Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 1952

Vol. 130 No. 11

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

Before the Minister resumes, I would like to raise a point of order. Earlier in the debate, when the Minister was speaking, there was an allegation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare that the Labour Party were responsible for the riots that took place in and around O'Connell Street last Sunday night. I would like to refute emphatically that allegation and ask you, Sir, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw it.

They were responsible.

Fianna Fáil were responsible.

I was there and I heard you speaking and inciting them.

You have not got the guts to appear in public.

There is no point of order. The matter should have been raised by the Deputy when the alleged statement by the Parliamentary Secretary was made. No individual Deputy has been named from what Deputy Corish has said.

May I ask the Head of the Government to make inquiries from his police advisers as to who was there?

The Parliamentary Secretary was safe in Westmeath.

I would like to have a definite ruling from you, Sir. I was not in the House when Deputy O'Leary referred to Deputy Cowan as a "thing"—T H I N G.

Is the Deputy challenging my ruling?

I cannot see that there is anything unparliamentary in that. I would like to take this opportunity——

Is the Deputy challenging my ruling?

I am not challenging your ruling, but I want to take the opportunity of calling Deputy Cowan a dirty rat. That is the only title I will give him.

Deputy Flanagan will leave the House or else withdraw that statement.

I will not withdraw because Deputy Cowan is a dirty rat.

The best judge ever known.

Hear Judge Briscoe.

Deputy Flanagan must leave the House.

Deputy Mac Fheórais rose.

Perhaps Deputy Corish will allow Deputy Flanagan to leave the House?

Certainly, but——

Deputy Flanagan withdrew from the Dáil Chamber.

I have ruled on Deputy Corish's point of order. I am not hearing anything further on that point.

I would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw his remark. I heard him making a most unjustifiable and unworthy remark.

On a point of order. I am afraid that I for one did not hear your ruling on the allegation made by the Parliamentary Secretary.

That is not the fault of the Chair. I am not repeating it. The Minister to resume.

Fianna Fáil started the riot. The Fianna Fáil ward heelers started it. They were sent there to start it.

The Minister for Social Welfare.

On a point of order. I have no desire to prevent the Minister from speaking or to obstruct the passage of the Social Welfare Bill at all. I think that we have displayed this week that we were anxious to facilitate the passage of the Bill——

The Deputy will come to the point of order.

I want to ask you if you did hear the remark and if it is in order in this debate for Deputy Kennedy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, to make such an allegation.

The Chair is not going to give any decisions in vacuo. The Deputy should have drawn my attention to the allegation when the matter occurred. On his own statement no Deputy was mentioned. I have already given that decision. I will not give it again.

I merely want to say that Deputy Kennedy's allegation is a lie.

The Minister for Social Welfare.

On a point of order——

I will listen to no more points of order. Points of order can be raised and can become total obstruction. I am not going to have that.

I do not want to be obstructive, but I want to draw your attention to this fact, that Deputy Briscoe stated he was present at the meeting in O'Connell Street and that I incited the riots. I ask that that statement be withdrawn.

I will not withdraw what is a fact.

It is a lie, a dirty rotten lie.

That is what you say.

You were not there at all. You were probably up in the South Circular Road.

Deputy Briscoe will withdraw the statement against Deputy Dunne, that he incited the riot in O'Connell Street.

Withdraw!

He was not even there.

Deputy Briscoe will withdraw that statement.

I certainly will withdraw it at your request, Sir.

Deputy Dunne will withdraw the statement that Deputy Briscoe has told a lie.

You leave me no alternative, Sir.

Try and be a man.

Is the Deputy withdrawing the statement?

Yes.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais rose.

I will not listen to any further points of order on the matter.

If it is your ruling, Sir, that what Deputy Briscoe said was not in order, surely it is not unreasonable to request that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare should withdraw his allegation?

The Deputy has already been told that he should have raised the matter when the allegation was made.

That is preferential treatment for the Parliamentary Secretary.

I have also indicated to Deputy Mac Fheórais that no particular Deputy was mentioned.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Labour Party broke the windows.

The remark was most specifically made to Deputy Corish. You were not in the Chair, Sir.

Major de Valera

We are like a crowd of kids in school. Let us get on with the business.

A number of Deputies spoke of the position of female domestic employees under the Bill. What I said on Second Reading was that I did not think it was fair to bring that class under unemployment insurance because they would be paying a contribution for a benefit they could never draw. I think it is fairly obvious to any Deputy that there is no female domestic employee who could say at the moment that she was looking for work and could not get it. If she could not say that in truth, she could not draw benefit. That is why they were left out. It is possible that conditions may change and, if they do, that may be changed also, but in the meantime I think it unfair that they should be levied. I was asked by certain Deputies whether that ruling applied to female domestic employees in institutions and hotels. The answer is no. They are in a different position. They have always been treated differently and will be treated differently in this case. They will be fully insured against unemployment.

Some Deputies raised the question of chronic illnesses, such as poliomyelitis. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that in the case of these chronic illnesses, it was a matter to be dealt with by the health scheme and not by social welfare. Deputies know, of course, that those who suffer from tuberculosis at the moment get a certain help to keep them going and it is intended, when the health scheme comes along, to apply that to other diseases.

I come now to the very big question of retirement pensions and I want to reiterate that there is really no very big difference between us. I have approached the matter in a different way from the Coalition, but so far as the person is concerned, at least between 65 and 70, there is no great difference. I do not want to go over all the arguments because in my Second Reading speech I gave a fair amount of time to the arguments against retirement allowances, one of the big arguments being that people are living longer and I was afraid that in years to come it would not be possible for those under 65 to keep those over 65 in idleness, to keep them pensioned. If we started a contributory scheme of that kind, it would be impossible to change it in years to come, because those who had been paying contributions would claim that they had paid for their retirement at 65 and therefore had a right to retire. It is a very big question and a very dangerous line to embark on.

Provision is made in the Bill to ensure that a person will receive sickness benefit, if unable to work from 65 to 70, or if he is able to work but cannot get it, which appears to be the fear of many Deputies, he will continue to draw unemployment benefit without requalifying during those five years. He will get the same amount as was proposed in Deputy Norton's Bill as retirement allowance and in fact he will possibly get more—24/- for himself, 12/- for his wife and, if he has children, 7/- for each child. Under Deputy Norton's scheme, he would not get anything for the children.

There is, of course, a difference of opinion on many aspects of this. For instance, members of the Opposition hold that there was no compulsion in the Norton scheme. Theoretically, there was not, but it must be remembered that if a man loses his employment and gets sick, under the Norton scheme, he must retire because he cannot get sickness benefit and cannot get unemployment benefit. He must take the retiring allowance and cannot get away from it. To that extent, it is compulsory. As I described it in the beginning, the difference between the schemes is that we say we should encourage a man to work and the Coalition say: "No; encourage him to retire." There is not a lot of difference and there is no point in getting "het-up" about it and saying that we are making the poor fellow go on working beyond 65, when we know that most people who are earning a wage would prefer to go on earning rather than retire on 24/-.

You are sacking rate collectors.

I am not responsible for that and that may be changed, too, but is there any reason why we should do a wrong thing here because there is an Order in operation with regard to rate collectors? That is a typical Fine-Gael-Rooney argument. There is nothing in that. Let him think of something else.

Even his colleagues would be ashamed to use it.

Is the Minister leaving that point now?

No; I have not finished. I said that the Government had not closed its mind against retirement allowances, that it was not in the Bill but that if there was a demand, a scheme would be produced. Now, it strikes me this way that if any Deputy opposite were really concerned about retirement allowances and really anxious to see they were brought in, he would not have attacked me the way he did but would have caught on to what I said, that if there is a demand the scheme will be brought in; and he would have tried to do something under that offer. Instead of that, they went off to attack the Bill up and down and all those opposite were more violent against that particular proposition than they need have been. In my opinion, it is a matter that could have been discussed in a sensible way.

That is the way I desired to have it discussed.

Would the Minister say from whom he would expect an indication? Would it be a trade union organisation or a general demand?

I have not thought about that, I must admit to Deputy Corish; but I think we would need to have a genuine indication that people want this provision. I am told—Deputies may not agree—that very many workers do not want this—that is, they do not want to pay for it; I am sure they would all like to take it if they got it for nothing. The workers could be told it would cost so much and they would get certain benefits and they could be asked whether they want it or not. How we are going to determine that, I do not know; but I can assure the Coalition that we will determine it in the best and widest way possible.

It is not sufficient to say, either— this is another matter that has to be considered—that it is a thing the worker has to pay for himself—he and his employer. As we know, the employers in most instances will pass that on, so it is really not much better than taxation; and the workers will pass it on if they are able. There is no such thing as black and white in this, no such thing as a clear-cut argument governing it. We have had the arguments for and against and I say we should not do it unless we are sure of our ground. I want to warn the House that if we once bring it in we cannot go back. It is like one of the things mentioned already, one of the things I was up against, as to whether I could promise the changing over of contributory widows to noncontributory widows. I was up against the position that I was going to put a hardship on people who were paying into this fund in that any person who would have a claim as a widow would still have that claim even in 30 years' time. There would be a claim still there and there is nothing you can do about it. We have to remember when we talk about these matters that in ten or 15 years' time we may find that population over 65 is higher and the population under 65 is lower. Then we cannot go back and it would be putting an intolerable burden on the people below 65. That is why it is necessary to decide in a sensible way now.

Is there to be an opportunity for discussing the last bit before the Bill is passed?

It will come up on the Committee Stage again. I am sure there are clauses where it can be discussed on the Committee Stage. There is clause 60, the clause that was not in this Coalition Bill. Neither was it in the "heads" or "scrap of paper" that was left behind at the end of 1947. There was nothing in the Norton Bill, in fact, that was not in that "scrap of paper" and this was not in it. No one can state, then, that I am taking away a right. The idea is that if any trade union or any employer puts up what they say is a scheme of their own for retirement allowances, death benefits and so on, a scheme of which the Minister approves, he can then contribute to that scheme.

I think we should proceed on those lines for a while. If possible, we should get employers to provide these schemes themselves. We could get trade unions to do it. There are certain trade unions that will occur to anyone as being fairly compact, where there is no possibility of people going into that union or out of it because there is only one union catering for that particular type of worker. Unions like that might draw up a scheme of their own and then get a contribution from the Minister for Social Welfare and give better benefits, naturally, than would be given by a scheme brought in by a Minister. I suggest that is the way we should push that clause and see that it is adopted by as many people as possible. There are Deputies here who talk of vocationalism. There is an opportunity of applying vocationalism in a very practical way.

The next point was the death benefit. There is room for disagreement here, too. From what Deputies said on that side, you would think that the Norton scheme about death benefit was the most important thing in that particular proposal. Every Deputy spoke about it; we heard about the paupers' coffins and all the gruesome things that would occur because that was left out. Why? After all, there is room for disagreement there again. There were two Ministers of the Fine Gael Government—Deputies Morrissey and McGilligan—who argued consistently and strongly against it. I have the files where they made those arguments against that particular provision. Deputy Norton, I admit, was strongly in favour of it and Deputy Norton went ahead with the scheme in spite of these two Ministers. I am mentioning that to show there is a difference of opinion, that men like the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance in the last Government—even though they were not connected with an insurance company—could say there were points against it. I suspect, and I have every right to suspect, that they spoke in glowing terms of the death benefit because they thought they were able to make a personal point against me.

That is not correct.

I dealt with that matter before the Minister introduced the Bill.

There are innocent people over there.

No one could accuse Deputy McGrath of being innocent.

With regard to retirement pensions and death benefit, I stated in the Second Reading speech the big principle that guided me in dividing the social schemes into an insurance scheme for those working with an employer and an assistance scheme for those not working for an employer. It is true that where a scheme was suitable only for the employed person it should be contributory, but where the scheme was suitable and needed by both it should not be contributory because you cannot get contributions from the self-employed. Anyone will agree that the self-employed person— the small farmer, the fisherman, the tradesman working on his own—all need retirement pensions just as well as the ordinary worker. They all need the death benefit just the same. That was one of the reasons that guided me in keeping that out of the insurance scheme under this Bill. Again, I would like to remind Deputies that I offered to bring in a scheme if there was a demand for it. We will leave it at that for the moment.

I was asked about this clause regarding the farmers' co-operatives that I dropped and why I dropped it. It was absolute and pure eye-wash and nothing else. Could any Deputy ever seriously imagine a co-operative society of farmers going in for unemployment benefit? It was too ridiculous to consider. I know that Deputy Norton, in his difficulties, put it in to satisfy some farmers and so that some Deputies in turn could try to hoodwink some people in the country. That was not necessary in my case and I did not put it in.

I do not think it was included in the Bill that they could draw unemployment or disability benefit.

They were specifically excluded.

What can they draw?

The other things in the Bill.

Anyway, I got a lecture from Deputy MacBride on probity in public life.

It was just as well.

This place becomes laughable when that happens, but I think it is an example where probity in public life should be resorted to and we should leave that provision out.

Deputy O'Higgins, who is a very frequent speaker on behalf of Fine Gael, said that the farmers would have every benefit under that scheme. He may have been wrong but I took it that he was speaking authentically with regard to the meaning of that Bill, so I accepted it. I suppose I should not be so simple in accepting the speeches of the Fine Gael members in all cases.

We heard various criticisms and comparisons between what was referred to as the Norton Bill and this Bill, but we never heard a word from a single Deputy in regard to the fact that the contributions were much heavier in the Norton Bill than in this one. It must be kept in mind that when the amendment was put in by me last March, I estimated the cost of this Bill at £4,250,000. Deputy Norton said it was going to cost £10,000,000. So much did he impress the members of his own Government that, a few days afterwards, the Taoiseach of the time went down the country and made a wild statement that the amendment put in by me would cost £10,000,000. That was to frighten off some of the doubtful Independents who were shaky about supporting Deputy Norton's Bill.

I said at the time I was bringing in that amendment that I calculated the cost would be about £4.6 million, including the £4,250,000. I have referred to; £500,000 for children's allowances, which was mentioned at the time; and a few other items. At any rate, even if all those were added, I would be much nearer the mark than Deputy Norton, the Minister for Social Welfare at that time, although he had a Department to advise him and to give him figures. I suspect, however, he did not ask the Department for any figures but thought of a figure and then mentioned it.

Deputy MacBride, as I said, gave us a lecture here to-day on election promises and I suppose many of the gentlemen sitting behind me will hardly believe that. He asserted that I said there would be no increase in contributions and that in fact it went up by 5d. That is true. There were certain changes in the estimate but I think that anybody will admit that when a person in opposition draws up a scheme of that kind he may find when he comes to office that it is not practicable—leaving out the finances; after all we did not baulk at the cost; we only made changes because some of the proposals I had made were not workable. Deputy MacBride, for instance, had a leaflet issued —I keep it carefully amongst my treasures—and proposed in 1948 that there should be a minimum living wage and that sickness benefit should be the same as the minimum living wage. Deputy MacBride had in mind £6 a week and that would be the sickness benefit if Deputy MacBride took office in 1948; in fact, he approved of Deputy Norton's Bill at 24/-. Therefore, there is no use in talking; I do not want to hear lectures from Deputy MacBride about election promises. I could even take them from Fine Gael but not from Deputy MacBride.

Deputy MacBride is certainly not a director of an insurance company.

If Deputy MacBride wants to get personal, we can do that too. Deputy Norton said, after my speech here, that he did not mean the low wage group to include agricultural workers and that they had more than £3 10s. now. That is not true. Many of them are under the £3 10s. at this moment. I think they will all be over the £3 10s. in a week or two; so he was a little bit wrong in his statement. Why did he put it in? I cannot imagine a Minister putting in that unless he had some object. He did not say why he put it in, to quote the Ceann Comhairle, in vacuo. He gave no reason whatever.

He did give a reason on the Second Reading last year. The Minister heard it.

The officials may not have been interpreting his mind properly but that was the impression he gave them in regard to the low wage group. However, it is all over now, but the thing is this, if he allowed that they would come into the high wage group, then of course the contribution of the agricultural labourer would be 3/6 instead of 1/3, which is a terrible difference to a man who is earning about £3 10s. per week, a difference of 2/3. The same applies to the farmer. I would like Deputy Rooney to take a note of that because he talked about farmers to-day. As between the two Bills there is a difference of 2/3 in the contribution, and also for the labourer.

They would get retirement allowances.

Deputy MacBride also said in talking about our broken promises that the farmer under £25 valuation would not have to undergo a means test. We have done that already. We brought in a Bill last August to fix that. Deputy MacBride said we broke an election promise, yet we did that within a month of coming into office.

It was our Bill.

Whatever Bill it was we have it, and the difference is——

Deputy Cowan challenged an election on it.

This Bill will be passed by Fianna Fáil. The others were put on exhibition by the Coalition Government.

Our Bill got further than yours.

Fianna Fáil left a few Bills unfinished in 1948.

The country will be paying your bills for the next 40 years.

If you are there.

I want to go back to an interruption by Deputy MacBride. He said something about an insurance company. What possible interest can an insurance company have in retirement allowances? I cannot see it. I never knew a life insurance company to deal in retirement allowances of that kind and I do not see why they would object to the Government bringing in a scheme of that kind. I imagine if I were looking at that from the point of view of an insurance director I would say it was a good thing because at least they would have a bit of money to pay premiums.

Is it not taking away from insurance companies a substantial portion of their business?

That is slander by innuendo.

It is a fact.

It is slander by innuendo.

There is no innuendo about it. It is a statement of fact.

I admit we would be competing with insurance companies, in providing death benefits, but it is a very small matter. The income, counted in contributions, was calculated to be about £200,000 per year. Life insurance companies in this country collect about £5,000,000 per year and these death benefits would only be a very small part of the total business of Irish companies. In fact, there are two Irish companies, I was connected with one of them, which add more than £200,000 a year to their business, so it is not a matter of any great importance to them. According to the Parties opposite we are being forced to do things, if not by the insurance companies, by the Minister for Finance, and if not by the Minister for Finance by the Central Bank. Therefore, one would be tempted to ask how the Coalition was run. It was evidently run by people from outside making the Government do things all the time, because the Opposition are obsessed with the idea that we are being made do things all the time by other people. I can assure them, however, that we ourselves do our own business.

Deputy Norton brought in contributions in 1948, but I had given the benefits before that. I could have said to Deputy Norton at the time: "The bankers made you do it. They are always making you do it." If I had said that I would know myself that I was nothing but a common liar. If he said "the bankers and the insurance companies made you do it", he would be a common liar. I never knew the bankers to suggest that such and such a commodity should be taxed, or that contributions should be increased. I never heard any such suggestion from them. That is all imagination, as well as being an undesirable allegation.

What about the Central Bank Report? It says so in so many words.

Some of the Deputies here are trying to give the impression to the people outside that the bankers come along to the Government and say: "You must put 3d. on the beer, and you must put 1/- on the income-tax." The bankers do not carry on such a practice, and the person who says they do is just a common liar.

The Central Bank Report says it.

Six out of nine directors of the Central Bank were appointed by the Coalition Government.

We were not dictated to by them, but you are.

A Deputy

Deputy Hickey appointed six of them.

On the question of the death benefits. The fact that I was connected with an insurance company made it harder for me to leave those out. I admit that if I had not displayed a certain amount of moral courage, I would have put them in. However, this is a small matter. I do not care what other Deputies, especially those opposite on my right, have to say about this. It does not influence me in the slightest. In all probability, what they say, they do not think. As long as my friends do not think as they do, I do not mind, and there is no friend of mine who would make such an accusation against me.

I explained to the Minister to-day that I made no personal suggestion that he was profiting by it, but that it was necessary in public matters that things should appear above suspicion as well. I said it was difficult in the Minister's case without removing these benefits because he had an interest——

Some Deputies are more keen on appearance than on reality.

He dismissed me out of the Party for opposing him in the House.

I want to tell Deputy MacBride and others that I am connected with an insurance company which was founded in Frongoch in 1916. We were poor men at that time, but the company has millions to its credit to-day. I am not ashamed of that. Rather am I proud of it. This company has millions at its back, and I am delighted it was built up in the way in which it was.

The Minister should not be so thin-skinned.

Deputy McGrath says that if a person in receipt of sickness benefit wishes to go to hospital, he must go to an approved hospital. I want to inform Deputy McGrath that that was the position up to very, very recently but that it has been changed. It will be possible for those people enjoying health benefits to go to their own hospital and we will make the same contribution.

Does that include an approved home or a nursing home.

Yes, I believe it will include any private home or nursing home.

I presume the Minister is aware of the type of home I have in mind—the one in Wexford?

Any private home will be all right.

The marriage grant was objected to by many speakers. It was said we could have allocated the money set aside for this grant for some more useful purpose. I explained when bringing in this Bill that I did not feel I was conferring any great benefit on a person by means of a marriage grant. That was not the purpose of the grant at all.

I am not so foolish as to think that £10 is going to induce people into matrimony. Surely, that would not have any influence on them. The point about the £10 grant, as I already explained, is this: girls who get married having stamps to their credit have developed the practice of going to the unemployment exchanges and saying they cannot get work, and drawing unemployment benefit until their stamps are exhausted. This practice is dishonest and wrong, and the £10 grant is being offered by way of paying off these girls. We will give them the £10 and say: "That is the end of it. You are finished with benefits." It will be well worth giving this grant so as to put an end to this dishonest practice.

Surely the Minister does not suggest that it is dishonest to apply for and receive unemployment insurance?

They are not genuinely looking for work.

They are signing on as single persons.

In some cases, yes.

But they signed under statutory conditions.

If persons used their eyes, they would see that there is many an occasion on which they are not capable of working.

I must say I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Fine Gael Party. There is nobody who can deny Fine Gael's record with regard to social welfare. When they had complete control of the Government, they did not increase any benefit whatever. When it came to 1932, they had left things as they were in 1922. A statement was made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in 1947. When we were considering bringing in a scheme, they described it as undesirable, and so on. It is surprising to hear the members of that Party now finding fault with our scheme because it appears to them not to go far enough. I did not hear a single Fine Gael Deputy saying that we were going too far. Indeed, I suppose some of them felt that that was so. Nevertheless, they all said we were not going far enough.

It is very difficult, I must say, to understand and to make out what the Fine Gael mind will be on any particular occasion. They are unpredictable. I can understand the Clann na Talmhan attitude, because they will follow Fine Gael wherever they go. The same holds good as regards some of the Independents, and I suppose I can——

What about certain other Independents?

——include the Clann na Poblachta also.

The old age pensioners were a long time on 10/- per week.

They were, I admit, but they were on 9/- per week before 1932.

9/- was 9/- in those days, but what was 10/- worth for a long time?

They were on 10/- for 16 years.

It is very discouraging to a Government and to a Minister to propose a Bill, because, however good the Bill is, it will be opposed by Fine Gael. If they would show a little discrimination, they might encourage Ministers to do their work even better.

I think I mentioned already, in connection with this comprehensive scheme, that you cannot do insurance as against assistance except for those who are employed by an employer because it is the only way the contributions can be collected. I have tried to adhere to the principle where service is needed both by those working for an employer and those who are self-employed but that it should be an assistance scheme such as pensions, children's allowances, and unemployment assistance too, I suppose. The sickness and unemployment schemes are really for those who are working for an employer.

Deputy Dr. Browne asked if I was satisfied with the scheme I brought in. I am not. I do not think you will ever get a Minister for Social Welfare who is absolutely satisfied with the scheme he brings in. I think he would always be inclined to do more, if he could. Therefore, he is doing only what is possible under the circumstances.

There will be certain amendments as a result of the Budget. I think I should mention this to give notice of certain amendments that will be introduced. As you know, I have introduced a Children's Allowances Bill. That will be a separate Bill. However, the increase in the old age pension will be brought in as an amendment to the present Bill and the increase in the case of unemployment assistance will also be brought in. You have already been told that the increase in the old age pensions is 1/6. That is calculated to cover the increased cost arising from the removal of the food subsidies. But I could not give the unemployment assistance rates at the moment. It is a very involved scheme which has to be simplified as well as giving an increase. In any event, the increase will cover the increased cost and in many cases it will go further.

Surely the Minister does not suggest that the increase of 1/6 which his Government have granted to the old age pensioners will compensate them for the removal of the food subsidies?

Yes. Nobody could make a mistake about that because it is so simple. A ½ lb. of butter costs 5d. Two ounces of tea cost 4d. One lb. of sugar costs 2½d. and the bread is 6¼d.—total 1/6.

They ate 13 ounces in 1950.

That was the time of the dual-purpose hen.

Could we not discuss this matter in a proper way?

We could, if Deputy Hickey left the House. He is a most persistent interrupter.

I want to refer now to the increase in social welfare benefits. Let us take the year 1950-51 as the last year of the Coalition régime and compare it with 1953-54 when the new Bill will be in full operation. The difference between the two years will be £9,250,000. In other words, Fianna Fáil, in their first two years in office, will have increased social welfare benefits by £9,250,000.

That is disregarding the provisions of the Norton Bill?

Of course, that never came in.

Then it is no comparison, is it?

It was reported in yesterdays Independent that Deputy Norton said at the G.P.O., on that famous Sunday evening to which we had better not refer again, that the increased benefits would come from workers' contributions. I have often heard Deputy Norton make an extravagant statement but to say that the increased benefits would come from workers' contributions when, in fact, £9,250,000 will be devoted to increased benefits while the workers' contributions will go up by £400,000 is ridiculous. Just compare the difference between the £400,000 increase in workers' contributions and the total amount of £9,250,000 which will be devoted to increased benefits. That is an example of the type of extravagant statement which Deputy Norton makes—and he made that statement outside the G.P.O. last Sunday night. I recommend it as an example of Deputy Norton's veracity and accuracy.

What about the food subsidies?

Whatever may be said about the food subsidies, Deputy Norton said that the workers' contributions would pay entirely for the increased benefits.

On a point of order. May we ask the Minister for the exact quotation in relation to the statement which he has made?

The Deputy will find it in yesterday's Independent.

Is Deputy Desmond running away from it?

I went to the Labour Party paper—the Independent—to get it.

Or the Irish Times— the Freemason Fianna Fáil paper.

Remember 1913——

I am surprised at Deputy Davern.

——when the Independent cried out for the workers' blood.

And a Fianna Fáil régime took the plough and stars flag.

Deputy Norton, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, said:—

"This country is the most backward country in Europe from the point of view of social services."

He further said:—

"That statement cannot be challenged."

and—

"Even those behind the Iron Curtain have schemes incalculably better than we have."

He said that that statement could not be challenged. I challenge it. I say it is not true and I do not know why any Deputy would make such a statement. After all, why should he bring down his own country like that for the sake of a temporary and a small political advantage? In fact, I will go this far and say that, even if it were true, Deputy Norton should try and hide it rather than shout it from the housetops, as he did.

Deputy MacBride in his speech to-day said that one of the arguments used in the Six Counties against union with this part of the country is that there the social services are better than they are here.

Is that not right? Is that not the argument that is used?

I do not see why, even if it were true, we should proclaim it.

We should try to remedy it.

I think it is rather strange that Deputy Norton should make such a statement after three and a half years of office as Minister for Social Welfare. I hope that when I am leaving this position—which Deputy MacBride has prophesied to be in the very near future—I will not have to say that I left the country in the position that it was the worst country in Europe—and that is what Deputy Norton actually said.

Will the Minister give us the quotation now?

It was worse in 1947.

If you look at the Northern Whig of the other day you will see it splashed there.

We are asking for the quotation.

I have referred the Deputy to the Northern Whig.

Deputy Rooney mentioned 1947.

It was worse that time.

I am glad he mentioned that year. In 1947, 18½ per cent. of the revenue was used for social welfare while under Deputy Norton it was down to 16½ per cent. Next year it will be over 20 per cent.

How much is it now?

It is low now because Deputy Norton left it low. Next year it will be over 20 per cent. Now I will give the quotation that was asked for. Deputy Norton said that in regard to the Social Welfare Bill now before the Dáil the Government had also surrendered to the insurance companies—I am glad he is not afraid now to say that outside—and the workers' contributions would have to bear the full cost of the new Bill while the benefits would be less than the benefits provided in his Bill.

What is wrong with that? It is no different from what the Minister said before.

What I said was that under Deputy Norton's Bill, the workers would have had to contribute to the total benefit.

The Minister mentioned a figure.

He did not quote a figure. I mentioned it.

The Minister quoted the Deputy as having quoted a figure.

Deputy Norton said the workers' contributions would have to bear the full cost of the new Bill and I said that—he is an ex-Minister for Social Welfare—he must know what he is talking about and he must know that he is not telling the truth because the benefits when this Bill finally passes into law will be increased by £9,250,000 and the workers' contributions will go up by only £400,000; in other words 3 per cent. and not 100 per cent. will be paid by the workers.

And £6,000,000 on food subsidies.

The Minister stands corrected anyway.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Davern should restrain himself. He is continually and persistently interrupting.

The Belfast News Letter has also quoted Deputy Norton as saying that the Bill was only a shadow of what was required. That will be good news for the people in the North.

I thought the Minister genuinely agreed with that viewpoint?

He did last year.

Does the Minister agree that it is only a shadow of what is required?

It is much less a shadow than when you were there.

There is some little substance in it, anyway. It is not like the Deputy's promises.

Certain Deputies have signified their intention to vote for the amendment. They ought to know what the amendment will cost. In so far as I could have it costed by the experts in my Department, it will cost about £2,500,000 rising to £4,000,000. I presume Deputies are not prepared to knock anything out of the Bill, so that will be another £2,500,000 rising to £4,000,000 from the Exchequer. If any Deputy thinks that it could be done by contributions, he can adopt a ready rule-of-thumb method in calculating the cost: 1d. contribution would come to less than £100,000. It will be seen from that that it is not so easy to finance these things. I do not know how this amendment will be paid for because we know from our experience last week and the discussions on this Bill that the Opposition Deputies want more benefits but are not prepared to provide the moneys to pay for them. They even voted against the income-tax, a relief which would confer a benefit on the workers. They threw that out as well as everything else.

I was very anxious to find out why there is such very strong opposition to this Bill and I was reading through the debates that took place this time last year because Opposition Deputies have been quoting extensively from the speeches made by Fianna Fáil Deputies last year. I admit there was some criticism by us of Deputy Norton's Bill but I think that nearly every Fianna Fáil Deputy who spoke did say that the Bill, as far as it went, was all right though they had fault to find with some particulars in it.

And that is what has been said on this occasion.

We cannot understand why there is such very strong opposition to this Bill and we cannot understand why it should be stated from a public platform at the G.P.O. that the workers will have to pay for this. I do not think it is fair to the workers to tell them these stories. I think they should be told the truth, whatever it may be, and there is no use in the Labour Party adopting these tactics because they will not succeed in deceiving the workers. It is no use trying to pretend that they are the people who are responsible for bringing in social welfare schemes and that nobody else ever does anything. They may as well give up that kind of propaganda and go back to their old tactics: Fianna Fáil did it all right, but we made them do it.

That is what Deputy Captain Cowan said last year.

That is the case now.

This amendment will cost somewhere between £2,500,000 rising to £4,000,000. It will have to be paid for, and the Deputies in the Fine Gael Benches, who so airily vote for things of this kind, should keep in mind that these benefits must be paid for and give us their suggestions as to the way in which they think they should be paid for.

It was given as an excuse for Deputy Norton because he delayed so long in bringing in his social welfare scheme that he had to bring in a Bill to cover old age pensions increases in his first year in office. I must admit that it gives me a certain amount of pride in myself, considering that it took Deputy Norton three and a half years to add £1,500,000 to social welfare, that we in our first year in office can add £9,250,000.

The scheme was ready for you.

I do not know what may be the explanation of the very strong opposition to the Bill unless it is that the Opposition Deputies feel that it will be very bad for them with certain sections of the community to let Fianna Fáil get away with it, as it were. I have been sitting here for practically four days and the Opposition Deputies have taken it out of me. They have shown very strong hostility to this particular measure. We were accused of trying to rush this Bill. We discussed it here for four weary days and we said we could sit this week for the Second Reading. We did not rush it on our side. We were quite prepared to sit two days this week if necessary. We want to give everybody time but, at the same time, we want to get the Second Stage through because we want the Committee Stage after Easter. We must do that in order to have the Bill in operation before July and we must have time for the Committee, Report and Final Stages and for the Seanad to consider it. There has been no rushing and I think it is unfair criticism to say that we tried to rush it.

Every Deputy who spoke wants extra benefits. No Deputy was prepared to tell us where we would find the money to provide these benefits, and they would probably oppose us if we tried to provide the money. They have done that in the past and I am quite sure they would do it again. I have been here for four days with this Bill and I think the Opposition are in a bad mood. They are in a bad humour. They want a holiday. I hope when we resume after Easter they will be in better health and better spirits.

Before you put the question, may I ask the Minister what will happen in the case of a man who dies in England and who has been over there for six, seven, eight or nine years? I have a specific case in mind. Is there any arrangement to cover such a case?

I think the Deputy should leave that for the Committee Stage because we will have a better opportunity of discussing it then.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd April.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 22nd April.
Barr
Roinn