Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 1952

Vol. 130 No. 11

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

Mr. Dunne

I listened to a fair amount of this debate last week and to-day. It ranged over a very wide field. Some Deputies, notably Government Deputies, spent a good deal of time talking about the civil war as usual, as if it had any connection with this Bill. Other Deputies showed evidence of going back to Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet if they got a chance. This Bill is a snare and a delusion. It was obvious from its introduction that an effort was being made by the Government to rush it through the House at all costs, and get it out of the way before the Budget was thrust on the people. However, let it be said to the credit of the members of the Opposition, whose ideals are dedicated to democratic principles, that they were concerned with discussing this Bill in all its aspects, and were not going to be made a party to any steam-rolling of legislation for purely party purposes.

I remember the onslaught upon what has come to be known as the Norton Bill, a Bill which was denigrated and abused by the present Minister and those who sit behind him when it was being discussed on the Second Reading last year. As has been pointed out, we had practically every Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party on his feet, saying how little was being done by William Norton on that occasion, how inadequate were the provisions of that Bill and what would be done by Fianna Fáil if they got a chance. How many Deputies of Fianna Fáil have spoken on this Bill? Not half a dozen; I think about four—obviously acting under Party orders as part of the plan to hurry the Bill through, before the bombshell Budget burst on the people.

The present Minister made it one of his chief arguments, when introducing this Bill, that he was only going to ask the workers of this country, that is, the industrial workers, to pay an increased contribution of 5d. per week, as opposed to an increased contribution of 1/7 which was required under the Norton plan, and mind you, at the time, it looked a very plausible kind of argument, that is for those who allowed themselves to be misled by it. The Minister knew, of course, that in order to have this Bill put into operation under the Fianna Fáil policy the workers, nominally, were going to pay an additional 5d. per week, but in reality there was in the background this instrument of oppression that was revealed to us last week, the Budget which was going to make the workers pay, not 1/7 but 10/-, 15/- or £1 per week per family more for this feeble document that we have described as a Social Welfare Bill.

Those of us who listened to some, at least, of the Minister's Second Reading speech, were not impressed by the manner in which he approached this whole subject. It was obvious that he was more concerned with trying to make capital for his Party than with the problem of providing adequate social legislation for the people of this country. It is also obvious that the Minister was not the author of the introductory speech or at least of his Second Reading speech. I have no illusions as to where that speech came from. I have no illusions as to why the Norton provision to provide retirement allowances for workers at 65 was dropped from the Bill. I can place my finger upon the very individual responsible for that, because it is in line with his past history in relation to other services of public bodies, in relation to the treatment of workers in the Dublin County Council who were thrown out on the roads after 40 years' service.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. Dunne

It is a callous thing in my view, to require industrial workers to continue in employment until they are 70 years of age. I think it was Deputy MacBride who referred to the fact that we in this country do not require civil servants to work after they are 65 and do not require certain other public servants to work even until they are 65, but pension them before that. I would like to ask any Deputy here to consider the case of the ordinary worker who is not a civil servant, not even we will say, a white collar worker of any kind—and we know that many classes of white collar workers require retirement pensions at as early an age as any other category of worker—but a manual worker, a farm labourer, a road worker or a builder's labourer in the City of Dublin. How many building trade employers will hold out their hands in welcome to a man offering himself to work for them on a building job after he is 65 years of age?

Mr. Hickey

After he is 60.

Mr. Dunne

Or after he is 60. Anybody who has any conception of hard manual work on a building job should know that once a man passes the halfway house, the midde-age mark, he will find it harder and harder to get employment, until eventually he will get employment no more. Then he becomes a burden, if you like, on his family and a prey to his own thoughts. Very often he goes down in old age feeling unwanted, uncared for and unprovided for: he is a symbol of the tragedy of the carelessness that the State can show towards the people who built it up.

Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he then was, now the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, said that people should be encouraged to work until they are 70. They should be encouraged to work, but he does not suggest starting with civil servants whom he likes so much, some of whom he is prepared to reemploy and to whom he is prepared to pay a higher salary than he receives himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Dunne

I think, Sir, it is very apposite to this Bill, but I bow to your ruling. The vast mass of the people of the country have been urged every day by representatives of industry and politics to work harder and produce more, as if they were not working hard enough. As if the ordinary people of this country were not working hard enough, now they are being told they are going to eat less, because it will not be possible to pay the people because of the impositions of the Budget. The mass of the working people must be encouraged, if you do not mind, to work until they are 70 and the encouragement will take the shape of their being compelled to work until they are 70 or else go to the poorhouse or depend upon the charity of their relatives. Of course, if the mass of the ordinary people were to follow the objurgations of the "Minister of Charm", as he has been described by the English Sunday Express, they should save 10 per cent. of their wages for their old age—10 per cent. of the wages which will not be sufficient to enable them to live owing to the increased cost of living now imposed on us as a result of the Budget.

There was a provision in the social welfare plan devised by Deputy Norton to enable workers to retire at 65 with a pension of 24/- a week and an allowance of 12/- a week for a wife. This was a provision which could be availed of voluntarily by the workers concerned. It is being completely cut out of the Bill now presented to us by the progressive Fianna Fáil Party. We heard that they were supposed to have done a great deal for the advancement of social legislation. However, all of us who have studied the facts and who have any experience of what has gone on in this country over the last 15 or 16 years know the truth. As Deputy Larkin very truly said, the only time Fianna Fáil moved along the road of social progress was when they got pushed along the road and had no other alternative. I feel that the exclusion of the provision enabling workers to retire at 65 is the greatest deficiency in this Bill. It springs, as I say, from the minds of people who have absolutely no conception of the lives of working people or of their problems. What is more, this ideal springs from the minds of those who seem to enjoy the lowly conditions into which people have fallen.

Domestic servants are excluded from the Bill on the pretext that: "Well, sure it is very difficult to get a domestic servant these days." However, I have met domestic servants who could not find employment. Anybody who wants to examine that question will find that there are domestic servants who would benefit greatly by the provisions which were in the Norton Bill for their protection. Even if there were only one domestic servant in Ireland who might benefit by the provision in the Norton Bill, it should have been allowed to stand. However, it has been thrown out of this Bill, as have the retirement allowances. Domestic servants are part of the great mass of people upon whom Fianna Fáil has trampled to power on many occasions. They are an awakening section of the people.

How many people realise what happens in a working-class family when a death occurs in the house? Deputy Cafferky has referred to the matter. It follows a pattern which not alone occurs in the rural villages or the small towns throughout the country but everywhere throughout the State. A death in a family is invariably a shocking and a stunning blow to those concerned and unless they are well-to-do it means a tremendous degree of expense. This expense may be obviated if the parents of the child who dies, or the other members of the family if it is the parents who have died, have taken the precaution to insure over the years with a commercial insurance company against the death of the particular individual concerned. Unless they have taken this precaution they are forced to do either of two things: those who live in rural areas must borrow the money from the local trader or shopkeeper. They need not go to the bank, particularly since this Government came into office. If they did go to the banks they probably would not get collateral, being ordinary people with no rich or influential friends. If they happen to be living in the cities they must go to the moneylenders, the result being that for years and years their families will have to struggle without ever being able to escape from the grip of the moneylender. In my view a very important moral principle is involved with regard to this matter. Why should commercial insurance companies be allowed to make money out of death? Why should any authority in the State be allowed to amass profits out of the grief, the misery and the suffering of the masses of the people? Yet is not that what is going on? We know it is going on. We see the well-paid, well-heeled officials of the insurance companies going around in their fancy cars calling upon their customers and hundreds of thousands of pounds are amassed as a result of that grizzly trade.

In my view, there devolves upon the State the responsibility to see that all its officials, so far as is humanly possible, are treated equally, and the responsibility to see that an act of God in the shape of death should not be a matter for the amassing of profit. It was the idea of the calamitous effect which death had on the working-class family which impelled the Labour Party and Deputy Norton to write into his Bill a clause whereby a family would receive allowances at the time of the death of one of its members. The allowances were to range from £5 to £20, and those of us who have contact with the people know what a boon that would have been. The Fianna Fáil Government and the Minister for Social Welfare cut all that out. The Minister did not consider that it was so essential or, perhaps, it was because he thought had he left it in that the higher contribution would necessarily have been asked of the worker. By leaving it out he felt he would have a better chance of getting away with the bluff which he has placed before the House. On the Second Reading of the Deputy Norton Bill some of us probably listened to the present Minister for Social Welfare making a puerile and feeble effort to attack what was undoubtedly a very fine social proposal. Later in the day, following a hurried meeting of the Party chiefs, the Fianna Fáil plan was hurriedly unveiled. With all due trumpetings it was announced in the following morning's Irish Press.“Sceala Éireann.” Is ceart an focal sin sceala—stories of Ireland, or fairy tales of Ireland. As I say, we remember the promise that was made that there would not be any increase in contributions demanded by Fianna Fáil because these financial wizards, particularly the financial genius who was then Deputy Dr. Ryan, was going to evolve a scheme that would give not merely the benefits of the Norton Bill but much more—and all for nothing. They were not going to increase the contribution at all. Along they come then, in their usual brazen fashion, not content with bluffing the people and misleading them and getting them down, but anxious to kick them while they are down. They come along with the proposal not merely to increase the workers' contribution by 5d., as I have said, but to increase it by anything from 10/- to £1 per week per family, under the monstrous Budget presented by the Minister for Finance last week. That is the tie-up.

We have in this House certain representatives who posture as Independents. God help them. Some of them have made an issue at other times of what they refer to as "the means test". Some of them would have us believe that they were so pure-souled in their idealism that they would die politically before they would vote for a means test. What have we in this Bill but a means test—because anybody earning over a certain figure will be prevented from enjoying any advantage under the Bill? Is that not a means test—or have words lost their meaning? Words can have a different meaning for different people, depending on the kind of mind they have. But to ordinary people who are not as well-versed in the use of words as other people—ordinary, simple people such as myself—words have just one meaning and a means test is a means test no matter what name you call it. In this Bill there is a means test and let nobody try to delude himself that there is not. It is a travesty of the English language to call these Deputies "Independents" unless we can conceive of such a thing as a dependent-Independent, because that is what we have in this House. They are dependent in the very fullest sense of the word—dependent upon the whim of the Leader of the Government as to how long their political future will last. Once the Irish people get a chance, these Independents will be gone with the wind.

Can anybody say that the dropping of the maternity attendance allowances is not a very serious defect in this Bill, that the proposal in the Norton Bill for after-care, and so forth, was not a very good proposal and should have been contained in this Bill? Amongst the working class, with the way the cost of living is going now, even childbirth is a luxury: having children is a luxury. It was proposed in the Norton plan to help working people to try to follow through the Christian concept of large families and to help the people to provide for such families. That is not the position under this Bill. The Minister was not concerned with that consideration. It did not enter his mind. All he wanted was to try to score a few cheap political points against Deputy Norton. He might as well have been idle—because while he was burning the midnight oil along with his adviser, the "Minister of Charm" was simultaneously laying the foundation of the ruination of the Fianna Fáil Party with his Budget.

Representations were made to me, and I am sure to other Deputies, on behalf of that very brave but very unfortunate section of our people—those suffering from poliomyelitis. We have been asked to ask the Minister to do something in this Bill for these people. Anybody who has come into contact with the Association of Polio Victims is aware that that organisation is doing very fine work in bringing back into the channels of ordinary life people who have been stricken by that dread disease—helping them to take up gainful employment and bringing a little sunshine into their lives. There are not, I suppose, a very large number of such victims—that is, those who suffer the after-effects of poliomyelitis—but I recommend consideration of these very deserving people by the Minister on the Committee Stage.

We all remember the heroic speeches about the small farmers which were made last year by Deputy Cogan. We all remember his speeches on the terrible injustice that was being perpetrated on the small farmers because they were not going to be included in the Norton Bill. In an endeavour to meet what was, undoubtedly, a problem, the Labour Party and Deputy Norton evolved a plan of voluntary membership under their scheme for the small farmers. We have not heard one squeak out of Deputy Cogan now about the small farmers—not a single syllable. He just trots into the Lobby and votes for whatever may come, no matter what its colour may be and whether or not it is good for the small farmers. So long as Fianna Fáil puts it forward, it must be voted for. But Deputy Cogan must know that what I am saying is the truth—and if his conscience troubles him he has the remedy.

Mr. O. Flanagan

He would want to have a conscience first.

Mr. Dunne

I do not know whether he will find a confessor who would forgive him the political sins he has committed in this House.

Mr. Cogan

My conscience put Deputy Oliver Flanagan where he is. That is something that the judges failed to do.

Mr. Dunne

I seem to recall that Deputy Flanagan got one of the biggest votes ever got in this country——

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

Mr. Dunne

——when Deputy Cogan was streeling in after Jim Everett.

Mr. O. Flanagan

On Fine Gael votes.

Mr. Davin

It is an historical fact.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dunne must come to the Bill.

Mr. Dunne

I bow to the ruling of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will.

Mr. Dunne

I only want to say that, after all the tumult and the shouting we heard last year, I am disappointed that the down-trodden small farmers are not included in this Bill. I see Deputy Corry has come into the House. How many times have we listened to the mellifluous voice of Deputy Corry on the Adjournment talking about barley and wheat and the devil-knows-what and the wrong that would be done under the previous Bill to the small farmers. Now we hear nothing about the small farmers being excluded from benefit under this Bill. I am afraid that Deputy Corry, like the rest of his colleagues, must bow to the Party Whip and follow along behind, because his political existence depends on it.

Mr. Corry

I do not depend on anyone in this House. I come in here no matter what I have to say.

Mr. Dunne

That is rather interesting, because the people generally believe that were it not for the Leader of the present Government very few of those gentlemen would appear on those benches.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very far from the Bill.

Mr. Dunne

That is because of these disorderly interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has very little sympathy with people who look for interruptions.

Mr. Corry

I have seen ten sitting in his place in my time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry will resume his seat.

Mr. Corry

And Deputy Dunne will not be there the next time. He will be gone, too.

Mr. Dunne

Would you take a bet on that?

Mr. Corry

If I gave you five years here, that would be all you would get.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry will have to restrain himself and Deputy Dunne must keep to the Bill and the amendment.

Mr. Dunne

Almost everything that could have been said about this Bill has been said. I have suffered enough listening to long speeches without wishing to inflict similar suffering upon my colleagues, even upon the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, much as I dislike some of them. It is very disconcerting to see this Bill thrust upon the people in the fraudulent manner in which it has been thrust upon them. Quite clearly it represents the mentality of individuals who are completely out of touch with the ordinary people. Fortunately, it is of little moment, because when we come back very shortly we will bring in a Bill that will put this one completely in the shade.

Mr. Rooney

This Bill is in many respects similar to that introduced by Deputy Norton when he was Minister for Social Welfare. All the good points in the Bill are the points that were in the previous measure but unfortunately many of the good points in that measure have not been included in this one.

We have every reason to be critical of the manner in which the Minister introduced this Bill and we have good reason to be especially critical of the terms in which he introduced it. I think it was a departure from normal practice for the Minister to speak as he did on the introduction of this measure a couple of weeks ago.

It is only right that we should remind the Minister that he was either right last year or right this year. Last year he stated he opposed the Bill introduced by the inter-Party Government because it failed to provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community. It certainly covered more sections of the community than this Bill purports to cover. Speaking on 2nd March, 1951, at column 1092 of Volume 124 of the Official Report, Deputy Dr. Ryan said:—

"I put down this amendment on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in an endeavour to get a better scheme of social insurance, and I think it is the duty of every Party in this House, even though we have to face the scathing remarks of the Minister, to say what they think is the best scheme of social insurance. I am approaching this scheme in that way. The Minister took three years to produce this Bill. He gave it very mature consideration and we may take it that it is, in his opinion, the best that can be produced in the circumstances. It is, in my opinion, as good as can be produced in the circumstances for certain sections but this Party believes that there are certain sections who are not covered by the Bill—at least who were not covered nearly as well yesterday as they are to-day—because the Minister has announced one amelioration for certain sections in the form of old age pensions."

I quote that to show what the Minister's attitude was towards the Bill. He believed there were certain sections, notably the small farmers, which were not included in the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton. Further on he says: "If the Labour and other Deputies are anxious for a good scheme of social welfare, let them listen." He has now spoken. He spoke a few weeks ago. We heard his scheme. Any shortcomings in his scheme are, in the main, the departures from the Norton scheme. They are the Minister's own innovations. At column 1,093 on the same date he said:—

"... When this new Department was set up by the Fianna Fáil Government, it was intended to bring in a comprehensive scheme, so that we are all agreed that a comprehensive scheme is necessary. Let us accept that and go ahead and see what is the best scheme that can be produced."

The Minister now comes in with the skeleton of the Bill that was introduced last year and that passed its Second Reading. The only good points in this Bill are those taken from last year's Bill. But the Minister has introduced his Bill at a time when his colleague, the Minister for Finance, has imposed an extra 10/- per week on the average family because of the increase in the price of tea, the increase in the price of butter, the increase in the price of sugar, and the increase in the price of bread and flour.

Last year the Minister, then Deputy Dr. Ryan, complained that the Bill was not sufficient to offset the rising cost of living. Remember, last year the cost of living had risen by only 3 per cent. during the three years of inter-Party Government. To offset that 3 per cent. increase there were two and, in some cases, three rounds of wage increases. Last year the present Minister said there should be no increases in the charge for stamps either on the workers or on the employers. He said his scheme would be financed completely out of taxation. We did not know what his scheme was until the next day, when we read the newspapers and found a tabular statement showing the then Deputy's scheme and the then Minister's scheme side by side. Both schemes were almost identical, though Fianna Fáil pretended that theirs was a better one. At the end there was a note that the cost of their scheme would not involve any extra charge on stamps.

Now to prove the attitude of the Minister, let me quote from column 1101, Volume 124, of the Debates on 2nd March, 1951:—

"I believe that certain of the schemes should be done through contributions and that certain of them should be done through taxation. In that respect I am not departing very much from what the position is."

Later he said:—

"Although I am not saying that we should do away with the contributory system, we should be clear on the arguments for and against that system, and we should be clear on the arguments for and against taxation."

All the time he harped on the fact that the Norton Bill proposed to ask for increased contributions from employers and workmen. This scheme asks for increased contributions from employers and workers, but last year, when the present Minister was in Opposition, he opposed that idea. Now he has come to the stage when he is giving fewer benefits than were offered last year in the Norton scheme and he is charging increased sums on the stamps of employers and workers. We say, too, that in some respects this scheme is not as good as the one which passed the Second Reading last year. The benefits are not so good for certain classes of people, while several other classes included in the Norton Bill are left out altogether.

I should like also to remind some of the other people who spoke on this matter of the attitude which they adopted last year. We had Deputy Corry wailing and moaning because the small farmers were not included in the scheme last year. This year there is not a word out of him when he finds his own Minister has no scheme at all for the small farmers. It is interesting to recall what Deputy Corry had to say on 5th April of last year as reported at column 199 of Volume 125:—

"I have but one deep regret in this matter and it is that Deputy Flynn has given notice of his intention to withdraw his amendment. I am sorry to see him leave the House now because I should like to put a few figures before him."

Of course they have become very friendly since. They are now brothers-in-arms. I wonder has he any figures to give Deputy Flynn regarding the cost of living for the past year? Deputy Corry went on:—

"There are in Deputy Flynn's constituency in Kerry some 21,000 farmers, if we can call them farmers, living on less than 30 acres per family. The Deputy's amendment says that no provision is made in the Bill for the payment of benefits to small farmers and casual workers who are not included in the Bill as at present constituted. I wonder whether Deputy Flynn considered that the 2/6 promised to the old age pensioners in Kerry, and which he knows as well as I know can be screwed out of the Minister whether this Bill passes or not, is a full justification for throwing overboard these 21,000 farmers who live on less than 30 acres per family in County Kerry. Is the Deputy prepared to do that? That is a question which I should like the Deputy to ask himself before he walks into the Lobby. The total income per family of these men would not be £3 a week and Deputy Flynn knows that as well as I know it."

Then he goes on to say in column 200:—

"The unfortunate fellow who has 15 acres of Kerry bog will wake up on Monday morning and find that if he wants his little plug of tobacco for the week there will be an extra bit on it. To pay for what?"

There is the criticism of Deputy Corry last year on the Bill which passed its Second Reading, because the small farmers were not included, but now we have a Bill that does not mention that section of the community whatsoever, and not alone will they be paying their little bit on the ounce of tobacco for this Bill, but they will be also paying a little bit to the new Minister for Finance.

Then we had Deputy MacEntee speaking on the Bill last year in the following strain:—

"This Bill is a selfish Bill, framed by self-seeking politicians whose mind is fixed on one ulterior object and that object is the purchase of urban political support. The Bill I think has no higher motive than that. It is not concerned with social justice."

Mind you that was a better Bill than this one.

A Deputy

At a higher price.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy MacEntee as he then was went on:—

"If it were, it would not freeze out, as this Bill freezes out from all benefits 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. The self-employed person is usually a person of independent character. He likes to stand on his own two feet and not be beholden to any man for his livelihood, but that great good quality of his leaves him the more vulnerable to ill-fortune and ill-health than any who hold cosy jobs. Yet this Bill does no more for the self-employed person than it does for the working farmer."

There he was criticising the arrangement whereby the working farmer could not participate in the scheme.

He continued:—

"In short, they give much but they get nothing. One half almost of the producers, of the workers of the country, are discriminated against by the provisions of this Bill and they are victimised by it. Will anyone tell me, will the Tánaiste tell me, where is the social justice in that?"

Then Deputy MacEntee continues to criticise his new-found friend, when he said:—

"Deputy Desmond is a newcomer to our public life and I know little about him but Deputy Cowan I do know and when I hear this, shall I say, nuncio of the red pope of the Kremlin getting up in the House as he did last Thursday and belabouring, through column after column of the Dáil Debates, a Catholic priest because he had the audacity to set out the principles upon which proposals such as these now before the House should be judged and in doing this dragging in the Papal Encyclicals, I am reminded of the signal ability with which Satan can quote the Scriptures to suit his own purpose.

But who is this Gamaliel who proposes to teach ethics and sociology to our clergy? He is the man who, a few years ago—a very few years ago —proclaimed the imminent triumph of Communism in Europe."

These are the remarks of Deputy MacEntee last year. His contribution to the debate regarding social security——

Mr. Davin

He is behind the door there now. He is too shy to come in.

Dr. Ryan

Who?

Mr. Davin

Your colleague.

Mr. Rooney

Another point was this——

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps there is a photographer outside.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy is not going to make a speech by reading extracts.

Mr. Rooney

I want to point out the attitude that was adopted by the Party opposite to a better Bill last year, one that included better benefits, and a better scale of benefits, than this one.

Mr. Cunningham

For instance?

Mr. Rooney

The Deputy can compare this Bill with the other. I want now to put before the House the attitude of the present Taoiseach towards this all-important matter. I am going to quote from the Irish Press of the 30th May, 1951. He said:—

"They will only talk of the pint"——

He was criticising, of course, the inter-Party Government—

"they will only talk of the pint, but I would remind you that we brought down the price of tea from 4/10 to 2/8 per lb., the price of flour down by 1/- per stone or £1 per sack, and the price of the 4-lb. loaf from 1/1½ down to 1/-."

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely all this is not related to the present Bill? The Deputy is reading extensive extracts. There must be a limit to the amount of extracts that he can read in order to make his statement relevant.

Mr. Rooney

The point I want to make is that this Bill is absolutely inadequate to meet present-day requirements.

An Ceann Comhairle

The extracts the Deputy is reading do not seem to me to be relevant to this measure or to the amendment. There must be some relevance.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Surely the old age pensioner eats bread?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not object to the Deputy pursuing the obvious.

Mr. Davin

Is it not a fact that the increase in taxation on the necessaries of life is going to be used to pay for this Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not reading anything about the present taxation. He is reading a statement supposed to have been made by the Taoiseach in respect of other taxation.

Mr. Rooney

I want to point out that this Bill is abolishing what appear to be decent death benefits for destitute people. Many people abhor the fear of a pauper's funeral and that Bill ensured that such people would be spared that fear. The present Bill has cut out any such provision and the poor people are being left in the position that they are in. There is no kind of insurance against a calamity of that nature at the end of their days. The maternity grant, of course, has been cut very drastically.

Dr. Ryan

By how much?

Mr. Rooney

The Minister knows the scales. I have not the scales here.

Dr. Ryan

I was thinking that.

Mr. Sweetman

Including the attendance allowance.

Mr. Rooney

The old age pensions provision in last year's Bill was read out by the Minister and the other was the extra 2/6 per week that was given——

Mr. Cogan

That was not in the last Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

Any more than the children's allowances in this Bill.

Mr. Rooney

Anyway, it is a complete change of attitude. We remember that, in 1947, the Minister refused to ameliorate the means test which would have meant an extra 2/6 per week for the old age pensioners. At that time the argument was put to the House that the country could not afford it. Yet, when the change of Government took place we were able to find 5/- per week immediately for the old age pensioners. At the same time, we abolished the taxes in respect of stout, cigarettes and cinema seats. Now the position is somewhat the same as it was four years ago. We find that these burdens are to be imposed again. We find that the benefits which may come from increases under this scheme will be more than offset by the drastic increase in the cost of living which is bound to result from the proposals put before the House by the Minister for Finance in his Budget last week.

I was wondering if the Minister could tell us whether it would be possible to have the benefits of this scheme extended to inshore fishermen, a good many of whom would need benefits of this nature? The Minister himself is aware of the hazards which confront inshore fishermen. I was wondering, since he has not provided for them in this Bill, whether it will be possible for him to make that provision. There is provision made for seamen in the Bill, but not for the inshore men.

I was glad to hear of the case made on behalf of polio cases. Those people, who fight the battle of life so well, certainly deserve any kind of help that can be given to them. We have noticed in recent times, particularly across the water, that those people who are only disabled in one respect but who have keen intellects, can be very good typists, clerks, telephone operators and factory workers. We find that many factories in England have schemes under which they take a percentage of these polio cases, and that those people are able to lead, in their own sections, in the matter of applying themselves to their work and as regards their skill and capacity for work.

I should like to see the Minister provide in this Bill something in the nature of a disablement benefit or, perhaps, some kind of an allowance which would enable them to be educated for a trade or craft which would permit them to take their place side by side with the rest of our workers in the factories or at the desks. Those people are quite capable of doing a day's work if they are equipped to do it either in the matter of education or in the matter of employment being made available to them through the various factories or organisations. There is no point in going any further regarding the capacity of these people. Those of us who are familiar with any of them know that if they got the chance at all they are certainly anxious to avail of it.

There was an argument put up last year against this question of retirement pension. The argument was put up strongly that a retirement pension should not be made available. There are certain classes of people all of whom can readily be brought to mind who have to struggle, who live alone and reach the age of 55, 60 or 65 years of age. They have then to retire from active life and try to live, perhaps, with some of their own people. They wish to be independent financially and they would like to have some kind of a little pension coming to them. Many of these people are in employment of a non-pensionable nature and, when it comes to the time when they just cannot carry on any longer, they have to go begging for accommodation and probably for a home with their own family, having been far away from their family all through their working years. Those people are not now being provided for. There will be no retirement pensions for those kind of people who have worked all the years, fought the battle of life and are facing their later years.

I am disappointed to find that no provision has been made for that class of people. I know that many of them were looking forward to such benefits as a retirement pension. The argument was put up that there are many people who reach 65 years of age who would like to continue working, but there are many people who reach that age who are not just able to continue to work, even though they are expected to do so.

Then we have this action of the Minister for Local Government in compulsorily retiring the rate collectors at the age of 65. Theirs is not very hard work. It demands a certain effort from the rate collectors concerned. They must be well able for their job, but certainly they are well able to do it after the age of 65. Yet, as a result of a Government Order a couple of months ago by the Minister for Local Government, when a rate collector reaches the age of 65 years, he is not allowed to continue to work. He is compulsorily retired. He must retire from work and make way for somebody else, even though he wishes to carry on and is well able to do so.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he would consider the introduction of some kind of an amendment which would enable a person to have the option of retiring after 65 years of age instead of fighting on until he reached the age of 70 in order to get the old age pension.

The previous scheme provided for the payment of retirement pensions at 65 for men and for women at the age of 60. That particular part of the Norton Bill has been scrapped altogether. It is disappointing to find the Minister departing completely from the attitude which he adopted last year. All through the years when the inter-Party Government were in office we had Deputy Lemass, every couple of months, pressing Deputy Norton for the introduction of a comprehensive scheme of social security. All he wanted was a comprehensive scheme of social security. The Minister for Social Welfare has now brought in a very skimpy scheme, but we do not hear the Tanaiste, Deputy Lemass, complaining that it is not the comprehensive scheme of social security about which he was so anxious during the years when the inter-Party Government was in office.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not desire to add to the Minister's fatigue. I quite realise that he has patiently listened to the speeches on this Bill coming from the opposite side and even from his own Party. I do not desire to detain the House to any great extent on it. I would just like to remark that the Bill is a Bill which I viewed with very great suspicion. It is a Bill that I had very little admiration for and it is a Bill for which I had no admiration whatever during the past week.

Having listened to the speeches from the present set-up when they were on this side of the House, I was expecting that the moment they occupied the seats of office in this country we were going to have no more poor people. I was given to understand that we would have old age pensioners in a position to live in the height of comfort and end their days in the glory of prosperity. I thought we were going to have no more unemployed and I was expecting that those who would be unemployed would be in receipt of such benefits that they would be equally well off with those who were fortunate enough to occupy good positions in the country.

I would like to remark, Sir, that I view this probably from a rather strange angle. I think that attempting to improve the lot of the unemployed is merely endeavouring to patch up a completely worn-out quilt. Would it not be better and sounder for the Government to devote more of their time and energy towards ensuring that there would be no unemployed whatever to cater for by way of unemployment benefits?

It is the duty of every Government to provide work for all the citizens and for all the able-bodied men and women within the State. It should be the primary concern of the Government, and particularly of the Minister for Social Welfare, to see that there is as little unemployment as possible. We know, however, from our experience of Fianna Fáil when they were the Government that, instead of endeavouring to find work for the unemployed they bent all their energies towards providing free milk, free boots, free beef, free soup, free chops and free everything—in other words, to make complete paupers and beggars out of decent men.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must address himself to the Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is exactly what I am doing, Sir, with all respects. Within this Bill provision is being made for increased benefits for the unemployed. I maintain that there should be no such thing as unemployment if the Government were doing their duty and I do not believe there should be any benefits at all for able-bodied men of any type. I have made that speech in my constituency. It is wrong and it is demoralising. No man wants unemployment benefit, whether small or great. All he wants is work if he can work. It is completely wrong that such attention and consideration should be given to building up allowances which would even tend to encourage unemployment. I know workers who are in receipt of unemployment benefit and who have a miserable existence on that unemployment benefit while there is work all round them waiting to be done. Because of legislation they are compelled to eke out a miserable existence on a few shillings unemployment benefit rather than undertake work which is there to be done.

Do the Minister and the Government not consider it their duty to see that there is no such thing as unemployment benefits and that every able-bodied worker is given full-time employment with a decent wage and a standard of living which would enable him to bring up his family under decent conditions? From the speeches of the present Minister and his colleague, the Tánaiste, I was expecting that that would have happened when they held the reins of office again, but we find that we have been completely disappointed.

This is a Bill presented to this House by the Minister and presented to the Minister by his political adviser. I want to say this when dealing with the Minister, his advisers and his political adviser: that if we ever see the day, which I believe we will soon, that we will have another inter-Party Government, I will support no inter-Party Government unless I have a guarantee that the political adviser to the Minister for Social Welfare goes on the spot.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will get away from his references to political advisers. The Minister is solely responsible for the Bill before the House and any remarks should be addressed to the Minister and not to anybody else.

Dr. Ryan

It is a cowardly thing to attack a civil servant.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Keep it clean.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We are keeping the debate as clean as we possibly can.

Mr. Davin

Only three members of the Fianna Fáil Party out of 69 are present when £6,000,000 of the people's money is at stake.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan on the Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

This is a Bill copied from Deputy Norton's Bill. The only difference is that all the good points in Deputy Norton's Bill are deleted from this Bill—the sections that would really mean something to this country and to its people. The section dealing with death benefits has been deleted. I should like to know what objection Fianna Fáil have to death benefits. I have not heard any satisfactory explanation from the Minister as to that. Does he still want paupers' funerals? Does he still want the mean-looking, unvarnished elm coffin on parade out of the poorhouse? He is too busy concentrating on the high quality oak coffin with the panelled sides for the rich and it is to be the unvarnished, plain elm coffin, the poorhouse coffin, for the poor. As Deputy Dunne pointed out, no greater calamity could befall a family than death.

The angel of death knocks at the door of the rich and of the poor. The only difference is that the rich are better able to bear that heavy cross than the poor. The poor were the primary concern of Deputy Norton and the Labour Party and of the inter-Party Government. We realised what a death in the family meant to them. We were anxious to save them the embarrassment of having to go to the relieving officer in the event of a death and ask for a red ticket so that they might get a 50s. coffin. But because people are unfortunate enough to be poor they must now get a pauper's coffin when they want it. No allowance is provided in this Bill to safeguard people from having to avail of a pauper's coffin and a pauper's grave. The Fianna Fáil Party have even deprived the poor of the sounding of the dead bell in the churches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no reference to that in this Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is the reason I am raising the point. The people should be safeguarded against that. The inter-Party Government saw to these things. But the Minister has failed to respond as a Christian Irishman should as he has deleted that important section from the Bill. The poor have always been the primary concern of the inter-Party Government. The poor should be the concern of everyone who has any heart. Would it not have been more decent to scrap the Bill altogether rather than omit from it the sections which meant everything to the very people who needed this Bill the most, namely, the poor? The poor will grow in numbers every year as long as the present Cogan-Cowan-de Valera set-up remains in office.

I hope and trust that no member of this House, gets a pauper's coffin. I do not believe we will, because we are fortunate enough to belong to the right class. That will save us from that fate, but the same guarantee does not hold good for all our constituents. I wonder how many paupers' funerals are going to take place henceforth in Wexford— the constituency represented by Deputies O'Leary and Corish and by the Minister. If a pauper's funeral takes place in that constituency, people can raise their hats and say: "Thanks to Dr. Ryan, a pauper's funeral is passing." If we were in office there would be a respectable and independent funeral entering that churchyard. I think it is the most disgraceful, disgusting and unchristian act that I have ever experienced during my ten years' membership of this House to delete from this Bill the one section which would be of outstanding advantage to the poorer sections of the community. I hope that the Fianna Fail-Cowan-Cogan-ffrench-O'Carroll set-up will carry full responsibility for every pauper's coffin, for every pauper's grave and for every pauper's funeral which takes place from now on.

All this is bad enough. In fact, it would be difficult for it to be worse, but we have another extraordinary feature in the Bill. The Norton Bill had a provision for retiring allowances for men at 65 and for women at 60. I can recall the gladness and the joy of the tired, weary, old country workers of 66, 67 and 68 years of age who had served their families and their country well. Old age had now crept upon them as it will creep upon everybody without exception.

Is it not lovely to have the feeling of security, which makes you feel young even if you are getting old, in the knowledge that you will not want for anything during old age? We of the inter-Party Government, especially Deputy Norton of the Labour Party, gave the aged people of this country a youthful feeling by guaranteeing them security in their old age. That meant a lot to old people. However, it meant nothing to the Minister for Social Welfare, and it meant nothing to the Fianna Fáil Deputies representing my constituency. It carried no weight with Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll or with Deputy Cogan, who wept about the small farmers, or with Deputy Cowan. That in itself did not even mean anything to Deputy Dr. Browne or to any member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I recall, very shortly after the present Coalition Government taking office, the Minister for Social Welfare speaking in this House in connection with old age pensions. When the question of retiring allowances was raised, he clearly and definitely stated that he considered it improper that there should be retiring allowances at 65 years of age. He said people should be made work at 65. Surely to the Lord, if they are walking around unemployed at 21 and 30 years of age, they can hardly be expected to be able to procure work at 60 or 65. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense, rot, trash and downright bunkum as to say that there is work for people between the ages of 65 and 70 when there are 75,000 able-bodied unemployed young men who cannot get an hour's work at the present time? Yet, the Minister says: "You will have to work between the ages of 65 and 70." I would like Deputy Corry, limited and all as is his intelligence, to tell this House why he is opposed to retiring allowances at 65. I would really love to hear his reason. I would also like if Deputy Dr. Browne would explain to us what he sees wrong in rescuing a man or a woman from the poorhouse when old age comes upon them. I fail to see what is wrong with the idea, and I would like to hear from any member of the Fianna Fáil Party why they object to it.

However, paupers' funerals are about the only thing we could expect from Fianna Fáil. The sad part of the whole thing is this; it is very regretable that some of the very people who are now being deprived of retiring allowances at 65 and who are being guaranteed a pauper's coffin were those who were shouting: "Up Dev, and put back Fianna Fáil." I am really sorry for that, seeing that the only guarantee they now have from Fianna Fáil is a poorhouse coffin and the iron wheels of a union hearse. If they are poor they can be very sure of having a poorhouse coffin and the union hearse. In fact, that is the only guarantee they have from the Fianna Fáil-Cowan-Cogan administration. I believe that they have now reached the stage of having the common sense and the intelligence which they did not display at the last election because they were so gullible.

The widows, the orphans, the blind and the aged are the concern of all of us, and the chief concern of this side of the House. I am not satisfied with the allowances provided under this Bill for these people. I was inclined to view these provisions with disgust prior to last week, but now I view them with horror seeing that the old age pensioner only gets an increase of 1/6 per week. Surely, the old age pensioner drinks tea? Surely he does not want to sit at a black hob and have a dry crust which he will have after July. He wants butter. He will need sugar; so will the widow and the young orphans who are deprived of probably both father and mother and left to the ways of the world and left to an angry Government who guarantee them a life of disaster with poor provision for them. Bread up, tea and sugar up, and butter up. We all know that the majority of the old age pensioners of this country are men and women of the past generation—the fathers and mothers of the present generation and the grandfathers and grandmothers of those who now find the top of their scalp becoming bare.

We must face facts; when we are expected to provide for these people we must do it fully and amply. This Bill does not do that. This Bill does not improve them in the least, because any improvement whatever that should be accomplished by this Bill completely disappears as a result of the conduct of no less a person than the Minister for Finance who recited the De Profundis over the taxpayers of this country last week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing now the Social Welfare Bill. The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing the Budget in the near future.

Mr. O. Flanagan

In view of the fact that the Budget funds are going to provide the funds under discussion to-night, I want to see, with the least possible delay, the Minister for Social Welfare changing his scale of payments under this Bill, because they are of lesser value now than they were this night week; and they will be of less value still the longer that this extraordinary set-up remains in office.

The old age pensioner—and every old age pensioner loves and lives for his Friday pint—now finds that this item is a luxury not for him. He cannot have it. The old age pensioner has got an increase of 1/6, which I consider is an insult and the Fianna Fáil slap in the mouth to the several old age pensioners in this State. They got 1/6 with one hand and the Government took 3/- with the other. As well as taking the 3/- they have said: "No more pipe, no more bottle of stout; stop your smoking; you can forget it after you are 70 years. But," they said, "you can dance all you like, free, no trouble whatever."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to come to the Bill and leave the discussion on the Budget statement.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I want to say that under this Bill the old age pensioner gets more in order to enable him to smoke, to enable him to drink, to enable him to get a small whiskey. He does not want to dance; he can stay at home and he will be quite satisfied with that. He will say: "Leave us what we can get cheaply and take your hands out of the taxpapers' pockets." We are asking the Government to do that but they have not done it. Every old age pensioner, every widow and every orphan is expected to eat less and to save. We are told they are to save, too. Widows, orphans, even the blind, the sick, the invalids, even those with crutches, are expected by the Government and even by the Minister for Social Welfare, according to his speech, to save, to put away one-tenth of their miserable unemployment benefit, of their blind pension, of their widow's pension, of their orphan's allowance: "Put away one-tenth and save that up." They are to tighten their belts and eat less; smoke none and drink none; as I said a moment ago they can dance all they like but they can eat nothing. That is Fianna Fáil's policy. That is what Peadar Cowan has given the people of Dublin. Worse than that—I do not mind if the people of Dublin must suffer—he has inflicted this on the people of Leix-Offaly as well. I thought Deputy Dr. Browne was in the House but he is gone.

Mr. Cunningham

But not forgotten.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Not forgotten and well you know that because if he goes the Minister for Social Welfare will not long have his title and his adviser will be gone 24 hours after him. I want to say this much, that Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll must take responsibility for this extraordinary state of affairs and must take responsibility for giving us this sham, this excuse, this despicable Bill that guarantees nothing but a pauper's burial. That is all I see in this Bill. That is all that is guaranteed in the Bill. Women are to go out and work from 60 until they are 70 and men from 65 until they are 70. We all know that Deputy Cogan wept bitterly and sadly this time 12 months ago because Deputy Norton presented a Bill that left out the small farmer. It was the greatest calamity and the greatest disgrace that ever befell this country, according to Deputy Cogan, that the small farmers should not be included in the legislation. Deputy Cogan had more friends with him on this. He had Deputy Corry, who gave such a display of insincerity as it now has proved itself.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Jack Flynn is up there.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What about him?

Dr. Ryan

He is there, anyway.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If he were not there you would not be there; and Deputy Flynn would want to stay there to keep you there and keep your adviser there——

Dr. Ryan

And he will stay there.

Mr. O. Flanagan

And to keep your Parliamentary Secretary there, because if he goes the goose that lays the golden egg will be gone. The thing is that Deputy Flynn laid four eggs when he laid any-Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll, Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy Cogan and Deputy Cowan.

Dr. Ryan

He laid more than that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You are making that statement now and I hope it goes into the records that "he laid more than that". You are making that statement now. Whatever you have at the back of your mind you have made it, and it is in the records of the House. Have you any other reference to make to Deputy Flynn?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Deputy any reference to make to the Bill?

Mr. O. Flanagan

In this Bill we were to have provision for the small farmer. Surely if the Bill was wrong last year in the eyes of Deputy Martin Corry and in the eyes of Deputy Cogan because the small farmer was not catered for, it is wrong to-day when they are not catered for? What does Deputy Dr. Ryan or the Minister for Social Welfare know of this? What does he see wrong with including the small farmers in his Bill? Why can he not have provision in his Bill for the small farmers or the farmers, say, of under £12 valuation? Why can he not provide for them by way of giving them free hospital treatment?

The Minister for Social Welfare must know, like every Deputy in this House, that the correspondence which comes to Deputies day after day includes letters from small farmers, moaning and groaning sadly and bitterly about the manner in which the hospitals and the medical profession fleece them after an illness. The county managers and the local authorities usually display very little sympathy for those small farmers. They usually send them the writ to pay up at once. I was expecting that provision would have been included in this Bill for every small farmer with a valuation of less than £12. I was expecting that under this Bill they would be provided for so that at least they would have a free hospital bed. There is not even provision for a bed for a small farmer's wife and family in the event of illness.

We expected that the comprehensive scheme of social security that Fianna Fáil promised us would be a scheme whereby every section of the community would be covered. The small farmer is left out under this Bill. On more than one occasion the present Minister for Social Welfare, when he was in opposition, condemned Deputy Norton and the Labour Party and the inter-Party Government because of their failure, as he alleged, to cater for what he termed the poor unfortunate small farmer for whom he had so much sympathy. Let him now demonstrate his sympathy in a practical way by inserting, within the next few weeks, a section in this Bill whereby the small farmers will be given at least free hospital treatment. They could be given free dental treatment and free medical treatment. The Minister can make an arrangement with the local authorities to give small farmers some concessions in their rates in the event of illness. He can help the small farmer in many ways. Is it, however, any wonder that he is not helping the small farmer when his adviser knows sweet damn all about the small farmer? That is why the small farmer does not come under this Bill. The reason why there is no question of consideration for the small farmer is because a city mentality is behind the working of this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, as I have already pointed out, is responsible for the Bill, and the Deputy knows that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is why I am telling him that. I want it to sink in —not just to go in one ear and out the other. I want it to sink in that the Minister is responsible for this deplorable, disgusting and intolerable state of affairs under this Bill.

I remember attending a meeting in a small parish hall in my constituency. It was in the parish of Doonane, not too far from the town of Carlow. The meeting was held in a small hall and it was presided over by the Parish Priest. The T.D.s representing the constituencies of Leix-Offaly and Kilkenny-Carlow were invited. There walked into that little hall no less a person than the present Minister for Agriculture, who was then Deputy Walsh. He was greeted by his constituents and by my constituents in no unfriendly fashion. He sat amongst them and spoke with them and laughed and smiled with them. He listened attentively to everything they had to say until who should walk in but the present Minister for Lands, who was then Deputy Derrig. Deputy Derrig informed us all in that hall that evening that he had motored down from Dublin specially because he was so gravely concerned about the coalminers in Castlecomer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this relevant to the Social Welfare Bill?

Mr. O. Flanagan

Certainly, it has every reference to it. The Deputies for Leix-Offaly and Deputy Derrig and Deputy Walsh, as they then were— now the present Minister for Lands and Minister for Agriculture, respectively—were present. They asked the coalminers of Castlecomer, Rossmore and Wolfhill if there was anything that they could do for them and the coalminers replied: "Yes, we want you to make special provision in your Social Welfare Bill for silicosis, the disease contracted by miners in the coalmines." Deputy Walsh, our present Minister for Agriculture, cried for everyone who ever died from silicosis and Deputy Derrig wept for everyone who was going to contract the disease. They said: "If we are returned to office, silicosis will be a thing of the past. We will have a remedy for silicosis—and the remedy will be a special section in our Social Welfare Bill giving special benefits to coalminers in Castlecomer, Rossmore and Wolfhill who contract the disease. Every miner who is unfortunate enough to have an X-ray which shows silicosis will get special benefits under the Social Welfare Bill." The moment the Social Welfare Bill was circulated, I examined it and searched for the section dealing with silicosis. I am still looking for it. It is not in the Bill. I now challenge the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture to go back to that parish hall and to explain to the coalminers of Castlecomer, Rossmore and Wolfhill why the promise which they gave to these men has not been carried out. I will arrange that, within the next month, another meeting will be held in that parish hall. I will see to it that the present Minister for Lands and the present Minister for Agriculture are invited to that meeting, when they can explain why they failed to provide for miners suffering from silicosis, and why those miners were betrayed by these two Ministers. Poor Deputy Dr. Humphreys escaped all this. At that time, he was in the wilderness. Deputy Walsh and Deputy Derrig, as they then were, made a solemn promise and gave a solemn undertaking in my hearing that if ever they got back into office they would get the Minister for Social Welfare to provide specially for these coalminers. They have not carried out that promise. Hence, they have failed to fulfil the undertaking that they gave to the miners.

Mr. Cogan

Are there witnesses to testify to that?

Mr. O. Flanagan

Yes. I can get them any time at all.

Mr. Cunningham

He will swear that in court.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said all that before.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I hope that the Minister for Social Welfare will now implement the promise which his colleagues, the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture, gave to these miners. I appeal genuinely and sincerely to the Minister to make special provision in this Bill for the sufferers from silicosis.

Captain Cowan

Would you not put it in the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is not in it.

Captain Cowan

Would you not put it in it?

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is the Minister's job, not mine. That is what Deputy Cowan put him there for. It is Deputy Captain Cowan's duty, as a conscientious Deputy, to see that he does it and, if he does not do it, then he should put him out. I appeal on behalf of the coalminers of my constituency to the Minister to make some provision for these people. We have a very limited number of workers in our coalmines. We have those in my constituency and those in Arigna and those in Leitrim. This disease is one peculiar only to coalmining and those who are engaged in it and because the numbers are so few I think special provision should be made for them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I hope and trust the Minister will not lose sight of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I want to express my entire disapproval of the terms of this fake—these few lines masquerading as a Social Welfare Bill, this ghost of a comprehensive scheme. We were told we would get a comprehensive scheme. Where is the comprehensive scheme? When will we have it? When will the dummies behind the Minister talk about it?

Mr. Cunningham

When Deputy Norton gets back.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That may be sooner than you expect. I do not see you challenging Deputy Norton to get back. You are very slow to do it.

Mr. Cunningham

He did not look after your silicosis.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I would like to see you challenging him now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would like to see the Deputy come to the Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I sincerely apologise and I do not blame you if you are inclined to lose your patience. If I were Minister for Social Welfare I would be ashamed to present this Bill as one that in any shape or form deals with the welfare of the people. I would be ashamed of it.

Mr. Cunningham

It must be very bad if you would be ashamed of it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is very bad. It is very far from what we expected. It is very different from what we were given to believe we would have. I can assure the Minister that any time he likes to get the views of the people and the views of the ordinary workers on this "tripe" he can have them any time he wants them.

Mr. Cunningham

The 20th May.

Mr. O. Flanagan

He can have them any time he wishes. The people are disgusted. They are disillusioned and disappointed. This is not the Bill the Minister told us he would bring in. This is a fake that guarantees nothing except the pauper's coffin and a funeral at which even the bell will not toll for the deceased.

Mr. Cunningham

Why not vote against it then?

Mr. Sweetman

Could Deputy Cunningham not give us some assistance about the 20th May? Is the 20th May the date fixed for the election? We hope it is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Dunne

A few words from Deputy Allen would go well.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

To my great surprise——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dunne

What did you say about running away? Come on. Speak up.

Mr. Hickey

They are all too interested in the poor people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

Practically every member on the opposite benches spoke in this debate and I think Deputies might listen now for a while.

General MacEoin

Deputy Cunningham is anxious to intervene.

Mr. Allen

You are getting very sensitive over there.

Mr. Sweetman

They let some cat out of the bag about the 20th May.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

I was accused by many speakers of making a bitter speech when I introduced this Bill. I was accused of being unkind to Deputy Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party. All I did was to outline the history of social welfare, and detail what was done and what was not done during the three years from 1948 to 1951. I can accuse Deputy Norton with a greater degree of accuracy of being unkind when he introduced his Bill in 1951 for he traced the history of social welfare up to 1932, and said nothing about the years between 1932 and 1948. If I wanted to give the full history I could give the performance of Cumann na nGaedheal in the first ten years, the performance of Fianna Fáil in the next 16 years and the performance of the Coalition Government in the last three years. Because I gave the facts I am accused of making a bitter speech. The members of the Labour Party wanted it to be understood that nothing is done here for social welfare except by them. If that is contradicted and facts are produced to prove that it is wrong, then the person who produces those facts is accused of making a bitter speech.

We will leave the bitterness and deal with the points that were raised. Deputies on the Opposition Benches talked about what I left behind me in 1948. I never said I left a scheme. I have said over and over again that I left the material behind me upon which a scheme could be based and that that could be done in a few weeks by any Minister. That was the statement I made over and over again. Why should Deputy Norton get up now and accuse me of claiming that I left a scheme behind and then proceed to spend a quarter of an hour knocking that claim down?

Mr. O'Leary

I heard you saying it myself—that you left a scheme in the Custom House.

Mr. Dunne

You have a bad memory.

Dr. Ryan

Nobody ever heard me say that, neither Deputy O'Leary nor anybody else. I never said I left a scheme. I said I left the material on which a scheme could be built. Deputy MacBride said during the East Donegal by-election that the scheme I left behind me had to be scrapped and that Deputy Norton had to put up another in its place. Later, Deputy Norton said I had no scheme. But Deputy MacBride said it had to be scrapped. That shows the way the Coalition Government talked about schemes.

Mr. MacBride

On a point of order. Would the Minister——

Dr. Ryan

Sit down, Deputy MacBride. God knows, he spoke long enough in this House and he should not make another speech now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a point of order.

Mr. MacBride

I am entitled to submit a point of order to the Chair and the Chair is entitled to listen to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Certainly.

Mr. MacBride

If the Minister alleges I made a certain statement, he should give the reference.

Dr. Ryan

We were speaking from the same platform in Clonmany in the East Donegal by-election and if Deputy MacBride will read the Donegal papers he will see he made that statement and he will also see that I made the same statement as I am making now.

Mr. MacBride

Would the Minister quote the Donegal paper? Would he quote the reference?

Dr. Ryan

It was made on the same day. We spoke off the same platform at the by-election.

Mr. MacBride

I do not remember the statement and if the Minister would refer me to it we could get agreement on it.

Dr. Ryan

It is very hard for the Deputy to remember all the statements he made.

Mr. Rooney

May I quote the Minister's own statement last year at column 1123 in relation to the comprehensive scheme?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is reading the Official Report the whole evening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies might permit the Minister to make his speech.

Captain Cowan

Wexford Deputies at least.

Dr. Ryan

I say I left the full and complete data on which a scheme could be based when I left the Social Welfare Department in the beginning of 1948. I say I did not leave a scrap of paper. If I quoted Deputy Norton when he was giving evidence on oath in reference to the few notes I left, surely to goodness I have a right to come here to contradict that and point out that it was wrong. Because I did that Labour Deputies say that I made a bitter speech. You would think they were all angels.

Mr. Dunne

We do not accept you as an expert.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

You are an expert on photographs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister might be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Davin and many other Deputies said here—Deputy Larkin said it although I do not want to class Deputy Larkin's speech with some of the others because it was a good constructive, very critical speech; at least it was constructive if critical —that when I was talking about what I left behind me, I had never mentioned that matter. Deputy Davin said that I made a speech here on an old age pension motion, which I shall refer to again, on the 22nd October, 1947, and that I did not refer to the comprehensive scheme and that that went to prove that I had no intention of introducing a comprehensive scheme at all. Is it not extraordinary that Deputy Davin could make a speech like that when I now, a few hours after he sits down, can take the volume of the Dáil Debates containing the report of the debate of the 22nd October, 1947, and quote the following from column 824?—I am quoting myself now:—

"I said when I took over this Department that I hoped within 12 months to have a scheme of social services published. I still hope it may be done within the 12 months."

Yet Deputy Davin here this evening, a few hours ago, said bitterly that I had no notion of introducing a scheme in making my speech on the 22nd October, 1947, although I did refer to the scheme there two or three columns from the point at which he was quoting. That is the sort of statement you get from people like Deputy Davin. You cannot rely upon them. After all if we are going to try to improve the social services of this country let us at least base our statements on facts and not on imagination. There is too much imagination in that part of the House. They are living on their imagination since 1950 and they go on living on that imagination, the imagination that they were going to bring in a social security scheme themselves.

Let us deal with the facts in this case and see how far we can get. They talk about how long I was in bringing in this scheme. We are nine months in office and if my claim is correct that I left data behind me in the Department in 1948 on which a scheme could be based, it is not a bad performance to base a scheme on that within nine months and have it put before this House.

Mr. O'Leary

After 17 years.

Dr. Ryan

Nine months I am talking about now. The men who talk about how long I was, are the very men who spent three and a half years in the Coalition Government and did nothing. They missed the tide. They intended to do something, they say, but they did not do it.

Mr. O'Leary

We had only three and a half years, but you had 16 years.

Dr. Ryan

We shall tell you what you did.

Mr. O'Leary

We showed you the way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Leary must cease interrupting.

Dr. Ryan

Then we come to this question of a comprehensive scheme. I said when introducing this Bill that Deputy Norton's scheme was not comprehensive and I said the same thing last year. I should like Deputies in referring to the amendment which I proposed last year to quote the words used in that particular amendment. Deputy Rooney in his long series of quotations referred to it. In the amendment which I moved to Deputy Norton's Bill I asked the Dáil not to give it a Second Reading because "it does not provide a comprehensive or balanced scheme covering the needs of all sections of the community." I am going to show Deputies on this side as well as on that side—because I am afraid Deputies on that side do not want to be shown—that so far as this scheme is concerned, we have carried out our intentions and that so far as Deputy Norton's scheme was concerned last year, it did not cover other sections of the community in any way. I want to make it clear again that I pointed out in that speech that you cannot bring the self-employed into a contributory scheme. I pointed out that you cannot collect contributions satisfactorily except from an employer; in fact it would be impossible. Imagine going around collecting contributions from small farmers, fishermen, etc. Therefore, as I pointed out on that occasion, whatever we do for these classes must be done by assistance, not by insurance.

Mr. O'Leary

Home Assistance.

Dr. Ryan

What is more, I pointed out that Deputy Norton's scheme was designed to cover only insurable classes, that is, those who are working for employers and that there was nothing done for the self-employed. There are as many self-employed in this country as there are people working for employers. Deputies on the opposite side got up one after the other; it was a tedious four days, I can tell you, because the speeches varied very little. They were all directed to the point that we objected last year because the scheme was not comprehensive and that we are now doing less. We are not doing less. We pointed out in our amendment last year that there was no provision in the Coalition Bill for old age pensioners. We know how that provision came about. We know that the Coalition Government realised that they were going to be beaten on the Bill because nothing was being done for the small farmers or the rural population and at a Government meeting, they agreed to an amendment of the Bill, which was announced only when Deputy Norton was making his Second Reading speech but when our amendment went in there was nothing about old age pensions in the Bill.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Is it not correct to say that there was some provision for small farmers in the Bill when Deputy Norton made his Second Reading speech?

Dr. Ryan

For employment disability?

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

For other classes.

Mr. Sweetman

Section 68.

Dr. Ryan

You mean about co-operative societies? We shall deal with that later. I am talking about the self-employed—the small farmer, the tradesman, the fisherman and even the small shopkeeper. What I pointed out in my speech was that old age pensions, non-contributory widows' pensions and children's allowances should be improved. Practically every Deputy here produced the Irish Press of the following day's date, giving a summary of the Fianna Fáil proposals. In these proposals they will see that there was provision for increased old age pensions, increased non-contributory widows' pensions and increased children's allowances. These were the things we asked for in moving our amendment and they were the things that the Coalition Government did not provide for in their Bill. We brought in the Old Age Pensions Bill and now we come along and we raise the non-contributory widow's pension in this Bill. That was not done by Deputy Norton; it was not contemplated by Deputy Norton so far as I ever heard. It was not advocated by any single member of the Coalition side of the House on that occasion.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Neither was the cut in the food subsidies.

Dr. Ryan

I listened very patiently for four days to Deputies opposite in this Bill. I had to interrupt a few times; it was hard not to. I want Deputies to listen to the history of this thing now. No member of the Coalition side of the House advocated at that time that the non-contributory widow should get an increased pension. Nobody did.

Mr. O'Leary

Not even Deputy Cowan?

Dr. Ryan

And no member on that side of the House advocated that the children's allowances should be increased. These were things that we mentioned when bringing in our amendment to Deputy Norton's Bill at that time. That is what we outlined in our amendment. If Deputies say that we have not stuck to the idea of our amendment, I say that is wrong. We did stick to it. We have already, as I say, increased old age pensions. We are improving the lot of the old age pensioner in this Bill, too, by raising the means test. We are providing in this Bill for a substantial increase in the non-contributory widow's pension from 10/- to £1 a week. That is something that would be far too big for members of the Labour Party to comprehend.

Mr. O'Leary

1/6 for the old age pensioners.

Dr. Ryan

We will come to that. Deputy Leary need not help me to make my speech. I will not forget any of these things. I say that we are doing something for the self-employed, the small farmer and others by our old age pensions, non-contributory widows' pensions and children's allowances which I should say I mentioned in my Second Reading speech would be brought in at a later stage. That was before it was contemplated doing something in respect of children's allowances in the Budget.

I want Deputies to realise this, that I made it very plain in my speech on that occasion that I did not think contributions could be collected from the self-employed. Deputies should read that speech as an example of the type of speech that should be made from the Opposition Benches. I said to Deputy Norton that, as far as benefits were concerned for the unemployed, the sick and the widow, I thought that under the circumstances, they were all right. Are there any members of the Opposition Benches over there, however they may feel, will ever say that in respect to any Bill from this side of the House? They will always ask for more.

Mr. Sweetman

When you had done that you got your back benchers to go and say exactly the reverse.

Dr. Ryan

None of them did. I defy Deputy Sweetman to quote a responsible statement from any Fianna Fáil speaker at the last election that the benefits for unemployment, sickness or the widows were too low. We all agreed they were high enough because we were a responsible Opposition and we agreed where we could agree. We did not find fault when Deputy Norton brought along his proposals for old age pensions. I said that I agreed that, in the circumstances, nothing better could be done. Then you have these— I do not know whether or not it would be in order to refer to them as moborators—but at any rate, you have these orators like Deputy Flanagan coming in here and thumping the desk and talking about the way the old age pensioners have been treated. Why did his Government not treat them better when they had a chance to do it, the Government that was able to find money without increasing taxation? It should have been able to do a lot of things that we could not do because we cannot find money without increasing taxation. That is our trouble. Deputies ask us: "What did we do for the small farmer?" As I have told you, we did that with regard to the old age pensions, the non-contributory widows' pensions, the children's allowances and so on and, in addition, as far as medium-sized farmers or large farmers are concerned, we have levied a contribution off them for the worker, and that is not going to hit them very hard. I think that Labour Deputies really believe that they did more for social welfare than anybody else. Well, you know that is a very dangerous thing because, if you begin to have a delusion like that, God knows where it will stop.

After all, Deputies should study the figures because that is the only way to settle the matter. The figures are there and anybody can study them. Get the Book of Estimates for 1931 and you will see there that the amount provided was £3,250,000. That was as far as the Party opposite had reached. They had marked time on what the British provided. Then let them go and take up the Book of Estimates for 1948, and they will find that the sum we provided was £11,250,000. In other words, during the time Fianna Fáil were there the amount provided for social welfare went up by £8,000,000. Let Labour say what they like, they cannot deny those figures. Let them go down the country and make speeches to their followers and deceive them, if they like, but if they want to quote the true figures there they are —the amount went up by £8,000,000 during those 16 years. Of course, Labour Deputies say that anything that was done they made us do it. That is the grandest claim in the world for the Labour Party to make: that everything that was good and that was done by Fianna Fáil—I think the same applied in the Coalition time—it was done at the instance of Labour. But when they go along to their followers and when they are asked: "Why did you let Fianna Fáil do something that we do not like?", the answer is: "We could not stop them from doing it", so they can always take it that the good things were done by Labour and the bad things were done in spite of them. Mind you, they said the same about the Coalition when it was there. They said to their followers down the country: "Well, whenever we have the power, we do things well, but of course these other Parties they are not doing the things they should do". That is the grandest attitude at all for any Party to take.

Captain Cowan

It took four of us Independents together to compel them to give the extra 2/6 to the old age pensioners.(Interruptions.)

Dr. Ryan

We all know that is true.(Further interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Forty Deputies have spoken on the Bill——

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

There would be no interruptions but for those Deputies.

An Ceann Comhairle

——and surely the Minister is entitled to speak without interruption.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Even by his own Party?

Dr. Ryan

I will make it as soft for them as I can. Taxation was going up. That is a thing we must keep in mind. It was only right that a certain amount more should be spent on social welfare but here is a point. When I left the office of the Minister for Social Welfare, 18.5 per cent. of the income was spent on social welfare. When Deputy Norton left, 16.5 per cent. was spent so that he was not able to keep up in the race for his Party as against the other Parties of the Coalition. He lost the race and went down.

Mr. O'Leary

There was more work during the last three years than now.

Dr. Ryan

We have to make up for that and we will do it. There is not a Deputy who will deny that he is out for the best possible scheme and anxious to see the best possible thing done for the country. If we are agreed on that, let us base our conclusions on the facts. When Deputy Corish gets up and talks about the 6/7 per week increase, the thing is not right. That is all. The increase in the family allowances of 2/6 for the second child and 1/6 for the others, means that no matter how big the family is it cannot have a higher cost than 3/6 a week as a result of the withdrawal of the food subsidies.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the price of butter?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, let us take butter as an example. Butter will be 3/10. It is now 3/-. Will any Deputy—even Deputy O'Leary—deny that to be a fact? A person gets ½ lb. of butter on the ration. That is 5d.

Mr. O'Leary

He will not be able to buy it.

Dr. Ryan

It is no use appealing to these Deputies to listen to facts. They will interrupt and interject and carry on the same tactics as they carried on down the country. They will even try to deceive members of the Dáil. I do not wonder that they try to deceive their constituents.

Mr. O'Leary

We will give you a run for it again.

Dr. Ryan

Here is an example of the statements made by Deputies in their speeches and which were altogether wrong. Deputy Keyes said—I think other Deputies said more or less the same thing—that the 2/6 extra for the old age pensions in 1947 had to be certified by the home assistance officer. Now, that is not true. As far as I remember, it was in the middle of February, 1947, that I became Minister for Social Welfare—I have already said this on my Second Reading speech but I have to repeat it because there is so much misunderstanding whether deliberate or not I do not know—and by the end of March, that is a period of six weeks, I had a scheme in operation giving a 50 per cent. increase on all social welfare benefits with the exception of rural old age pensioners.

Mr. O'Leary

God help them.

Dr. Ryan

In their case they got 2/6, bringing them up to 12/6. I am just taking facts and let us stick to them. Deputies tried to draw a distinction between benefits conferred in 1947 by an emergency Order and the same benefits conferred by the Coalition Government in a Bill in 1948. As far as the recipient is concerned, he got the same benefits before and after the Bill.

Mr. Kyne

He had not a statutory right to it.

Mr. Rooney

Five shillings increase.

Dr. Ryan

I am talking about the 1948 Bill. He got no insurance benefit, no unemployment benefit and no more sickness benefit as a result of the Bill. The only difference it made was that the Coalition made him pay higher contributions.

Mr. Kyne

Does not the Minister agree that he had no statutory right?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Kyne is becoming extremely legal. He is talking about a statutory right and he is trying to defend Deputy Norton's action of raising the contributions by trying to persuade the poor fellow down the country that he had no statutory right. He had a right.

Mr. Kyne

He had not.

Dr. Ryan

The emergency Order had the same effect as law as far as that goes. Deputy Kyne should ask some of his lawyer friends whether that is right or not.

Mr. Kyne

It could be removed at any time and the Minister knows it as well as I do.

Dr. Ryan

I do. I know it better than the Deputy does.

Mr. Desmond

That is not correct.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Keyes, in his speech, also spoke of the boon the retirement allowance at 65 was to the small farmers, a thing that was not in any Bill. It was not in Deputy Norton's proposed Bill. It is not in this Bill. It was never in a Bill. Yet you have a leading member of the Labour Party talking about the great boon it was to have that retirement allowance for small farmers.

Mr. O'Leary

Why did not you bring it in?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Larkin, when he was speaking, dismissed 16 years of Fianna Fáil by saying that they gave back the 1/- to the old age pensioners which Fine Gael took from them, and then sat down.

Mr. Rooney

Quite right.

Dr. Ryan

He was wrong in both statements. Deputy Rooney thinks he was right but he was not. As a matter of fact, Fine Gael restored the 1/- on the old age pensions because they were beaten in the Dáil on the old age pension resolution. They then got windy and put back the 1/- before we came here at all so that Deputy Larkin was not right. Neither was he right when he said we sat down. It must be remembered—it is terrible to have to remind the House so often—that Fianna Fáil added £8,000,000 to social welfare while the Coalition added only £1,500,000 so that we did not sit down. That was a rhetorical statement of Deputy Larkin's and, I should say, a typical statement of a member of the Coalition group.

Mr. Hickey

I do not wish to interrupt but did not the Minister state that Deputy Norton kept up the same pressure for benefits as the Minister did?

Dr. Ryan

So he did. That is right.

Mr. Hickey

Why go back on it then?

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, I want to make it clear. I even congratulated Deputy Norton on keeping up the same benefits. We will assume that Deputy Hickey is an honest man. I am sure he is. Let him keep that up and tell his constituents in Cork, when he is boasting to them about Deputy Norton, that the Coalition, under Deputy Norton, was just as good as Fianna Fáil in regard to social welfare.

Mr. Hickey

I am sorry I cannot afford to tell them the truth.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy cannot afford to tell the truth, I know that.

Mr. Hickey

I only want to say this. I challenge any member of Fianna Fáil to prove that I made any statement that was not true during the last election.

Dr. Ryan

That would require more research than I have time for.

Mr. Sweetman

I hope it will require no better research than would be necessary to establish the truth of a statement the Minister made in his opening remarks.

Dr. Ryan

There was some dispute about a motion on the 22nd October, 1947. Deputy Sweetman sent for the book and got it. I asked him to read it again but the Deputy would not do it for me. I have no respect for any Deputy that will not read a thing again when he is asked so that one can get to the truth of a particular matter. That is Deputy Sweetman's technique. Silence your opponent and say what you like about him whether it is true or false. That is what Deputy Sweetman did. My point was that I did not accept the motion on the 22nd October, 1947, because it was a motion which no Minister would accept. As a matter of fact, Deputy Norton was Minister for three and a half years and did not accept it, nor would he if he were there for another ten years.

Look at the motion which was so loosely worded by an eminent lawyer, Deputy Costello, and a social welfare worker, if you like, Deputy O'Higgins. Section (a) of that motion was that gratuities paid to a pensioner by members of his or her family whether in cash or in kind should not be counted. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party spent many hours advocating this motion. When I got up I said: "That is already the case." They did not know that. Section (b) was that any benefits received otherwise than in actual cash should not count. They spent hours in advocating that and then I said: "That is already there." Then we come to section (c) that casual moneys earned by the pensioner should not count. I gave this as an example as to why I voted against that. I said: "Take two people over 70 years of age, one a charwoman who works on three days a week in different houses and earns 5/- a day or 15/- a week. That counts as means against her. Then take a member of the Press Gallery who retires and is over 70. He writes an article for which he gets £5 5s. 0d. That would not count against him. He would get the pension all right, but the poor charwoman would not." That is why I voted against it. Deputy Davin never loses an opportunity of quoting the 22nd October, 1947. But Deputy Norton did not bring that into operation when he was Minister and he never would have. That will not prevent Deputy Davin from saying it again. Deputy Davin has come to the stage where he has a set speech against every Minister and nothing will put him off that speech.

Now I come to these things which were left out of the Bill. I mentioned them on the Second Reading. The first is in regard to maternity benefit. I explained that on the Second Reading but Deputies did not take any notice of the explanation. I said that, as far as the insured woman was concerned, we were giving the same benefits as Deputy Norton was giving in his Bill, that is, 24/- a week for six weeks before maternity and six weeks afterwards. The only difference was in regard to the maternity grant, which is £2 at the moment for the wife of an insured man. It was proposed in Deputy Norton's Bill to make it £5. I left it at £2. Why? I explained that I was bringing in, I hoped in the near future, a health scheme and part of that scheme would deal with maternity. I should like to say to the Coalition opposite that I have a Party which will stand by my scheme. I will not have people who will rat on the scheme when it is brought in.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Is the Minister referring to the mother and child scheme?

Dr. Ryan

I am.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I did not hear a word of approval or disapproval of that from the Minister during the election campaign. He did not dare to say a word.

Dr. Ryan

I was asked about domestic workers. I was asked why——(Interruption.)

Captain Cowan

Deputy MacBride and Deputy Corish ran away from it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister on the Bill.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Your present Minister ran away from it.

Dr. Ryan

I was asked why——(Interruption.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary should restrain himself. He is interrupting constantly.

Mr. O'Leary

It is hard to sit here and listen to that fellow.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan is a Deputy as well as Deputy O'Leary and must not be referred to as "that fellow".

Mr. O'Leary

He is a bit of a twister.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

Mr. O'Leary

I will not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then the Deputy must leave the House.

Mr. O'Leary

I refuse to leave the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then I must name Deputy O'Leary for refusing to obey the direction of the Chair.