The position in relation to the Bill is that we all accepted the general underlying principles of it; the Government, in the first instance, in the light of their overt or covert knowledge, and Deputies, after long consideration of the Bill, on its Second Reading. The principle of the £1 contribution was accepted right up to then. In so far as the £1 contribution was a departure from the 1947 Health Bill— the provision was free with no means test and no £1 contribution—must we not assume, those of us who do not know exactly what has happened, that up to the insertion of this final amendment —No. 20—that the £1 contribution was an acceptable device for the meeting of any objections that might be made on grounds other than medical or political or actuarial or anything else, that is, on ethical or moral grounds? If that is not so, if this £1 contribution was not acceptable, must we then assume that there was no consultation at all with the Hierarchy in relation to this scheme up to the time that the £1 contribution was agreed upon?
May I say that as far as I am concernedI, of course, completely accept —I think most Deputies do—the principle that in matters of social legislation the Hierarchy and the leading members of all the Churches have not only a right but in my view a responsibility to make their views known to the members of their respective Churches in order that they should guide them and help them in trying to keep within the law as it affects them in their particular religions. So, I do not wish it to be thought that I objected or would object to the Minister having any consultations he wishes with the Hierarchy of any Church or the leading members of any Church. All I say is, that this £1 contribution was put before us here as the solution of the problems arising out of the rejection of the 1947 Health Bill, the scheme put forward by the inter-Party Government, and that it does seem very strange that, six years after the 1947 Act came out, it is suggested that this amendment is there in order to meet certain moral objections.
This may not be so. I hope it is not so. If this proposition is being put here, it is a most serious one in my view because, as far as I can see, the terms of this amendment must colour the terms of all future social legislation, health legislation and legislation concerning the aged, the blind, widows and orphans, and so on, for all time to come. A terribly important principle seems to me to be involved in this amendment.
If this amendment is accepted, if it is accepted because the 1947 scheme or the £1 contribution—the £1 contribution particularly—is unacceptable on grounds of moral or ethical considerations, then we who are in political life, public life, must know what is to be our position in relation to all similar schemes at present operated by our public officials, by the medical profession, the nursing profession and by practically every Department of State. The principle of free no means test runs through practically every Department of State; agricultural grants, housing grants, free no means test school education, free no means test children's allowances. Again, we have the free no means test T.B. schemes, free no means testinfectious diseases scheme—most curiously of all—free no means test neo-natal schemes in the City of Dublin, I understand to be extended to Cork and Galway, the scheme under which there is in existence at this very moment in the three major maternity hospitals a mother and infant scheme very similar to the provisions of this particular scheme before the House. The child born from the district in either the Rotunda, the Coombe or the National Maternity Hospital can get a completely free, first-class, right up to the best European standards, no means test neo-natal service.
All those things are there. All those things are facts. All those things are realities. We must, as public men in public life, probably responsible for the making of social legislation in future, know what is to be the position of those people. Are any of them, are all of them, contravening any moral laws or ethical objections which have, apparently, or which may have been suggested to have become involved in this particular Bill in respect of the £1 contribution? Must we now retrace our steps and, in respect of these benefits, these boons, brought over the years by Governments for our people, see a means test restored to every single one of these things in order that we shall comply with moral objections in relation to free no means test mother and infant schemes?
Again, if this is held, we must know the position of our fellow religionists in Great Britain. We must know why no objection was made to the Socialist medical scheme, free, no means test and, I might add, non-contributory. It is a non-contributory scheme. It is commonly held that it is contributory. I went to the trouble of writing to both the Minister of Health in England and Aneurin Bevan and both confirmed that it is not contributory— that scheme from which so many of our Catholic co-religionists in Great Britain benefit. Surely they cannot obtain these benefits if they are morally objectionable. Again, surely our co-religionists in the Six Counties cannot continue to benefit from the free no means test health scheme operated in the Six Counties by the Governmentthere if our Hierarchy believe that such a basic principle is morally objectionable. I am quite certain—all of us are quite certain, I am sure— that none of our leading churchmen, Cardinal D'Alton, the other Bishops in the Six Counties, would accept for the members of their Church in the Six Counties anything which was morally reprehensible or morally objectionable. I do not think any of us would suggest that they would be silent while there was any such contravention.
I would certainly like guidance on all these points. I know they are terribly thorny points, very difficult points and points on which it will be possible to misrepresent me at a later date. Fortunately, I am quite careless about that. I am anxious merely for the facts and I do not mind what it costs myself in the elucidation of these facts.
If this amendment has been inserted in order to comply with the moral objections raised by our Hierarchy, I would like that to be made clear. I should like that that would be made clear. I should like to know, because it is important for us to know what attitude we must take up in relation to this principle concerning all these mothers going for X-rays. As to the other objections which I mentioned, the political objection, the medical objection or any one of these objections, the Taoiseach and his Government have a perfect right to consider these and to insert this amendment and put it through the House. But we must know which is the real reason. It is only then that we will be in a position to make our decision.
If there is no objection from the point of view of the moral law, then are the objections put forward by the Hierarchy objections of personal prejudice? I know I will be fallen on for using the words "political objections of the Hierarchy". I am asking that blunt question because I feel I must make it clear that as a public representative I could not take either the personal objections or the political objections of the Hierarchy as a compelling argument with me, at any rate, for changing social legislation. They have a perfect right both to their personaland political views and so have I. I do not think I am any the worse Catholic for making that suggestion and I feel that neither would the Hierarchy be anxious that they should go on record as trying to impose on this House as a democratic Parliament either their political or personal objections.
This is a particularly serious matter. So far as I am concerned, it affects political development in Ireland for many years to come. It is because of that I am dealing with this terribly dangerous subject and I think it must be cleared up without delay. If the objections are moral objections, I want to know about these other aspects of our social life. If they are not moral objections, but purely personal objections, I want to make my position clear. I say again that every Deputy is perfectly within his right in accepting a dictate of that kind or a position which would be based on the Hierarchy's views in relation to their personal objections. Each Government has a perfect right to do that. This Government has a perfect right to accept their ruling in that regard. But I should like to know the exact grounds upon which it has been found necessary to insert this section. I do not wish to have any misrepresentation of anything. I merely wish that the position shall be completely clarified. If it is accepted, as it was accepted before, that we should introduce amendments to this social legislation, then the departure from that social legislation must be made only on the soundest possible grounds.
It is quite obvious, as I see it anyway, that the whole principle of health legislation, the whole principle of democratic Government to a certain extent is in the melting-pot here. We must accept the responsibility for making legislation, getting, wherever we can obtain it, the advice of our spiritual advisers but, having considered that advice, then I think we are at liberty to accept or reject it where it is other than a definite ruling on the moral law.
I would urge, therefore, on the Ministerthat he should clear up for all of us all the points I have raised. They are points which many people are discussing and I think it is very bad for democratic Government and very bad for our religion and our Hierarchy that matters such as this should be discussed as they are currently being discussed in the country. There may have been no objections whatsoever from the Hierarchy in relation to the moral law. The objections which impelled the Minister to introduce the amendment may be one or other of the objections which I have mentioned. There may have been objections based on medical reasons, political reasons, reasons of taxation, economic reasons, or actuarial reasons. But I think it is up to the Minister to give us a very much more compelling reason than that which he has given up to the present with regard to this payment of £1 because it is not a good reason.
I ask him to reconsider the amendment and to consider these points. How can one discover that 50 per cent., or half the cost of a scheme, will be costly or not? I am sure the Department has given the Minister the best possible estimate it can of the cost, but health schemes have a way of costing a lot. Why is the Minister fixing a figure of 50 per cent., which may be too high? If he is accepting this idea of 50 per cent., it may be too high or too low. Perhaps 5 per cent. might be a more equitable figure. Perhaps 25 per cent. might be nearer to what the Minister had in mind in the past, or 75 per cent. might even be a more equitable figure. I cannot understand how the figure of 50 per cent. could be arrived at. If the reasons were economic, or if the Government fears taxation, then it may be reasonable. That is the only possible reason that I can see. I find it very difficult to understand why we should say 50 per cent., not 51 or 49 per cent. Possibly there may be a perfectly simple explanation or a perfectly reasonable argument which the Minister has, but on the knowledge before me at the moment I could not support it.
I may be wrong, but it would be out of keeping with the record of the Minister for Health. It would be completelyout of keeping with the record of Fianna Fáil in their social legislation in past years if they were to allow monetary considerations to stand in their way. As Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Finance, said in 1950, the scheme would have been a costly one as visualised by Fianna Fáil, because they realised the strength and hope of the nation lay in the children. I do not think Fianna Fáil put a price on the health of their children. I do not think Fine Gael would put a price on the health of the children. Consequently I would like all these points cleared, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I would like to know if the objections are based on any of these other points, if they are based on moral law. If they are, what is the position with regard to these other considerations which I have raised; if they are based on simple political prejudices? If they are based on personal prejudices—which I do not honestly believe—then of course a terribly serious development will have taken place here with regard to democratic government. Of course the implications with relation to Partition cannot be over-emphasised.