Amendments have been circulated in the name of Senator Hawkins, but I have been obliged to rule these out of order.
Social Welfare (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1955—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I cannot see why we could not include the persons whom my amendment seeks to include in this particular section.
I have ruled on that.
I accept your ruling, Sir, but, at the same time, the proposal, as announced by the Minister, was that this was a provision to compensate people in receipt of State allowances for the increase in the price of tea. I do not want to go over all the things said in this regard, but I think it would be only fair that this concession should be extended to the persons I propose to have incorporated. I should like to hear the Minister explain why it is not possible to give these people this compensation.
This is not a matter for the Minister. It is a question of order. The Chair has ruled that this amendment is not in order. It seeks to impose an extra charge on the Exchequer. For that reason, the amendment was ruled out.
I am quite prepared to accept the Chair's ruling that my amendment would possibly entail more expenditure, but why cannot we spread the expenditure over a greater number of persons?
I do not want to curtail discussion, but I ruled this matter out of order. The Senator is not permitted to pursue this argument any further. This House has no power to do what he suggests it ought to do.
I am sure the Chair will accept that there is no person in this House to whom his ruling would be more acceptable than me. At the same time, I think it is a ruling that curtails all discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I want to raise a point concerning the provision the Bill makes for those people who are non-contributory——
The Chair has ruled on this point. It ruled that it is not in order for this House to extend this section in the manner the Senator requires. The Chair has ruled on that.
I would be the last person in this House——
The Senator understands perfectly well that he is not in order.
At the same time, I should be the last person in this House to question the ruling of the Chair, providing it was in relation to a matter of finance.
The Chair has ruled that the Senator is not in order. There is not any doubt about that. There is no provision or condition in regard to it.
I shall have another opportunity.
I should like to ask a question in regard to the assessment of the amount payable to the widow. Are the children's allowances to be taken into account, as well as the basic allowance to the widow?
Does the Senator mean that they will get a double payment in regard to the allowances?
Yes.
The answer is "no".
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On this stage, I should like to ask just one or two questions. I put down one or two amendments to this Bill to-day and I found that you, Sir, ruled them out of order. I accept that ruling in the spirit in which it was made, but there are one or two questions I should still like to ask. I am sure that the Minister is in a position to answer them. When a decision was made that the provisions of the Bill should apply to persons in receipt of old age pensions, blind pensions and non-contributory pensions, why was a line drawn between those classes and persons who had contributed in their own life savings and in their employment to national health insurance, unemployment insurance and to disability allowances?
On this stage of the Bill, the Senator is only entitled to raise matters that are contained in the Bill. What is not contained in this Bill is not in order for discussion at this stage.
Matters contained in this Bill? I have had, as far as I could as a member of this House, accepted my obligation in circulating to members amendments which I would like to have inserted——
The Chair has ruled on this matter, and has ruled that out of order. Accordingly, it is not in order for the Senator to discuss it.
I accept that, but what I would like to have from the Minister now present is why the terms of this Bill did not apply to those persons.
That is not in order on this stage of the Bill.
Then, apart from that, I would say this, that we should not accept the passing of this Bill here tonight because it does not make provision for the things we would like to make provision for. First, it does not do those things that we on this side of the House have always been prepared to do. We have had here to-day a statement by the Minister that this was one of the first and most important innovations in social security. He questioned then as to whether it was not the greatest contribution ever made by the Government——
The Senator cannot now make a Second Reading speech.
The Senator has a right to reply to the Minister.
The Senator will please resume his seat.
On coercion from the Cathaoirleach.
The Senator will withdraw that statement, or I will be forced to name him.
Senator Hawkins ought to withdraw the statement that he is coerced. The ordinary rules are merely being put into operation. It would be very unpleasant for us to have anything further about this. The Senator is really in favour of the Bill as it stands. There is not much meaning in making a song about it at this stage.
I am giving the Senator an opportunity of withdrawing the statement that he is being coerced by the Chair.
All right.
Question put and agreed to.