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.