Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 28 Mar 1952

Vol. 130 No. 6

Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951—Second Stage (Resumed).

I was addressing my remarks last night to the unfortunate manner adopted by the Minister in introducing the measure. This morning, we had some very complimentary references to the advantages gained, in dealing with a Bill relating to a particular section of our people, by the co-operation and friendly spirit shown by those interested in the measure. It is extraordinary that we cannot apply the same principles to such matters of extreme national concern as the Vote on Account last week and this Social Welfare Bill to-day.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

In dealing with the Vote on Account, the Minister for Finance started off in an extremely aggressive mood, but finished in the Seanad cooing like a dove, and we can hope that the Minister for Social Welfare, as this measure progresses, will adopt a more reasonable attitude than that which he displayed when introducing it.

I am concerned particularly with those excluded from the scope of this measure, in particular, the great majority of small farmers who make up most of the farming fraternity in my constituency. Under Deputy Norton's scheme, there was provision whereby they could partake of the benefits of the scheme through the use of their co-operative societies. In County Cork, we have 46 such societies in existence at present and, of that number, 24 are in my constituency of North Cork. Therefore, we can contend that the machinery to put that provision into operation was there.

It is a pity, for another reason, that this class was not included. The man who has just a few cows, and a small bit of land, works, plays and lives in complete harmony and understanding with the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer hopes, as a result of his years of service, to be able to put aside a sufficient sum of money to be used either as a dowry to enable him to marry into some little place or to acquire a little bit of land. The fact that such men are being excluded from the benefits of this measure may induce them to drop their idea of betterment. They may feel that they would be running certain risks by leaving more sheltered employment and going into self-employment where they will be denied benefits.

To-day, appeals are going out for increased production. There are many men working on the land to-day who are small farmers' sons. They were members of large families, and since there was only barely enough to provide a means of existence for one member of the family they had to go out and work as farm labourers. Many of them, too, have to go across to the other side. I know it is their desire to come back to purchase some little holding and start life at home. Many men in their position are faced with difficulties which even the man who is employed on a farm is sheltered from. There is, as we know, an expansion in the mechanisation of agriculture with an increasing degree of risk. The small farmer and his family are left completely to their own resources. They work extremely hard, over long hours on seven days of the week, and if they are disabled or maimed as a result of an accident, they have nothing to fall back upon. Consequently, I regret that this Bill gives no measure of protection to that section of our people.

Play was made by some Deputies on the opposite side by going back into the early history of this State, and drawing from it the fact that the predecessors of this Party were responsible for reducing the old age pensions by 1/-. That was a threadbare charge to make. I am sure they know well that quite a number of those old people are being catered for in homes run by religious communities, and that the greater portion of their pensions goes to meet the cost of their upkeep. The few shillings left to them give them a little bit of independence and enable them to purchase some simple luxuries. They belong to a section of the people which, under the Supplementary Budget introduced by Fianna Fáil in the autumn of 1947, suffered a far greater reduction in their income than had ever been imposed by any previous Government. Of course, it will be realised by the House that, at the time the old age pension was reduced by 1/-, that section of the community had, with all other sections, to join in repairing a lot of the damage that had been done to the country and assist in building it up again.

That remark should not be made by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Minister would be well advised to restrain his Parliamentary Secretary, who has not so far contributed anything useful to the debate. I was referring to the provision which has been made for those old people. I am glad that such provision is there for them since their own families, for one reason or another, were unable to look after them. I hope there will be an extension of that in the future. We are particularly lucky in my constituency, where we have such a centre and where so much good is being done in looking after aged and disabled persons.

On the introduction of a social welfare scheme it is well to recall that even the Beveridge Plan recognised that it could not be a success in any country where you had not progress and the conditions of full employment, or the nearest possible to that. We were told here a short time ago that the country was on the brink of an economic abyss, that it was on the verge of desperation. The introduction of a scheme such as this must surely reflect a better feeling of confidence than that displayed in the dismal speeches that have been made. That is an axiom which is accepted throughout the world. Consequently, we must read into the introduction of this Bill a feeling of confidence that the country can afford to embark on it.

I do not think I could stress too much the unfortunate fact that the small farmers are being excluded under this Bill. I know that in Deputy Flynn's constituency, for example, they will be more adversely affected than in mine. Many more of his constituents would qualify to come under it and would be much more in need of such a provision. No doubt he will raise his voice in support of my contention before the debate concludes. I am sorry that the means test in regard to widows' pensions has not been modified. I think that is unjust.

It is being modified.

I am glad to learn that.

You did not read the Bill.

I think it is undesirable to have only a loose provision in the Bill—the provision in the Norton Bill was very definite—in regard to the Civil Service, the Guards and the Army. Power is now being taken to enable them to share in the scheme, but they will have to contribute to it. I cannot see why they were not put on the same footing as other beneficiaries.

We welcome the Bill, but we are criticising it because it does not embrace sections in the community which were included in the Norton scheme, and which were definitely included also in the Fianna Fáil plan at the last election.

It was amusing to hear Deputy O'Sullivan reproaching the Minister for his attitude in introducing the Bill, especially when Deputies recall the continuous and rude interruptions of Deputy O'Sullivan in practically every debate.

I got under your skin.

You could not get under it.

Listen to the truth.

When Deputy Norton came to reply to the Minister yesterday a good many of us thought he was so infuriated that he would blow up, but, like every other empty barrel, he sounded very hollow. This man, who has been described as the "bombastic puffing billy" of the Labour Party, started off by attacking a civil servant who was not in a position to defend himself. We all know the position in regard to this civil servant.

We must not have any discussion on it.

I am entitled to reply to Deputy Norton.

The Deputy is not entitled. The Minister is the only person responsible for this Bill.

The remarks of the ex-Taoiseach, who made a cowardly attack on an officer——

On a point of order. The ex-Taoiseach made no attack on any officer.

The ex-Tánaiste.

The ex-Tánaiste. We are talking about the affairs of the Department of Social Welfare and the way it is managed. We know that when the ex-Tánaiste was in charge of that Department he put a political booster of his own into the Department to try to dominate it and walk in and out when he liked.

That is not in order.

On a point of order. Is this not an attack on another civil servant?

I have asked the Deputy to get away from these attacks. They are not relevant to the Bill.

It is the Minister's job to defend these people if there is anything wrong.

I object to——

You cannot have it both ways. The Minister put you up to say these things.

The Minister did not speak to me since yesterday. The Minister need not put any of the Cork Deputies up to anything.

It is not done by this Government. The Ministers make their own speeches.

You will not let the Parliamentary Secretary up.

Deputy McGrath is in possession on the Social Welfare Bill.

I would like to inform the members of this House who may not be aware of the fact that this man gave better service to this country and did more for social welfare than the whole Labour Party put together.

There is no doubt about that, anyway.

I am most anxious to be able to come back on this if Deputy McGrath continues with it.

You are welcome to come back on it.

The Deputy is not welcome to come back on it. I have already pointed out that discussion on this matter is irrelevant and out of order and the Deputy should pay some attention to the ruling of the Chair.

He had the notes handed to him.

I had not. You can come over and see them.

They were written by the same man.

He fought for his country, not like Deputy Davin.

The Minister was very lucky that at the time the ex-Tanaiste went to Switzerland skiing when the Vote for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was being taken and was defeated he did not take the file with him. I should like to impress on the little group over there that they should not imagine that they represent the workers of the country.

That is evident.

That is evident from the size of the group. Fianna Fáil represent the workers.

They got only 100,000 votes.

We made him a Minister, God forgive us.

And the Freemasons.

If you want to see the Freemasons, you should look at your own side of the House.

We know where they are.

It is plain that nobody could elect a Party the size of the Fianna Fáil Party except the workers of the country. The Bill of the ex-Tánaiste was kept dangling before the people for three and a half years like a carrot before a donkey until it got so withered in the finish that it was nearly disappearing after being subjected many times to Deputy McGilligan's axe. I suppose Deputy Norton went begging to the Fine Gael people, saying: "Let me introduce it, anyway, before the election, and we will get a few extra votes." The Labour Party thought they were going to do a great thing by going before the people with the Social Welfare Bill which they had introduced.

You are bringing in this Bill before the election.

Four years before the election.

They challenged Fianna Fáil to vote against it. I am now challenging the Labour Party to vote against this Bill. Deputies talk about the Fianna Fáil social services and yet you have a man like Deputy O'Sullivan defending the action of the Cumann nGaedheal Government in cutting a shilling off the old age pension. As the Minister said, when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government went out the cost of the social services was £3,500,000.

What was the cost of the damage done in the State?

That does not arise.

Cathal Brugha's life was worth it all.

I understood from the Minister that when Fianna Fáil left office the cost was £11,250,000 and the great supporters of social welfare increased it by £1,500,000 during their three and a half years of office, notwithstanding all the "blah" about what they would do.

£2,500,000.

£1,500,000. Examine the Estimates.

During those three and a half years they increased the contributions without giving any benefit whatever, and they collected nearly £1,000,000 of that £1,500,000 by increased contributions. The workers, I am sorry to say, took that lying down and paid the extra contribution without getting a farthing extra benefit —and the members of the Labour Party over there know that very well, and poor Deputy Davin is hanging his head in shame. When you think of the number of workers in the country and how they could be represented by this little section, it is amazing. We can boast of our record——

A bad one.

A good one. We will not say, as Deputy Norton said yesterday, that we have the worst social services in Europe. That was a good boast—after three and a half years of his administration, and after his proposals.

You voted against them.

What he was bringing in was not good enough for us. We were not going to charge 1/7 a week extra. We did not say, like Deputy Norton said when he was Tánaiste, that as the people had spent £44,000,000 on drink and gambling in 1949, and had doubled the 1938 figures, he was sure they would not mind paying the extra 1/7 a week. That was definitely stating that it was the workers who were doing all the drinking and gambling, up to £44,000,000 and that they could well afford the 1/7 —notwithstanding that at that time there were plenty of demands for increased wages and the people could not carry on. I am sure the Labour members are well aware of that.

The present Minister said he would not increase the contributions—we are admitting that—but he has increased them by the very small amount of 5d. That is a saving to the workers in the country of 1/2 per week.

What did he cut out?

He cut out the people over £600-the bank directors and the manager of Guinness and those who would never draw benefits.

He cut out death benefits and left it to the insurance companies.

Deputy Norton added on 1/2 a week to the 6d. a week he charged the workers in 1948. Of course, he wanted to cut down their gambling and drinking, I suppose.

What did the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs state recently?

He was criticised very severely for saying it—by the people who said it last year.

You did not restrain him.

I replied to that publicly in Cork. I replied on the day that Deputy Norton spoke in Cork and he did not reply. I replied about the standstill Order on wages he had in the post office since 1948 until the day before the election.

The day of the election.

I think they announced it the day before.

Giving recognition to the new union in the post office.

When I find a man representing the postal workers going away to Switzerland on the day the Estimate is going through the Dáil and the Government is defeated on it, it shows the interest he has in the postal workers—and I would not blame them for starting a new union.

The Minister's proposal regarding marriage benefit, though it is only £10, is a good one. He said that we had several cases of people who, although they were not able to work after getting married, were going to the unemployment exchanges and stating they were available for work. Indeed, one would find it hard to blame them, after paying for years for stamps and getting no benefit from it. This £10 will compensate them in some way for those stamps, though personally I would wish that the £10 could be increased. Those people, after working for years in factories and elsewhere are entitled to some return for all those payments. Although this is only £10 it will prevent many decent people from coming to public representatives or going to employment exchanges and making what can only be described as a false statement that they are available for work.

It was amazing to find Deputy Larkin being so concerned about the people earning over £600 a year. I am sure everyone will agree that a man with a salary of over £600 would not be in the position very often that he would have to draw unemployment benefit; nor would he think a lot of the sickness benefit, as he would be— or should be—in a position to provide in a better way for himself. It would be a source of revenue to the Minister if he let these people in, as he would not have to give them anything.

As regards hospital treatment, I am sure the Minister is aware that there are only certain hospitals at present coming under the national health scheme. Very often workers have to go into hospitals which are not operating under that scheme. There should be some means by which those people would get at least the amount that would be paid to the voluntary hospital towards the bill in another hospital. We have a lot of cases like that in the City of Cork. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1st April, 1952.
Barr
Roinn