I am quite agreeable. I made no comment on the fact that the Minister was not present, because I assume that he was aware of the debate as a result of some angry comments regarding this scheme made by the Minister and published in the newspapers. I assume, therefore, that the Minister probably did not desire to be present for the discussion or to take part in the discussion, but that, of course, should not interfere with our attitude towards these proposals. As I have already explained at the outset, the motion asks the House to extend a welcome to Dr. Dignan's proposal.
We are entitled to say we like them or do not like them, but we ought not merely to try to dodge the issue as to whether we do or do not like these proposals. As far as I am concerned I am willing to say this: that there are aspects of the scheme published by Dr. Dignan which I think are undesirable and require amendment, but on the whole I am prepared to commit myself to approval of the general principles in the scheme published by Dr. Dignan.
I would draw attention to the fact that Dr. Dignan's scheme was published in the newspapers and in pamphlet form in order that it might be examined and commented on. His Lordship invited examination and comment. He did not ask us to accept this scheme as the last word in regard to social security, and I think the time has arrived when the subject should be examined by people representing different interests and having different points of view, so that public opinion might be formed as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the implications of the Bishop's proposals.
Dr. Dignan himself has commented at length on his own proposals in a publication of the Mount Street Club. Members will recall that the proposals are published in pamphlet form. What I am referring to now is an article published in the magazine of the Mount Street Club over Dr. Dignan's signature, and it is interesting to recall what he means by the term "social security". In the article from which I am quoting he says:
The term ‘social security' explains itself—it is the securing of the families and individuals of the State against the many social ills of to-day —unemployment, low income, sickness, accident, etc. We shall have social security in Ireland when we have a national social and economic plan that will enable every family to have a decent livelihood and, thereby have the material conditions for prosperity and happiness. As families presuppose homes, and, as it is the duty of the father of the family to maintain the home, a social security plan will ensure to every man able and willing to work an income sufficient to support his family as a Christian family in this the 20th century ought to be supported."
That, I think, is the definition of "social security" that prevails in most countries. Many people refer to the expression "social security" as meaning benefits, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit or something of that kind, whereas the Bishop of Clonfert has so very properly pointed out, it means something quite apart. It means, first and foremost, a policy of full employment; secondly, it means employment at proper wages, and thirdly, it means making provision for these incidents of life against which there is no remedy except such as is provided by an insurance scheme, or something equivalent to an insurance scheme. Later in this article to which I have referred Dr. Dignan discusses the basis upon which a scheme of social security can effectively operate in Dublin. At the end of one of his paragraphs he says:
"In short, ‘social security' can be had if there is continuous employment for all and a family income for all; and under a proper ‘planned economy' it is possible in Ireland to have continuous employment for all and to pay all a family wage."
His Lordship may not be an economist, but he has certainly given his authority to a view which is not popular in certain places. I think it is not very popular in the Department of Local Government. I have been reading the speeches of the Minister and some of those associated with him, in which ridicule has been thrown on this expression "full employment," and suggestions are being made in certain quarters that even if it were practicable to secure a policy of full employment, it is undesirable we should do so. There has been a suggestion that the objection is that you cannot have full employment and freedom. The Bishop of Clonfert does not take that view. He says that with a properly planned economy it is possible in Ireland to have continuous employment for all and pay all a family wage. It is worth noting that everybody who proposes a scheme of social security does so against a background of full employment.
It can be admitted at once, and I am going to admit, that if we are to have 60,000 or 70,000 people unemployed reaching as many, over a period of years, of 130,000 in some portions of the year, and if we are going to have some farmers with small incomes and people leaving the country for the harvest and seeking work elsewhere we cannot adopt the scheme proposed by Dr. Dignan, because we cannot afford to pay for the benefits he proposes. We must first and foremost make up our minds that we are going to increase the national income very considerably. We must have greater production, full employment and regular work for a growing community. Therefore, it is not merely a question for the Department of Local Government. It is a question that must be tackled by the Government as a whole, a question of promoting the prosperity of agriculture, securing a high level in industry, securing that there would be proper wages, and that the whole economy would be a complete departure from the practices that obtain here, and that seem to have been set as inevitable some 20 to 25 years ago. If I might refer to the benefits proposed by Dr. Dignan's plan, I will do so merely to enumerate them. The scheme is published in pamphlet form, and is available to every member of the House. I assume that it has been studied by Senators. I draw attention merely to the number of cash benefits that the author considers should be brought under one authority. That is the aspect which will most concern everyone who has experience of insurance and social affairs. Dr. Dignan wants sickness benefits, disability benefits, marriage benefits, retiral benefits, mortality benefits, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions, blind persons' pensions, and children's allowances to be managed from one centre.
Apart from anything else, that is a very valuable proposal. At present we have children's allowances administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the Castle; widows' and orphans' pensions are administered in D'Olier Street, the funds from which they are provided coming from the same source, the National Health Insurance Company stamp. The National Health Insurance service is administered by an independent body set up by Statute as successors to the approved societies. Old age pensions are paid through the Post Office, and so on. Where stamps are used there is a variety of stamps and a variety of service centres administering benefits at very great cost. There can be no doubt, that apart from any inconvenience from the point of view of the recipient, the administration of these funds and benefits would be infinitely improved if all of them could be unified under one authority, and where stamps are employed covered by one stamp. Again, we have a service like workmen's compensation, which is probably the most unsatisfactory of all benefits provided in this State. The workman is insured under a Statute passed by the Oireachtas. If he is injured in an accident he will be entitled to compensation. That seems fair enough at the outset. He is told that if injured by accident he will get compensation, but there is no assurance whatever that he will get compensation, because the employer may not be in a position to pay. The Minister for Agriculture told us a while ago about the great hardship inflicted on an employer who was a defaulter under the Agricultural Wages Board regulation, that if a worker came along claiming five or six years' arrears, something like £300, the only thing would be to hand over the whole place to him.
In this case, if a decree were given against an employer for £300 or £200 he would not have funds to meet the claim. The employer would simply turn the key in the door and walk off. In theory the employer is supposed to pay compensation to a man injured by accident, and in theory the employer should be insured in order to provide a fund with which to meet the claim, but the employer may make this case: why should he provide insurance in order to build a house, when more than 50 per cent. of the profit is used in administration? The employer has a very good defence if he says: "I will not insure in order to give fabulous profits to such concerns?" Dr. Dignan's scheme will provide for workmen's compensation.
There is another aspect of the proposal which I think is important—the great anxiety to get rid of the dispensary system and to substitute for it a scheme of national health services. That is one proposal I approve of very warmly.
I want to draw attention to the fact that those who have spoken on behalf of the Government in regard to this proposal have carefully avoided giving any indication of what is involved by Dr. Dignan's scheme or what it is going to cost. I do not know why they are so shy on that subject because I notice that, in his Budget speech, the Minister for Finance dealt at considerable length with a plan which has been proposed in Great Britain, called the Beveridge scheme. I refer Senators to column 39, Dáil Debates, 2nd May, this year. The Minister for Finance, at column 39, reviewed the social services maintained by the Government and gave us an estimate of their cost. He said: "It may not be out of place to mention that the social services proper, account, in our Estimates for expenditure for the coming year, for an outlay of no less than £9,686,000". After reviewing the situation, he prefaced his review of Sir William Beveridge's scheme with the remark: "Social services, social security, full employment and allied topics occupy a prominent place in public discussion just now and alluring vistas are held out of communities freed from want and disease and, almost, from toil". That gives us the approach of the Department of Finance —the sneer, if I may say so, at those who tried to visualise a community freed from want, with the suggestion that that means free from toil.
