are played be a sufficient answer to these men? You may bet your life that it would not. We are too complacent. Do we not realise that we are going through a world-wide revolution and do we think that the system which we are trying to operate and patch up will continue? We are all aware that the system we are operating is a most immoral system from every point of view—and yet we sit in this House and talk and hurl taunts about this Bill, that Bill and the other Bill.
Somebody spoke about the Labour Party. I am old enough to remember the time when the Labour Party supported the Fianna Fáil Party in Government in 1932, 1935 and 1937. Just because the Labour Party were asking for improved social services for the people of this country the Taoiseach called general elections and stated that the Labour Party were on his back and that he would have to throw them overboard. The Labour Party is only too conscious of all the hardships and heartbreak which the unemployed man has to endure and that is what we are concerned about.
I want to appeal finally to members of the Fianna Fáil Party to reconsider this Bill. Do not look upon it as a Party achievement or as a measure with which the Party prestige is bound up. Remember what it has been introduced for. The purpose of this Bill, or of any other Bill like it, is to make the people happier and healthier than they are. I do hope that, bearing all these things in mind, the Party will reconsider the Bill, accept the amendment and make the Bill at least as good as the one that was before the House last year.
Mr. Coburn
Any Bill, the purpose of which is to improve the condition of the people of the country, whether they be workers or otherwise, deserves very careful consideration from this House. It is not a question as to whether the Bill now before the House is or is not, or whether the Bill introduced last year by Deputy Norton was or was not, a good Bill. I think a great many people will agree that it would be much better if the people of this country were placed in such a position that they could live without the help of such Bills but, with world conditions as they are at the moment, I suppose that happy state of affairs cannot be brought about overnight. In the meantime, we must have Bills like this to enable the less fortunate of our people to tide over their difficulties, whether these difficulties are of a permanent or temporary nature. The extraordinary feature of this whole social welfare scheme is that it is not a question of what is contained in the Bill; it is simply a question of who introduced the Bill. Consequently, when Deputy Norton introduced his Bill, Fianna Fáil thought it was their duty to belittle it and to criticise it from every angle. I suppose, human nature being what it is, the Opposition now think it should be our duty to criticise the Bill introduced by the present Minister. I do not think that is good for the country. I am not one of those who is going to bid, just as one would bid at an auction, for votes.
I think that this Bill as it stands is an advance on the social security scheme as we know it to exist at the present time. It is natural that those who introduced the last Bill should make comparisons. We all can agree to differ. The whole matter resolves itself into a question of whether this Bill is a better Bill or is as good a Bill as the one introduced by Deputy Norton. It is a fact that people were somewhat critical of the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton and I suppose there are certain sections of the people who are equally critical of this Bill. Some people think it is going to cost too much and that we are on the high road towards the creation of the welfare State. I remember when the Old Age Pension Bill was introduced in the British House of Commons over 40 years ago. It was then stated by some members, with a very conservative outlook, that the introduction of that Bill meant the end of England and the British Empire. It was contended that the introduction of the Bill, which enabled the then Government to pay 5/- a week, afterwards increased to 10/- a week, to old age pensioners meant the end of England's greatness and of her empire. The original pension of 5/-, 40 years ago, was later successively increased to 10/-, 15/- and £1. It now stands at £2 or 45/- and England still lives. So it is well for those people who think that the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton, and even the present Bill, goes too far and simply means setting up the welfare State to remember that, when all is said and done, the working classes were always foremost in the fight for the freedom for all sections and, therefore, any benefits now conferred on the workers are benefits to which they are fully entitled.
I think that instead of trying to score political points against one another, we should try to make the best of this Bill and to remember that the resources of this country are not unlimited. Undoubtedly we have made an advance since the freedom of this country was secured. The old Cumann na nGaedheal Party made certain advances and then Fianna Fáil came into power. I do not think much good can be achieved by referring to what happened 15 or 20 years ago. I should like to refer to this one fact and I hope Deputies opposite will take it in the spirit in which I mention it. They sometimes refer to the reduction of 1/- per week in the old age pensions introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they were in power —a very unwise step I admit. I was not a member of the House at the time but members opposite cannot escape responsibility from the causes which led up to the cut of 1/- a week at that particular period because, if my memory serves me right, it was the action of the Taoiseach, then Deputy de Valera, who, in order to satisfy his own vanity, created a civil war in this country which caused damage to the extent of some £70,000,000 or £80,000,000.
The Deputy must pass from that.
Mr. Coburn
And was responsible for the cutting off of that 1/-.
That must be withdrawn.
It has no reference whatever to this measure.
Mr. Coburn
The Ceann Comhairle was not in the Chair, but I was just replying to a remark that had been made by Deputy Davern when, in making comparisons between the Bill now before the House and the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton and the attitude of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party away back I think in 1923 or 1924, he said, in so far as the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party was concerned, that they were right at that time in doing what they did do. In order that that reference will not be made any more to the cutting off of that 1/- I want to see that these men must accept a certain amount of responsibility for the cutting off of that 1/-.
The Deputy will please pass on to the Bill.
Mr. Coburn
I am not saying that it has created any controversy. It is an historical fact, and I want the members opposite to remember that. On the question of social insurance, I think when all is said and done that this is a Bill which can be discussed in all its aspects. It is an advance on the social services as they exist at the moment. The last Bill, which was introduced by Deputy Norton, was also an advance. All that remains now is for Deputies to come together and make the best they can of this present Bill. This Government is in power and they have introduced this Bill. It is their duty to see that, when it leaves this House, it will confer as great benefits as possible on the working classes of the country.
I, like most Deputies, welcome the Bill, as indeed the members opposite welcomed the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton in 1951. I hope that on the Committee Stage the Minister will give careful consideration to any amendments that may be put down and will meet them in the spirit in which they are put down so that when the Bill leaves the House it will be one which will command the support and respect of the people.
My contribution will be very brief indeed. For the past few days we have heard a considerable amount of praise from the Government Benches in respect of legislation introduced since the Government took office. When we consider the Bills which have been passed, it is a peculiar thing to find that all of them are merely reproductions of Bills which were introduced by the inter-Party Government. Take, for example, the Foyle Fisheries Bill. The negotiations in connection with it were opened up by the inter-Party Government. Take the Social Welfare Bill. It was originally introduced by Deputy Norton and now we have an amendment of it before us. The Sea Fisheries Bill, which we had before us last evening, was originally introduced by Deputy Dillon. I think that, with the exception of the Undeveloped Areas Bill, no legislation has come before this House since the present Government came into office other than legislation which was originally introduced by the inter-Party Government. I am not decrying the fact that the present Government saw fit to adopt the various Bills which were introduced by the Government I supported.
It is a peculiar thing, when we hear from so many Deputies on the other side that the old age pensioners are going to derive certain benefits under this Bill, that they are going to do that at a time when the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste are telling us that we are facing a financial crisis. If we throw our minds back to 1947— I was not a member of the House then—I understand that at that time, when Deputy Norton introduced a motion proposing that the old age pensions should be increased by 2/6 a week, the Minister refused to accept it. At that time the present Tánaiste was telling us that we were facing a financial position such as, he says, we are facing to-day. Still the Government can see fit to raise the ceiling whereby old age pensioners may derive an increase, and yet they could not do that in 1947. I respectfully say the reason is that they are merely adopting the advice which was tendered to them by Deputy Norton and the other members of the inter-Party Government.
I do not see any provision in this Bill for the majority of the people in the constituency which I represent. Unfortunately, as things are and have been for the last 30 years, the great majority of the people on the western seaboard must still migrate to England. We are bound, unfortunately, by the system which exists and has existed for years. These people migrate and spend at least eight months of the year in the mines, the harvest fields or on public works in England. I say that Deputy Norton did more for those people than has ever been done by a native Government in this State. He made that reciprocal arrangement with the British Government of which Deputies are aware. Now, when our people go to Britain and pay contributions to the British Government, they derive or may derive some benefit from those contributions during the period they are unemployed at home.
I would like to see the Minister go further and endeavour to secure that they would derive full benefit for the contributions they pay while engaged over there. If that could be done we would be going a long way towards helping the people in the congested areas and along the western seaboard. Our people have to work very hard in England. During the eight months they are employed there they succeed in saving, say, £100. They bring back that sum of money with them. It goes to pay the debts incurred by their families during the period they are away.
The point that I want to make is that when they apply for qualification certificates under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the Unemployment Assistance Acts, the money they have earned in England is assessed against their means so that, in many cases, they find they are disqualified from drawing unemployment assistance benefit here. That is a matter which the Minister should seriously consider, this question of the assessment of means for the obtaining of qualification certificates. It is unfortunate that, when we cannot give these people employment at home and compel them to migrate, the money they earn outside the country should be assessed against their means here. If the Minister takes up this matter seriously he will be doing something good for the people along the western seaboard.
I am afraid that we are not going to stem migration. I cannot see it. What we should do is endeavour to make the lives of those unfortunate people as comfortable as we possibly can during the period they are back in the country. They have to make contributions to the British Exchequer when they are away by way of payments in respect of unemployment insurance and national health. Despite the fact that they had been doing that for the past 30 years it was not until two years ago that they received any benefit for the contributions they had made.
I ask the Minister to take the matter up with his counterpart on the other side and see if that original reciprocal agreement could be further extended.
On the question of means, I note that as and from the month of January next the ceiling will be raised and certain people will get higher old age pensions than they are getting at present. That is something we all welcome. But, one thing that should be put an end to is the method of investigation of means and the assessment of means by investigation officers. I really think it is outrageous. I am not criticising these officers as it is their duty, but I am criticising the system by which they have to do this. It is ridiculous to think that these men find out the number of hens and cattle kept, how the people live, the rent they pay, and take all these matters into account in assessing the means.
I know for a fact that in the County Donegal in assessing the means of people who have 200 acres of mountain land some of these investigation officers place the same amount of value on that land as they would on 200 acres of land in the Midlands. I know one farm of 1,600 acres which was let for a period of eight years at £8 for the 1,600 acres I personally had difficulty in convincing the investigation officer that £8 a year was a reasonable letting value for that 1,600 acres. He would not hear of the applicant being eligible for a pension because he was the owner of 1,600 acres. Deputies will be surprised to know that the poor law valuation of that 1,600 acres is 1d. per acre. It was only on appeal to the appeals officer that we succeeded in obtaining a pension for that applicant. These are matters which the Minister should consider. I am not blaming the investigation officers, but the Minister should consider the method whereby these people are interrogated and their means investigated prior to the granting of a pension.
Then there is another matter. Unfortunately, our old age pension committees are no longer receiving the respect they should receive. In nine cases out of ten, where an old age pension committee grant an old age pension, the investigation officer appeals immediately. Why have these committees at all then? Why not let a case from the beginning come before the appeals officer, or else why do we not treat with the respect which is due to them the decision of a committee? After all, they are local people. They know the means of livelihood of the applicant. They know the class of land on which he lives. Possibly they know his means. They know how he has been brought up and how he is bringing up his family. Taking all these things into account, if they decide to grant a man an old age pension surely the pensions officer should accept that decision and not put that individual to the trouble of making a second case before the appeals officer.
Unfortunately, a number of the applicants for old age pensions are illiterate. They merely fill up their application form and appear before the local committee. The committee, not so much on what is said by the applicant, but what the committee themselves know, grant the pension. The investigation officer appeals. The applicant does not put in his statement of facts in support of his application because he is ignorant of how to do it. So much so that unless representation is made by a Deputy or somebody else, when the appeal comes before the appeals officer he has merely the statement of the investigation officer and naturally he acts upon that and the pension is disallowed. The only remedy left open to the applicant is to make a new application. That is something which the Minister could remedy and he would be doing a considerable amount of good for a considerable number of people if he did that.
One other complaint I have to make is in regard to the delay in investigating the means of applicants for old age pensions. I know of the case of an applicant for an old age pension on whom the investigation officer did not call for a period of two months.
Would not that be administration?
With great respect, I submit that old age pensions come under the Bill.
Administration does not. That could be done by an administrative act. It would not be necessary to introduce legislation.
With great respect, Sir, I will not have another opportunity of making these points to the Minister.
The Deputy will get other opportunities.
Possibly on the Estimate. I welcome the Bill in so far as it goes, but I think it could go much further. Many more people could benefit by it if more leaves were taken out of the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton.
Before dealing with the Bill, I should like to compliment Deputy O'Donnell on some of the statements he has made because, in my opinion, they are a complete answer to the opposition to this Bill. Until such time as a Minister can see his way to bring the people that Deputy O'Donnell mentioned into a social security scheme it is unfair of the Labour Party to ask that these benefits should be applied to one section of the people. I am sincere when I say that the statements made by Deputy O'Donnell are a complete answer to the opposition to this Bill. I should like to compliment the Minister on introducing the Bill. Every Deputy will have to agree that, with the present state of the finances of this country, it takes a man of courage to bring in a Bill of this description which entails the expenditure of such a large amount of money.
Mr. O'Higgins
It does.
It would be a long time before Deputy O'Higgins would have the courage to bring in such a Bill or anything approaching it.
Mr. O'Higgins
Or the neck—I agree.
Any Minister who has to deal with a Bill of this description has to approach it from different points of view. He has to approach it from the point of view of the working man and the contributions he is able to pay; he has to approach it from the point of view of the employer and what he can afford to pay, and he has to approach it from the point of view of the community as a whole and what they can afford to pay to make the Bill a success. From these points of view, I think this Bill is a reasonable one. I should like to see all the things in this Bill which the Labour Party want.
Mr. O'Higgins
You voted against the previous Bill.
The Deputy should not interrupt and should allow me to make my speech in my own way. He will have an opportunity of answering it if he wishes. I never voted against any measure which was for the benefit of the people of the country.
Mr. O'Higgins
You have a very short memory.
I should like to see a lot of the things mentioned to-day embodied in it. But, as has been pointed out, we must creep before we walk. I was in complete agreement with Deputy Cogan when he mentioned this evening that he would like to see workmen's compensation brought into this Bill. I think it was a pity that it was in Dr. Ryan's first Bill and that it was dropped out of the Bill brought in by Deputy Norton. It is regrettable that Dr. Ryan did not see fit to include it in this Bill. It is a great worry for any employer to be obliged to affix three or four different kinds of stamps. In that respect this Bill is doing away with at least two of them. If he could see his way to cover workmen's compensation it would relieve the mind of the employer. Employers at the present time must put on stamps for national health, unemployment, wet time; after all that is done he is liable for workmen's compensation, with the result that he never knows where he is.
It is a great pity from that point of view that the Minister did not embody workmen's compensation in the Bill. I suppose, however, that the cost was what deterred him. It costs about £4 to insure a man against workmen's compensation and I do not think that any employer would object to paying a fair contribution to have that embodied in the Bill.
I would like maternity benefits to the wife of an insured worker, that is, an uninsured woman, to be granted under this Bill. Take the case of the ordinary workman in the town and country, a man who is working for his weekly wage and rearing a young family. At the time of confinement it often happens that he has no one to take charge at home with the result that he has to leave his work and mind the house himself. I have practical experience of this. I worked for the national health for a long number of years and I realise that this problem is the cause of a great deal of worry. Very often a man is compelled to go on sick benefit himself in order to remain at home to mind the house during this period. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this. No matter how small the amount would be I believe the wife of the uninsured worker should receive an allowance for at least eight weeks. I would sooner see some of the other benefits dispensed with if he could consider bringing in that class. I know it is easy for me to talk like that. I suppose the answer the Minister would give to me would be that he has to provide the money, but as I have said, I would rather see that provision brought in and some of the other benefits reduced.
Deputy Seán Flanagan raised the point that I hope will be looked after in another Bill, that is, the question of people who are disabled for life. I hope the Minister will see his way in the very near future to bring these people under a comprehensive Bill, because they are the one class of people who have been neglected in this country. I feel that a Bill of that description, no matter what the cost, will have the wholehearted support of every member of this House. There should be no difficulty in doing that because I have met quite a few people in different places and I have letters from people from every part of the country pointing out the sufferings of those people. When there is discussion about a comprehensive scheme and requests to have certain things inserted, I think this is one of the matters that should be given priority, to look after the people who have been disabled by the will of God.
There are other points about the Bill that I could mention but I do not know whether it would be very wise to go back on some of them. I would like the Labour people, who are opposing this Bill——
We are not opposing the Bill.
I know you are not opposing the Bill but I would ask the Labour group to allow this Bill to pass without amendment and to realise what Deputy O'Donnell has just said is the principle, that this Bill is going as far as any Government can reasonably go and that they are asking something that it is impossible to put into a Bill of this description. Until such time as the comprehensive Bill is brought in to cover all sections of the community, the Labour Party should be more reasonable in their attitude to the Bill. I say without fear of contradiction that anything that has been done to alleviate the lot of the labouring man in this country has been done by Fianna Fáil, and no Labour man sitting on these benches or out of them can deny that.
What about the Wage Freeze Bill?
I do not know about that. There were a lot of standstill Orders that should have been enforced and were not enforced.
Supposing we come back to the Bill.
I say in all seriousness that this Bill is going far enough. I am reminded of the case of a man aged 60 who is at the present time drawing a blind pension. He is receiving 15/- national health benefit. Under this Bill he will be drawing 24/- and his wife will be drawing 12/-, which amounts to 36/-. When he comes to 70 years of age he will go back probably to 24/-. Under the Norton Bill that we are hearing so much about, at 65—and it will be agreed a man is comparatively young at 65 — the amount of benefit he would receive would be reduced from 50/- to 24/-. At that stage of his life when possibly he would have young children to rear, you might be doing the man a serious injury in doing that. Under the present scheme you are giving a man a chance of receiving 50/- until he is 70 when possibly he would have his family provided for. There is no doubt that you can force such matters too far and too quickly.
In conclusion, I would appeal to the Labour people to examine the record of social welfare and of social services in this country. If they do they will realise who are the people who gave labour social services and social security in this country. We have been hearing a good deal to-night about the intentions of certain people. Hell is paved with good intentions and one ounce of work carried out is worth a thousand tons of promises. Regardless of what the members of the Labour Party say or any other members in the House if Deputy Norton had the slightest intention of implementing his Bill, he could have enforced it.
You opposed it.
I am convinced that if Deputy Norton had the intention of bringing in the Bill it could have been enforced before the Dáil was dissolved, but he had no such intention. But the Bill we are discussing now will be implemented by the Budget next week. I appeal to the Labour Deputies not to block this Bill by way of amendments but to allow it to pass without obstruction; then later on they can fight for any services they feel are required.
The difficulty about Deputy Gilbride is that he cannot make up his mind what he wants. He wants the maternity allowance to be put in, but still he objects to our amendment.
I want the whole lot, but I will take it in instalments.
To get down to the Bill. What we provided, even in a small way, for the farmers has been taken out of this Bill.
There are a number of general remarks that should be made for the benefit of everybody in this House who is concerned with social security and with the welfare of the ordinary people. So far as the basic principles of the present Bill are concerned, there is no substantial difference between the present Bill and the one introduced by Deputy Norton. That is not merely indicated by similarity of the approach to the problem, leaving aside the distance travelled by the authors of the two Bills.
It was indicated by the present Minister for Social Welfare, then Deputy Dr. Ryan, when speaking on the Second Reading of Deputy Norton's Social Welfare Bill and examining that Bill point by point, that he accepted one after another the basic principles of social security. He agreed that it should be comprehensive, that it should be contributory and he was in agreement in respect of the provisions affecting the self-employed people—the farmers. From that point of view it is important that we should recall the marked difference in the atmosphere at the present time as compared with the atmosphere during the period of three years during which the Norton Bill was the subject of topic in this country.
There is a very marked silence at the present time as compared with the uproar and the furore that went on continuously during the earlier period. If there were grounds for objection on moral, ethical or social principles under the Norton Bill, the grounds are still there, and equally strong, in the present Bill. It is, as I say, remarkable that there is such a difference in the atmosphere now and that there is such a lack of criticism, particularly the unreasoned partisan criticism which was expressed in reference to the earlier Bill. It is important that we should bear that in mind because it is correct to say that there are many members in the House desirous of providing a social security scheme. We should be aware of the basis on which criticism is forthcoming in regard to the various social measures that come before this House. If, as I already said, the Norton Bill was objectionable in relation to the principles on which it was based, then the present Bill is equally objectionable. Yet, within a matter of 48 hours of the publication of the present Bill, one of the most outspoken critics of the Norton Bill was reported in the Sunday Press as welcoming the present Bill. No reference was made to any objectionable principles or features. They had all died away and the garden not only looked lovely, but smelt lovely. That was quite a remarkable change.
Of the many critics of the Norton Bill, probably the most outspoken and the most bitter in his denunciation was the Reverend E.J. Hegarty. I do not for a moment, nor would anyone else, object to criticism of any measure coming before the House, whether introduced by the Labour Party or by any other Party, particularly when, as in the case of the Norton Bill, it was deliberately circulated and published over a period with an expectation that it would be subject to criticism. I would prefer a certain amount of consistency. I am interested to know why it is that these critics of the principles and the policy of the Bill and of the whole idea of social security have suddenly become so quiet. When I quote to you, as I am about to do now, from an article by Fr. Hegarty in Christus Rex, October, 1950, you can see the extreme limits to which his criticism is directed, not merely against the Norton scheme but against the whole proposals for social security on the basic principles. I will now quote:—
"This article will then review the principles involved in arguing that comprehensive State welfare schemes are opposed generally to moral, legal, social and economic principles and are utterly discredited by experience and history."
That is a nice comment on Deputy Dr. Ryan's Bill. He concludes his article by an even more definite statement, and remember the introductory paragraph of Deputy Dr. Ryan's opening speech to-day on the Second Reading of his Bill, particularly his reference to the history of his present Bill, the Norton Bill and what he regarded as a more than adequate outline of a Bill which was available in his Department before the inter-Party Government came into office.
I will continue Fr. Hegarty's article:—
"Hence, rejection of the Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1950, or at least an amendment to end the scheme as soon as possible, would be a far better policy for national prestige and individual character than proclaiming equivalently to the world the surely unwarranted charge: that our workers are either too hopelessly destitute or too incurably negligent to make decent provision for themselves and their families—for this charge is implicit in a general plan of State welfare."
We are not objecting to criticism but we are entitled to examine the principles on which the criticism is put forward, and the times at which it is put forward. It is remarkable that what might be regarded as extreme criticisms of the early social welfare proposals were made by Fr. Hegarty and that since the present Bill has been circulated there has been a remarkable quiet on that front. I feel that is not altogether difficult to explain. There is involved in the whole question of social security, not merely the philosophy of providing security for the mass of the people, not merely the idea of the State concerning itself with the welfare of the mass of the people, but something equally important—what particular group, what particular body, at any special time, undertakes to give effect to certain social security measures.
This brings me to the point that a number of Fianna Fáil speakers have touched upon during the debate. They have repeatedly claimed that, in so far as social security or social service in this country is concerned, the whole and nothing but the whole of the credit must go to Fianna Fáil. Of course, that is a ridiculous claim. So far as the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned, my own personal opinion is that, while they did enter into Government in 1932, not with a very advanced social outlook, but with a readiness to deal with certain immediate problems that they could not very well avoid, as the years have gone by they have acquired for themselves, peculiarly enough, the position of being almost the most conservative Party in the State on social issues. The advances that they have made and the measures that they have instituted have not been the outcome of a definite philosophy on their part but have been the means of meeting a particular demand as it arose and meeting it to the minimum extent.
There is no more marked indication of that than their attitude towards the question of old age pensions. It is correct that they restored the 1/- taken off by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Having done that, they rested content. Quite clearly, they could not have avoided giving back the 1/-. That was one of the most bitter questions raging in the political field at that time. But, having done that, they rested then for 16 years and at a moment when, according to the Minister for Health, in October 1947, if we are to believe him, there was lying in the Department of Health an almost completed scheme for a social security Bill of the nature that is now introduced, involving considerable increases in benefits in respect of sickness, disablement, unemployment, maternity allowances, and at the very moment when all these enhanced measures for social security were supposed to be only awaiting introduction in the Dáil, the same Minister found it impossible to agree to a proposal to increase the old age pensions by 2/6 a week because that would cost £500,000.
Is not that indicative of what is quite clear from their record, that when they have moved they have moved because they were pushed? The only reason we have got a Social Welfare Bill of the type that is before the House to-night is that in the preceding three or four years the question of social welfare and social security had been made by the Labour Party a topic of immediate and general discussion in this country and wide masses of people were looking for some form of social security, whatever might be the limitations placed upon it in the actual granting.
Therefore, the Labour Party, while putting up the amendment to the Bill, wish to make it quite clear that we welcome any advance in the provision of enhanced and improved social measures for the mass of the people, no matter what Government provides them, whether it be Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or an inter-Party Government or any other type of Government.
That is what the Labour Party exists for, either by its own direct and independent activity to secure the implementation of its policy in regard to social welfare or by pressure of all types open to a political organisation in this country to secure the acceptance and the implementation by other groups who happen to have power at the time of the measures that the Labour Party regard as necessary for the mass of the people. If, as a result of the atmosphere that is created in the country, legislation is passed, the Labour Party is quite entitled to welcome that legislation and at the same time to suggest that it might go somewhat further. That is the purpose of the amendment that has been put down.
I think it is necessary to draw attention to the absence of criticism at the present time in relation to the present Bill as compared with Deputy Norton's Bill, because it is necessary not merely to look at the measures proposed but also to examine their source of origin. I am quite satisfied that the criticism that was directed against Deputy Norton's Bill was for the purpose of confining, cribbing and limiting social advance in this country. It was criticism that was inspired with the object of erecting barriers and obstacles to the progress of the mass of the common people—because that is clearly what is involved to a large extent in social security—at the expense of the more privileged sections of the community. It was, in fact, the age-old conflict that we have had of property and privilege against poverty and under-privilege, even though it may be cloaked in very high-sounding phrases.
Those who directed that criticism against the plan of Deputy Norton feel quite secure and safe when they see social security measures introduced by Fianna Fáil, because they know that with that Party there will be an automatic brake placed upon the possible exuberant enthusiasm of a Deputy Gilbride or anybody else, that that Party will not move too fast in any particular direction.
When social measures are introduced by a Labour Party that has definitely indicated its philosophy and its objective, then clearly these measures cannot be regarded as stepping forward on to a position from which there will be no further move made of a voluntary nature and those who dislike or object to an improvement in the position of the common people cannot feel content that no further danger will arise.
It is remarkable that, tied up with the whole criticism of social security, there has been at the same time the criticism and the objection to what is termed the welfare State. If any Party in this House should defend the welfare State, it is Fianna Fáil. This is the Party that claims to be a Republican Party, based fundamentally on the Proclamation of 1916.
1919.
Or 1919. Of all the historic documents, if there is any document that envisaged a State plan for the welfare of the people it was the Proclamation of 1916. Therefore, why should they object to the conception of the welfare State and why should they not take the same stand as the Labour Party will take in stating that the welfare State is what the term implies, a State for the welfare of the mass of the people?
It is because there is this fundamental difference in approach between the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party that the Labour Party was subjected to that criticism; its plans were subjected to that criticism; and we were told that any progress towards what may be regarded as the welfare State was, to use some of the words in this article, an approach to serfdom for the mass of the people. Nobody says that in regard to Fianna Fáil because it is quite clear that there is not going to be any approach towards the welfare State so far as they are concerned.
I was particularly interested in the Minister's opening speech regarding the two schemes, the Norton scheme and the scheme before us now. As well as other members of the Labour Party I was particularly concerned with his statement that during the year 1947 a mass of documents had been accumulated and made easily available as the basis for an immediate drawing up of a suitable Bill for social security in a very short time. In fact one would be quite entitled to draw the conclusion, that the Bill was there ready and awaiting merely the final decision of the Government. I do not want to comment—comments have been made earlier in the House—on the origins of the speech he read but it is quite clear that that speech marked the changes which took place in the Department of Social Welfare. Probably it is worthy of its sources but it is not altogether worthy of the Minister.
What I am concerned with is that in March, 1951, Deputy Norton's Social Security Bill was before the House on its Second Reading. The Minister, then Deputy Ryan, spoke on behalf of his Party and as its chief spokesman. I am aware that over a period from March, 1948, repeated statements were made by various Fianna Fáil spokesmen that a social security plan had been readily available in the Department for Deputy Norton, but it is remarkable that when one reads the official report of Deputy Ryan's speech on the Bill in March, 1951, one finds no such claim. There is no suggestion in that speech that all Deputy Norton had to do was to take the Bill out of its pigeon hole and put it before the Dáil.
That is a very remarkable change and can probably be explained by the fact that at that time he was Deputy Dr. Ryan and the charge would have to be made against the Minister, Deputy Norton, who was still in a position to have full access to all the departmental files. Now the position is reversed. Custody of the files has now been secured and statements in respect of which there was a certain timidness in March of last year are now being made fairly recklessly.
I can read Deputy Lemass's speech in March, 1951—the Deputy-Leader of his Party—and I find no assertion there that all that had to be done was to take the Bill out of its pigeon hole. The change that has taken place is remarkable. It is remarkable to discover now that this Bill was available all the time and required very little delay before being brought before the House. It is now made quite clear that not merely did Deputy Norton delay but that the Bill which he introduced and had debated in the House in March, 1951, was originally the Minister's, Deputy Dr. Ryan's, Bill with practically no change. That is a remarkable discovery to make in 1952. It is even more remarkable when you recall how the two actors have changed places in the House and the relative powers they now enjoy in respect of documental records.
The Minister in the course of his speech referred to a pile of documents which he placed on the bench. It would be a most remarkable thing if in any Department of the Government one could not readily get a pile of documents on any subject even remotely connected with the activities of that Department. Remember that we are dealing with the Department of Social Welfare and that continuously for a period of some years the whole question of extending social benefits had engaged the attention of public men and experts, remember that it was recognised that a further period of advance regarding the whole composition of social securities was expected following the termination of hostilities; if, therefore, the officials of the Department of Social Welfare in the years 1946 and 1947 had not carefully examined all the ideas and projects that were then floating around in this country, in England and abroad and had not their comments and observations ready to be called upon by the Minister at short notice, they would have been failing very grievously in their duty.
Quite clearly that is what we are dealing with on this occasion: the accumulation of the preliminary and exploratory comments and observations which any competent official in any Department would make on matters which would be of concern to his Minister and his Department. To suggest that that is a fully fledged scheme of social security and to discover that only in March, 1952, while the same statement could have been made in March, 1951, provides a peculiar commentary on the way the whole matter has been approached.
I have already indicated that the Labour Party naturally welcome any measure to advance the social welfare of the mass of the people and we make no apology for seeking by an amendment a further improvement, particularly as it appears that in respect of many matters we are trying to close the gap which should have been closed by the Minister had he hearkened to the appeals of members of his own Party during the debate last year on the same subject. The whole question of social security has now been brought to this stage, not merely because of the efforts of the Labour Party over the last four years, but because, through the efforts of that Party whether they were successful or not, social security has become a live issue not merely in the country but in this House. Irrespective of what their wishes might be Fianna Fáil have found it impossible to relieve themselves of the obligations which they were bound to take on in the course of their political activities.
The purpose of the amendment is to indicate a number of important issues. We wish to show that in their general approach to social security Fianna Fáil have pursued the tactic which was theirs on so many other occasions: to commit themselves when out of office by unlimited promises and then to fail to give effect to them. They are still whittling down what was an entirely much better and more effective scheme. To try to draw attention to these matters the amendment has been put down and the support of the House is requested to try to correct the mistakes which have been made.
It is significant that there is a marked silence on the part of those who spoke for Fianna Fáil regarding some of the main features of the Bill which were the subject of their comments 12 months ago. Let us, for instance, recall the speech made by the present Minister for Finance on the Norton Bill in March of last year. I will quote from the Official Report, Volume 125, No. 4, column 593. Let us recall that the present Bill has been stated by the Minister to be, in fact, basically the same Bill as was available almost in complete draft form in the archives of the Department of Health in 1947 shortly before he left office; that all Deputy Norton did was to take over that draft, make a bit of a botch of it and not get it through, leaving it for the present Minister to implement. The Minister says that it has the same parentage and the same approach to the problem but limited in so far as the measures are conceived in the Bill to deal with the problem. That is the comment of his fellow-Minister, Deputy MacEntee. It might quite readily, without changing the column, be applied to the Bill we are now discussing:—
"This Bill is a selfish Bill, framed by self-seeking politicians whose mind is fixed on one ulterior object and that is the purchase of urban political support. The Bill, I think, has no higher motive than that. It is not concerned with social justice. If it were, it would not freeze out, as this Bill freezes out, from all benefit and advantages the hardest-working element in our community, the primary producers, the farmers; neither would it be so callous and indifferent to the needs and vicissitudes of the self-employed person as this Bill is."
I wonder would Deputy MacEntee, now Minister for Finance, take the present Bill and show us where it deals with the hard-working farmers, the primary producer, the self-employed. That was Deputy MacEntee just 12 short months ago.
Deputy Kissane, now in the more rarefied atmosphere of the Seanad so beloved of the political correspondent of the Irish Times, also had a comment to make. His comment was a most peculiar one, especially in the light of present circumstances. Might I remind the House here that to-day we have 11,000 more unemployed than when Deputy Kissane was speaking 12 months ago. Commenting on the Bill as a whole, he said:—
"There is a much greater onus on the State to provide work for the unemployed, of whom we have over 60,000 in this country to-day."
If Deputy Kissane were with us to-night he would have to amend that figure and make it 73,000. His comment on social security is that whatever Government is in power should concern itself more with the provision of work than the bringing of such Bills before the House. It is interesting that, in the short interval that has elapsed since Deputy Kissane removed himself, or was removed, to the Seanad, we have this increase in the number of unemployed. Deputy Corry, who is always very eloquent, also concerned himself with the forgotten man, the farmer, and the self-employed, but I shall deal with him later. It is interesting to note, however, that he makes the same point that Deputy MacEntee made; so far as the earlier Bill was concerned, there was a complete neglect of the farming community and Deputy Corry estimated that community as numbering 500,000 persons. It was on those grounds he objected so strenuously to the Bill.
I am not criticising the Minister for being unable in the present Bill to deal with that problem. I recall listening to his contribution to the debate in March, 1951, when he very carefully examined the problem of how and in what manner the small farmers, the self-employed, could be brought within the scope of a comprehensive measure of this kind. He agreed it was practically impossible to do that on the basis of a contributory scheme and he had already committed himself to the principle of a contributory scheme. It would, therefore, be wholly wrong for me to criticise him on these grounds.
What is the position then in regard to the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party who, one after another, got up here last March and based their whole objection to the Bill at that time on the grounds that it was not comprehensive since it did not include this section of our community? Cannot the same criticism be directed against the present Bill, particularly when we recall that in an effort to make some provision, however limited and however inadequate, Deputy Norton, then Minister for Social Welfare, did include a section in that Bill making provision whereby co-operative societies of farmers could enter into group arrangements which would enable them to avail of some of the benefits applicable to workers generally.
Even that small concession, small though it was, has gone by the board so that even if some members of the Fianna Fáil Party would like to salve their conscience by referring to that section, they will not be able to find it in so far as the present Bill is concerned.
May I recall that in an effort to try to meet the undoubted claims, and the Labour Party would be the first to reject any suggestion that there is not a good and proper claim on behalf of the small farmers and the self-employed, and in order to solve that particular problem a change was made in relation to the means test in so far as the assignment of small farms by parents to their children was concerned? That is one of the peculiar features of the present Bill and one of the peculiar features in the standpoint of Fianna Fáil because that standpoint was not confined to individual members; it was a common cry running through the speeches of every member of that Party who spoke in that debate. The Bill was not comprehensive because it ignored or excluded this large section of our community. I would be interested to know what is the explanation to-night for the changed attitude in Fianna Fáil? What is the explanation for their change of attitude to what is, in so far as the spirit of the Bill and its principles are concerned, fundamentally the same difficulty that existed 12 months ago?
Deputy Lemass had a somewhat different approach. It was an interesting one. He concerned himself with many problems in the Bill and he touched upon one very interesting feature, one on which I think we are entitled to have an explanation from the Minister to-night. Deputy Lemass said in March of last year that the question of social security was one that had been engaging the attention of his Government for some time. They realised that the benefits paid for national health, unemployment insurance, etc., did require examination and did require to be brought up in view of the change that had taken place in money values. He also said that if they had been fortunate enough to remain in office in 1948 they would have dealt with the problem. Then he staked a claim. I wonder will the present Minister for Health meet that claim in his present Bill. Deputy Lemass at column 63 of Volume 125, stated:—
"We judge the value of the proposals in this Bill by relating it to our knowledge of what money will buy to-day. If in a year's time prices have so risen that the purchasing power of these payments has been substantially reduced, then they will have to be revised. I am sure that there will be general agreement that they should be revised."
I wonder is he quite so sure to-night. These proposals to which Deputy Lemass was then referring were not the proposals merely of Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare, because it now appears that they were the proposals of Deputy Dr. Ryan too when he was Minister for Health in 1947. Apparently, these figures of 24/- for a man and 12/- for a woman had been originally formulated in 1947. Only the other day in reply to a question we were informed by the Taoiseach that the amount of goods one could buy for £1 in 1947 would require 25/9 for their purchase to-day. Is the Minister going to provide the extra 5/9 in the £ and bring up the rate of benefit from 24/- to 30/- per week and give effect to what Deputy Lemass stated? No doubt there would be a general acceptance by all members of this House that if the purchasing power of money fell the rate would have to be revised. I feel that is a reasonable question to put to the Minister because the question has not been raised in my mind originally but has been taken over by me from Deputy Lemass. Even if we take it that the figures of 24/- and 12/- mentioned in the present Bill and embodied in the previous Bill only related to the year 1951 we still must recall that even within that short period, under a Government whose battle-cry was they were going to reduce the cost of living, prices have gone up somewhere in the region of 8 or 9 per cent.
Deputy Lemass was quick to stake a claim in March, 1951 but I do not think I am in any way transgressing when I raise the same claim in March, 1952, either on the basis of the rise in the cost of living by 8 or 9 per cent. last year or more truthfully on the basis of what has taken place since 1947 and which the Taoiseach mentioned as being measured as an extra 5/9 in every pound spent. I would be glad if the Minister when replying would explain to the House what is the answer we are to give Deputy Lemass, Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I recall some of these statements because I think it is important that they should be recalled to the extent that they were the basis on which the criticism was directed against the Bill of Deputy Norton and because they were directed to features of the Bill which represented to the spokesman who gave utterance to the criticisms the defects in the Bill. They were features which, in any case, neither Deputy Norton nor the Minister could altogether find solutions for. We are entitled to now question the Minister's sincerity and to some extent the public morality of some of the spokesmen of the Fianna Fáil Party who expressed those views 12 months ago.
We are entitled to wait with bated breath and expectation to see how their views are going to be presented on the present occasion. It will be readily summed up that so far as Fianna Fáil in March, 1952, was concerned the general expressions of what they conceived as being a proper social security measure would require to meet the following features. It must be fully comprehensive including the farming community and the self-employed. Is the present Bill fully comprehensive? Are the members of Fianna Fáil satisfied that the Bill is fully comprehensive? Are the members of Fianna Fáil satisfied that the Bill is fully comprehensive? If they regard it as not being comprehensive, then is there a proper explanation as to why it has got that particular defect and is that explanation also applicable to the Bill we examined in this House 12 months ago?
They were particularly strong in their claim that there should be no increase in contributions. I do not think that is a very strong point except in so far as there has been some increase. We are also entitled to recall that earlier than the discussion on the Second Reading of Deputy Norton's Bill, Deputy Ryan, in one of his statements, outside this House, if I recall rightly, seemed to indicate that his approach appeared to be one that the financing of the Bill would preferably be dealt with by taxation rather than on a contributory basis. Many views were expressed among Fianna Fáil speakers that led one to expect that it was going to be based mainly on taxation. With that I do not differ very much.
In so far as the scheme is based on contribution it does provide a measure of security for participants against the changes in policies that always take place through Ministers for Finance and those who control the Exchequer.
Another marked feature of the Bill that Fianna Fáil required 12 months ago was the increase in children's allowances. It was not merely an increase in children's allowances but an increase provided for in the Bill. To-day we are told that there is to be an increase in children's allowances in the Budget. I trust that is the case but so far as to-night's debate is concerned we are just as much entitled to question that statement as Fianna Fáil was entitled to question any statement made by the Government 12 months ago. The provision for increased allowances is not in this Bill and yet that was one of the strong criticisms made against the Norton Bill.
Two other general points were made. The Bill was not suited to Irish conditions and it was not socially just to all sections. Apparently the reference to social justice referred to the exclusion of the farmers and the self-employed. The Minister is also subject to that charge. The most interesting point was that it was not suited to Irish conditions. Within the last few days the Fianna Fáil Party has indignantly rejected a charge that they have been listening to the words of wisdom from Mr. Butler, but whether they have heeded them or not will emerge much more clearly next week. The point is that the Social Security Bill of Deputy Norton was not regarded as acceptable to these ultra-Irish nationalists because it was not suited to Irish conditions. What is the difference so far as the approach is concerned in respect of Irish conditions as covered by the present Bill and the Bill which the Minister says was taken over when he went out in 1947?
So far as the two Bills are concerned it is quite a legitimate criticism to say that the present Bill is substantially the same, almost word for word, but in a truncated form, as the one we discussed in this House 12 months ago when Deputy Norton opened the Second Reading of the debate. It has the same positive good features. It has the same defects as applied to the earlier Bill. These defects, in so far as they fail to deal with the farming community and the self-employed, are defects of our economy. They are defects that all of us should be concerned to deal with. It is neither legitimate nor proper to base the criticism and rejection of one Bill on a particular problem and congratulate another Minister on basically the same Bill that is open to the same defects and the same criticisms.
I think it is regrettable that certain features of the Norton Bill have been omitted from the present Bill. I propose now to deal with them. In the first place there is the general change with regard to income level. The Norton Bill was originally intended to apply to everybody under contract of service, without limitation of income. In the present Bill the limitation of income is £600. On first examination that may appear to be quite a reasonable ceiling. £600 is equal to £12 a week and for many people in this country that represents a much higher income than they enjoy themselves. Let us bear in mind, however, that we are speaking to-day of different money values from those we dealt with when the original income limits were placed upon these social security schemes. The income level for national health in 1911 was £160. Later, in regard to unemployment benefit and the health scheme, we had a limit of £250. That limit was later lifted by the present Minister to £500. Let us take a figure of £250 in 1939, or £5 a week, and relate that to an income limit to-day of £600 or £12 a week. Will anybody suggest that we have made any advance in our spread of social security?
We must recall that in the early days of social services it was accepted by those who were responsible for their introduction and for placing them on the Statute Book that they were to be limited to certain specified categories of the community—categories whose economic position entitled them to this special protection and support. It was felt that these categories must be limited in extent and that there should be no conception of giving this social support and assistance except in very well-proven cases where, quite clearly, there would be dire need if the State did not come to their assistance.
In the intervening years the whole conception of social security has altered. It is now recognised that it is no longer sufficient to confine social security in its broadest aspects to the most economically weak members of the community — those who suffer casual employment and those whose health conditions are particularly poor because of their economic standards and the environment in which they live. It has been generally accepted that there should be an upward revision of the whole application of social security and it has been equally well recognised that many of the so-called white collar and professional workers, who in former years were regarded as something in the nature of aristocracy among salary and wage earners, have as severe an economic problem to contend with as many of the ordinary manual workers. Everybody knows that while the white-collar worker may enjoy a higher salary he has correspondingly higher commitments to meet — commitments which are placed upon him by the attitude of his employers towards his social status and not just commitments voluntarily undertaken by the white-collar worker himself — and that these commitments render it almost impossible for him, especially in present-day conditions, to make provision against such things as confinements, sickness, deaths, and, above all, to make provision to enable him to retire with some security when he has passed the age of normal employment. From that point of view I regard the limit of £600 as objectionable in itself because it shows no advance whatever and no progressive attitude as compared with the standards that prevailed for many years before 1939.
I gather, from a reply to a question in this House, that only some 20,000 or 30,000 persons are excluded. The Minister should review that position with a view to lessening the number of people excluded from the scope of the Bill and, indeed, of bringing all salaried workers within the scope of the Bill so that there will be no suggestion that any section of salaried worker is being excluded.
Of all the features of the Norton plan which have been omitted in the present Bill, the outstanding one is that which relates to retirement pensions. Listening to those who speak in favour of the rejection of the plan for retirement pensions, it is quite clear that they have no deep appreciation of what is in the minds of many thousands of workers in this country. When the original proposals, embodied in the White Paper, were issued, I had, on many occasions, to try and explain to working men what exactly these proposals meant. Above all other proposals—even above the increase in unemployment and sickness benefits— two proposals appealed to them, namely, the retirement pension and the death benefit. There were very good reasons for that. It has been suggested in this House that it is a retrograde economic step—that it is bad for the community, bad for our economy and bad for our social organisation—to lay down the principle that a man at 65 or a woman at 60 should desist from active work and no longer be a productive element in the community. My feeling in regard to the ordinary workingman is that, so long as he is physically and mentally capable of doing his work and so long as he himself feels inclined to keep on working, it is to his own benefit to continue his work and his ordinary way of life. I have seen too many workers reach the age of 65 and, after a lifetime of may be 50 years' continuous work, have to retire compulsorily. I have seen too many such workers, within a matter of months or even weeks, die of what might be regarded as inactivity. I know of one person who, to use a plain word, died of a broken heart because of the break in his normal way of life. So long as the ordinary, average workingman is fit and capable of carrying on his work and so long as he is not anxious to give it up, I consider that it is to his own benefit to continue after 65. Why should any worker in Dublin City or in any of our towns or in the country, who is earning £5, £6 or £7 a week and who is still quite capable, both physically and mentally, of doing a good day's work and of earning that £5, £6 or £7, voluntarily want to give up that job at 65 and go on a pension of 24/- a week? On the face of it, there must be some explanation and the explanation is very simple. It is that many working men, especially those engaged in heavy manual labour, find that when they reach that age they meet with increasingly severe physical handicaps in the carrying on of their normal work.
The Minister felt that when Deputy Norton proposed a retirement plan at 65 he was automatically adopting the viewpoint of the International Labour Organisation and of the spokesmen of social security in industrial countries such as Britain and France which is that it is the widespread practice to-day, in respect of all types of employment, to erect barriers to the employment of men over 65 years of age so that each year as men come nearer to that age, and when they pass beyond it, the difficulty of obtaining employment becomes even greater. It is a well-known fact that if a man of 55 or 60 years of age seeks employment to-day he meets with very great difficulty in being considered and that there is an ever-growing practice of laying down, arbitrarily, the retiring age as 65. We know ourselves that in respect to State employment and local government employment we have that retiral age connected with our superannuation schemes but in many employments, where there is no superannuation scheme or in which there are schemes which are completely inadequate, the same retiral age is being enforced.
I do not think that the Minister would suggest for a moment that the average workingman, no matter how careful he lives or no matter how much he has been fortunate enough to enjoy during his working life constant steady employment, will be able to make reasonable financial provision for himself when he comes to retire at 65, to cover the gap between 65 and 70. So far as many pension schemes are concerned—Deputy Keyes has referred to some of them—they provide pensions from £1 to 37/6 on which a man has to keep not only himself but his wife if she is alive—a completely inadequate sum and a completely unjust provision in relation to men who have given the best years of their lives in the service of the community. The Minister's reply to that is that we cannot afford to have persons getting out of work at 65 in the case of men and at 60 in the case of women and that we are not obliged to provide them with a pension in order that they may be able to do so.
May I ask the Minister what peculiar principle decides that a Guard or a civil servant, a Minister or a local government official, is entitled to go out on pension at 65 while the ordinary workingman is denied that privilege? To bring the matter nearer home, a Minister is entitled to get a pension after three years' service, a pension equal to the full wages paid to the average workingman in this country. The Minister's attitude seems an absolutely unjust approach to the matter and one that we are quite entitled to ask should be reviewed.
I noticed, when speaking to workers regarding a retiral pension, that it was the one feature of social security that they could appreciate. Too many aged men have had the unhappy experience, on reaching the age of 65, of either being put out of employment or of being unfortunate enough in or about that age to lose their employment, of being unable to obtain other work and of finding themselves dependent on the goodwill and possibly, to use an obnoxious word, the charity of their children. It is a blessing for a man to have children but for many it has been a curse, particularly when that man reaches an age when he feels that he would be entitled to the appreciation, the support and protection of his children and is instead met with a rebuff that has not been altogether unknown in our social life. It is to protect themselves not merely against being dependent like that but against a situation arising under which the affections of their children are soured and turned into vinegar, that many workingmen would like to have the benefit of a retiral pension. Even where they are in a position to draw some superannuation payments, they still would require some addition as provided for in the Norton scheme. In so far as they were paying through their contributions one-third of the cost of the scheme as a whole, surely they have got the same claim in principle to a contributory superannuation scheme, as people in State or local authority employment or in private or public employment outside? This discrimination is, I think, a most objectionable feature of the Bill.
The Minister suggested that he would meet the problem by allowing them to continue to draw unemployment benefit if they are insured. He has indicated that in Section 16 he has made what he regarded as a generous provision under which a man over 65, if he has 156 stamps to his credit, can continue to draw unemployment benefit indefinitely subject to the regulation, the regulation being that he is capable of, and available for, work, in addition to which, of course, he will be required to call to that abode of happiness and peace, the employment exchange, to sign up. Possibly he will have to travel from the outskirts of the city to sign up and while many men are quite active at 65, there are many others who will be compelled to travel by bus and to pay fus fares, so that in order to draw 24/- per week he would have to pay a bus fare of 6d., 8d., or 10d. a day. That is not a very happy position. It does seem to me that the main reason for dropping the retirement pension is because it represents the biggest source of saving. It was one of the heaviest commitments in the previous Social Welfare Bill when it required something in the nature of 4/- out of every 10/- of the estimated cost to provide these schemes or in round figures somewhere about £2,100,000. Undoubtedly all of it is not being saved. There will undoubtedly be some additional expenditure on unemployment benefits caused by the provision extending the period during which such benefit can be drawn after 65. Nevertheless, the saving is substantial. I can see it as the only justification for dropping out this very progressive feature that was particularly welcomed by the average working man who was unable to make adequate provision for security in his old age and who felt that he could look forward to some provision and some recognition by the community to which he had given good service.
Deputy Gilbride has referred to the question of the maternity allowance. I do not want to stress that except to suggest that even if the Minister is going to deal with that matter in the projected health scheme for mothers and children, it would not have been too much to ask that he might have at least left within the scheme that small provision. It is not going to cost very much and to many working-class mothers it would have been a particular boon to be able to draw that little extra benefit to help them over a period of trouble. It is that kind, I shall not say of petty-minded approach, but that kind of unfeeling approach to many of the real problems of the working-class that characterises the approach to the Bill as a whole. I have already referred to the question of increased children's allowances but that is a matter on which we have only to wait and see.
I also pointed out that we were entitled to expect from the Minister some indication as to why the level of benefits is not being adjusted to the change in money values that has taken place since 1951 and more particularly, in the light of his speech in this House, in relation to the change in money values that has taken place since 1947. Quite clearly, social security benefits, whether they be sickness or other benefits, must be ordered in the same way as wages are, as the means whereby the recipients are enabled to meet day to day living costs as expressed in current prices. If we are to accept the Minister's statement that as early as 1947 the figure of 24/- was regarded by him as a proper figure for the standard benefit under a social security scheme, it necessarily, in the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, requires something further to bring that figure into conformity with to-day's money values.
We are entitled to ask that question and to ask that the Minister would deal with it when replying to the debate. I would be interested to know why it is that even the small provision made in the earlier Bill in respect of farmers whereby, through their co-operative societies, they could enter into group assurance plans with the State, was dropped? There may be a very good reason why it was dropped, but I feel we should be given some explanation. We all recognise the necessity of making provision for the farming community. While many of us agree with both Deputy Norton and the Minister that there are extreme and very grave difficulties to be overcome in making that provision, so long as there was any attempt whatever made to try, even in a limited form, to provide some helps for the farming community, I think it is regrettable the idea has been dropped. I do think that if it was dropped as being impracticable, we should have an explanation. I feel it should not be dropped on the ground of expenditure. While that provision was in the Norton Bill, I did not regard it as anything more than a kind of a sincere effort and a sincere gesture to try and show that there was appreciation of the farming community's claim and that there was some effort, however limited, being made to try to meet that claim as an indication of the acceptance of the commitment and as an earnest of the effort which would be made at the earliest possible date to try to broaden the channel of entrance into social security for that very important section of the community.
I have touched upon what I regard as the main defects in the Bill before the House while, at the same time, expressing, as any Labour representative must express, his welcome for any advance in the measures of social security and of social welfare. I have indicated what I regard to be the defects in this Bill as compared with the earlier Bill which was presented to the House. I have pointed out that the basic criticism levelled against the Norton Bill by the Fianna Fáil Party still holds good in regard to the present Bill. I could quite understand if the Fianna Fáil Party took the line of saying: "If the Bill is to be comprehensive, it should include the farming community. We tried to do that and failed and, therefore, anyone who seeks to deal with this problem and meets the same failure as we did, is entitled to understanding and should not be subjected to criticism." However, the whole criticism and denunciation of the Norton Bill was based on the fact that it was not comprehensive because it did not include this very important section. The Bill which we have before us to-night suffers from the same defect. Of course, the Fianna Fáil back-benchers have been given the cue to support the Bill and then to sit down and keep quiet. However, the Minister should at least deal with this matter in his concluding speech. He dealt with it 12 months ago and he should at least have the good nature to indicate that if there was a defect in the Norton Bill he has recognised the defect, that he has had to accept it in his own Bill, and that he has been subject to exactly the same difficulties that faced his predecessors. That might indicate to the Fianna Fáil back-benchers that the question of the approach to social security is not merely a question of social thinking but a very difficult question of practical economics. We are told, as regards this Bill, that it is all the country can afford at the present time. We have heard that statement so often from Fianna Fáil that one grows tried of it. To-day we are able to afford a figure for social services in a full year of something around £4,250,000, less increased income from stamp contribution, and this is 1952.
It is only a matter of days until a Budget will be introduced which is going to deal with a situation, which, in the words of the Minister for Finance, is in the nature of a crisis. Yet, we can afford £3,750,000 of an increase in social services. In 1947 we had the same economic position so far as Fianna Fáil was concerned, and the situation was supposed to be fraught with difficulties. Wages and salaries had to be controlled, the rights and powers of trade unions were severely limited, and they were reminded that they would have to do what they were told. No guarantees whatever were given by the Taoiseach in regard to rise in prices and there were no provisions for compensation to wage and salary earners to meet rise in prices. Almost exactly the same economic parallel exist to-day, according to the Minister for Finance. In 1947 the present Minister for Health could not find £500,000 for the old age pensioners. Now he has been educated. Whatever the Labour Party did or did not do during the three and a half years of office of the Inter-Party Government, they brought a larger number of people faster along the road than they were originally intended to travel.
The Deputy made a very fair speech except for referring to that £500,000.
I will accept a correction.
I objected to that, but Deputy Norton did not give it afterwards.
He increased the figure in October, 1947. I will quote you to-morrow.
You always quote me. I always correct you, but it is no use. Would Deputy Larkin allow me for a moment?
I will, but I think you are getting deeper into it.
The Deputy made a very fair speech. The proposition by Fine Gael was that, irrespective of their earnings, people would get the old age pension. That is what I objected to.
You said the country could not afford £500,000.
Whatever I said, that was the position.
Acting-Chairman
Mr. Larkin to continue.
It was a modification of the means test.
Irrespective of earnings.
The main cause for objection was the question of the cost —£500,00. You did, in fact, make great play about it. I do not believe in being unfair, but if we could not afford £500,000 in that situation in 1947, how is that we can afford £3,750,000 to-day? There is no sound reason why, on cost alone, you cannot leave features in the present Bill, such as retirement pensions, maternity allowances and death grants. If it is not a question of cost, then it is a question of principle. If it is a question of principle, as I have already indicated, it should be measured not merely in relation to the workers who are prepared to pay for the cost of their retirement pensions but in relation to the many public servants to whom we quite willingly provide superannuation payments without any contribution at all.
On the death benefit, may I say that, while it may appear that I am making reference to insurance companies because of some of the comments made in the debate earlier, I am not; but insurance companies do come into the picture. Deputy Cogan, out of the depths of his ignorance to-day, said that the families who take out insurance take out endowment insurance and not insurance to cover expenses arising from the deaths of members of the family. Even if that is correct, if they are given some assistance and some relief in respect of the cost of interment, they can take out better endowment policies and spend a little more. However, I do not accept Deputy Cogan's statement because I am aware that the taking out of policies to cover expenses arising from the death of a child or a husband is a common feature of the life of our people.
Again, may I say that when, on occasions, I was trying to explain Deputy Norton's Bill to ordinary workers, as I quite intended to do, to convince them of the benefits, the easiest way I could convince them that the payment of 3/6 a week was a good investment was to forget all about retirement pensions, the increased sick benefit, increased unemployment benefit, the maternity allowances, and explain to them in very simple terms the payments in regard to the death benefits and their payments in regard to industrial insurance.
Take the average working-class family of four, five or six children. I think it may be accepted that the very minimum they are paying for purely burial insurance would be a sum of 9d. or 1/- a week. Now if we take the increase proposed by Deputy Norton in his Bill at 1/7 per week and set it against that saving of even 9d. a week on burial insurance payments, the net increase was 10d. a week. In return for that they were getting as adequate a cover as they would get from industrial insurance plus the satisfaction of knowing that out of their premiums some 60 per cent. would not be absorbed in administrative costs.
At least whatever may be the criticism of the present Bill or Deputy Norton's Bill, it is a whole lot cheaper than anything you will get from an insurance company for any type of cover. I suggest when the criticism is made of the cost of retirement pensions and what it means in the form of increased contributions from the worker, let somebody go out and ask a private company to quote what it will cost per week to give a man and his wife 36/- a week at the age of 65 for the remainder of his life and see how much he will have to pay. This is one instance, anyway, where the State can offer better terms than private enterprise.
Apart altogether from that there is the question which has been referred to on many occasions, the objection to ordinary simple working-class people being not merely influenced but in many cases induced and misled into taking out insurances which very often they may find great difficulty in paying, very often much more than they require and which often they find the greatest difficulty in maintaining. There is the added objection that of the payment they make into that insurance company at least 60 per cent.—it has often been known to be as high as 90 per cent.—is absorbed in administrative costs.
Anybody who knows a little, and I know only a little, of the insurance business is quite well aware that many of the large insurance fortunes which have been collected by insurance companies had their basis in the industrial policy system of the percentage that went in administrative costs as against a small percentage that went back to the policy holder.
I would urge upon the Minister that so far as the death benefit is concerned, whatever other feature is taken out of the Bill or put in, he will bear in mind, that however much he or I or other spokesmen in the House or outside may enter into debate about the high principles of social security, the philosophy of the welfare State, the economics of our community, so far as many thousands of the ordinary simple workingmen are concerned, the most attractive feature of our concern for their welfare was in that very simple provision that the State was going to relieve them of this responsibility in respect of death, which has been the means of their exploitation for many years; that we were going to provide them with this death benefit as part of an all-in system of security; and that they were going to get a more adequate return for increased contributions.
I would like to close on the note of again stating that the purpose of our amendment is to indicate the weaknesses of the present Bill, of the defects that have arisen by the changes that have been made; to reiterate our belief in the necessity for the restoration of some of the provisions that were particularly required in respect of the mass of our people, and to urge that, as it has been stated from the Fianna Fáil Benches, if we are unable at the moment to find a practicable solution of the problem of giving to the whole of our community, especially the farming community, their share of this type of security, we should not take from other sections of the community what they are entitled to and what they urgently require.
It is all very well to make the claim on behalf of the small farmer. I would be one of the first to recognise that claim, but there is one fundamental difference between the farmer and the wage-earner. The farmer has his land and he always has that land as a base to which he can return. When the industrial worker loses his job, he has not only lost his job, but he has lost his whole economic sheet-anchor. When a man reaches the age of 65 and finds himself out of a job, it is time, particularly for those who believe in the welfare of the majority of the community and for a Party like Fianna Fáil which claims it is based on certain historic principles in this nation, to have regard to that demand and not to use as an excuse and justification for ignoring that claim. the practical difficulty of dealing with the problem as a whole.
The anxiety and eagerness of the Fianna Fáil Party to support their Minister on this Bill is touching. Of course when one goes through the long list of speeches that were made by members of the Fianna Fáil Party this time last year it is understandable. Before I go into that, however, let me just jog the Minister's own mind a little in regard to the interruption he made while Deputy Larkin was speaking. The Minister purported to suggest that Deputy Larkin said that the motion in 1947 which was rejected by the Fianna Fáil Government of the day and the rejection of which was, of course, moved by the Minister as Minister for Social Welfare at the time, was a motion requesting that there would be complete abolition of the means test in regard to pensions.
No. I said that earnings would not count.
Very good. I am going to read the motion and then we will see whether the Minister's recollection is as good as the printed record, because it is perfectly clear that it is not. The motion is:—
"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the basis upon which income is assessed for the purpose of the means test in the case of persons entitled to old age pensions, blind pensions, and widows' and orphans' pensions, requires revision and in particular that in assessing income for such purpose no cognisance should be taken of (a) gratuities paid to a pensioner by members of his or her family whether in cash or in kind; (b) any benefits received otherwise than in actual cash, and (c) casual moneys earned by the pensioner, and requests the Government to take all necessary steps accordingly."
What is (c) now? Read (c) again.
That is on the 20th March, 1947, column 2569, Volume 104.
Read (c) again.
That motion was moved by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and opposed by Deputy Dr. Ryan as Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister now has the impertinence to suggest in this House that the reason that his Government refused it was that it meant that the means test would be revised in such a way that people who had plenty of money would be entitled to get a pension.
No. A Cheann Comhairle, let me state what I want to state myself, not what Deputy Sweetman says.
I am not going to give way to the Minister.
Do not misquote me. I will not wait for you if you misquote me.
Will you conduct yourself?
You conduct yourself.
Will you conduct yourself a little bit better than you did this morning?
I gave it to you this morning, all right.
You came in here like a corner-boy, having got a little example from the Minister for Finance.
I told Fine Gael where they got off this morning.
Is it in order for anyone to call a Minister a corner-boy?
It is not.
Except for a corner-boy to do it.
It is an unparliamentary expression and should be withdrawn.
Certainly. I regret I used the word but I must confess that, having regard to the attitude of the Minister, I consider myself somewhat lucky that I did not overstep the bounds of parliamentary behaviour very much more because it certainly would have been excusable.
I would not have been a bit surprised if you had.
It would not have been surprising. That is what happened. That is the motion that was put down. On other occasions as well as to-day I have heard the Minister and Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he was before, suggesting that that motion meant a complete relaxation of the means test and that that was the reason the Government of the day had opposed it.
Under (c).
There is the motion, and anybody who can understand the ordinary meaning of words knows perfectly well what "casual earnings" meant.
Oh, yes, I see.
The whole trouble and the whole difficulty in regard to the Minister in that respect is that he was caught out and thought he would be able to get away here, as he had on other occasions, and the simulated anger that he displayed here was because he thought I would be fool enough to sit down and let him get away with it again.
I knew what was in it.
The Minister came in this morning and delivered himself of an oration which certainly was hardly the best method of getting this Bill discussed in an atmosphere of calm consideration, in an atmosphere of any thought for the provisions that are in it or in an atmosphere that would mean that we would be able to get worked out in this House, as there should be worked out having regard to the people that sent us here, a Bill that would embody the collective wisdom of the House.
I do not want to go into the question at all as to whether the files that were produced by the Minister and waved in his hand as if he had a television set operating throughout the homes of this country really referred to this matter or did not, but I do say, without question, that if the Minister had any hand, act or part in the many steps that he recounted as having been taken— whether they were taken or not I do not know—he should have had sufficient recollection of the work that he did to be able to quote them when he spoke here in this House on the 2nd March, 1950. If the Minister had any hand, act or part in the work that was put through by his Department, as he stated this morning, it is an amazing thing that he was so extremely modest, so extremely self-effacing when he spoke on the 2nd March, 1950.
1951.
I beg your pardon —1951. It is amazing that on the many other occasions on which he spoke throughout the country he did not tell the people about them. One could have understood that at that time the Minister might not be able, when he had not the files to his hand, to give the exact dates upon which certain events had occurred but surely, if these things had occurred at his direction and if he had understood the meaning of the steps that had been taken, he would have been able to tell the country what those steps were and the manner in which they had been done. That recital would have rung far truer, would have given a much better sound, if it had been produced 12 months ago in this House instead of being produced in the circumstances in which it was produced to-day, when all of us are able to assess the real and the true reasons for the exhibition that was given.
When the Social Welfare Bill, 1950, was circulated at the beginning of January, 1951, one of the first things commented on by members of Fianna Fáil was that the White Paper and the tables that were circulated at the time by Deputy Norton, then Minister, were not full and adequate and did not provide the information necessary for the purpose of enabling people properly to assess the effects of the scheme and the benefits that could be incorporated in the scheme.
As far as I can ascertain, the only basis furnished at all was the White Paper that was furnished at that time by Deputy Norton and, if it was true then to suggest that that White Paper and those tables were insufficient, is it not equally true to-day, and is it not obvious that the objection that was made at that time, in 1951, to the absence of information, was an objection that was being made purely for the purpose of finding some sort of stick with which to beat Deputy Norton, then Minister for Social Welfare?
The more one looks back and the more one reads the statements and speeches that were made 12 months ago on the Bill that was introduced by Deputy Norton and the more one considers them now in the light of the Bill introduced by the present Minister, the more one is forced to the conclusion that they were entirely and totally dishonest.
The main objections that were raised then were not objections in regard to detail, not objections in regard to one service or another, but objections in principle. If they were objections on detail one could understand quite easily that there would be changes, that as a result of more facts being ascertained it would appear that the objections in detail that had been made were unfounded. Nobody could cavil and nobody would cavil at people changing their mind if they discovered more facts. But that was not the objection that was raised 12 months ago. The objection that was raised 12 months ago was fundamentally and primarily one that was started, I believe, at the instigation of the Party opposite throughout the length and breadth of the country because the Bill then published did not include every aspect of the community.
I want to be quite fair, even though he is not always fair. The Minister, as Deputy Ryan, did not take that line in this House, but speech after speech was made by the boys behind and by his colleagues in the front bench making it clear that their objection to the Bill was that it did not embrace everybody, particularly the farmers and people who were self-employed. Some spoke in measured terms; some spoke in moderate terms; some spoke in a language hardly of the moderation we are accustomed to hear, say, from Deputy Corry——
Mr. O'Higgins
The language of Fianna Fáil.
Mr. Coburn
Or from Deputy Burke.
——but wherever they spoke there was the same fundamental objection to the principle of the Bill, not to its details, and it is exactly the same principle which Deputy Ryan, now Minister for Social Welfare, has introduced in this Bill to-day.
Just for the sake of ensuring that some of the Deputies over there who have already been quoted on statements they made—and Deputy Burke was quoted a few minutes ago—do not feel lonely, I want to add a few quotations from the many speeches made at that time for the purpose of making the welkin ring because the Social Welfare (Insurance) (No. 2) Bill, 1950, did not include the farmers and the self-employed.
The first person I would like to take is that new adherent of Fianna Fáil who is determined to ensure that he will out-Fianna Fáil. We all know of course that the reason for Deputy Cogan's anxiety to try to beat the Party opposite in praise of their doctrines is that he believes that there is a little bit more than one quota for Fianna Fáil in County Wicklow and wants to get the spill over in the next election, particularly if an election is going to come shortly as has been suggested by some people and by some newspapers. He said in Volume 125:—
"There is another very serious defect in this Bill. It leaves out of consideration almost half the working population of the country. I regard the health benefits and the provisions for widows and children as important and desirable but under this Bill those benefits do not apply to more than half the working population though the entire population will have to contribute towards the general taxation in order to provide them."
I listened to-day to Deputy Cogan; I did not hear him say that about the present Bill although exactly the same criticism would apply to it. On that occasion too I heard Deputy Cogan state:—
"I have indicated that I disagreed with the Bill on the ground that it makes for more intensive centralisation of all social activities in the hands of a centralised Department. The Bill takes away many of the responsibilities which could be left in the hands of the head of the family. It takes away a lot of the responsibilities which could be left with great advantage to a locally constituted body such as a parish council or a parish guild. We ought to approach this question on Christian lines. We ought to approach it on the lines indicated by people who have studied those questions from a Christian standpoint."
I did not hear Deputy Cogan approach this Bill on the same basis. I did not to-day hear Deputy Cogan offer any constructive suggestion as to the manner in which we could improve the Bill in that fashion. He went on, having one of his fairly regular tilts with Deputy Davin, and said that he wondered whether his friend, Deputy Davin, thought it right to coerce workers into insuring against the incompetence of the Government, unemployment. Deputy Cogan must be aware of the position regarding employment in Wicklow to-day and as it was 12 months ago. But yet last year he did not think it was wise for a worker to insure against the incompetence of his own Government. It is indeed Deputy Cogan's own Government that is now incompetent and that has, through its "wolf, wolf!" talk particularly, brought upon the workers in many parts of the country increased unemployment and short time.
Then we had Deputy Colley, representing a Dublin City constituency, adding his contribution on the 4th April. Deputy Colley's contribution was that he thought that the first fact which would strike him, if he were the Minister responsible for introducing a social security scheme, was that other people, such as small shopkeepers and farmers who could not increase their income, were in the same position and he was complaining that the Bill, as then introduced, did not cover those people at all.
If it were merely a question of detail it could be understood, but when Deputy Little came along on the 11th April he made it clear that it was not any question of detail with him but a question of principle. He said (column 541):—
"To us it is clear that there is a difference on principle because we want to spread the net as wide as possible and to approach the problem from a national point of view, caring for all classes in the community. For that reason, we feel there is a fundamental difference in principle between our approach and that embodied in the Government measure."
We heard nothing to-day from Deputy Little regarding principle. I saw Deputy Little only a few moments ago leaving this House when he could have added his voice to persuade this Government, with whom he used not so very long ago to sit in the Cabinet room to discuss problems, that the way they had gone since they lost the benefit of his advice was away from the principle of which he spoke some 12 months ago.
I find it difficult, I must confess, if not impossible to understand how people could get up time after time and state that they were objecting on a point of principle and then come in and stand behind the Minister on exactly the same measure to which they had objected on principle only 12 months ago. There is only one possible explanation: that they had no principles at all or else that when they were talking about points of principle it was only so much political blah for the purpose of raising Party political capital and making things difficult for the Government of the day.
I mentioned Deputy Cogan from Wicklow a few moments ago. Not to be outdone, Deputy Tom Brennan from the same constituency on the 11th April came into the fray. He said (column 547):—
"I bewail the fact that almost one-half of the workers of the country, represented particularly by the small farmers, are not covered by the scheme. I hold that it is a misnomer to call any scheme of social insurance which does not make provision for these people comprehensive. A big number of workers are not covered by this scheme, such as the small farmers, the self-employed man, fishermen and other classes."
We have heard no word of complaint from Deputy Brennan about this Bill although these classes—and all of them—are equally left out of the scheme.
It cannot be said by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party that the reason why they have not commented upon this Bill is because they have been shut out in their efforts to talk by the members of the Opposition. That cannot be said because every time a speaker has concluded on this side of the House there has been a certain reluctance for someone on this side to follow him immediately without giving an opportunity to those on the Government Benches to explain their conversion and their change of heart. There has been adequate opportunity offered to them had they wished to avail of it to discuss this Bill.
Mr. Coburn
They have got their orders from the Chief not to speak.
I do not know whether or not they have got their orders but the fact is—and events can bear no other interpretation—that they have not spoken. We find it difficult to understand why people who are normally loquacious—perhaps not as loquacious as some—and ordinarily anxious to give their opinions about one thing and another, such as Deputy McGrath, have not so far offered any opinion on this Bill.
We find it particularly difficult to understand how it is that the Deputy Commander of the Department of Social Welfare, the man who is next in charge to the Minister, the man who no doubt was sitting by the Minister helping him to bring in these weighty tomes and files that were brought in here this morning, said nothing at all when he had a most perfect opportunity of taking part in the debate. We have not heard a single word from Deputy Kennedy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare.
Mr. Coburn
I thought the Deputy was referring to "Deputy Donovan."
I do not think that is fair.
Deputy Coburn should not interrupt.
If I were to deal with what is fair and what is not fair, the Chair might have something to say to me if I went on to speak of what Deputy Burke calls "genuine hypocrisy."
Deputy Kennedy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, is opposed to social welfare.
The Deputy had his day.
We will rise again.
There will be another day and I hope it will be at the chapel gates very shortly because then there will be a big day coming.
Out at Kilsallaghan.
Deputy Sweetman on the Bill.
Deputy Burke will have ample opportunity when I have finished of expressing his opinions on this measure. Last year we listened to the contribution made by Deputy MacEntee, now Minister for Finance, on the Social Welfare Bill introduced in March, 1951.
Interruptions.
If Deputies indulge in chats across the floor of the House and interrupt the speaker, the Chair will have to take serious cognisance of those Deputies who indulge in such conversations.
On 11th April, last year, Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, came into this House and, having opened with the sentence which I quoted earlier this evening to the effect that this Bill was a selfish Bill, he then went on to say:—
"By reason of its deficiencies and its defects the Bill could be called a measure of social injustice."
Following on that, he treated us to what I can only describe as a gem having regard to the manner in which Deputy MacEntee, now Minister for Finance, offered so gracefully to give way to Deputy Cowan on Tuesday night last. Speaking about that Deputy last year, Deputy MacEntee described him as the "nuncio of the red pope of the Kremlin"; he stated that he was reminded of the signal ability with which Satan could quote the Scriptures to suit his own purpose and he proceeded to reprimand Deputy Cowan in somewhat strong terms because Deputy Cowan had suggested that the objection in principle that had been put up to the 1950 Bill was not one that was well or validly founded. He continued as follows at column 596 of Volume 125:—
"The glaring defect of this Bill is, I think, its refusal to give any consideration whatever to the working farmer and the self-employed person. That was its fatal defect when the Bill was introduced. It remains its fatal defect to-day, even though some of those who were so outraged by its complete indifference to our agricultural population that they were going to vote against the Bill have been mollified or suborned by the proposal to increase the old age pensions and relax to some extent the means test."
Deputy MacEntee is now Minister for Finance and as Minister for Finance he must have a somewhat more intimate connection with this Bill than most other Ministers. It is the Minister for Finance, and his Department, who has more than any other Minister, or Department, an intimate connection with every measure passing through this House which requires money for its implementation. Unfortunately there are very few measures that do not require some sort of financial backing.
If Deputy MacEntee was honest when he submitted that objection on principle a year ago, then I find it very difficult to understand how he can reconcile with his conscience to-day the provision of the additional taxation necessary for its implementation. There is one last quotation I must give. I do not wish to make the Deputies on the Government Benches any more uncomfortable than is absolutely necessary. The last quotation to which I must refer is from a speech made by a friend of Deputy McGrath, a friend with whom in recent weeks he has had some little differences of opinion on his own side of the House. Deputy Corry's speech will be found at column 199 of Volume 125. The bulk of it is taken up with the complaint that the Bill then introduced did not include the small farmers, did not include—as he put it employed, did not include—as he put it himself—the 503,000 farmers, their wives, their sons and their daughters and did not include the 358,000 who were working on holdings of under 50 acres. He said that these people would wake up one fine morning and find, when they went out to buy their little bit of tobacco, that they had to pay a little bit extra for it by way of tax. For what? For the Bill that was then being introduced. If Dame Rumour is not a lying jade, I wonder how Deputy Corry will feel next Wednesday.
Every one of these speeches in relation to that Bill considered in retrospect makes it perfectly clear that there was no point of principle with which the Deputies who were then on this side of the House were concerned; and, if that is not so, then the natural corollary is that they have since sold their principles. I prefer to give them the charitable explanation of saying that they did not consider that the 1950 Bill was against their principles and were only saying that for political purposes. It is more charitable to say that than to say they swallowed their own principles.
The Bill now before the House, just as the Bill which was before the House 12 months ago, starts off on one basis. It starts on the basis of co-ordinating the existing social services. Listening to the Minister to-day, one would think that the idea of co-ordinating the social services was an idea of his own just as one would think, from another remark he made, that the idea of children's allowances was originally one of his own. As far as the co-ordinating of the social services is concerned the fact, of course, is that there was no public suggestion that this should be done until it was suggested in 1937 by Mr. W.T. Cosgrave. That was the first public suggestion by any public man that what we needed was to co-ordinate the existing services and by co-ordinating them save on the central overheads. But like so many things that are so obvious they never come to light. Obviously the method of dealing with the matter is by a single stamp and thus save a very considerable overhead expenditure. The savings would be available for benefits under the service instead of being eaten up in the administration of the scheme.
That was the cardinal principle in the 1950 Bill and that is the cardinal principle in the memorandum circulated by the Minister. The Minister sets out the main objects of the Bill as being to replace the present separate units by one co-ordinated scheme of social insurance. With that the Minister will find complete and ready agreement. If he compares the first paragraph setting out the objects of the Bill, as contained in the explanatory memorandum that he has issued, with the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum issued 12 months ago, he will find that both are almost identical word for word. He will find that the objects of the 1950 Bill, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, are included in the memorandum of this Bill in exactly the same terms. The Minister will surprise the House if he is able to explain how it was that those paragraphs of the explanatory memorandum were not identical when they were published.
As I have already stated, I could understand the viewpoint which was taken by Deputies last year if they made it clear then that their objection was to one aspect or another. I could have understood the Deputies, who were then on this side of the House, if they had made the case that their objection was only to the retirement pensions or one or other aspects of the Bill. They did not do that then. They made the case in entirely different terms. Hence, I am at a loss when I try to consider the terms of this Bill and compare them with what they have in mind as to its administration.
We all agree that in any scheme of social insurance it is desirable, first of all, to co-ordinate. It is desirable to amalgamate. It is equally desirable to include in any such scheme as many persons as possible. Last year, we were told that the glaring defect of the Bill was that it did not include a great many people but there was one section included in last year's Bill who is not included in this one. It is, indeed, a very grave omission and it is very regrettable that it is not so included.
There was in the last Bill a provision by virtue of which the small farmers, who are not included under the other terms of the Bill, could come together, if they so wished, with their neighbours in the local parish guild or in the parish or co-operative society—or if there was not a society already in existence, they could come together and form that society—for the purpose of obtaining the benefits under the Bill. That provision has been omitted from this Bill.
If it was wrong in principle last year to introduce a Social Insurance Bill which did not provide for the farmers but which did provide that method by which they could voluntarily come into the scheme, why is it right this year to introduce a Bill without that provision and without any method of such voluntary inclusion? Perhaps, Deputy Burke, who states he was merely waiting to speak, will, when he does get up to add his contribution, explain to the House why that is so? Why is it that it is desirable to omit that provision by which farmers or other self-employed people in an area could come together voluntarily and come together in a manner which met with approval in the Report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation, and why do the Government consider that the Bill is better for such an omission? I will be only too glad to sit here and listen to Deputy Burke give an explanation on that matter because it is a point on which the House is entitled to receive an answer. The explanation will be one which will be awaited with respect by all on this side of the House.
This Bill, too, omits another provision which we were told last year should have been included. We were told, first of all, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on the 4th of April, 1951, at column 69 of the Official Dáil Debates:—
"I must confess that I was very much surprised at the decision of the Government not to include in this Bill any proposals for the amendment of children's allowances."
If Deputy Lemass, as he then was, was surprised, surely now, as Tánaiste—and we are told he is the strong man in this Government—he had opportunities to overcome his surprise and ensure that the members on this side of the House would not be amazed by the omission in the Bill?
Then we had following his leader on the next day—at that time the gentleman who has become known as the junior banshee had not realised it was Deputy MacEntee he was following and not Deputy Lemass—Deputy Childers who also complained that he thought it was an extraordinary thing that the details of the Bill did not include any provision for children's allowances.
There was very great criticism last year because it was intended to include an additional provision in regard to old age pensions in the Budget rather than in the initial draft that was circulated on the 1950 Social Welfare Bill. That criticism would be equally valid now in respect of any intention that the Government may have—if they have any such intention—of including a provision in regard to children's allowances —with the exception that any increase in children's allowances would, I imagine, be required to be included in a supplementary Children's Allowances Act and that it would not be proper for inclusion in the ordinary Finance Act which follows the Budget resolutions.
There has already been some substantial reference to the question of the omission from this Bill, as compared with the previous Bill, of the death benefits and the substitution, in lieu of the death benefits, of a marriage benefit. I think that that is a very unwise and retrograde step. Quite Candidly, I feel that it is a result of pressure which has been brought to bear on the Government by the agents of insurances companies—and I want to be quite clear that I am not referring to the Minister, Deputy Dr. Ryan, in the personal capacity which he has erstwhile held—that the provision has been dropped from this Bill. While Deputy Cogan was speaking Deputy Corish made one interjection, and, of course, it is the entire kernel of the difference between the two things. Deputy Corish said that death comes unexpectedly but that marriage is planned and that it is proper that people, when they are making their plans for marriage, should make provision for the financial commitments that are involved. Death, however, is an entirely different category. Despite what Deputy Cogan may say, it is common property that people throughout the country have from time to time frequently expressed the fear that they might be forced, through no fault of their own, into the position of having to be buried by the board of assistance or by whoever may be responsible in a particular area.
Anybody who looks at the records can find the statement I made in this House last year on the Social Welfare Bill. I expressed the view then and I express it again now that it is desirable, in regard to employment after 65 years of age, that there should be an inducement to a person to continue to work after 65 if he is able to do so. I said last year that I thought it would be desirable either that there should be a change in the retirement allowance according as a person worked until he was 66 or 67 upwards or that, if that were administratively difficult, there should be some provision in the scheme which was then before us by virtue of which an inducement would be offered by way of increased benefit, so that a person who is adequately able to work after 65 years of age would continue to do so. I suggested at that time that I thought it would be better to do that by way of a deferred capital benefit that would come to the person when, ultimately, he would retire—that his contributions to insurance after 65 would be set aside and paid to him when, ultimately, he retired. I still think that that would be desirable. The fact, however, that I held that view then, and that I hold it now, does not mean that I feel that a person who is not able to work after 65 should be denied the opportunity of having provision made for him. It seems to me that that is where the farmers of this Bill have gone astray—that they assume that because we say that a person should be encouraged, if he is able, to continue to work after he is 65, it is the same thing as saying that there should be no retirement benefit at that age. I do not agree with that viewpoint. I think it is a mistake, and that it is an unfortunate omission.
I am sorry Deputy Corry was not in the House earlier because he would then have heard me quote from the speech he made 12 months ago. I had a little tag in this volume of Dáil debates marking the speech he addressed to us 12 months ago. I quoted him, as I quoted various other Deputies. Unfortunately, I pulled out the tag and I cannot conveniently find the speech now. However, when he reads the Official Report of to-day's proceedings in this House he will find the little reminder I gave him of the speech he made 12 months ago, and, in the same way—now that this Bill has exactly the same objection which he had to the Bill 12 months ago—he will be able, in his own inimitable way, to voice his objections to the present Bill as he voiced them to the Bill last year.
If the rest of your speech is as foolish as these few remarks, it will, no doubt, be all right.
I happened to be down at the gate and I heard a terrific lot of shouting in the House. I could not believe, when I opened the door of this Chamber, that it was my friend, Deputy Sweetman, who was doing all the shouting.
The Gate Theatre.
What he was shouting about I do not know. However, it is a good thing to know that his voice stands up to the racket very well because certainly he has done some shouting this evening.
I thought you were going to say that I would get a little more opportunity of shouting in the near future, which I would be delighted to do.
I expected, when I came into this House, that I should hear something really constructive. Instead, all I heard was Deputy Sweetman quoting from speeches made by other Deputies. I said to myself that surely Deputy Sweetman is better briefed than to have to resort to quoting from the speeches of other Deputies on a Bill similar to this Bill.
It was not similar to this Bill.
We heard nothing original or constructive from Deputy Sweetman.
I am sorry the Deputy is jealous that I did not mention him.
As a matter of fact, he quotes me often enough. Deputy Sweetman started to tell the House about the great ideas Fine Gael had when they were in power, and he quoted from a speech made by Mr. William T. Cosgrave as far back as 1937 on the co-ordination of the social services. May I remind the Fine Gael Party of their idea of social services when they cut the old age pension by 1/-? That was their idea of subscribing something to the social welfare of the poor old age pensioner—to cut 1/- off his pension.
Where were you at that time?
We were paying for the damage that was done to the State.
Deputy Burke should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I did not hear the interruption of my colleague from County Dublin.
I only said that the old age pensioners had to pay for the damage to the State at that time. That was before Deputy Burke joined Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy is deaf and he does not want to hear.
He says they are sorry for taking off the 1/-.
That was the contribution of Fine Gael to the Welfare State. Deputy Rooney was not a member of the Party at that time.
We doubled the pension since.
I want to remind Deputy Sweetman that if that is the kind of contribution to the welfare scheme of which the ex-Leader of the Fine Gael Party was the original mooter, then he has something definitely very good to go upon at the chapel gates. We were told by Deputy Norton—and he was allowed to carry on for a long time telling everybody both in this House and at the chapel gates—that there was only a "scrap of paper" scheme prepared by Dr. Ryan as Minister for Social Welfare. To-day the Minister told the truth. He brought in all his documents and they were not questioned by Deputy Norton or any other member of this House.
That is not so.
He held it up for examination.
It could have been Comic Cuts for all we know.
You were shown them.
There is one of the characters from Comic Cuts.
We were treated to other comments from the archangels of the workers. Behold my friends on the left here. The bottom would fall out of the country were it not for the archangels of the workers and the defenders of the rights of humanity on the other side of the House. May I again quote Deputy Sweetman when he referred to hypocrisy, genuine hypocrisy?
That is the term "genuine hypocrisy".
One would imagine that nobody was interested in the welfare of humanity only the gentlemen on my left and those in front of me. Those were the people who had cures for all our ills. Those were the people who said that the country would not survive, if it were not ruled by them.
Who said that?
That was said by the gentlemen opposite.
There is a very familiar ring about it.
Despite the people opposite, this country survived and will survive. I have heard a good deal to-night from members of the Labour Party about the unemployed. We are in the position in which we find ourselves to-day in regard to the unemployed because of the hash made of this country when you were in office. Deputy Hickey, I should like you to listen to a few points I want to make.
The Deputy should use the third person.
What you are saying about the unemployed is absolutely inaccurate.
Deputy Hickey will have to take his medicine now.
You are poisoning Deputy Hickey.
Deputy Hickey——
It is no wonder you are finding it hard to quote me.
He has lost his memory.
I have to smile when I think of Deputy Hickey's interruptions because seriously I think that Deputy Hickey and his Party would sooner import goods and keep foreign labour working than to pay our own workers. They ask us about the unemployed and tell us about the state of unemployment to-day. My colleagues in County Dublin will ask the same questions.
I did not think you were capable of making such a statement.
Deputy Hickey should not be so thin-skinned as to want to reply to every comment.
I did not think Deputy Burke was capable of making such a statement.
Deputy Burke should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
He certainly should be allowed to mention the Bill.
I wanted to answer in the most orderly fashion the few criticisms that were made about the Party to which I have the honour to belong. I am sorry if I have hurt the susceptibilities of this very honourable Deputy but I would remind him again that his Party cannot get away with untruths in this House. They are telling untruths and are guilty of misrepresentation in this House. Why during the last three years did Deputy Hickey's Party and the Party opposite allow the economy of this country to drift so far that we find ourselves in the position which we are to-day? If Deputies opposite were honest and if they were competent to do their job properly, if they were the great Government they were supposed to be, we would, instead of having unemployment to-day, be compelled to bring in foreigners to work here and we would not be importing stuff that could be produced here.
We brought back the workers.
If Deputy Hickey and Deputy Rooney would look after their dual purpose then they would be better off. These are the difficulties with which we are faced. We are taunted here to-night that we did not speak; the reason we did not speak was that we wanted to listen to the Opposition committing themselves. As far as defending the Minister for Social Welfare is concerned, there is no need to defend him. He has acquitted himself very well.
You are not doing too badly yourself either.
Would you give us a song if you have nothing to say?
I thought I would hear something from Deputy Sweetman's speech which would enable me to follow along his lines, but as he did not speak about the Bill, I suppose I will have to do so myself. To qualify for an old age pension under Deputy Norton's Bill you would have to contribute.
What?
Under this Bill, whether you contribute or not, when you come to 70 years of age you will get £1 a week and possibly more later on. When Deputy Norton was Minister for Social Welfare, as the chief angel of the workers, he wanted the lowest paid section of the workers in this country, the farm employees, to contribute very substantially towards any benefit they would gain under the Bill. Under this particular Bill, they are asked to pay an increased contribution of only about 20 per cent. and the amount of benefit they receive will be increased to £2 10s. Under Deputy Norton's Bill, they would receive approximately 37/-. That, in itself, is a big benefit to the lowly-paid workers, the agricultural workers, and that is one benefit under this Bill which was not included in Deputy Norton's Bill.
The only thing that Deputy Norton succeeded in doing for the lowly-paid workers during his three years in office was to ask them to pay 6d. increase and to give them nothing in return. He asked for an increased contribution from the workers—I am sorry Deputy Sweetman is going.
I am not. I would not like to deprive the Deputy of the opportunity of giving me the benefit of his wisdom.
You should go down and tell the people in Rush you paid a shilling for the tomatoes.
You did not finish the last sentence.
It is very hard on poor Deputy Davin to hear some of the truth.
I want to hear the whole truth.
The whole of the truth is that the leader of the Labour Party asked the workers to pay an increase of 6d. in their contribution without giving them any increased benefit.
And that is the truth?
Other Deputies made great play here in regard to certain sections of the Bill. When Deputy Larkin was speaking he referred to. the Labour Party as the only people who had the interest of the worker at heart, and anything they were going to do for the worker was right. He taunted us that we were supposed to be the Republican Party in the House and that, as far as we were concerned, we were not the ideal Party to introduce a social Bill. He said, further, that if we were a proper Republican Party, we would try to see that this would be a proper social welfare State. May I inform the Deputy that we, in Fianna Fáil, are the Republican Party?
What about Captain Cowan?
He was a soldier of Ireland when the Deputy was not.
He was not a soldier 12 months ago, according to the Minister for Finance; he was a Red ambassador.
We are concerned with the welfare of all sections of our people, irrespective of class or creed. We are the ideal Party to promote a welfare State and to do everything possible to uplift our people.
You will be put out if the Minister for Finance hears you mentioning the welfare State.
I want to tell Deputy Larkin that that is our ideal. I do not want to read a litany of the number of social schemes we introduced without any assistance from any of the Parties opposite. We did it as a matter of social justice in so far as the resources of this nation allowed us, and we hope to continue on those lines. I am delighted now that my friend, Deputy Larkin, has arrived.
He heard you outside.
Good news travels fast.
I was dealing with the statement the Deputy made a few minutes ago. He said the Labour Party was the only Party capable of understanding what a proper social service measure was. I want to remind the Deputy that we are just as human as any member of the Labour Party and more human about the needs of our people. To prove that, may I further remind you that during our term of office we have succeeded in bringing in a number of Bills for the benefit of our people? Children's allowances, which the Minister even referred to to-day, is a matter that will be dealt with during the next few days.
Deputies
Oh!
I am quoting what the Minister said.
You must have been at a Cabinet meeting.
He is a junior Minister.
During Fianna Fáil's term of office they never let an opportunity for the betterment of the nation pass. Even during the short time at our disposal since we resumed office from a bankrupt Party in June, 1951, we have definitely pushed ahead with schemes for the benefit of our people. We hope to continue along those lines until the day comes when this nation will be self-sufficient and every person here will be able to live in the manner proper to a Christian civilisation. One section should not persist in saying that they are the ideal section for the betterment of the people.
A lot has been said about statements made by ex-Ministers during the last year. I am sure Deputy Sweetman often attended court, and so did I.
The difference was that I was being paid for so doing.
I remember on one occasion listening to a statement by a very eminent senior counsel. He made a very simple statement and I will let Deputy Sweetman have it for nothing.
Is it relevant to the debate?
You are proving too much for your Parliamentary Secretary.
I am delighted to see that Deputy Sweetman has changed his mind so much as to recognise the great benefit that this Bill will confer. However, I am sure it is a fool who would not change his mind in face of greater enlightment. I will sell Deputy Sweetman that statement so that he can use it again.
I welcome this Bill as an advance and I want to compliment the Minister for his honest attempt in bringing in a Bill which we hope to have in operation by July. I trust that this Bill will help our people, and that it will only be the forerunner of other social measures.
I would also like to refer to some undesirable remarks which were made here to-day about officials who are not in a position to defend themselves. Of course, I would not expect any more from the people who made such remarks concerning civil servants during this debate to-day who were associated with the Department of Social Welfare. I feel sorry that any such remarks were made in this House. I would like to put on record that the Minister's staff are to be complimented for assisting Deputy Dr. Ryan, the Minister, in his very able presentation of this Bill to the House. As I said already, I recommend this Bill as being a step on the right road and I want the Opposition to realise that this measure will be accepted by the country.
Will you tell us the difference between this Bill and the Norton Bill?
I thought Deputy Sweetman would have known that.
I am waiting for you to tell me where I was wrong.
He has not read the Bill.
That is pretty obvious.
The Minister made a statement to-day to the effect that he was prepared to accept certain suggestions during the Committee Stage of this Bill. I will reserve some suggestions I wish to make until that time. Finally, I want to congratulate the Minister and his staff for bringing in a Bill which is well worth being considered and being received wholeheartedly in this House.
In a 12-hour sitting such as we have had to-day the light relief given us by the previous speaker was quite welcome.
It is a pity, at the commencement of the day's sitting, that the Minister, in introducing this extremely important measure, adopted the attitude of the Minister for Finance when he was presenting the Vote on Account a week ago. It is to be regretted that the Minister for Social Welfare delivered himself of a statement which, as a new Deputy to the House, I was amazed to hear from him. I had assessed the Minister for Social Welfare as one of the least vindictive persons in the Fianna Fáil Party. However, his statement this morning set a very bad headline for every other Deputy in the House who was to succeed him in the discussion. During the past eight or nine months some very probing inquiries have been made from this side of the House as to the delay in introducing the Bill. I contend that the measure is now brought in as a red herring to draw the attention of the people away from the genuine concern with which they are facing next week's Budget. It seems to me the introduction of the Bill at this particular time is designed for that purpose.
The objection I have to the Bill is based on the grounds that the Minister's opening remarks opposing Deputy Norton's Bill were in very similar terms. At column 1092, Volume 124, Dr. Ryan said that he "put down this amendment on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in an endeavour to get a better scheme of social insurance". The first point made in the amendment was: "Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it does not provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community."
We object to the present measure inasmuch as it falls very far short of Mr. Norton's scheme and still further short of the policy stated by Fianna Fáil when they went to the electorate a short time ago. It is extraordinary that after that short space of time they will not fulfil the promises they made to the electorate and which, no doubt, had an effect in the industrial areas.
I am very concerned because of the fact that this Bill limits the sections of the people who will derive benefits from it. In my constituency there is probably not quite as large a proportion of contributors as there would be in others. Consequently, my concern is more with the small farmer and the non-contributor generally.
We have the assistance of three schemes. Setting aside the ephemeral one, which we were told existed and was left behind by Fianna Fáil in 1947, and which, we were told, Mr. Norton, the succeeding Minister, would have no difficulty in introducing, there were three schemes. There is a distinct difference in the scheme now put forward from the one promulgated also to a certain degree in competition with Mr. Norton's scheme. It is definitely short of the scheme which we saw displayed on all the posters, and which was publicised in all the propaganda issued by Fianna Fáil at the general election, particularly in the City of Cork.
From reading the debates of last year I find that the opposition to the Norton scheme and the objections made by the then Opposition, who now form the major part of the support for this Government in the House, I find that the objections were not in any way concerned with the contributions but were all based on the fact of the insufficiency of the benefits. We therefore must be excused for calling attention to certain omissions in the current Bill.
I am particularly concerned because the small farmer is left out. There was provision in the inter-Party Government scheme, as Deputy Larkin detailed earlier this evening, for the small farmer. In fact, the ceiling of £25 or £30 poor law valuation was mentioned. That was a very advisable provision. To a certain extent, it abolished the demarcation line between the small farmer and the workers, who have so much in common in the difficulties that they have to surmount. It is only right and proper that a scheme such as this should be comprehensive, not only in name, but in character as well.
One of the exclusion from this Bill is a provision for retirement at the age of 65. Perhaps the Minister, when he is concluding, will explain to the House why his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, has issued a directive that rate collectors should retire at that age and why the same yardstick should not be applied to sections of the community that are being dealt with under this scheme.
I regret that there is no provision in this Bill for an easement of the means test in relation to widows' pensions. I appreciate that there is an increase in the allowance. Such an increase is warranted by the extraordinary increase in the cost of living since this Government was elected. However, there has not been an easement of the means test. A short time ago, a case was brought to my notice of a widow whose husband had been in receipt of an old age pension of 10/- per week, but, on his death, as a result of the method of assessment employed in the Department of Social Welfare in relation to widows, she was allowed the princely sum of 2/- per week to maintain her for the rest of her days. I had hoped that that unjust method of assessment would be dealt with in this Bill.
In regard to the assessment of means generally, there is a matter which I suggest is worthy of consideration. The officers whose duty it is to investigate the means of applicants for old age pensions and widows' pensions, particularly in the dairying counties, one of which I have the honour to represent, make inquiries at the local creamery and include in their assessment of means the amount which the applicant received from the creamery in the past year. The applicant may not have the help of any member of the family on the farm and must pay for labour. Even though the milk cheque may be higher, the cost of producing the milk would have increased considerably, particularly having regard to the considerable increase in the cost of fertilisers since the advent of this Government.
I notice that although sections of our people, such as the Civil Service, the Defence Forces and the Gardaí, are considered in this measure, there is power to modify the extent to which they may benefit. To say the least of it, I think that is a matter for uneasiness. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.