I move:—
That the Unemployment Assistance, (Third Employment Period) Order, 1940, made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 24th day of May, 1940, and presented to Dáil Eireann on the 30th day of May, 1940, be and is hereby annulled.
It is with very sincere regret that I find it necessary to move this motion asking to have annulled the Third Employment Period Order. Following as it does Period Orders 1 and 2, if taken cumulatively, this practically means the wiping out from vast sections of the people the benefits conferred on them by the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1933. The first of these orders, as we know, has taken benefits away from people in rural areas—from single men, widowers without dependants and people with a valuation of £4 and over.
These Orders have been resisted in the House by the Labour Party each time they were introduced as being an unwarranted interference with that section of the community who most need the help and assistance of the State and who were given that assistance by an Act placed on the Statute Book, only to be toyed with year after year by a stroke of the Minister's pen in the shape of an Unemployment Period Order. But certainly the extreme limit was reached when Period Order No. 3 came to be introduced in the year 1940, beyond all years, at a time when it is the desire of everybody to have co-operation and contentment, when appeals are being made from every platform and from the Government Benches to have a united front so as to pull together to try to tide the country over the serious times in which we are and the much more serious times that seem to be lying ahead. That is the time selected to strike off married men with families from the benefits of the Unemployment Assistance Act in nearly all the rural areas. In fact, outside of the municipal and urban towns and some small scheduled areas in the country districts, the entire country is affected by this Period Order.
I suggest that that Order of the Government would be stupid at any time, that it would be perfectly unjustified and unwarranted, but that in present circumstances it is criminally stupid and, in its effect, will be calculated to defeat the best intentions of those who are trying to rally and consolidate the people in a solid phalanx. What can be the reaction to appeals for co-operation of married men with families, who it is not suggested have got work, and who have been enjoying, if you like to use the word, this miserable pittance for the past few years, trying to keep body and soul together on a maximum of 14/- per week, no matter how many children they may have? Whether they have one, two, three or ten children, outside the scheduled areas set out in the Order they are to be deprived of any State benefit whatever. They will have to live somehow. No effort has been made to provide work for them. The previous Government did not attempt to cater for the unemployed. They said it was not their job, that it was the function of the private employer. The Fianna Fáil Government changed that dictum in response to the appeals of the Labour Party in 1933, and they implemented their promise by the passing of the Unemployment Assistance Act, setting out definitely that they believed that citizens of the country were entitled to have work provided for them, and that until such work was provided they were entitled to a maintenance allowance. A certain meagre, miserable standard was set up which was never intended, according to Government spokesmen themselves, to be a living wage standard, but merely to tide the people over between one period of unemployment and another.
Unfortunately, the plan for absorbing the people into employment never materialised. The problem has grown bigger and the only action that the Government take is to slow down year after year their progressive action of 1933, until we find the depths of retrogression reached in 1940. They seem to have regretted ever having been so progressive as to pass this legislation, and the method of administration adopted is sufficient evidence of that. It is hedged round with all kinds of provisions to ensure that there will not be any nefarious practices carried on, that the State funds are adequately protected and safeguarded. To that we have no objection.
But, on top of the necessary safeguards that one could reasonably agree to, they have had recourse to what I have protested against over and over again in this House, the anonymous letter system. This is the only Department I know of that accepts anonymous letters without question and allows them to be the medium for robbing men of unemployment assistance. On receipt of one of these letters signed "Captain Moonlight" or something like that, it is the duty of the labour exchange manager to deprive a recipient of unemployment assistance of any further money without further investigation. Subsequent investigation may prove the man to have been wronged by this anonymous scribe, but months may elapse before unemployment assistance is restored to that man and his family. I mention that to show that, in addition to the investigations made by the officers of the Department and the Gárda Síochána, we also have these anonymous letter writers, who we have been told from the Ministerial Benches here are not going to be discarded, as they are a very useful and fruitful source for protecting State funds. With all its elaborate machinery to protect State funds and give effect to an Act of Parliament which was intended to see that nobody should get benefit who was not entitled to get it, what is the justification for the introduction of this Third Period Order, with its scheduled area covering a territory running mainly down the west coast?
It is difficult at this stage to ascertain the number of people directly affected by this order, but I think I am safe in saying that the number of men affected will be between 30,000 and 40,000. If we estimate that each of these is responsible for three dependants, we have immediately between 120,000 and 160,000 people who are to be given no benefit from this until the end of October next. They have to go somewhere for assistance. They have to go to the home assistance officer. There is quite sufficient strain at present on the rating authorities, and the amount they are capable of giving in the way of relief is hopelessly inadequate.
I have a letter here—one of many of the same kind—which is by no means congratulatory, and I would not like to read it in full. It is from a poor man living within three miles of Limerick, at a place called Coonagh. He says that he is the father of four children—one five years old, one two years old, and twins six weeks old. He has been struck off unemployment assistance, and says that he has to go to the dispensary for home assistance, and is only getting 9/- per week. He points out how he has been struggling to exist on 14/- a week unemployment assistance. There is no work in his locality. He cannot get work in the City of Limerick, because the schemes there are required for the relief of people in the city, where we have considerably more than 4,000 unemployed, and are at our wits' end to provide relief schemes for them. This man and others like him who are outside the borough cannot get employment in the city, and there is no work in the county for them.
Without any investigation whatever, and regardless of the consequences, the Minister by his Order strikes off between 120,000 and 160,000 persons, and compels them to live without any assistance whatever so far as State funds are concerned. If you average the income from this assistance at 10/- a week, on that basis, possibly £300,000 is going to be saved. That seems to be giving further expression to the desire of Ministers and the Government to get away from the progressive legislation they passed in 1933, for which they earned certain encomiums. Having departed from the practice that hitherto obtained they now seem to want to get back to the position of having no responsibility for unemployment. That £300,000 is not going to be saved to the State. It means that £300,000 is going to be withdrawn from circulation in rural areas by poor people who were living on what has been mis-called the dole. The money will be withdrawn from circulation amongst shopkeepers and others, while the people who were dependent on it will have to go some place else to get assistance. The rates will have to come to the rescue.
The rating authorities outside municipal and urban areas have not been touched so far. At present municipal and urban authorities have been subscribing generously to the Government in order to help to meet the charge on the Central Fund, but the rural areas have not been called upon to do so. It looks as if they will be called upon to do so now. Viewing the matter from every angle, I consider this to be the most indefensible and stupid action taken since the Government came into office. There seems to have been nothing but utter disregard for the serious situation in which we find ourselves. From expressions of opinion I heard in Cork, Limerick and Kerry, counties which I have visited since the order was made, I never heard a more genuine outburst of indignation than at this period order. I listened with patience to hear what explanation the Minister had for his action. I am satisfied that he will not give a satisfactory explanation now. He may build a barrier around the question, but I am satisfied there is no satisfactory explanation, having regard to the fact that our unemployment problem to-day is as serious as it is. The period order was put into operation for the first time in February this year. It was put back to coincide with the new summer time.
The order generally came into force in March, but it came into force in February this year to coincide with summer time, and we were glibly told that the figures of unemployment had been reduced from 117,000 to 85,000. As a matter of fact, they were not reduced, but there was a transfer of names from one side of the labour exchange to another. That does not put food into the stomachs of hungry children. The people affected have not been employed. Their only consolation now is that the married men with their families can go where they like, and the devil take the hindmost. We will probably be told, arising out of the fuel shortage, that they can get plenty of work on the bogs. I was on the bogs in Kerry last Monday, and I had discussions with some of the people affected by this order. Those who are on the bogs cannot eat turf. It is no substitute to give them freedom to roam the bogs and to cut turf and make that an excuse for withdrawing the miserable pittance they got to keep their wives and families alive. Can they be blamed if they are accused of lack of patriotism, or if they suggest that it did not matter to them who came to rule this country, because they could not be in a worse position?
This seems to be the last straw, and the Government's indication of having no mercy for citizens who should be as much entitled to consideration as the biggest merchants. They only ask the right to live. They are prepared to work if work is provided. No work is available, and if it were available the machinery of the Act would prevent them drawing benefit. If that is the case what is the necessity for this period order? Either there is work for the people or there is not. If there is work they will not draw the dole. If there is not work is the Minister prepared on behalf of the Government to condemn these people to exist on the wind, by withdrawing from them a right granted by a majority of the House, and that should be as sacred as any legislation that was passed by it? It is not going to create respect for our laws if legislation dealing with one section can be terminated to suit Ministers every time there is a fad fictitiously to save £300,000. But the £300,000 will not be saved. It is being stolen in the worst possible fashion, and will create dissension, discord and ill-will at a time when appeals are being made for a united front to harmonise all our forces to do what is best for the nation in the period we are passing through. I ask the House to assert its authority so that there should be more respect for legislation passed by it, and to give an answer to the Minister in the only effective way it can be given, by annulling this order by a vote of the House.
The annulment will have this effect, that the 130,000 people dependent on the 30,000 or 40,000 persons affected by the order, will bless the men who vote to give them assistance to which they had a God-given right. If the Minister wants to test the feelings of the House, as a gesture of the unity shown by all Parties, I ask if he is prepared to take off the Whips, and to allow a free vote of all Parties. I believe that even in the Fianna Fáil ranks the resentment against this order is as keen as it is amongst Deputies in other Parties. Of course, members of the Government Party are bound by Party ties, and the Minister will scarcely agree to the suggestion to take off the Whips but, as a matter of duty, if there is any sincerity in the talk about concord and unity, it is up to him to allow the House, which was responsible for this legislation, to have a free vote to determine whether or not that legislation will be treated with contempt and contumely. If that is done I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister will not get half a dozen to support him in this nefarious proposal and that the order will be annulled.
