Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1936

Vol. 64 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - The Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 and 1935—Motion.

I beg to move the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of this Party:

Having regard to the wholly inadequate rates of benefit originally provided for unemployed persons under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, and to the fact that during the last two years the retail prices of commodities normally used in working-class homes have been raised substantially, this House requests the Executive Council to introduce proposals for amending the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 and 1935, with a view to providing from State funds adequate maintenance for all persons unable to obtain remunerative employment.

The object of this motion is to bring to the notice of the House the inadequate rates of benefit which are provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act, and to direct the attention of the House to the fact that, whatever value these rates had from the standpoint of their purchasing power in 1933, that purchasing power has since shrunken by reason of the increase in the cost of living in the meantime. At the same time, the object of the motion is to ask the House, in view of these considerations, which make a human appeal to Deputies of all Parties, that the Executive Council should be requested to introduce amending legislation so as to raise substantially the present utterly inadequate rates of benefit provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts.

When the Unemployment Assistance Act was passing through the House in 1933, we then complained that the rates of benefit provided under it were utterly inadequate, but if these rates were inadequate to the circumstances of 1933, and inadequate having regard to the cost of living datum line in 1933, they are still more inadequate now. In 1933, when passing the main Act, the House fixed certain maximum rates of benefit, varying in county boroughs from 9/- per week, payable to a man with no dependents, to a maximum of 20/- per week to a man with a wife and five dependent children. In urban towns the rates for the same classes varied from 7/- per week to 15/- per week, and in other areas, which included rural areas and large-sized towns, towns with a population of 6,900, for instance, the rates of benefit for the same classes varied from 6/- per week to 12/6 per week. At that time it was possible, under the terms of the Act as then passed by the Oireachtas, to have the first 2/- of means excluded in the calculation of the claimant's right to get the rates of benefit which I have just quoted. Since then, for economy reasons, the Government have introduced an Amending Act, the purpose of which was to save money to the Exchequer. That was done by the simple expedient of disregarding not 2/-, but only 1/-, which meant, in effect, a substantial reduction, so far as the claimants were concerned, in the scales of benefit which they were then receiving. However, a combination of that latter factor, of certain portions of the means being excluded, with the maximum rates of benefit which I have quoted, gives the House some picture of the State's benevolence as conceived by the Legislature in 1933.

When we passed this Act in that year the cost-of-living index figure, as ascertained by the Department of Industry and Commerce, showed that the food index figure was 129, an increase of 29 points on the datum line of 100 which was taken as the basis of calculation for July, 1934. In August, 1936, three years afterwards, the last month for which figures in respect of the cost-of-living index figure are available, we find that the food index had risen from 129 to 145, an increase in food prices alone of 12½ per cent. In that respect one has got to bear in mind that the extent of the increase does not give even an adequate picture of the real increase, because the cost-of-living index figure is measured by standards so rigid that it is not possible to import into it a calculation of the fluctuations in that figure of the precise circumstances in respect of each individual family. But, at all events, assuming that in 1933 we regarded the maximum benefits of 20/-, 17/- and 12/6 as something that ought to be paid, having regard to the living standards of that time, I think that we are now, as a matter of the merest equity, entitled to say that these figures have lost their purchasing power considerably since they were introduced in that year, and that the least the State ought to recognise is that these rates of benefit ought to be adjusted to the extent that their purchasing power has shrunk in recent years.

But, as I have said, the cost-of-living index figure cannot be regarded as a true index of the standard of living in working-class homes, nor can it give a proper picture of the effect of rises in the cost of living in respect of particular commodities in the homes of unemployed members of the community. In the case of an unemployed man there are certain staple articles of diet upon which he is obliged to depend in very large measure. He is not able to consume, by reason of his impoverished economic condition, the wide range of commodities which enter into the compilation of the cost-of-living index figure. He is obliged to discard, because of his economic circumstances, many of the commodities which are used to test price movements, and instead is thrown back on certain articles of food which, in main, can be bought by him at lesser prices than those at which other articles can be purchased. Thus, we find that in the case of an unemployed man there are certain articles, such as flour, bread, butter and coal, which necessarily absorb the greatest portion of his income, and it is on these articles that the bulk of his income is spent, not merely because these articles are essential, but because in his economic condition they are regarded as staple articles of food for his family.

If we look at the fluctuations in the prices of these articles since the House passed the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1933, we get a picture which shows that, far from the cost-of-living index figure for food having risen only by 12½ per cent., the actual increase, particularly in respect of these commodities, is substantially higher than that revealed by an examination of the official cost-of-living index figure. Take, for example, flour. In August, 1933, household flour could be purchased at 28/- or 29/- a sack. The present price of flour is approximately 40/-. The price of flour, therefore, has increased by 12/- a sack since the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed. That represents an increase of 38 per cent. in the price of flour in the three years 1933-1936. To the extent that flour is a staple article of food in the domestic budget of an unemployed man, he is paying a substantial portion of his income away in purchasing a commodity that has increased much beyond the level of the ordinary articles which comprise the cost-of-living index figure. If we take bread, another staple article of food in the working-class budget, we find that in 1933 the value of the 4lb.-loaf was approximately 7½d. Now we have an Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixing the price of the same loaf at 9½d. That is an increase of 2d. between 1933 and 1936. In that case we find the cost of bread to the unemployed man, and to the employed man as well, has increased by 27 per cent. as compared with the figure ruling when the House passed the Unemployment Assistance Act in 1933.

In respect of coal, the price in 1933 was approximately 35/- a ton for a consumable quality of household coal. The price to-day is approximately 45/-, an increase of 28 per cent. as compared with the figure obtaining in 1933. Take, then, flour, bread and coal—three important articles in the budget of the working-class family, and particularly important in the budget of an unemployed man's family. We find that the cost of these commodities has risen from 27 per cent. over the 1933 figure in the case of bread, to 38 per cent. over the 1933 figure in the case of flour. If we go over some other articles which are normally consumed in working-class homes, although some of them may now seem to be a luxury in the home of an unemployed man, having regard to the price and the low rates of benefit provided, we find that sugar shows an increase over the 1933 figure, that tea shows an increase, that milk shows an increase and that bacon and butter show an increase; so that, in respect of that important range of articles of food which plays an important part in the domestic economy of working-class homes, we find there have been substantial increases in the price of all these staple articles to-day as compared with the position when the House passed the Act three years ago.

In the face of this incontrovertible evidence of a substantial increase in the cost of living, and in face of the fact that that increase must necessarily mean considerable suffering, considerable pinching, considerable belt-tightening in the homes of unemployed people, I think the House will readily realise that there is a substantial case for increasing the rates of benefit provided in the 1933 Act. But the House could usefully employ a few minutes of its time considering whether—seeing the State accepts responsibility for providing work or maintenance, or at least that spokesmen on behalf of the Government Party have claimed that the State does now accept responsibility for providing work or maintenance—the scales of maintenance provided are such as are sufficient to maintain unemployed people in a state of bodily efficiency, even though a strong case could be made for every human being enjoying a standard of physical comfort much above that which is necessary to maintain one in mere physical health.

The present scales of unemployment assistance condemn a man in Dublin to try to maintain himself, his wife and five children on an income of 20/-. If the man happens to live in the town of Naas or in the town of Athy he is expected to keep himself, his wife and five children on a maximum benefit of 12/6 a week. If the Minister were to examine the figures relating to the percentage of persons who receive the maximum rates of benefit, he would find that considerable numbers of people fail to obtain the maximum rates because of the particularly stringent regulations which have been devised for measuring income, regulations which place a fantastic valuation on the most trivial form of income or property. I have said that these maximum rates vary from 12/6 to 20/- a week. If the State claims that these rates of benefit are adequate, then the State ought to be prepared to show those who are the recipients how it is possible for them, on such low scales, to maintain a healthy physical existence.

In 1933 a very responsible body, the British Medical Association, without any political bias, without any social bias, and concerned in the matter purely from the standpoint of physical well-being, set up a committee to examine the cost of providing food for the working classes so as barely to maintain health. The committee consisted of very eminent people in the medical profession and, after a most microscopic and impartial examination of the needs of a working-class man and his family, they issued a report and in that report, which was subscribed to by very eminent people, it was declared that the minimum cost of food to maintain that type of family in the minimum state of health was 5/10½ a week in respect of an adult man, 4/11 a week in the case of an adult woman; in the case of a child of 12 the committee reported that 5/4 a week was necessary; in the case of a child of nine that 4/2 was necessary and in the case of a child of six that 3/4½ was necessary.

When one examines the combined cost of maintaining a man, his wife and three children on frugal fare, designed only to provide physical health, one finds that £1 3s. 8d. is necessary. That was in 1933 in Great Britain, where the cost-of-living index figure is lower than here and where resort to substitute foods is easier than it is here. We have a responsible organisation such as the British Medical Association declaring, with the reputation of the many eminent people who comprise the committee and the association, that it was necessary for two adults and three children to have £1 3s. 8d. per week spent on food, in order barely to maintain them in health. If that were the figure for 1933 in Britain or here, it must inevitably be revised in an upward direction by reason of the change in the cost-of-living index figures which has taken place in the meantime. If this association found that that expenditure was necessary to purchase the minimum quantity of food to maintain health for a working-class family in Great Britain in 1933, one may be sure, by a comparison of the index figures in both countries and by such experience as one may have of both countries, that it would have required a greater expenditure of money to provide the same articles of food here.

If we assume, however, for the sake of convenience, that what applied there in the matter of purchasing power applies equally here, we get a picture from a responsible organisation such as that that the minimum expenditure on food for a working-class family in 1933, consisting of a man, his wife and three children, was £1 3s. 8d., and we get some picture of how inadequate the present unemployment assistance rates are. Then, when we have finished reflecting on the big discrepancy between the rates of benefit provided here and the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of health as ascertained by the British Medical Association, we must remember that that estimate of expenditure was in respect of food alone. Working-class families must pay rent; they must buy clothes; they must buy fuel; they must obtain light; there are school books to be paid for; there is medicine to be purchased from time to time; recreation has to be obtained, to say nothing whatever of the necessity of occasionally renewing articles of furniture and domestic utensils. If we make allowance for items of expenditure under these heads, particularly in respect of rent, clothing, fuel and light, I should think the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of health and a minimum standard of comfort would be not less than 45/- a week, but here, under our Unemployment Assistance Act, workers are expected to be able to exist and to obtain those articles which are necessary for human existance on scales of benefit which would not purchase a fraction of the necessaries of life.

We offer to the family, which the British Medical Association said would require £1 3s. 8d., 17/6 in Dublin; in an urban town with a population of 7,000 or over, 13/6, and in towns with a population of less than 7,000, 12/-per week. A body of eminent medical men prescribed as necessary the expenditure of 23/8 on food to maintain a minimum standard of health, and our reply to that is to offer 12/-to the same family to purchase, not only food, but to pay rent and buy clothes, fuel, light and the other necessaries of life which will readily occur to the minds of Deputies. I cannot imagine on what possible standard the Government can justify the continuance of these low rates of benefit, and can seek to defend these rates as capable of providing a reasonable standard of life for working-class families.

If we look at official records, it will be found that the cost of maintaining a person in a hospital, that is, the cost of providing provisions and such other ancillary things as one might receive in a hospital, varies from 6/-per week in County Waterford to 11/1 per week in County Meath. If one were to assume that, perhaps, there might be a little luxury provided for a patient in a hospital, and that that standard could not be accepted as something approaching the normal standard of a working-class family, we can move on to the county homes, where, I think, everybody will agree a standard of luxury is not very much in evidence. Taking the rates which are necessary for the maintenance of persons in county homes, we find that they vary from 4/2 per week in Waterford to 6/3 in Cavan, so that even though hospitals might buy food in large quantities and receive specially low tenders from contractors in order to obtain contracts, and even though county homes can purchase foodstuffs in the same way, whether you judge it on the basis of maintenance in a hospital or in a county home, the expenditure on the supply of provisions varies from 6/- to 11/1 per week in the case of hospitals, to from 4/2 to 6/3 in the case of county homes.

I doubt if the Minister will attempt to say that there is any extravagance in the provision of food in county homes. If we take it that the county home standard, appallingly low though that is, is a standard by which we can test the cost of maintaining bodily health—and the figures, let me say, bear a striking resemblance to the figures published by the British Medical Association — we find that even that standard is much above the standards made available to unemployed people under the Unemployment Assistance Act. For instance, in Cavan, where it costs 6/3 per week to provide food for patients in county homes—two adults costing 12/6 per week, and that expenditure is purely in respect of foodstuffs supplied to the patient—if there were a family consisting of two adults and three children, and the breadwinner was unemployed, he would be expected to provide food and clothing, pay rent, purchase fuel and obtain light, for himself, his wife and his three children for seven days each week for the sum of 12/6 per week. The State recognises the necessity for the expenditure of 12/6 per week to maintain two adults in the county home, and it expects a family consisting of a man, his wife and three children, to purchase the same foodstuffs—because the State dare not expect them to purchase less—and to provide food, clothing and shelter on the same insignificant sum of 12/6. There is the addition that three children must be provided for out of the 12/6 received in the form of unemployment assistance.

I say that comparisons of that kind, and the day-to-day experience of Deputies, their day-to-day and week-to week contact with unemployed persons, must convince the House, if the House were free to express its mind freely on this matter, that there is an urgent need for an upward revision of the present rates of unemployment assistance benefit. The plight of those who are endeavouring to exist on these inadequate scales is appalling. Any Deputy who has any contact with the unfortunate people who are trying to maintain themselves on these inadequate rates of benefit knows only too well the harrowing stories which they tell, stories which reveal that they are unable to purchase the barest necessities of life on the inadequate pittance which the State makes available for them. I think many Deputies are familiar with the complaints made by recipients of unemployment assistance, that the largest portion of their expenditure is spent in paying rent in order to obtain shelter for themselves and their dependents. I think Deputy Harris is very familiar with the position in Athy. There the maximum rate of unemployment assistance is 12/6, and there are not many who get even 12/6. The urban council there rightly dealt with the slums, which were a disgrace to the town, and, as a result of a number of slum clearance schemes, were able to eradicate the slums and to erect new houses to which these unfortunate slum dwellers were transferred. The economic rent of each of the houses erected would probably be in the vicinity of 8/- per week, perhaps 8/6 per week, but because of the subvention for housing in the case of slum clearance schemes, the houses were let at 3/10 each.

If Deputies dwell just for a moment on the position of an unemployed man with a wife and five children in Athy, receiving a sum of 12/6 per week in the form of unemployment assistance paying 3/10 a week to the local authority for a house, and trying to maintain seven people for seven days on the balance of 8/8, I think the House will have no hesitation in realising that the plight of that unfortunate family, which has to provide, food, clothing, fuel, light and all other items of domestic expenditure for seven persons out of a sum of 8/8 per week, reveals a picture of the most harrowing poverty. If each member of that family were to obtain three meals per day, it would mean that 21 meals would have to be provided per day. If they were to spend 1d. per person for each meal, it would mean that they would have to spend 1/9 per day or 12/3 per week. I do not think anybody will attempt to suggest that there is sufficient nutriment in a meal costing 1d., particularly for adults or growing children. Yet if the family were to spend even 1d. per meal—and the House can get some picture of the meal one would get for 1d. in face of the rising cost of living — the family would have spent 12/3 per week on meals alone. But the family are not allowed 12/3 per week to spend on meals. They are only allowed 8/8, approximately two-thirds of the figure of the expenditure that would be incurred if 1d. were spent on each meal. The result is that the family is permitted only to spend two-thirds of 1d. per meal for each member of the family. That is a picture of the prosperity that is available for those who are endeavouring to exist on the inadequate rates of benefit provided by the Unemployment Assistance Act. Then we have got to remember that clothing, light, school books and all the other necessary items of expenditure have to be met so that the family cannot spend even two-thirds of 1d. per meal for each member of the family.

I think I have said sufficient on this matter to convince the House that not merely do the present rates of benefit disclose that they are incapable of providing even a minimum standard of existence for recipients of unemployment assistance, but they disclose, in addition, that in respect to those who are compelled to exist on such rates, they are suffering not only impoverishment, but hunger and malnutrition of the grossest kind. I doubt if any Deputy in the House would hesitate to listen to a demand on any section of the population to remedy hunger and privation where such conditions were known to exist amongst large sections of the community. I think from the figures I have quoted —and those figures will be supplemented by others from Deputies who will speak in support of the motion— that the rates of unemployment assistance will not protect unemployed workers and their families from hunger and from the grossest forms of malnutrition. The motion which I have submitted—I hope in a non-contentious way—seeks to apply a remedy to the problem and to the evil with which it deals. I hope that Deputies, realising their responsibility to the weak and destitute section of the community, will vote for the motion, and instruct the Executive Council to introduce legislation providing for a substantial increase in the present rates.

I formally second the motion.

I think it desirable that I should intervene in the debate at this stage in order to prevent any other Deputy following the same line that Deputy Norton adopted, because it is quite clear from the nature of the speech which he has delivered in advocating his motion, and from the nature of the statistics and other information which he gave to the House, that he has a complete misconception or, at any rate, pretends to have a complete misconception, of the purposes which the unemployment assistance scheme is intended to serve. The Unemployment Assistance Act was not introduced for the purpose of determining the amount of money that would be required by a family in any part of Ireland to maintain itself in each week of the year. The unemployment assistance scheme was designed to give a contribution, within the limits that the resources of the State would permit, to each unemployed person, to enable him to maintain himself during temporary unemployment.

That is a new definition of maintenance.

I think I have never described the rates of unemployment assistance payable as capable of maintaining any unemployed person for a protracted period. Deputy Norton has spoken as if those unemployed persons who are in receipt of unemployment assistance never got work at all, as if they had to exist upon the amount of money provided by the Unemployment Assistance Act all the year round, one week after another. The fact, as I have frequently pointed out to the House, is that of the persons who are unemployed in urban areas on any one day, 25 per cent. will be in employment again within a fortnight, and the great majority of them will have found employment within eight weeks. Examination of the history of individual applicants in relation to employment and unemployment has shown that to be the case. The number of persons who are unemployed for protracted periods, for half a year or a whole year at a time, is a very small minority of the total number of persons drawing unemployment assistance in urban areas. I am excluding from the number of unemployed for the purposes of that calculation certain classes of unemployed persons—or persons who are at any rate described as unemployed —living in rural areas, that is, the sons of small farmers and the like, living with their fathers on their fathers' farms. Those persons are statutorily entitled to describe themselves as unemployed, but in fact they are not unemployed in the ordinary sense of the term, nor are they likely to suffer the physical consequences of unemployment which urban workers suffer. This unemployment assistance scheme was introduced not because we thought it was possible for this State, out of its resources, to provide for every unemployed family every week a sum of money sufficient to maintain it——

That is what you told them you were going to do.

—— but for the purpose of supplementing from State funds whatever other means they had, trusting that their periods of unemployment would be short, and that in any event the other measures adopted by the State to provide employment would become operative. There is, however, one limit, and one limit only, to the amount we can provide, and that is the sum which the taxpayers of this country contribute for this service. The Unemployment Assistance Act of last year cost £1,600,000. That is a large sum of money. It requires a large number of various taxes, bearing upon all sections of the people, to raise that sum. The minimum increase which would have to be made in order to effect the minimum increase in the various rates of unemployment assistance payable to unemployed persons would involve a substantial amount of new taxation. Deputy Norton and Deputy Morrissey are, of course, in the happy position that they can come to the Dáil demanding increased expenditure on this service, while at the same time reserving the right to vote against the measures designed to bring in the money to enable the cost of the service to be met.

That is what you yourself did during the five years when you were on this side of the House. That was the time you were promising maintenance.

The Deputy, who pretends to be all wise in this matter, will perhaps explain his attitude in regard to it before the debate finishes.

You cannot increase the provision for unemployment assistance without increasing taxation. Will the Deputy vote for that? Not even Deputy Norton will vote for it.

That is misrepresentation, and I will describe it as much worse if the Minister repeats that statement.

I cannot possibly see where there is any misrepresentation in what I have just said. An increased cost of unemployment assistance will necessitate increased taxation, and the Deputies who are advocating that will not vote for it.

Did you not know that when you promised maintenance? You were looking for their votes then.

What about all the pensions Bills?

Deputies are just getting annoyed because I am pointing out facts which they cannot controvert. £1,600,000 was provided for unemployment assistance, and I would remind Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey that that is a new service, started in 1934, and that every penny of that sum is additional to the provision made for unemployment before that year.

So are all the pensions.

That is not the only provision made for unemployment, or even the most costly provision. In addition to this £1,600,000 which is being paid each year in respect of unemployment assistance, the State is providing almost £200,000 for the provision of free beef; a sum of £90,000 for free milk which is distributed to the children of unemployed persons, and there are grants for the provision of school meals. The children attending over 500 schools in this country are provided with meals. In 1934 an Act was adopted which enabled local authorities to provide unemployed persons with allotments of land for the purpose of growing their own vegetables, and in addition, in this year we have provided a sum of almost £2,500,000 for the financing of relief schemes for the purpose of giving employment.

You robbed the Insurance Fund for that.

If the point is that, despite the sum total of all the figures which I have mentioned, there is still——

Unemployment?

——unemployment, and need for still greater measures on the part of the State in dealing with unemployment, I agree with him; but there is less unemployment now than in 1932, when none of those grants was provided. Every single item I have mentioned, with one exception—the provision in respect of school meals— is a new service. The Party of which Deputy Morrissey is a member was in office for ten years, and not one of those services was provided.

How much did the Minister say was provided for unemployment this year?

Something over £2,000,000.

And there is less unemployment, mind you.

How much came out of the Insurance Fund?

It is quite clear that if we put persons into employment we save money on unemployment assistance. The more we put into employment the more we save on unemployment assistance, and we hope to see the day when the amount required for that service will be reduced to a minimum.

Send to America for them!

It is unfair for Deputies to harrow the feelings of this House with accounts such as that Deputy Norton has given, leaving out all the relevant factors which I have mentioned. Firstly, the unemployment assistance scheme is not intended to provide adequate maintenance for unemployed persons all the year round, nor are the rates of assistance set out in the Schedule to the Act deemed to be the amounts required to enable families of the dimensions stated to maintain themselves. Secondly, it is, in any event, only part of a much wider scheme, the main design of which is to put persons into employment and enable them to get wages sufficient to maintain themselves on a decent standard, and to make some provision for the day when they may become unemployed for some temporary period. We have succeeded in putting into employment many thousands of people who had no hope of that employment some years ago.

And taking out of it many who were in good employment.

I have frequently heard that statement made here in this House by Deputies opposite, and have challenged them time and again to tell us the trades, the occupations, and the parts of the country in which those persons were in employment—the persons whom it is alleged were put out of it. What trade were they in?

The Minister is answering himself to-night.

What trade were they in, and in what part of the country?

Gallaher's for one.

There are more people employed in tobacco manufacture in this State now than in 1931—a couple of hundred more people.

That is a big achievement.

That is the only example the Deputy can give in support of his contention.

Not by any means.

What other trade can he mention in which there has been a decrease in employment?

I will tell the Minister when I am speaking.

Do not butt in every minute.

The Deputy does not butt in very often himself.

When he does he butts in intelligently.

Would it not be better to hear the Minister without interruption? Deputies can speak afterwards.

Deputy Norton sought to support on two grounds his contention that the Unemployment Assistance Act should be amended to provide for higher rates of assistance; first, that the rates fixed by the Act were too low in any event; secondly, that since the Act was passed there has been an increased cost of living. Deputy Norton made most unserupulous use of the figures relating to the cost-of-living index supplied to him by my Department. It is not fair to compare the figures for May of one year with those for November of another year.

I compared August with August.

The Deputy did nothing of the kind. There are seasonal fluctuations in the cost of food, and in studying statistics one must compare like with like. The total increase in the cost of living between 1934 and 1936 is 4 per cent. Even the figure for 1936, however, represents a decrease on that of 1932. The cost of living in 1931-32 was higher than it is now, although there has been an increase in the past two years—an increase, however, which was much less in this country than in Great Britain. The cost-of-living index in this country rose less than in Great Britain, but if we were to attempt to reflect that increase of 4.4 per cent. in the scales of unemployment assistance, it would not be possible to do so. I take it that Deputies will agree that the smallest increase which could be contemplated in any of the 66 rates of unemployment assistance would be 6d. per week, and yet in the great majority of cases an increase of 6d. per week would be a greater proportionate increase than any increase in the cost of living that has taken place since the Act came into operation. I do not say that the rates of unemployment assistance set out in the schedule to the Act must be maintained unchanged for all time. Circumstances may necessitate their variation from time to time, but there certainly is no ground as yet for an increase in the rates of unemployment assistance on the basis that the cost of living has risen. In any event, we must take into account, not only the provision that has been made, under the Unemployment Assistance Acts, for the payment of relief, but also the provision that has been made in each year for other analogous services, and the provision for analogous services I wish to mention is the Vote for the financing of relief works.

It is much better that people should get a standard rate of wages for working than that they should be in receipt of unemployment assistance, and I hope that it will be possible in every year to increase the provision for the financing of relief works and to correspondingly reduce the provision for the financing of unemployment assistance schemes. To the extent that that can be done, it will reflect the success which attends the various efforts adopted by the Government to promote that change. Deputy Norton also, in regard to the cost-of-living index, stated his opinion that the index figure published by my Department was not a true reflex of the position in respect of working-class families. I agree with him, but I agree with him for an entirely different reason. In considering the cost of providing food for the families of unemployed persons, one must take into account the provision that has been made for the supply of free beef and milk and other free services at the State's expense.

The beef scheme is practically wiped out now.

At any rate, it is in operation till to-day.

But this is a provision for the future.

Well, let us take the position in regard to the future. I understand that the public works which have been sanctioned in respect of the provision made in this year's Estimate to date, will involve a total cost of very nearly £1,500,000, and that sum is out of all proportion to any provision that was made in previous years for providing work for the unemployed, although the actual number of unemployed persons is less.

Deputy Morrissey, of course, can easily dispose of arguments by saying "bosh," but he cannot dispose of them by counter arguments. Every available index which is there, every index to which economists would turn who wanted to find out the real economic position in any country, points to a considerable improvement here. There are many more people employed here. As I have said, despite the greatly increased provision of money for the relief of the unemployed by way of relief and other schemes, there are more employed and fewer unemployed persons.

There are fewer employed.

There are fewer unemployed than in 1931.

And the number in each week of this year is less than in the corresponding week of last year.

Because they are going over in thousands to England.

In each week of this year the number is less than in last year.

That bears out my contention that although the amount provided is very much greater than in previous years, the number of unemployed is much fewer. With regard to the provision of public works for the relief of unemployment, I think it is humanly impossible to devise any scheme of public works which would provide in each district the exact amount of work required to provide for all the unemployed in that district. In any scheme devised by human beings for the relief of unemployment by means of the provision of public works there are bound to be gaps against which it is necessary to provide some safeguard such as the Unemployment Assistance Act, and that is all that the Unemployment Assistance Act was designed to be—a third line of defence against destitution, if we may call it so. We aimed, first of all, to promote industrial development; to take every opportunity that was open to us to avail of our industrial potentialities so that our people would get, to whatever extent was possible, employment—permanent employment—in the production of the goods needed by themselves. We aimed also to effect such changes in the form of agricultural production as would make our agricultural policy sound and capable of maintaining a greater population on the land. In both of these respects we have succeeded. There are 50,000 more people permanently employed in industry and agriculture to-day than there were in 1931, and the progress which it was hoped to make in both these spheres is by no means completed. There is still sufficient scope for development both in industry and agriculture to provide employment for at least as many more, apart altogether from any changes in conditions which may occur in consequence of world revival or the reaction of world events upon our economy.

In addition, however, and while these long-term plans of employment were being worked out, we endeavoured to provide in every area schemes of public work which would provide for the immediate needs of the unemployed. The provision which has been made in each year in which this Government was in office exceeded the provisions made in all the ten years that our predecessors were in office. I think that these schemes of public works were of great benefit to the countryside because, not merely did they lessen the immediate hardships of the unemployed, but they provided useful works in the areas affected, an increase in the national capital, and an improvement in the national estate. There were, however, inevitably, gaps in that scheme of public works in each year, and against the possibility of these occurring this Unemployment Assistance Act was enacted, and that Act was intended to provide merely the maximum amounts that we thought the State could afford in order to supplement whatever other resources unemployed persons had during those temporary periods of unemployment. We did not attempt to fix amounts which would represent a reasonable standard of maintenance for the unemployed. In fact, I made it as clear as words could make it, when introducing that Act, that the obligation of local authorities to relieve destitution and hardship in their areas was not being removed in the slightest, and that if in any area or particular case the local authorities thought that the provision made under the Unemployment Assistance Act was inadequate, they had an obligation to supplement it, and a number of local authorities are, in fact, doing that. Remember, the local authorities are, in fact, doing it.

My answer, therefore, to Deputy Norton's speech is, first, that the amount which is being provided for unemployment assistance represents the maximum amount which we think can be afforded by the people of this country under the present circumstances: that is the sum which the taxpayers of this country can contribute; secondly that it is only part of a much larger sum which is provided under various headings for the relief of unemployment. The total amount which has been provided to deal with unemployment is very little short of £5,000,000 this year and the provision of £5,000,000 by the people of this country for that one service is, in my opinion, a very great achievement, and represents a considerable burden of taxation, a burden to which Deputies in this House have frequently taken exception. Thirdly, there has not been such an increase in the cost of living since the Act came into operation in August, 1934, as would justify an increase in the rates at this time. The minimum increase in the rates would be 6d. a week and for the great majority an increase of 6d. a week would be a greater proportionate increase than the increase in the cost of living. Fourthly, Deputy Norton described his motion as offering a remedy for the position of the unemployed. It does nothing of the kind. If Deputy Norton wanted to provide a remedy for unemployed persons he should have supplemented his motion with a paragraph in which he would set out the direct taxation which would produce the amount involved. So far as I know he is against direct taxation. I do not know what particular increase in taxes the Deputy is prepared to support in order to meet the sum that he is advocating for unemployment assistance. In this House we had him opposing an income-tax Vote.

That tax was pressing hard on the working-class people and I asked the Minister to exempt the working-class homes from its scope.

Deputy Norton will be trying to live down for the rest of his political life what he did that day. It is up to him now, if he regards this motion as something worth while, or as something worthy of the serious consideration of this House, to give us not merely his voice in favour of an increase in unemployment assistance, but the precise method by which the fund for that purpose can be obtained. What particular measure will the Deputy support for doing that? If he does not tell us the method by which the money can be raised his motion is all humbug.

Does the Minister deny that since 1932 flour has gone up in price, and that coal, butter, bacon and so on have all gone up in price? Will the Minister deny that many of the necessaries of life consumed in the working-class homes have gone up in price since 1932? If the Minister contradicts that then I want to tell him that the figures as to these increases which I have in my hand are perfectly true. These give an absolutely correct statement of the facts and they show that the cost of all these commodities consumed in the working-class homes have gone up very much. Not once in his speech did the Minister direct his attention to that aspect of the situation. In addition to what the Minister has said about taxation, I wish to add that the Labour Party are themselves largely to blame for all sorts of taxation that the people have to bear——

Deputy Anthony was allowed to ask a question, not to make a speech.

Well, I am asking the question; I am asking the Minister is he prepared to deny that the cost of living in working-class homes has gone up?

In August, 1932, the cost-of-living index stood at 160, while in August, 1936, the cost-of-living index was 159.

I should like at the outset to congratulate the Minister on his complete and absolute recovery from his recent illness. The Minister was in his best form to-night. Sometimes it is not easy to listen to the Minister when he seems to get a very thick wall behind himself and the absolute truth. But on the whole one must admire the attempts which the Minister makes to put a good face on a bad case. He is, perhaps, the only one on the opposite side who will get up and vigorously present a case whether right or wrong; at all events he can do it more successfully than any other Minister. He wound up his speech by asking Deputy Norton to suggest to him what taxation it was that he was prepared to approve of in order to provide the funds needed to provide adequate rates of benefit for the unemployed. Would the Minister tell the House what increases of taxation he had in mind when he with his colleagues of the Party opposite prepared the famous plan which was to provide employment for every person in this State? The Minister is trying to get away from the promises made, not only by himself, but by the President and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party. They sought, and I am sorry to say got, the votes of the working classes and many of the unemployed in this country by very definite and specific promises from which the Minister and his Party are now running away. The first was to provide employment for every person in this country willing and able to work and to provide that employment within a short time. The President told us five years ago that if there had been a Christian Government in this country there would, in fact, be no unemployment. The Minister for Industry and Commerce had a plan by which a few industries would absorb 86,041 of the unemployed of this country. He actually went further and said that we would not have sufficient people in this country to fill the jobs that would be available and that we would have to send to America and bring back those who emigrated during the previous Administration. Under the present Administration—but not due to any action by the present Administration— the people can no longer go to America. Therefore they are emigrating in thousands to the country with which we are supposed to be at war. A Deputy on the Government Benches appears to disagree with this. Perhaps the Deputy is going to deny it. But the fact is that a great many of the Deputy's constituents had to cross to the other side of the water to Great Britain. If there were as heavy a tax per head on human beings as there is on cattle imports to Great Britain in the last few years the British Government would have reaped quite a substantial amount in taxes from our people. Does the Deputy on the other side of the House, who shows signs of disagreement, know that it is estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 of our boys and girls emigrated to Great Britain last year?

Who estimated it?

Does the Minister deny the figures?

The Deputy said it was estimated. I asked by whom?

Does the Minister challenge the figures I have given?

Certainly.

If so, is the Minister prepared to give an estimate himself? Before the census figures were published the Minister told us that the reason we had so many people unemployed in the country was because the population was increasing. What has the Deputy on the back benches now to say to that?

The Deputy seems to be directing his speech at me but it was not I who interrupted him.

I did not refer to Deputy Jordan. I had quite forgotten that the Deputy was there at all.

Oh, Deputy Morrissey did not know I was there.

Let me go back and ask the Deputy this question. What has become of the plan which was going to provide employment for every unemployed man in this country. Does the Deputy know anything about it? I expect the Deputy puts responsibility upon the Minister.

He is able to bear it.

The Deputy is not quite so glib now. Will the Deputy tell us that he agrees with the Minister's statement that there are fewer unemployed now than there were three years ago?

Well, the Deputy is very loyal.

Deputy Morrissey can direct his question to some other place if my answer does not suit him.

The Deputy seems very anxious to have questions put to him.

Deputies must not interrupt.

The Minister stated that there are fewer unemployed now than in 1932. He cannot be so ignorant of the situation as to believe that. There are Deputies on the opposite benches who are in closer touch with the actual position than the Minister, and I defy any Deputy in any Party, and particularly in the Labour Party, to stand up and say that there are fewer unemployed now than in 1932, notwithstanding the thousands that have gone to Great Britain, and the thousands, that the Minister boasts, have been put into employment. In one breath the Minister says there are fewer unemployed now than in 1932 but, in the next breath, he talks of the millions that the Government had provided to deal with unemployment. Notwithstanding all the social services and all the relief schemes we have this motion brought forward by men who know the position. The Minister knows quite well that he has not been able to deal with the problem, and that he has not been able to arrest it. He knows quite well that there are more people than ever unemployed to-day. There is no doubt about it. The Minister spoke of 6d. a week on the insurance rates being more than enough to cover the increased cost of living in the last three years. Does anybody else conversant with conditions in the country subscribe to that statement? Take one item alone, flour, which three years ago could be purchased for 1/6 a stone, and for which the poor people are paying 2/6 to-day. Will the Minister concede at least one stone of flour to an unemployed man's family every week? That would more than justify the minimum increase of 6d. which he spoke of. There is no use talking about 4.2 per cent. to the average unemployed man. The Minister and his Party cannot get away from the fact that they promised to provide employment. At the second election, when they began to doubt their ability to provide employment for all, they qualified it by promising full employment or maintenance. Every member of the Party, from the President down, did that but, to-night it was stated that they never promised full maintenance. Each and every Deputy on the Government Benches did so. The Minister talked about the resources of the country and he boasted of the millions — up to £5,000,000, he said—that this Government had provided for social services and for the unemployed. Is not that boast the greatest proof of the failure of the promises made by the President and the Ministers? If the Minister had provided work there would be no necessity for £2,500,000 for relief work and £1,200,000 for unemployment assistance. It is because the Government failed in their fundamental duty to provide work for these people in their own country that we are compelled to impose taxation to raise that money, and that is why Deputy Norton is compelled to bring this motion.

What does the Deputy propose should be done?

I suggest that the Minister should produce his plan. I do not think I could produce anything better.

That is the Deputy's solution.

Will the Minister tell us what became of the plan? He was very glib before he got responsibility, but, now that he has responsibility, he wants to shift it on to this side. He wants us to provide a solution.

I think the Deputy has no solution.

The Minister can make small points like that. This is a very big and a very serious issue; one that the Government has failed to deal with.

There is no starvation now as there was under the previous Government. There is no Adrigole.

I advise the Deputy not to say much about that.

I know it is nasty.

Not a bit nasty as far as I am concerned. There are two aspects of the Adrigole incident. This much is clear, that neither the Deputy nor any member of his Party inside or outside the House was very much concerned about Adrigole or about the victims there when it happened. I could quote cases that I know of personally, but I am not going to do so. As the Minister said I do not want to harrow the feelings of the House. I could do so easily without departing in the slightest from the absolute truth. There is very little use in producing facts or figures or trying to make any case whatever to a man who after five years in office, and who is primarily charged with responsibility for the unemployed getting employment, gets up and tells that he has practically solved the problem; that there are more people in employment and fewer unemployed than when he took office. Even the most loyal member of his Party who is conversant with conditions in the constituencies would not subscribe to that. Even the Minister himself does not believe it. He knows that that is not the position. The Minister will always go to extraordinary lengths to bolster up his case. I could go into many aspects of this question, but I prefer to keep to the main points, and to contrast to the House the Minister's promises and his performances—and the performances of those on the Front Benches if they were present. Every person who has at heart not only the welfare of the unemployed, but the welfare of the country as a whole, would prefer to see these men in employment. The Minister spoke about different schemes and the use that is going to be made of relief schemes. What does that mean? It means three days' work weekly for certain men and two days for others. What does it mean in my constituency? Some men who were getting unemployment assistance went out for three days' work last week, and others went out for two days. They are deprived of unemployment assistance now and will not get the first wages for another month. They are to live on the wind for a month without wages or unemployment assistance. Does the Minister consider that substituting 15/- a week with three days' hard work, for 12/6 unemployment assistance, is meeting the problem? I do not expect that the Minister could be as close to this question as ordinary Deputies. It would be utterly impossible for him, particularly for a Miniister who has such a tremendous task as the present Minister has, and with such a huge Department to look after. Those who are making this case are in daily touch with the people affected. I had no fewer than 50 of these men with me on Monday last about their position, and the statements I have made are the absolute truth. I say without hesitation that there are more people unemployed in my constituency now, and with less hope of getting employment, than in 1932 or even 1934.

I refuse to think that the Minister is so ignorant of the situation as one would be inclined to believe from the statement he made to-night. Everyone will admit that the case made by Deputy Norton is unanswerable, and one would never think that the Minister would take up the attitude he took up. Notwithstanding the figures quoted by Deputy Norton, the Minister said the increase in the cost of living would not be more than 6d. a week. Anyone conversant with the situation would have to admit that in one article of food alone, flour, the increase would be considerably more than 6d. Within recent months coal has gone up by at least 5/- a ton. The price of butter, the price of tea, sugar and other articles of food have gone up since these rates were fixed.

The Minister has told us that when he was introducing the Bill to enable him to pay unemployment assistance he never suggested that it was meant to provide a reasonable standard of maintenance. I am quite prepared to admit that that statement was made on the introduction of the Bill but, at the same time, I think we are entitled to assume that when the Bill was introduced he agreed to pay an amount per week which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, would be the absolute minimum upon which a man and his family could exist. At the time, of course, we criticised the amount, and I think that the Minister should now reconsider the amount given in the light of the fact that it can be proved conclusively that the cost of living has increased considerably since the Unemployment Assistance Act was introduced a few years ago.

It is all very weil to quote certain figures and certain statistics. It has been often stated that figures can be made to prove anything, and there is very little use in quoting statistics to the ordinary workingman or person in the country who is, day after day, confronted with the fact that the necessaries of life have been increasing in price within recent years. The Minister suggested that Deputy Norton was making certain wild statements and that he was misrepresenting the position. I suggest to the Minister that nobody has misrepresented the position, or tried to misrepresent the position, more than he has done. In the first place, he has told us the Government last year paid out in unemployment assistance the sum of £1,600,000, and led us to infer from the language which he used that in this year the sum would be something equivalent to that. On top of that, he said, the Government were putting up £2,500,000 to provide work at standard rates. I think the Minister will admit that that statement is a rather extravagant one. I am prepared to accept the figure of £1,600,000 as being the amount given to the unemployed last year, but I am not going to accept the statement that the Government, on top of that, are giving £2,500,000 this year towards the relief of unemployment. I suggest to the Minister that the extra amount given by the Government this year is in the vicinity of £800,000; that the balance of that £2,500,000 is being taken from the local authorities and the Unemployment Assistance Fund. When the Minister for Finance submitted his Budget this year a large number of Deputies asked questions as to how this £2,500,000 was to be expended. I think everybody inferred, not alone from the answers given by the Minister to the various questions asked in this connection, but also from the figures submitted in the Budget statement, that the local authorities were expected to put up one-third of the cost of any unemployment scheme carried out in their area. A great number of Deputies looked upon that as being reasonable. Some Deputies indeed suggested that local authorities should not be asked to put up so much.

But the position has changed considerably so far as local authorities are concerned since that statement was made, because any grant given for the relief of unemployment, in the various urban areas at least, in recent months has been given only on the distinct understanding that 50 per cent. of it will be put up by the local authorities. That, to my mind, is doing something to which the House did not agree during the Budget debates. Not alone do the Government insist on 50 per cent. of the money being put up towards any work being done in a district in which a grant is given, but they limit the number of years for which the loan can be raised in order that that grant may be supplemented. The various local authorities have been told that they will be permitted to raise a loan only for a period of three years. In consequence of representations made by certain local authorities, in some cases they are permitted to raise a loan for a period of five years. I submit that that is placing too heavy a burden upon the backs of the local ratepayers. A substantial loan repayable within a period of from three to five years places too great a burden on the backs of local ratepayers over a short number of years.

I suggest that that is a mean way, as far as the Government are concerned, of relieving unemployment. They get a certain amount of kudos out of the fact that they are putting up certain moneys for grants notwithstanding the fact that the local authorities are bearing half the expense, and that at least half the amount that the Government are putting up is taken from the pockets of the unemployed. In that connection, the Minister has stated that there are a greater number of people employed now than in the years prior to 1933 or 1934 and that at least 25 per cent. of the people drawing unemployment assistance get work inside periods of one month. I certainly do not know where the Minister got that information.

People in urban areas.

I am living in an urban area and I cannot see any situation which approaches that by any stretch of the imagination.

The statement was that 25 per cent. of them got work inside a fortnight.

Let us take the system that prevails as far as the expenditure of this unemployment grant is concerned. The Board of Works have brought into operation what is known as the rotary or rotation system. Under that system, the local authority are notified that they will receive a certain amount of money provided they will put up a similar amount. Notwithstanding the fact that the local authority put up an amount equal to the grant from the Government, the local authority have no control, good, bad or indifferent, over the expenditure of that money, in so far as the employment of men is concerned. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the fact that the local authority are putting up as much as the Government, they should have some say as to who should be employed to do this particular work. The local authority get their engineer or surveyor, as the case may be, to submit a certain scheme and give an estimate for that scheme. It will be very hard to get the surveyor or engineer to keep inside the estimate submitted unless the local authority are permitted to have more control over the particular work being done.

The Minister also suggested in connection with these schemes that men are getting work at standard rates. I submit that here again the Minister is not in touch with the actual situation. For instance, in the rural parts of the country men are being paid again at the much complained of rate of 24/-per week. When we raised here a couple of years ago the question of only paying 24/- per week, we were told that the 24/- was being paid to men who were doing work similar to that being done by agricultural labourers, such as making ditches, drainage work, and things of that kind. We contended on that occasion that even that work should be paid for at a higher rate. Now, during the progress of the latest schemes subsidised to the extent of 50 per cent. by the Government, these men are doing quarry work for which county council workers are being paid at least 6/- more in the county I represent.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The debate stands adjourned until Friday.

Is the debate definitely adjourned until Friday?

That is the day on which, in the ordinary course, it would be resumed.

I understood that it would be resumed to-morrow.

I understood that the debate on this motion would be resumed to-morrow on the completion of Government business.

The Chair is not presuming to arrange the business of the Dáil. Friday is the day on which the debate would normally be resumed.

If the House comes to the motion for the adjournment about 6 o'clock to-morrow, will that motion be taken in priority to this motion? If it is, it means that this motion must stand over until next February.

I am not aware of any arrangement for the taking of this motion to-morrow.

Does the Minister know what the business is for to-morrow?

If public business is finished to-morrow, I understand that the motion for the adjournment will be taken.

Therefore, this motion must stand over until next February.

The Whip of the Government Party gave me an entirely different impression.

I understood also that an arrangement had been made to take this motion to-morrow.

If the Whip of the Government Party gave any undertaking, we shall keep it.

Would it not be better to adjourn this debate until to-morrow and, at the opening of business to-morrow, it can be decided whether it be taken or not.

The debate is simply adjourned. No definite day has been fixed for resuming, but the Chair indicated that, in the ordinary course, the debate would be resumed on Friday in Private Deputies' time.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share