Reference has already been made by more than one Deputy to the hardship inflicted on certain members of the community in relation to unemployment assistance. I refer to persons who were removed outside the county borough areas. I do not want to say any more on that question now as that phase of it has been discussed. I feel, however, that there is something in the challenge that was thrown out by the Minister from time to time, and that was just as frequently not answered when discussing matters of this nature, involving huge sums of money. Suggestions are made by the official Labour Party, but nothing concrete has ever come from them. The Minister asked for alternative suggestions from the official Opposition, but has more often directed that question to the Labour Party than to any other Party. As far as my experience goes, they have always evaded the Minister's challenge. For instance, no later than last evening the Minister asked the Labour Party to put forward any other scheme or any useful suggestions and to indicate how they were to be financed. So far nothing has come from the official Labour Party but a lot of high-falutin' schemes that could never be put into practice. It is admitted that there is destitution and poverty, and the very fact that this Bill has been introduced, to supplement assistance to these unfortunate people, is sufficient evidence that the Minister and the Government acknowledge that there is more destitution and more poverty prevalent now than when the first measure of unemployment assistance was introduced. It seems to me, between the official Labour Party and the Government that the position is a Dickensian one, that "Codlin is your friend, not Shortt" and that "Shortt is your friend, not Codlin." The Government asked the Opposition Parties how they were to find the money for this purpose. They frequently asked if they were to tax the food of the people. We all know that the food of the people is sufficiently taxed. They also asked what alternative there was, or if they could suggest the taxation of any other commodities. Any answer that was given failed to satisfy me, and for that reason I sympathise with the Government on this question. My sympathies are with the provision in this measure of attempting to stop the flow of people from the urban areas into the cities. I approved of that section last night when the Minister was making his speech, and I endorse his remarks when he said it was because of certain conditions that operate in rural areas that he did not want to encourage people to go from these areas to the cities and, accordingly, he had this particular section inserted. It is all very fine for certain members of the Labour Party to stand up and advocate the expenditure of more money on the unemployed, but I suggest they have no solution of the problem. I pay this tribute to the Government and to the Minister, that at least they are doing their little bit to help in some way the unemployed in the position that has been created by the Government and their erstwhile colleagues, the Labour Party. I offered a suggestion to the Government on one occasion, and I charge the Labour Party with aiding and abetting the Government in inflicting misery and destitution on the people.
Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 1937—Final Stage.
You changed.
You changed; I did not. I have always been able to earn my living without being paid outside.
I hope we all are.
A Party of officials. I want to suggest that when measures were brought before the Dáil involving very considerable sums of money being expended, on what I considered to be absolute luxuries, we had no opposition from the Labour Party. I refer to the creation of a new Army. What is the necessity for a new Army in this country? None. It involves the expenditure of a large sum of money, and on the Army Vote we had no protest and also no protest against the huge pensions that are being paid to able-bodied persons in this country. I made my protest then and would be prepared to make it at all times, no matter how much unpopularity or hostility I incurred in doing so. It costs the Labour Party nothing to get up here and advocate the expenditure of millions of money on wild-cat schemes, but what would they do if they themselves were ever in office? I am really hopeful that they will be in office some time. I am sure they would get very short shrift from the public, because the public having had one experience of them in office would find that it was an experience so dearly bought that they would never return a dozen of them to this Dáil again.
There is only one word that I have to say in conclusion, and it is that there is a tendency on the part of the Government to shirk their responsibilities to the people. The Government, instead of financing the whole of these schemes, call on the local authorities and the various county boroughs and urban councils to help in the financing of them. I regard that policy as wrong. While I am prepared, and I think every decent citizen should be prepared, to put his hand deep down in his pocket to help to allay the sufferings and the misery of our unemployed brethren, at the same time I think that duty should become a national charge by means of direct Government taxation. We want all the people to help our unfortunate brethren who are unemployed. That should be done by the Government by direct taxation, getting all the people to put their hands into their pockets to help and not by going to the local authorities for part of the money. Of course, in the final analysis all taxation, whether it be local or national, comes out of the pockets of the people, but if what I suggest were done it would, I think, be a splendid experiment. It would be the acid test of sincerity to ask people to put their hands into their pockets to make some little contribution towards relieving the position of the many thousands of unfortunate people who now find themselves unemployed. I hope this is the last measure of the kind that we shall ever have occasion to discuss in this House. I hope that at the end of another 12 months some scheme or schemes will be devised which will have the effect of putting all our unemployed to work. If that is not done you will eventually create the dole mind in this country; and once that is done—it has happened in another country—it will be very hard to get people back to work again. I speak for thousands and thousands of unemployed who come to me day after day. All those men want work. They do not want the dole. If the Minister could devise some scheme, or a number of schemes, which would have the effect of putting those men back at work, he would have done something that would be of real benefit to the persons concerned and to the country as a whole.
I rise for the purpose of calling the Minister's attention to one point that I had intended dealing with when the Bill was last before us. My second reason for rising is to refer to some of the remarks made by an erstwhile member of the Labour Party. Having listened to him for some little time, I have a doubt as to who is bringing in this legislation. I think it is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce at all, but Deputy Norton on behalf of the Labour Party. I think that is the only conclusion that any reasonable person could come to, having listened to the speech of Deputy Anthony. The Deputy intimated that the Labour Party had done nothing except to advocate the spending of money. He also said that the Labour Party were going to get us money to indulge in all kinds of wild-cat schemes. If the Deputy would look at the Order Paper he would see a motion on it in the name of the Labour Party asking the Minister to take steps to increase the amount of unemployed assistance. Evidently, Deputy Anthony's cure for all the unemployment that there is in the country is to come here and attack individuals or perhaps a Party. If the Deputy continues in that strain, I think it is safe to predict that there will be considerably more unemployment than there is at the moment in Cork, which he represents.
The one point that I want to bring to the Minister's notice is in connection with the Unemployment Period Orders which he makes. I think the Minister mentioned that the £150,000 which he is spending would be increased. I suggest that sum will not be spent because of the application of these Period Orders which run, I think, from June to October in each year. The making of them causes a good deal of hardship, especially in certain towns that have not town commissioners. A single man resident in a town not under the control of town commissioners is deprived of unemployment assistance for possibly the five months that a Period Order runs. That is a peculiar anomaly that arises in some towns in North County Dublin. In Balbriggan, for instance, you have town commissioners. A single man there is eligible, under certain circumstances, for unemployment assistance during the summer months, but in the town of Skerries, four miles distant and with practically the same population, a single man is not eligible for unemployment assistance during this particular period because the town has no town commissioners. In Howth they have an urban council and in Balbriggan the town commissioners. I would ask the Minister to take this peculiar anomaly into consideration when making his Unemployment Period Orders. At present great hardship is inflicted on the unemployed in those towns which have no town commissioners.
I listened with considerable interest to the speeches of Deputy. Anthony and Deputy McGowan. Deputy Anthony made a speech which in some ways, was highly commendable. I should say that he had the courage to face facts, and the first fact is that if you are going to get benefit you have got to pay for it. That is one fact which the official Labour Party are not prepared to face at all. They think that there is, apparently, some unnamed, undiscovered, unidentifiable pool out of which money can come: that an indefinite amount of money can be taken out of that, and delivered to this service or to that service without the burden actually coming back on the people. That is complete nonsense, and the commendable part of Deputy Anthony's speech was that he recognised it as such. There was a considerable amount of comment yesterday in relation to a speech made by myself. I took the trouble to look it up, at any rate the portions of it which had been attacked, for the purpose of seeing whether there was anything in it which I had any cause to regret. I have no cause to regret anything I said. What I said was said in the spirit that you cannot get blood out of a stone, and that if you are going to get services you have got to pay for them. I am prepared to repeat every word of that speech and to say that I agree with it. I may say that at the time it was made it was not, in essentials, challenged by anybody.
Deputy Anthony dropped from that high standard of courage and intelligent democracy, which is represented by stating that the public must pay for what it gets, into the doctrines which have been preached by the official Labour Party: by Deputy Corish for instance, and by people of that mentality—people who seem to think that there is something radically wrong in taking money in the form of local taxation and something, apparently, almost spiritually right in taking the same money from the same people in the form of central taxation. I want to come to agreement with Deputy Anthony and with the House in this matter.
Both of you are in good company.
Yes, in this case, because here we are facing facts. The first fact is that if anybody wants anything he has got to pay for it. The second fact is that the same people pay the taxes whether they pay them to the local authority or to the central sources. Broadly and generally, the same people pay the local and central taxation. The whole urge behind the story of what is called making it a national charge—making roads a national charge, making unemployment a national charge, making afforestation a national charge, making drainage a national charge—is not to shift the burden from one to another, but to hide the fact that the burden is there.
Hear, hear!
That is where the thing is wrong. In relation to unemployment, for instance, at the present moment, in relation both to their subscription to the central Unemployment Insurance Fund and in relation to their subscription to funds for unemployment, it is the policy of the Government that the local authorities shall contribute something and that they shall contribute something for the specific purpose which Deputy Anthony has declared—that it shall be brought home to them that they are paying. As long as local councillors, local mayors, local representatives, can blame the central Government for the height of taxation they will claim without any hesitation, conscience, or reserve, apparently, that money should be spent on local services. But, when they are asked to tell their own constituents, to tell the people to whom they are going to apply for votes, that they themselves are responsible for taxing those local people in that capacity even to the smallest extent, then they hesitate very grievously as to how they will or will not raise the money.
I could quote time after time from the records of this House that there is something dreadful about local taxation. Why? It is because a man who has no hesitation in allowing the central Government to have the responsibility for taxation is afraid to take that responsibility face to face with his own constituents in the form of local taxation. Why should a local authority not contribute to the relief of unemployment? Why should a city as rich as Dublin, with the lowest unemployment burden of any portion of the country, be relieved from the necessity of meeting, out of its rates, some of its own obligation to its own poor?
It is not relieved of that.
No. Why should it be relieved of the obligation of doing more, as it could do more? Take Dublin County and Dublin City, the richest portion of the country, with the lowest unemployment or poverty burden of any portion of the State. Is it contended that there is something wrong in those who are elected by the citizens of Dublin going to the citizens of Dublin and asking them to do more for the relief of unemployment? It apparently is immoral; it is very inconvenient. It is very inconvenient in Wicklow; it is very inconvenient in Wexford; it is very inconvenient in the City of Cork. But the fact that they have to bear some of that burden openly is their claim to a right to interfere with, to criticise, to supervise; and it is a very direct inducement to them to see that efficiency is shown both in the spending of that money, in the selection of the works, and in other things of that kind. It is for that reason that I am in favour definitely—it is not a question of choosing between two evils—of local authorities having to contribute to this Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am in favour of local authorities having to contribute openly and clearly to unemployment funds in order that those in whose area the benefits of these works are shown shall have the responsibility of having contributed to them, and shall have the responsibility, and the power involved in that responsibility, of supervising.
In this particular case, in relation to unemployment insurance, only in certain districts, and on a calculation of previous expenditure that used to be made by these districts, in lieu of that previous expenditure made by these districts for the purpose of dealing with home assistance, have they been asked to contribute. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Carrying out the same policy in relation to relief works, every local authority which is in a position to do so has been asked to contribute, and every one of them has been asked to contribute on the basis of their power to contribute. Is there anybody going to quarrel with that as a principle unless you object to the inconvenience of bringing home to the people in the local places the fact that the central taxation has to be paid by them? In distributing the unemployment fund at present that money goes to every county and to every district and, as far as we can effect it, to every man in every county and in every district in proportion to his necessity. Every single authority is asked to contribute to that fund, not on an equal or uniform basis, not in the measure of their necessity, but in the measure of their power. The poorer the district, the more money they get; the poorer the district, the less they have to pay in proportion to the money they do get. Is that a just and proper way of doing it? The only argument I can see against a local authority having to face openly the responsibility of contributing to it is the inconvenience of the local councillors who have to stand over the job.
Deputy Morrissey last night alluded to a speech made by me. I do not want to trouble reading it again here, but I have read that speech and there is nothing in that speech which I have any cause to regret in any way. I have the Official Report here and I will give it to Deputy Morrissey. If there is any particular passage in that, or the general purport of it, to which he objects, I am prepared to deal with it; otherwise I will pass on.
Mr. Morrissey
I did not suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary regretted it at all.
Or that it was wrong. I say that every word is true.
Mr. Morrissey
I did not say that the Parliamentary Secretary——
What the Deputy said was that I was in favour of taxing the poor.
Mr. Morrissey
I said that the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech stated, "Why should not the poor be taxed?"
"Why should not the working people be taxed?" Are you objecting to that?
Mr. Morrissey
Yes, in the measure in which they are being taxed to-day.
I will read the passage. It suits me perfectly. I was dealing with a speech made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and stated:
"What he dragged in to-day for his gramophone record were the poor —the poor upon whom all these taxes are being put, the poor who are to be taxed out of existence, the poor whom he never taxed, the poor, the taxing of whom he would not tolerate. Now we are all familiar with this: that whenever any vested interest is challenged, such, for instance, as breweries, all the shares are held by the widows and orphans. In exactly the same way, when any tax is put on which is an indirect tax, the only people who pay it are the very poor. Now, everybody knows that is not true. The one thing that I agree with in the whole discussion, on both sides, is the fact that this Budget has brought people up against the facts, and I am glad they are brought up against the facts —both sides of the facts. One of the facts is that all the tobacco, all the butter, all the bacon, all the tea, and all the entertainment is not consumed by the poor. Tobacco, sugar, tea, is eaten, consumed or drunk by every member of this Dáil, by every member of the Strangers' Gallery, by every member of the Reporters' Gallery, by every member of the Seanad, by every member of the Chamber of Commerce, by every member of every golf club in the country, by everyone of the thousands of people who have been storing up knowledge of the doctrines of Cobden in the last few weeks. Everybody knows that, and why anybody should have the effrontery— Deputy Davin is not the only one, not by any means—to get up in this House and keep on speaking, deliberately ignoring the fact that every member of the House knew he was talking nonsense, I do not understand. Does anybody now deny that all of these things, which we are supposed to be only extracting from the very poor, are consumed by the whole community, and, if they are consumed by the whole community, on whom better, or more rightly, should the taxes be put? Deputy Anthony says that these are taxes which fall upon the working-classes. Why should they not fall upon the working-classes?"
Somebody here interjected a remark and I went on to say:—
"Is there anyone saying that taxes should not fall upon the working-classes? I think we were told by Deputy Davin that the only asset to the country were the people who are working. We believe, Deputy Davin believes, the members of the Opposition and members of the Government all believe that three-quarters of the population of this country are made up of the working-classes of one kind or another. Is anyone here going to say that three-quarters of the total population shall be exempt from taxes, and, if they are not going to say that, what is the grievance? But, perhaps they will say: could you not choose taxes none of which would be paid for by the poor?"
Would the Parliamentary Secretary please give the reference?
That speech appears in the Report of the debates for the 31st May, 1935—columns 1395-96.
Mr. Morrissey
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for affirming what I have said, that he asked why should these taxes not fall upon the working-classes.
Why should they not fall upon the working-classes if three-fourths of our population is made up of the working classes? Who else can pay? Where are you going to get money except from the people? There is that wild illusion that there is some section of the community which can be segregated and separated, on whom you can place the whole burden of taxation and put none of it on the people who vote "for us." I want anybody now to give me any new tax of any kind, which has any reasonable or considerable yield, of which the very poor will not pay some portion.
A tax on flapdoodle.
That would wipe the Deputy out. Unless you are prepared to say that no tax shall be imposed, that no portion of it goes on the poor, then you have got to get your money——
The Parliamentary Secretary is discussing taxation in general rather than the Unemployment Assistance Bill.
As a matter of fact, I have said all I required to say. I simply got up to raise a point which to me is very important. That is the question as to whether or not it is right that local authorities, in their capacity as local authorities, should be asked to contribute to schemes such as unemployment assistance, unemployment relief and other schemes of that kind. The contention which I have put to the House, in relation to all these schemes which it is now suggested should be made national charges, is that it is merely a matter of hiding the burden and not of shifting the burden; that in so far as the local authorities are concerned with the unemployment problem in their midst, in so far as they are concerned with the administration of the schemes which they carry out, and in so far as they are concerned with unemployment assistance and rates of unemployment assistance benefit, they have a very definite right and a very definite obligation to contribute to them, to do it openly, and in virtue of that contribution they have the right to criticise and supervise. If the whole of the money came from central sources there would be very little justification, in theory at any rate, or in democratic practice, for the continuance of the local authority. Representation should go with local taxation; the people who pay shall govern. That is the principle on which democratic government has worked. If local authorities are, in relation either to roads, drainage or anything else, relieved of all taxation, then their claim to authority as local authorities seems to me to fall to the ground at the same time. What I am principally anxious to do is to see that, in relation to matters of that kind, in which local authorities have a direct benefit in expenditure, they shall openly tax their own constituents for portion of the money which is used for that purpose.
It appears to me that the Parliamentary Secretary is suffering from some kind of confusion. I have yet to learn that the local authorities have anything to do, good, bad, or indifferent with the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Act.
They get the benefit of it.
They do not get any benefit good, bad, or indifferent from it.
Does it not relieve home assistance?
It does not. Statistics do not show that at all. When the Bill was introduced in 1933, we were told, when the Minister was about to ask the local authorities to levy a rate in order to assist the Unemployment Insurance Act funds, that there would be an equivalent saving under the heading of home help. Statistics have proved otherwise and I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can come to the conclusion that the local authority benefits in any way by the Unemployment Assistance Act. They have nothing, good, bad, or indifferent to do with its administration. The Parliamentary Secretary is probably mixing up the rotational schemes of employment under the Unemployment Assistance Act. There again they have very little to do with the administration and perhaps that is all to the good, because there is a better distribution of work.
He talks about certain councils or certain local representatives having to face the responsibility of levying this rate. As far as I am concerned, I think he appeared to think that I objected to that. I do not object to it at all. What I object to is that in consequence of the fact that rotational schemes have been carried into operation in the last two or three years, the Unemployment Assistance Act has been relieved and there is less money being paid out in unemployment assistance than there was a couple of years ago. Notwithstanding that, the local authority is still called upon to pay the same amount of money although there has been a lesser sum paid under the head of unemployment assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary states that taxation levied either by the Government or by the local authority hits some people. I interrupted to say that that did not apply in this particular case and I want to prove it now. The Parliamentary Secretary apparently does not know that the county councils are not called upon to levy any rates at all in respect of this service and I suggested to the Minister yesterday that there were certain areas within the jurisdiction of the county councils which had populations of three or four thousand and which were governed by what are known as town commissioners. These commissioners have no authority to levy rates. The rates are levied for that area by the county council and I asked the Minister to give permission to the county council to levy a rate in an area such as that which was governed by town commissioners, because the cost of living in a town with a population of three or four thousand is just as high as it would be in a town of over 7,000. The Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, is wrong in his contention that in this connection the same kind of people pay the tax or the rate, because it is only certain numbers of people who are called upon to pay the rate. Up to this, it has been people living in urban areas with a population of over 7,000. They are called upon, according to the Act, to pay 9d. in the £, but strictly speaking they have to pay 10d. in the £, because, in order to get the gross result of the 9d. rate it is necessary to levy a rate of 10d. in the £. Here in Dublin they probably have to strike a rate of 1/7 in the £ in order to get the proceeds of 1/6 in the £, as there are certain rebates in relief of local taxation which, of course, affect the rate. The Minister insists, as I said, on the gross result of the 9d. rate or the 1/6. rate as the case may be. I am not against the principle, but the Government, when they were assuming office in 1932, told us very definitely that they accepted it as their responsibility to relieve unemployment. What I object to is that, having accepted that responsibility, they now throw the onus on the local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary has been twitting this Party about where they would find the money. I forget the kind of answer which Fianna Fáil used to give the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they were in power and were asking that question, but I have a distinct recollection of the Fianna Fáil Party when they were in opposition asking for things that they consider impossible to give now. They were not ready with an answer when they were asked where the money was to come from.
A million off the Army and £500,000 off the Guards!
They said certain things which could, I think, be described in the same way as Deputy Anthony and the Parliamentary Secretary described certain schemes as hare-brained schemes now. They were not harebrain schemes when they were put forward by the Fianna Fáil Party when they were in opposition. It was very interesting to listen to Deputy Anthony's speech. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why he wanted to get up at all. He told us he wanted to say something about the Bill before the House, but his whole time was taken up with an attack on the Labour Party. It is also very interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary agreeing with him. It is the first occasion on which I remember any kind of an agreement between the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Anthony.
On the principle of taxation?
The kind of speech delivered by Deputy Anthony just goes to show the quarter from which he gets his support at election time. He has re-echoed the sentiments of people who have always been against the unemployed getting any measure of support. I think it is patent to everybody now that Deputy Anthony has not the confidence or the support of either the working people or the unemployed people of Cork City. The things he now criticises the Labour Party for asking are the identical things that he himself used to ask for when he was a member of this Party. It was very interesting to hear him being commended by the Parliamentary Secretary, and getting a "hear, hear" from Deputy Gorey. It is certainly a combination we have no desire to join.
I regret I was not here during the whole of the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I take it from the portion of his speech which I did hear that he was defending the section of the Act which was putting responsibility on certain local authorities for raising a certain part of this £150,000. His main defence of that was to give them a sense of responsibility, so that he will get full value for the money spent in their particular districts. Of course, that does not hold water as a defence, because, if that were the reason, it would apply to every local authority in the county, and not merely to a very small number of the total number of local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary read again that long and interesting speech which he made on a former occasion regarding taxation, and the burden of taxation on the poor. I do not know why he should have troubled himself and the House by reading at such length, because it was all contained in the one phrase: "Why should they"—that is the taxes—"not fall upon the working classes?" That is what I said last night, but he denied that he had made that statement, and said I had quoted him wrongly. I told him I was not purporting to quote him, but simply giving the House what I considered to be the gist of his remarks on that occasion. His quotation to-day has confirmed that statement of mine. He went on to talk to-day as if any person in this House had objected to any portion of taxation falling on the working classes. It would not be possible for even a financial genius like the Parliamentary Secretary to conceive a form of taxation that would not, either directly or indirectly, fall on the working classes. What we did object to, and what we now object to, was that the working classes and the poor were bearing an undue burden of the taxation, and they are to-day carrying a heavier proportion of national taxation than perhaps ever before in this country.
I disagree.
Mr. Morrissey
The Parliamentary Secretary disagrees. That may be so. I make the statement, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find it hard to disprove that statement. He, of course, as we all know, has no objection whatever to taxing the poor. He considers it right and proper that they should be taxed, but some of us whose memories are not so short remember the time when he had a very distinct objection to taxing the rich in this country.
Because it fell upon the poor.
Mr. Morrissey
I leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary to convince this House or any of his constituents in the City of Cork that you are going to injure the poor and place a burden of taxation upon them by imposing income-tax on incomes over a certain figure, and that you are conferring a benefit upon them by abolishing income-tax.
Will the Deputy give way for a moment?
Mr. Morrissey
Certainly.
Would the Deputy be surprised to know that I did succeed in convincing the Cork Trades Council to the extent that they asked to be allowed to put a representative on the No Income-Tax Committee?
Who was the representative?
As a matter of fact it happened to be Deputy Richard Anthony.
I thought so.
He was put there by the Trades Council.
Mr. Morrissey
If that statement is true, and I accept it as being absolutely true, I have not at all the same respect for the Cork Trades Council as I used to have.
The Deputy feels more comfortable where he is now?
Mr. Morrissey
The Minister perhaps is not feeling nearly so comfortable where he is to-day as when he was sitting here six years ago. He has not as much reason to do so, and I have not as much to retract.
He knows more now.
Mr. Morrissey
It is to be hoped he does. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, is a very plausible and convincing speaker, or rather he was at that time, because he was making, shall I say, his entry into public life in this country. The people of this country did not then know the Parliamentary Secretary as they know him to-day, and perhaps they were not in a position to place the full value upon his words in the lengthy speeches of the period. We have not got to the position where, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, if you want to help the working classes you must abolish income-tax; if you want to help the working classes you must put your taxes upon your foodstuffs.
I have not said that, but I am perfectly willing to argue the no income-tax position.
Why not argue it with the Minister for Finance?
Mr. Morrissey
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the local authorities contributing to the unemployment schemes, and said it was only right that they should do so. The local authorities are contributing to unemployment schemes. He talked about the representatives of local authorities being afraid to stand over increased rates or over the proposed schemes for the relief of unemployment in their particular area. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is not true of the majority of public authorities. I myself, as a member of a very small local authority in this country, recently proposed a scheme which will exhaust to the full the borrowing powers of that particular local authority—a scheme for which the estimate would be, I think, something around £35,000, which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit, is a very big burden for a local authority with a population of less than 4,500 to shoulder. That local authority, however, is prepared to shoulder the burden so far as their capacity will enable them to do so. Every local authority in this country is contributing to the relief of unemployment, either willingly or as a result of Acts passed by this House. Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary admit what is the real meaning behind all this? The real meaning behind it is this: It is an attempt to disguise from the people that Fianna Fáil have failed to carry out the very definite promises they made to the people of this country. It is an attempt to spread the taxation. The Government will not raise £150,000 through national taxation—that might not be favourable to the Budget—but if we can pass it on: if we can rob £50,000 additional from the fund which was created to provide for those persons who were formerly employed but who now, unfortunately, are unemployed, well and good; and if we can force local authorities to raise another portion of it, well and good.
The Minister, in introducing the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, told the House that this Bill was being introduced because the Government were now in such a position that they could afford to give more to the unemployed, and in his closing speech he said that this sum was so small because the country could not afford any more. I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in reconciling these two statements—none whatever. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance may be an authority on finance or he may not, but the achievement of the Parliamentary Secretary, as the person who was appointed about four years ago, I think, as chairman of a committee that was to provide employment, or rather to recommend novel schemes to the Government to secure employment for the unemployed of this country, has not been an outstanding success, to say the least of it. The product of that massive brain has been what is known as the rotational scheme, and I say that it is not a credit either to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Government of this country. It has not worked except in so far as it has enabled the Minister to say that there has been a reduction in the amount of unemployment assistance paid out. It did not improve the position of the unemployed very much. In actual cash, the improvement was very small, and I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if there are only six days' work to be given in any particular area to a number of men, that six days' work should be given in one week rather than in two weeks. That would meet the situation to some extent at least. I do not want to travel too much outside what we are discussing.
But does the Deputy not admit that that would still be a matter of rotation?
Quite.
Well, then, we are in agreement on that, and it is just a question now of the method?
It is a question of trying to lessen the harm—a question of trying to reduce the evils of the scheme.
Yes, but we are in agreement on this matter of rotation, and the difference between us is as to the method.
The Chair disagrees with both Deputies, who should revert to a discussion of the Bill.
I suggest, Sir, that if the Parliamentary Secretary devoted less time to discussion and debate on such points, and more time to thinking out schemes for providing work for the unemployed under decent conditions and at proper rates of wages, he would do a lot more good. If the Parliamentary Secretary would think a little more of the workers and a little less of himself, it would be much better.
Evidently, however, we agree on the question of rotation.
If the Parliamentary Secretary gets on his feet again, I should like to hear him discuss this matter along the lines on which he tried to defend this imposition upon certain local authorities.
This being the Fifth Stage, that will not be permitted.
Is it the suggestion that the defect in the Act now is that it does not extend these contributions to a sufficient number of local authorities?
The trouble with Deputy Flinn is that, after ten years in Dáil Eireann, he has not yet lost that style of debate which he learned in the Liverpool debating societies. He is more concerned with making debating points than with the actual facts.
I submit, Sir, that this would be all the more relevant on the Forestry Estimate.
Or the Estimate for the Department of Education.
Or the Scrap Iron Bill.
Yes, the Scrap Iron Bill.
Well, Sir, we all know that the Minister is an authority on the relevancy of speeches, so I think I might as well sit down.
I welcome this measure, Sir, but there are one or two points to which I should like to refer in connection with the administration of the Act. Certain anomalies are apparent with regard to the application of the means test under the previous Act, so far as my constituency is concerned at least, and I hope that some steps will be taken under this measure to remedy these anomalies. Probably, the Minister will say that machinery is already in existence to deal with that matter, but I should like to stress the fact that, in certain areas, the administration of the previous Act has not worked out in the way one would like to see it work out, and has not resulted in the benefits that the people desired and that we hoped would result from the administration of the previous Act. I might mention that, in certain electoral areas, the interpretation of the means test was not exactly what one would have expected under the terms of the Act. In certain areas a different interpretation appeared to be put on with regard to local values, and we can never understand why it should happen that the results of the Act were different in different electoral areas. I should like to be assured that some steps would be taken in connection with the measure now before the House to ensure that people who have been suffering injustice during the past few years will, at long last, get the benefits, to which they are entitled, under this new Act. As far as I can see, from the working of the previous Act, either the people administering the Act have been putting a wrong interpretation on what was meant by the means qualification and did not know their work, or else there must have been some differentiation as between the different applicants. That is the only explanation we can offer in our county. In the past two years we have been pressed by people in our part of the country to ask for a general revision of the means test in South Kerry. It may seem a strange thing to make such a statement at this stage, but it is a fact nevertheless. I have already made representations to the Department in this connection, and I must say that the Department officials have done their utmost, but it is a strange thing to say that the value put on the means of these applicants three and four years ago is taken as the basic test, and no matter what officials come along they still regard that as being the basic principle or test to go on. Consequently, these people can never get the benefits of this new measure unless there is an adjustment or a general revision. In that case I make a special appeal to the Minister to see that that revision takes place and that the people concerned will get the benefits that are conferred under this measure.
I would like the Minister to give the House some better explanation than has been offered so far, as to why there is an additional impost to be placed upon local authorities arising out of this particular scheme. Originally, when unemployment assistance was introduced, the expenditure under it the first year was estimated at £1,500,000. The following year it was estimated at £1,600,000. While the Government take great credit to themselves for providing that money, the fact is that they were providing a sum of £400,000 or £500,000 for administration, but on the basis of the contribution of £1,500,000 the local authorities were asked to give something like £196,000 annually.
Some two years ago the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, gave the House the information that he was setting up a committee to consider the extent to which it was practicable to devise a scheme of useful and desirable public works to be carried out within a period of four years with a view to reducing the expenditure on unemployment assistance to a minimum. As a consequence, some money was collected from various sources for this unemployment scheme, but the local authorities' liability remained where it was, £196,000, even though there was £100,000 taken from the Road Fund, and the local authorities were expected to put up something like a quarter of the entire £2,500,000. Now we have got to a point where a very much lesser sum is being distributed in connection with unemployment assistance and the Minister seeks to put a greater impost still on the local authorities.
If the original calculations were wrong, the Minister ought to tell the House. If there is any other reason for placing an additional burden on the local authorities, we ought to be informed. The policy seems to be to promise much and to do little and, whatever little is done, to get it from somebody else rather than from the Central Fund.
Many of the speeches made in the course of this debate would be more appropriate to an Estimate discussion rather than to a motion for the Final Reading of this Bill. I will endeavour to deal as far as possible with the points that were raised, covering general questions of administration in relation to the unemployment assistance code. The main matter which has direct relation to the Bill was raised, first by Deputy Anthony, and was now referred to by Deputy Cosgrave. It refers to the justification for imposing any part of the total charge arising out of the provision of increased rates of unemployment assistance upon certain local authorities. I mentioned yesterday that until the Unemployment Assistance Act became law it was the accepted theory of government here that the relief of distress, the amelioration of conditions arising from unemployment, was solely the charge of local authorities. In fact, I think a few years earlier there was no provision at all for dealing with destitution amongst able-bodied persons outside the poor law institution. The Poor Law Relief (Dublin) Act became law in 1929, if my memory serves me correctly. Before that there was no provision for the payment of even home assistance to able-bodied persons in Dublin City.
The State, when it took over in part the responsibility for the relief of distress due to unemployment, had regard to that previous position and had to take into account the fact that it was, by its action, about to relieve these local authorities of what had previously been their sole responsibility. Deputy McGilligan quoted figures yesterday the purpose of which was designed to convey the impression that there had been, in fact, no diminution in the number of persons receiving home assistance since the unemployment assistance scheme came into operation. If such impression was formed by those figures in the mind of any Deputy, it is entirely incorrect. Home assistance is paid to all classes of persons. Home assistance was instituted for the purpose of relieving distress amongst persons other than those for whom the unemployment assistance scheme was designed.
And including some who are in receipt of unemployment assistance.
Some persons receiving unemployment assistance are also receiving home assistance. That is correct. In giving figures relating to persons receiving home assistance, I am deleting from those all persons other than able-bodied persons. In 1933, before the Unemployment Assistance Act operated, the average number of persons receiving home assistance was about 14,000. In 1937 the average number was 4,000, so obviously there has been a very substantial reduction in the number of able-bodied persons receiving home assistance. That may be attributable to a number of causes, but I submit it was mainly attributable to the introduction of unemployment assistance.
Where was the reduction?
Over the whole country.
In Cork the number indicated was over 4,000.
I am not referring to the total number receiving home assistance, I am referring to the number of able-bodied men to whom home assistance was paid. The great majority of those receiving home assistance are children, and to quote these figures as having relation to our unemployment situation is entirely erroneous. The relief of distress due to unemployment or to any cause was, and always has been, the primary responsibility of the local authorities. There are, surely, definite considerations in relation to this unemployment scheme which justify a special impost upon the particular local authorities which are being called upon to contribute. We could have instituted an unemployment scheme providing for uniform rates of assistance all over the country. If the sole charge of financing that scheme was to be placed upon the national Exchequer then uniform rates of benefit would appear to be called for. The working man in West Mayo who buys an ounce of tobacco or a pint of porter pays exactly the same contribution to the Exchequer as does the working man in Dublin. But the working man in Mayo is not getting the same scale of benefits as the working man in Dublin because this scheme provides for a higher rate of benefit in the cities and large urban areas than in the rural districts. Therefore, it is proposed to levy against the particular areas in which these higher rates are paid a special charge for these higher rates. Deputy Cosgrave spoke yesterday as if there were something inequitable in increasing the charge on the rates in Cork City by twopence. That was done by reason of the fact that higher rates of benefit are provided for the working man in Cork City. The charge of twopence on the local rates is going towards recouping the higher rates of benefit paid in Cork City over and above the rates of benefit paid in the rural areas.
That twopence charge on the local authority will very much more than recoup the cost of the extra benefits. Did I not put to the Minister the fact that a couple of years ago the Exchequer supplied £1,500,000 towards the Unemployment Fund and now that is being brought down to £1,000,000? The charge on the rates in Cork that time was 1/6 in the £; now it is 1/8 in the £.
Deputy Cosgrave has missed my point. If we paid in Cork County Borough the same rates as in Cork County the charge upon the Exchequer would be less, but by reason of the fact that we are paying a higher rate of benefit in Cork City, obviously the charge upon the Exchequer has been increased. The amount recovered by the Exchequer from Cork City does not exceed the amount of increased benefit paid to the working men there due to the fact that higher rates are paid in Cork City.
Let the Minister take the last four years and tell the House what the unemployment benefit cost in Cork City four years ago and what it is costing now.
The additional cost in the payment of unemployment assistance in the Cork Borough area as compared with the rural area was £28,500 last year.
What was the total amount?
The total amount was £81,000 in Cork City last year. If the rate paid in Cork City had been uniform with that paid in the Cork County Council area the amount payable in Cork City last year would have been £52,700.
What was the amount paid four years ago? The point I am at is this—that the Minister is making money out of this scheme at the expense of Cork City.
And I am telling you he is not. I am trying to justify the charge of two pence on the Cork County Borough by reason of the fact that a higher rate of benefit is paid in Cork County Borough.
We are paying more money for unemployment assistance in Cork County Borough now than we did four years ago.
That is by reason of the fact that a higher rate of benefit is being paid to the unemployed. We are justified in levying this charge of two pence for the purpose of compensating the Exchequer for the higher rate paid in Cork City.
Even though the amount paid in Cork City to-day is less than the amount paid three years ago.
Whatever the sum paid in the Cork County Borough is, the amount we are getting does not compensate us for the additional cost caused by the higher rate. The additional amount in 1936-1937 was £28,500. In addition to that the additional amount which will now be paid in Cork, that is the difference between the highest rate now being provided for and the rate paid in the rural areas will be about £7,000. In other words, the differential in favour of Cork City has been increased by £7,000 while the additional imposts will bring in £7,900. Cork City is getting out of the unemployment assistance scheme a sum over and above that which it would get if the unemployed in Cork City were treated as the unemployed in other parts of the country. The unemployed in Cork City would on the basis of the rural areas scale get a sum of money considerably less than they are now getting out of this scheme.
You are not taking any unemployment insurance contributions from Cork?
No. I think we are justified in taking these contributions from the Unemployment Fund. Deputy Morrissey spoke as if the security of the insured persons was being diminished, as if their prospects of drawing benefits were reduced. Everybody knows that that is nonsense. Until last year the Unemployment Assistance Fund consisted of a deficit. It was only last year that this deficit began to disappear and a surplus accumulated. During all these years benefits were paid whether there was a deficit or a surplus. Therefore, the contributors will be in the same position now as in the past. The benefits provided by law will be paid and the deduction of this £50,000 will not affect their position in the slightest.
Will that sum of £50,000 be paid back again into the fund?
No. Again I say we are justified in making that contribution because these insured contributors are getting the same benefit by reason of the reorganisation of the scheme. Other people are also getting that benefit. But, nevertheless, we have to recognise the fact that the worker who was formerly entitled to benefit only for a limited period is now entitled to get that benefit and that after the limited period has passed the unemployed are still entitled to the benefit. Under this law he is entitled to decide whether he will avail of his rights under the Act; he has the right to opt whether he will receive the unemployment assistance benefit or the unemployment insurance benefit. He can draw the unemployment assistance and leave stand the amount due to him under the unemployment insurance scheme.
Mr. Morrissey
Has the Minister any idea as to how men engaged in the rotational scheme are to benefit by this?
I have not the figures.
The means justify the end!
The means justify the end in this particular matter, at any rate. There were a number of other points referred to. I know that there is in the minds of some Deputies a desire to see the rates of benefit still further increased. My sole purpose has been to try to impress upon these Deputies the fact that a further increase in benefits will involve an additional impost upon the taxpayers, and over and above the additional impost on the taxpayers an additional impost upon the local authorities or upon special classes in the community. The money to pay for the higher rates of benefit must be got somewhere. Deputy Corish said that the Fianna Fáil Party when in opposition put forward hare-brained schemes and that the Labour Party now stands upon its inalienable right to do the same thing.
That is not what I said. I said that they put forward schemes that were then described as hare-brained. Anybody asking for anything now is described by the Government as hare-brained.
Deputy Anthony referred to the Labour Party's schemes as wild-cat schemes.
When did the Minister drop these wild-cat schemes?
There are a few of them loose about the country. There is an old saying that people in glass houses should go to bed in the dark. If Deputy Anthony wants to get a perfect representation of a collection of wild-cat schemes, he can find them in the published programme of the Fine Gael Party.
Between the Minister's Party and the Labour Party the people were humbugged and they are now finding that out.
Deputy Cosgrave is sorry that he did not have some of our schemes.
I stood all along for a sound sensible policy and the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party will come around to that policy yet.
"Standing" is the word. Many references have been made to the cost of living. I want to make clear that the rates of unemployment assistance provided for in legislation are not directly related to the cost of living. As I said yesterday, I think it is undesirable that we should accept without question the contention of the Labour Party that the rates of unemployment assistance fixed in 1933 should fluctuate with fluctuations in the cost-of-living figure. We must approach consideration of the level at which these rates are to be fixed, having regard only to the amount of money we can provide for the service, and, having determined that amount of money, we must endeavour to secure the most equitable distribution of it.
That is nonsense. People must get enough to keep them.
Deputy Cosgrave said something about "standing" a short time ago. If he really means what he has said just now, he has moved a considerable distance.
If you mean what you have said, it is humbug.
I say that it is not practicable, possible or desirable to provide through an unemployment assistance scheme only for the livelihood of persons unemployed. I think that an unemployment assistance scheme only would be completely unsuitable provision for the unemployment situation. The obvious method of dealing with unemployment is to provide work.
Precisely. Use your plan.
The Government, having devoted by far the greater part of its available resources for this purpose to the provision of work, we have to put behind our works programme this unemployment assistance scheme.
A works programme of 14/- a week.
We cannot elaborate a works programme in such detail as to provide in every part of the country exactly the amount of employment required at a particular time in that locality. You can go some distance in that direction, but you cannot achieve that result. We are not putting forward the rates of benefit provided for in this scheme as being adequate to maintain unemployed persons during prolonged periods of unemployment, but we say that they will enable them to tide over normal periods of unemployment—periods of unemployment occurring between periods of work during which their weekly receipts will be considerably in excess of the amount set out in this Bill.
One and sixpence.
I was about to make some reference to the various speeches made on the subject of the cost of living in relation to this measure. Deputy McGilligan purported to quote me as denying that the cost of living had increased. I have never denied such an obvious fact as the increase which has taken place in the cost of living. I set out to prove—and I think I have proved beyond the possibility of dispute—that the rise in the cost of living here since 1933 was less pronounced than in many neighbouring countries and proportionately less than in Great Britain. It was, certainly, less than in the United States, and it was, in any event, due to causes almost entirely outside the control of the Government. Deputy Norton quoted the actual prices of a number of commodities in 1933 and 1937. Some of these commodities were farm products, some were manufactured foodstuffs, and others were articles of clothing. So far as the farm products are concerned, there has been a rise in price. The whole aim and object of Government policy was to effect that rise in price. It is good for this country that a rise in agricultural prices has taken place.
So long as incomes keep pace with it.
In the past, when we referred to economic recovery, or agricultural prosperity or a fair deal for the farmers, what we had in mind was higher prices for agricultural goods. I do not think that anybody will seriously contend that agricultural prices are at an economic level yet— that they are sufficient to recover for the farmers the full cost of production and provide them with a reasonable return on the capital invested in their industry.
Because you took the markets from them.
There has been a rise in price. Do Deputies opposite deplore that rise in price or do they not? The obvious inference from Deputy Norton's speech was that he did deplore it.
So long as it is not accompanied by a rise of income.
I want to get the Deputies clear on this fact: so far as there has been a rise in the price of agricultural products, it is a good thing for this country. If the situation can be further adjusted so as to secure an additional rise in the price of agricultural products, it will be a good thing for this country. It will mean a higher national income, more employment and greater prosperity. Such a rise in price in respect of these matters is not to be deplored. It is a thing on which we can congratulate ourselves.
Let us turn to the question of manufactured foodstuffs. The rise in price which has taken place in respect of manufactured foodstuffs is due to the same cause—a rise in the price of primary products. It is also due to the rise in wages paid to labour.
And to the profits taken by the employers.
We had Deputy Norton speaking here frequently about the price of bread. I take the bread as an example. It is, undoubtedly, true that the price of bread is dearer here than it is in England and it is, undoubtedly, true that the cost of labour here is considerably higher than it is in England.
Is that so?
Yes. The standard rate of wages here is higher and the output per individual is substantially lower than it is in England. I am not saying that the standard rate of wages here is too high.
Did the Minister inquire as regards the profits of the employers?
Deputies are trying to run away from the facts. They have got to face the facts. Either they deplore the fact that prices here are higher than they are in England or they do not. If they are higher than elsewhere, we can inquire the cause. I am not sure that the bakers have been making any profits at all——
The Minister should read his own Trade Journal, which shows that less wages were paid by bread manufacturers than were paid two or three years ago.
I have spent the last five years in a painful endeavour to teach the leaders of the Opposition Party how to study and understand the statistics that my Department makes available for them.
If it were not for the leaders of the Opposition you would never have had that journal.
On the particular point which Deputy Cosgrave has now raised, in our Census of Production we publish in relation to each industry two figures—the number of persons employed on a particular day—the 1st October, I think—in every year and the amount of wages paid in that industry throughout the whole year. There is no relation between these two figures. The figure you get by dividing one into the other proves nothing.
But less wages are being paid.
The conclusion that Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy McGilligan and ex-Deputy Mulcahy used to arrive at—that the standard rate of wages was going down——
I am not talking about the standard rate of wages. I am talking about the bulk wages.
That conclusion was due to the fact that employment was going up. Because employment was going up, the number employed on the 1st October was always higher than the number employed on 1st January. Consequently, the division of the number employed on 1st October into the total wages paid during the year gave an average wage lower than would be the case if the actual facts were properly presented.
I am talking of the bulk sum paid in wages. That was less in 1936 than it was in the year before.
Deputy Norton complained that the price of bread was higher in Dublin than it was in London. That is true. It was probably equally true in 1931 or 1933. There are many causes for it.
Are wages 33? per cent. higher?
The average wage of an ovenman in London is about £3 10s. as compared with £5 10s. here, and the output per individual in London is about three times as much as it is here.
That is extraordinary.
These figures seem almost incredible when you read them. There may be causes, and perfectly justifiable causes, for them, but that higher labour cost is one of the reasons why bread is dearer here than in London. When Deputy Norton complains that bread is dearer here than in London, I want him to understand that there are known reasons for it, and that that is one of the reasons.
Deputy Norton complained yesterday that clothing cost more in 1937 than it cost in 1933. He must know quite well that there has been a very substantial increase in the wages paid to clothing trade workers between these years. We could get back to 1933 prices if workers would get back to 1933 wages. I do not propose to ask them to do so. I think that the wages paid in 1933 in the clothing trade were unduly low.
So they are yet.
Deputy Lawlor says they are yet. What does Deputy Norton mean by coming in here to complain about that increase of price? Did he think it was possible to effect a really substantial increase in the wages to workers without increasing prices?
He did not complain of that. He complained of the cost of living in relation to the rates of benefit in the Schedule of this Bill.
He did not make that clear, and if members of the Labour Party will make it clear, I shall have no grievance against them, but they have succeeded in giving me, the House, and the country the impression that they object to these increases in price, as such, whatever the cause.
They object to the decreased purchasing power of the people.
They do not object to the increases in price. There are quite a number of them I do not object to. I have said that some of these increases are matters for congratulation. when people spoke about the economic depression that began in 1929, and caused industrial dislocation and widespread unemployment all over the world, what they meant was the fall in prices. It was the fall in prices that began in 1929 that was the essence of the industrial depression, and that depression continued as long as prices kept falling. World conferences were called; meetings of experts were held, for the purpose of devising some plan to arrest the fall in prices. Finally, the various measures taken by the different Governments were successful, and the decline in prices was checked in 1933. In that year, recovery began, and by recovery I mean an increase in the price of primary products.
And of the purchasing power of the people.
I should like to deal with that only it would take too long. I have been reading here during intervals in the debate the World Economic Survey published by the League of Nations, and I refer Deputy Heron to it. It would repay him to read it because it deals exhaustively with the effects of the depression and the recovery in the purchasing power of the workers of various countries. I have dealt with this matter merely for the purpose of getting clear the attitude of the Labour Party, and I think I have now got it clear. I was left under the impression that they were deploring all the increases in prices to which Deputy Norton referred yesterday. He read out a long list of different commodities and gave the average retail price in 1933, and also the average retail price in 1937.
Is it not quite obvious why he did that, when you have the first Bill in 1933 and then this Bill in 1937?
If that was all that Deputy Norton, wanted to prove, I think he could have made his case in a manner which would have created less uncertainty as to his attitude. In so far as there has been an increase in prices, I want merely to make clear that it is possible to find out, with a considerable degree of exactitude, why that increase took place. In so far as the increases were due to rising prices for primary products, rising prices paid to producers—in this case, to the farmer—they are something to be welcomed and something which tends to promote prosperity in this country. In so far as they are due to rising wages, in many cases, they are also to be welcomed because they represent an improvement on conditions which were generally regarded as unsatisfactory, although, in some cases, I think it should be possible to offset the actual higher earnings of individual workers by securing a better output, and thus secure the benefit of the higher standard of living for the individual workers concerned without raising prices on the rest of the community. In the particular case I mention, I think it would be well worth the while of those directly concerned with the industry to examine the position to see whether they are giving the community what could be described as a square deal.
On the general question of the relationship between the cost of living and rates of unemployment assistance, I repeat that there is no such relationship, but if Deputies insist on making such a relationship, I say that even if we take 1933 as the base year, the percentage increase in the cost of living which has taken place is less than the percentage increase in the unemployment assistance rates which we are now providing. I say, however, that 1933 is not the base year.
Would the Minister say if he advisedly stated that the rates of unemployment assistance paid must have no relation whatever to the cost of living and that if it were three times what it is the rates would be the same?
I would not say that, but I would say that we should have to have regard to a number of other circumstances as well; and the primary consideration is the amount that can be made available for this service. A very substantial increase in the cost of living might be accompanied, as the Deputy very properly pointed out yesterday, by an equally rapid expansion in national income which would make available for such a service a much larger sum than we are now providing. It might be due to causes which might occasion a contraction of national income and make impossible any similar expansion in expenditure on a service of this kind.
Reference was made to the persons transferred from Cork City to a rural area. I dealt with that by way of Parliamentary Question to-day, but I should like to say to the House that on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Hugo Flinn, I have agreed to an arrangement under which those workers transferred from Cork City out to Spangle Hill will still be eligible for employment on relief works in Cork City on precisely the same terms as if they had continued to reside in the city and be eligible to draw unemployment assistance at city rates.
Is the Minister making a mistake when he mentions Deputy Hugo Flinn, instead of Deputy Hurley?
I say that on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Hugo Flinn, I have agreed to this arrangement by which these workers who were transferred outside the city boundary will continue to be eligible for employment within the city on relief schemes financed out of the Central Fund, on the same terms as if they had continued to reside in the city and be eligible to draw unemployment assistance at city rates. That was one of the points raised by Deputy Hurley. Deputy McGowan was misinformed with regard to period orders. The estimated cost of the Bill which I gave is based on the assumption that unemployment and period orders will be made in this year for precisely the same periods as last year.
These employment period orders affect all single men outside the special urban areas where the intermediate rate of unemployment assistance is paid. The employment period orders will operate in Balbriggan equally with other towns in County Dublin. there are only ten or 12 urban areas not affected by them. They are urban areas specially mentioned in the Principal Act, the population of which exceeded 7,000 when the 1926 Census was taken. In this Bill however, as Deputies are aware, we are taking power to extend the intermediate rate to urban areas of smaller size, after consultation with the urban authorities, and with the consent of the Minister for Local Government. One of the advantages of securing that extension, apart from the removal of anomalies, to which Deputy Corish referred, would be to take these workers from outside the scope of the unemployment period orders, if these orders are made on precisely the same basis in the future as in the past. It is desirable that we should secure that general extension of the intermediate rate to these small urban areas. We are making it possible for the urban authorities in these areas to take the initiative, and to secure that extension, or we leave it open to ourselves to take the initiative. Generally speaking, I think that is desirable in towns of almost similar size and character in the same locality, where the same conditions prevail, rather than have this more or less artificial distinction between one class of urban area and another, according to the size at the most recent census.
Will the unemployment period orders not apply to an unmarried man or widower with no dependent whose place of residence is not within the county boundary or in a town having commissioners under the Towns Improvement Act, 1894? Might there not be this anomaly, that you could have a town in County Dublin, having a population of, say, 2,500 unaffected by the unemployment period order, while in another town practically next door, but without town commissioners, a single man without a dependent would not get assistance?
That is correct. Certain anomalies will arise in connection with unemployment assistance on a national scale. They arise where, for one reason or another, there are separate areas established. Reference has been made to the anomalies that occur where different rates of assistance are payable on each side of a particular borough boundary. I think it is true to say that in Kilkenny a large number of workers live outside the town boundary and are entitled to unemployment assistance only at the rural rate. These anomalies cannot be avoided. There must be a boundary somewhere with unemployment orders and some general classifications must be given. Those within the classification are affected by the orders and those outside are not. It is inevitable that there will be anomalies. We tried to consider various methods by which these anomalies could be reduced, but came to the conclusion that it was not possible to do more than we are doing. We can discuss the effect of particular period orders as they arise. We have done so in the past and, I have no doubt, we will do so again. The general effect of the exclusion is, I think, sound, and, so far, all the evidence we have been able to secure indicates that it causes no real hardship. Deputy Flinn referred to complaints that had arisen in South Kerry concerning the assessment of means. The Department of Industry and Commerce is not responsible for the assessment of means. That is carried out by the officers of the Revenue Commissioners. These officers act upon instructions which are designed to secure that valuations placed upon particular assets will be uniform everywhere. Their instructions are similar to those issued to old age pensions officers, and while undoubtedly certain differences may arise in the assessment of value, on the whole, the operation of the Act is fairly uniform. In any event it is difficult to see how a different arrangement could be made to one which ensures that expert and trained officials make valuations which are subject to the appeal which the Principal Act provides.
The Minister has not referred to one matter that was raised by a Deputy on these benches, and that is the anomaly of the rates in the schedule applying to a woman with a dependent husband, as against that of a man with a dependent wife. There does not seem to be a case for that distinction.
We have carried into this Bill the same differentiation that existed in the original Act. It is the same percentage increase in each case.
The Minister indicated, that he proposed to accede to a request made to him, so that certain workers outside Cork City would be afforded an opportunity of working on unemployment relief schemes, even when not receiving unemployment assistance.
That was not the point.
I understood that was the point raised by Deputy Hurley and by Deputy Flynn. In any case I would like to put this point to the Minister, that the Principal Act operates to exclude certain persons from receipt of unemployment assistance. I will not go into that particular question now. I suggest to him that the time has come when he ought to take counsel with the Department of Finance, to ensure that even if the Act operates to exclude certain persons from unemployment assistance, that exclusion should not be extended to prevent them getting employment on unemployment assistance schemes. The operation of the Act has created terrible hardship when extended to prevent these persons getting work on unemployment relief schemes.
There is no direct rule between unemployment assistance and relief schemes, except that those responsible for relief schemes administration are naturally desirous that the money provided will go where it is most needed and, so far as they can arrange, that employment will be given to those whose circumstances are such that they most urgently need it. It is difficult to provide a rough and ready method of deciding between the needs of one person and another. The simplest method that they have been able to devise is this, that persons in receipt of unemployment assistance are more in need of work than persons who are not qualified to receive unemployment assistance, and, as between persons in receipt of unemployment assistance those who are getting most are those who are in most need. That is only a sort of rule of thumb but it decides the means of applicants for work. On the whole it works fairly. I admit that in individual cases it might not. It is difficult to provide any more effective method which will be as simple. Any method operated must be simple or it will break down, or open the way to undesirable practices. I mean that individuals may be placed, irrespective of their claims, by those immediately responsible for the selection of men. We were anxious to try to eliminate that individual favouritism on the one hand, and, at the same time, to secure a simple rule of differentiation on the other hand. I think that is the only rule that could be devised. The purpose solely is to ensure that where there is not enough work for everyone, such work as is available will be given to those relatively in the greatest need.
At the initial stage some rule of thumb must be necessary to get a scheme going, but I submit that the time has now come when there ought to be an inter-departmental inquiry into the way that rule operates, and into the hardship that that rule has given rise to. If there was an inter-departmental inquiry instituted, the Minister would discover that a certain considerable class of people is suffering under a very real sense of grievance. I think the Minister will agree with me that, where such a situation exists, steps should be taken to abate that sense of grievance. I think that can be done by occasionally directing that certain schemes be excluded from the rule of thumb. I see the difficulties which confront the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, but I believe they can be overcome. I submit that an inter-departmental inquiry would meet the requirements of the case.
The Deputy, of course, appreciates that that is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works.
It does not always follow that the man who has the greatest grievance gets work. Take the case of a British ex-service man with a pension of about 8/-. He has no other means of income. In accordance with the size of his family, if he had not that pension, he would get, in Wexford, for instance, 15/- unemployment assistance, and from now on 17/6. I submit that, in the rotational schemes of employment, a man in that position should be given his turn with those on the 15/- rate. He is in the same degree of need, but in consequence of the fact that he has this pension he is put at the end of the list and does not get his turn. Perhaps the work is exhausted before the end of the list is reached. The same would apply to an ex-national army man in receipt of a pension of 7/- or 8/- a week. I think the Minister should give consideration to cases of this kind.
There is just one point—
I want to point out to Deputies that all this discussion is outside the scope of the Bill. If the Minister wishes to reply to the remarks of Deputy Corish and Deputy Dillon I will allow him to do so.
There is only one word that I want to say. It is this, that when Deputy Anthony introduced the word "work" I think his doing so found favour with every member of the House. The haphazard methods which are being adopted cannot be said to be providing work for the unemployed. If someone is asked to prepare a scheme locally and it is sent up to the Department, that surely cannot be described as a national scheme. What I would like to know is if the Minister's mind is working on the idea of having a national scheme of work, and whether he is thinking of having a committee of inquiry that would lay out a field of work. Let us have a scheme of reproductive work, if possible, or useless work if reproductive work cannot be found—something that will keep people working and not have them getting into a chronic state from continued unemployment. That is a matter that the Minister should direct himself to. I think that the remarks made by Deputy Anthony found an echo in the minds of most Deputies.