Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 7

Private Deputies' Business. - Increase of Unemployment Benefits and Allowances—Motion.

I move:—

That in view of the increased cost of living and the inadequacy of the benefits payable at present to unemployed persons, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should at once introduce proposals for increasing substantially the rates of benefit under (a) the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and (b) the Unemployment Assistance Acts.

It is gratifying to note that both before and immediately after this Government came into office they accepted the principle that it was the duty of the State to provide work for all its able-bodied citizens or, failing that, a decent standard of maintenance for those for whom it could not provide decent employment. I think many sentences can be quoted from the speech made by the Taoiseach in this House on the 29th April, 1932, to support that statement, and I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce has no intention of challenging the accuracy of my statement on this important matter. When what is known as uncovenanted benefits, or what is equivalent to unemployment assistance, was first introduced, not in this country, but in England, it was clearly understood to mean the provision of assistance of a temporary nature to maintain a person who was leaving one job while he was waiting to find another.

Never was it admitted by the members of this Party—and I dare say it was never claimed by the Minister or his Party—that the benefits fixed in pre-war days for those who were entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance could be regarded as adequate or sufficient to keep the persons concerned and their dependents in common decency and comfort. I know of many cases where those in receipt of the maximum amount of unemployment assistance, who had large families, were unable to maintain themselves and their families in pre-war days, and had to go to the local assistance officers or board of health authorities to supplement the miserable sum that they received.

That is happening to a much greater extent in recent times. I think the returns of the board of health authorities bear testimony to what I say.

This proposal is based mainly on the ground of the increase in the cost of living. Figures are available which prove that the cost of living has increased out of all proportion to the benefits which these people received in pre-war days. The latest Government returns concerning the increase in the cost of living have been published in the Irish Trade Journal. The mid-November cost of living figures show that the increase in the cost of living at the date when these returns were made was, generally, 58 per cent. above pre-war level. Anybody who knows anything about the responsibilities of keeping a house and family knows—and the Minister, I am sure, will be the first to admit it— that 58 per cent. is not a real representation of the increase in the cost of living, having regard to the actual cost of purchasing essential commodities for the household of an ordinary working-class individual. The cost of living, I am sure, has considerably increased even since the figures which I have referred to were made up.

Assuming that the cost of living has gone up by 58 per cent., it means that the wife of a recipient of unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance would have to find 31/7 in mid-November last to purchase what she could get for £1 in pre-war days. It is a fact that it is impossible to purchase many of the articles that were generally consumed in working-class homes. The 58 per cent. has, therefore, no bearing on the actual cost of commodities which must now be consumed by the working-class people. There are many commodities that cannot be purchased at any price which were available in pre-war days for ordinary persons at fairly reasonable prices. I made inquiries recently as to the cost of a rabbit. In pre-war days rabbits could be bought in shops in the constituency which the Minister represents at from 3d. to 5d. each. Where they are available, in the shops in that constituency or elsewhere in the City of Dublin to-day, they cost 1/11 each. That is more than a 58 per cent. increase in the cost of one article of food which was commonly consumed by working-class people in pre-war days. Deputy Hannigan tells me that it represents more than 350 per cent. increase.

Many of the people who would be entitled to receive unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance are living on or outside the boundaries of our cities. Taking the latest reliable figures that I could find, 60 per cent. of those on the live register live in rural areas and roughly 40 per cent. live in what are known as urbanised areas. I am quoting from a document issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce dealing with the question of employment and unemployment in the years 1940 and 1941, and I am basing my 60 per cent. as against 40 per cent. figure on the figures that were published in table E, page 11, of the document issued by the Minister's Department. I am also quoting from the figures for the month of January, 1941, when, I assume, no Employment Period Order was in operation. I take it the Minister will agree that, generally speaking, 60 per cent. of the people in receipt of unemployment assistance live in the rural areas and 40 per cent. live in what are called urbanised areas. The people who live in and around the boundaries of the urbanised areas generally have to pay as high a rent as those living within the urbanised areas and, for marketing purposes, they certainly have to pay the same prices as are paid by those who live inside the urbanised areas where a higher rate of unemployment assistance is available than is available in rural areas.

The allowance paid to those qualified to receive unemployment assistance is quite inadequate, especially in the case of unmarried men and women living in cities. These people get no benefit from what is known as the voucher system which, I admit, has helped to some extent to enable families that qualified for the receipt of vouchers to tide over a very difficult period. During a recent discussion here on unemployment, and the failure of the Government to provide useful work for able-bodied citizens, there was an exchange across the floor of the House between the Taoiseach and Deputy Hannigan. The Taoiseach very positively asserted that there was no such thing as destitution in the country, that hunger or destitution did not exist. I presume he meant that nobody was living below the level which Christian people would be entitled to get in a country with a Constitution such as we have.

If the Deputy is quoting the Taoiseach, he should use his exact words.

The Taoiseach made such a lengthy speech on the occasion, such an historic speech, that it would take a long time to quote relevant extracts from it, too long, at any rate, to fit in with the time now at my disposal.

There is a good reason why the Deputy is not doing that.

On the occasion referred to, I was more or less held up by the Chair when I was quoting from a speech made by the Taoiseach on the 29th April, 1932. The Taoiseach observed that it would only be fair to him that I should quote the whole of a very long portion of that historic speech, which took up about two hours. That speech was delivered after he came into office in 1932. There was apparently some doubt in the mind of the head of the Government as to whether people were living below the level of a decent existence in this country.

I will now quote some cases that were submitted to me recently by a person who is well known to the Minister, and who has a good deal of experience as a social worker in the city. These cases were reported to the public assistance authority at the time. They deal with women workers not in receipt of the maximum amount now given to persons entitled to claim unemployment assistance. The first case is that of a woman, an unemployed bag maker, idle for nearly two years, and suffering from incipient T.B. In addition to an allowance of 8/6 she gets 4/- for nourishment from the Charles Street Dispensary. The 4/- pays her rent, and she has the 8/6 on which to maintain herself. I am not quite certain whether the Minister thinks that amount is sufficient to maintain a single woman in common decency. The second case is that of a woman who has been receiving 12/- unemployment benefit for one and a half years. Out of that she pays 7/- rent. Dealing with the miserable conditions under which she tries to exist on this allowance, she writes: "Only God and myself know how I live." The third case is that of an intermittent worker. Out of a 12/- allowance she pays 6/6 for rent. The allowance was recently reduced to 8/6, and this lady has had to apply for supplementary relief. All these women, by the way, are single women.

The next case is that of a person in receipt of unemployment assistance. This person gets the minimum allowance, and she has no vouchers to assist her in the purchase of food. She used to live with her sister, an old age pensioner, who recently died. She has been two years out of work, and her 8/6 allowance was stopped because she did not sign at the labour exchange on the morning of her sister's funeral. Another bad case is that of a woman who has been two years idle. She lived with two brothers, one of whom is blind; the other joined the Army recently. This woman found it impossible to pay the rent, and she has had to look for work in England. That meant putting her blind brother into an institution.

I quote these cases in order to have them put on the records of the House, and I invite the Minister to say whether he stands for a system of maintenance which places single women in the position that these women now occupy. These cases, I hope, will help my argument in favour of a better standard of maintenance for single women who cannot find work and for whom the Government have been unable to provide work. There are many instances of unmarried male persons living in the cities and not receiving vouchers, and single women being placed in such a position as I have indicated. There is a clear case, I submit, for increasing the cash allowance paid to such people. I appeal to the Government, during this critical emergency period, to extend the voucher system to all citizens who have the misfortune to be unable to find work.

It is just as difficult for the person who lives in a small village to try to eke out an existence on this miserable pittance. The people who live in non-urbanised areas, small villages and towns, have to pay a high rent for their houses and the cost of living affects them very considerably. I was looking up a list of the non-urbanised areas where unemployed persons live. I found that a considerable number of registered unemployed persons live in small towns like Granard, Ennistymon, Kilmallock, Newcastle West, Cahirciveen, Dingle, Killorglin, Listowel, Carrick-on-Shannon, Ballinrobe, Swinford, Manorhamilton, Killybegs and Dungloe. I am quoting a list of towns where the number of unemployed registered in December last was, with two exceptions, in excess of 500. Out of the 14 towns I have mentioned, the number of unemployed in five is well over 1,000 and, with two exceptions, the number of unemployed in the remaining towns is over 500. Rents are very high in these places. After paying their rents, these people are left with a very small amount to purchase the necessaries of life. There is a clear case for an increase in the cash allowance paid to such persons under the Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance Acts.

I assume I shall be asked by the Minister whether the workers who are insuring under the Unemployment Assistance Acts would pay an increased contribution in order to make it possible that they should get increased benefits. I will endeavour to answer that point. On looking up the present position of the unemployment insurance fund, I received a shock when I found that a considerable sum is taken from this fund every year for the purpose of making up the allowance which is set aside for payment of unemployment assistance benefit. If this fund was restored to its original financial basis, according to figures placed in my hands, it would be possible to pay increased benefit at the rate of 50 per cent., without forcing contributors to make any increased contribution. Looking at the position of the fund for the years 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941, I find that the total income, from all sources, in 1938, was £1,231,733, whereas the payments out amounted to £662,928, leaving a balance of £568,805; in 1939, the income was £1,266,210 and the payments out £663,308, leaving a balance of £602,902; in 1940, the income was £1,213,269 and the payments out £802,015, leaving a balance of £411,254; in 1941 the income was £1,235,846 and the payments out £836,619, leaving a balance of £399,227.

The figures show that, during the four years 1938-1941, payments into the fund exceeded disbursements attributable to unemployment benefit by £1,982,000, the greater part of which was abstracted from the fund by the device of charging it with £300,000 for unemployment assistance and—this was education to me—increasing by 50 per cent. the charge for administration. When the Minister takes part in the discussion, I ask him to endeavour to justify the figure of 50 per cent. increase for administering the unemployment insurance fund. I shall be very interested to know how the Minister will attempt to justify that increase. Is it a device to reduce the amount that would otherwise be available for the payment of increased benefit to persons who contribute under the Unemployment Insurance Acts? I assert that if the fund was restored to its original financial basis, a 50 per cent. increase of the existing benefit could be paid without forcing contributors to make any increased contribution.

The Minister will come along—and rightly so—with the claim that something has been done, since the motion was tabled by this Party, to give increased allowances to a certain percentage of individuals who are entitled to claim unemployment assistance benefit. Some months ago, he introduced a scheme which enabled certain agricultural workers and unemployed persons living in turf-cutting areas to register and, if they would undertake to make themselves available, if required, for agricultural work and, particularly, for turf-cutting operations, they would, in some circumstances, be entitled to receive an extra 5/- weekly for having their names on the waiting register as men who might be considered suitable for turf cutting. That is some advance. I have not access to the register, but I should like to hear from the Minister what percentage of unemployed persons—particularly persons qualified to receive unemployment assistance benefit—are at present getting the benefit of that increased allowance.

This motion proposes an increase in the amount of benefit to be paid in future to persons entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefit, and benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and covers no less than 95,000 citizens of this State. There are in round figures 90,000 persons registered as unemployed. From the official figures I was surprised to see that 5,000 able-bodied young men between the ages of 18 and 25 have been refused unemployment assistance benefit by the labour exchanges because they would not join the Construction Corps.

That is a mild form of conscription. If they do not join the Construction Corps, they are struck off the register, which would entitle them to receive unemployment assistance benefit. I was amazed to find that the figures were as high as 5,000. If on an average 5,000 persons over a period of years were added to the numbers on the live register, it would mean that 95,000 citizens are concerned with whatever action the Minister may take as a result of this motion. I read some journals that are published outside this country, but which circulate here, and it was stated in a recent publication that 150,000 citizens of this State are now serving in the British Forces. I could quote the name of this American paper which stated—I think it was wrong—that about 400,000 citizens of this State are working on reconstruction work in England. I do not know if the Minister read that statement in this American journal. Personally, I think the figures given in it are grossly exaggerated. But what is to be the position of the 150,000 persons now serving in the British Forces, and the equally high number of persons who, I am sure, are working on reconstruction work in England, when the war ends and they turn back to this country, either for work, if it is available, or for maintenance? They will be coming back from a country where they were in receipt of very high wages, and where, if they continued to reside, they would be in receipt of maintenance allowance of a much higher standard than in present circumstances is paid in this country. I do not envy the position of the present Government, if they happen to be in office, if they have to face up to that problem after the war. At any rate, we want to keep our own people at home to do the work that is to be done here, producing more food and more fuel. The Minister and his colleagues will have to make up their minds to provide these people with better wages for the work they are prepared to remain here to perform or, if unable to provide them with work at home, to provide more Christian standards of maintenance than are provided by the present regulations. I say: keep these people at home, put them to the work that is waiting to be done and pay them decent wages to get that work done. The reason for the mass emigration of our people during the past year or two is the inducement given them to go to another country where they can get three times the wages they got at home in occupations in which they were previously employed.

I notice that the Minister, in the most exciting speeches that he has been making in recent times from public platforms, seems to harp on the dangerous line that some people are advocating in this country. He says: "There can be no improvement in the social services unless there is an expansion of agricultural and industrial production." Have I quoted the Minister correctly? He must face up to the fact that he and his colleagues took responsibility publicly, and here in this Parliament got themselves elected as a Government on the undertaking that it was their duty to provide work for all our able-bodied citizens or a decent standard of maintenance for those for whom they were unable to provide work. When the Minister talks of not being able to increase the social services unless there is an expansion of industrial and agricultural production does he relate what I may call that kind of Bank of Ireland argument to the increase in the cost of the Defence Services, to the increase in the cost of the Civil Service, and many other aspects of Governmental administration? We can increase industrial production and particularly agricultural production if we keep our own people at home to produce more food. If we are going to do that we will have to give them a better standard of wages than they are being offered on the land by the farmers at the present time. Did Deputy Victory want to say something sensational?

All I said was that the responsibility came to us from the people.

The Deputy is sitting on those benches as a result of the undertaking that his Party gave to the people that it had a plan to provide work for all our able-bodied citizens, or a decent standard of maintenance for those for whom they were unable to find work.

The people will have an opportunity of deciding again in the near future.

Does the Deputy repudiate the statement that such a promise was given?

The people, I say, will decide.

It would be more orderly to proceed by debate than by way of question and answer.

I am sorry. I hope that Deputy Victory will honour us, in one of the few speeches that he makes in this House, with a contribution to this discussion and, if he does, I hope that he will take the line either of attempting to justify the miserable rates of unemployment insurance benefits and of unemployment assistance that are being paid to those who are unable to find work at the present time, or will— and I hope the Minister will agree with him—accept the motion in the names of Deputy Hickey, Deputy Everett and myself, and take the earliest possible steps to increase these benefits to a standard which will make it possible for our able-bodied citizens, whether male or female, and whether living in urbanised or in rural areas, to maintain themselves and their dependents in decency and comfort.

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to support the very eloquent appeal made by Deputy Davin for increased benefits for those who are suffering very great hardships at the present time. I know, and I am sure other Deputies, especially those representing Dublin constituencies, know the difficulties that our unemployed people have to contend with, as well as people with small wages. I received two letters this morning. One says: "I hope you will excuse me writing to you. This is my first appeal. My husband has to be away in eleven days owing to his being unemployed. He is in a very bad state at present for some inside clothes, and I would be very thankful, etc., etc." She finishes up by saying "for the sake of my 12 children". Her income is 25/-. She has an unemployed husband. I say, definitely, that is starvation. I have another letter from a woman who says she is getting two children ready for Confirmation. You know, she says, how difficult it is to get children ready for Confirmation. "My husband has only £2 5s. 6d. a week. It is a terrible struggle. I have 13 children altogether." There are two cases: 13 children in one family, and 12 in another. The husband, in one case, has £2 5s. 6d. a week, and in the other the income is £1 5s. a week, unemployment assistance. These people are being neglected at the present moment and something ought to be done to improve their lot.

Deputy Dillon pointed out a few days ago the increase in the cost of clothing. He mentioned that a few months ago a woman paid 4/- for a shirt for a boy of 12 or 14 years of age, and said that at the moment that shirt would cost 10/- or 12/-. The price has gone up three times, but income has not gone up three times. One sees children in the City of Dublin going around wearing the remnants of summer clothing—clothing which has been washed threadbare. The cost of living has gone up so much that they are not able to get the ordinary requirements wherewith to clothe their children in a reasonable way. If they apply, to the board of assistance for relief, it has, by the terms of its authority, to apply a means test which was never before applied to this country.

I referred a few weeks ago to the case of the girl who had been in the children's hospital at Cappagh. She has been referred to as the T.B. miracle of Cappagh. She had been there for six years and came out cured. When coming out, she was given 7/6 a week by the board of assistance to buy nourishment. Her brother was living in one of the new flats provided by the corporation. He was one of four, and got a job—carrying a butcher's basket—at 15/- a week. The income of the home was, in consequence, a little over the total allowed for four in a family. The result was that the commissioners took the 7/6 a week from this girl. She had been given that to enable her to buy codliver oil and other nourishment. This means test is being applied in all kinds of cases to an extent that, I am satisfied, the Government do not wish. Therefore, I think something ought to be done to have word passed to the authorities that it is not to be enforced, and that everything ought to be done to give those people the benefit of the doubt. As Deputy Davin's motion suggests, the allowances referred to ought to be increased, so that the people concerned will have enough to enable them to keep body and soul together.

The motion refers to the cases of single men and single women. A few weeks ago, I had a letter dealing with the case of six men—they are 65 years of age—who were staying in a common lodging house in the city, where they have to pay 6d. a night each. Their only allowance is 10/6 a week each. They are not even given a free bag of fuel. I thought they were entitled to that but it appears they are not. That is the position of those unfortunate men. Deputy Davin also referred to the case of the young man who had 10/6 a week from the labour exchange, and who was told that, if he did not join the Construction Corps, the 10/6 would be stopped. That is definitely conscription. There are plenty of men in the Construction Corps but they are there of choice. If every young man of 18,19,20 or 22 years does not desire to join the Construction Corps of his own free will, it is not right that his 10/6 unemployment assistance should be stopped.

Why not? Why should the state maintain a man who refuses to join the Construction Corps?

Mr. Byrne

I am not going to argue that point. I say it is conscription of labour, and we have not passed conscription yet. I have already made reference to the fact that there are men in the Construction Corps of choice, fine, strong men, but men who feel that they are not fit for the heavy work in the Construction Corps should not be debarred, without an Act of this Dáil, from getting 10/6 per week unemployment assistance if they are entitled to it.

If they are not fit for the Construction Corps they will not be taken into it.

Do you not deprive a man of the chance of resuming civilian employment when he joins the Construction Corps?

There is no compulsion on any man to join the Construction Corps. But why, if a man will not join it, is there an obligation upon the rest of us to contribute to his maintenance?

Mr. Byrne

Is there to be no freedom left to a man?

Certainly.

Mr. Byrne

Supposing a man hopes to resume work, or his mother or father hopes to get him into some employment?

Then he will not be disqualified.

Mr. Byrne

Why should he be forced to join the Construction Corps?

If he can show that there is any possibility of his getting work, he will not be compelled to do so, nor will his unemployment benefit be stopped.

He will not be paid assistance in the meantime.

The only question which the court decides is whether he is genuinely seeking work.

You have conscripted him by preventing his getting unemployment assistance.

There is examination of the circumstances of each individual.

Not even the promise of work will get the benefit for him.

Mr. Byrne

I hope other Deputies will deal with that point. Judging by the remarks of Deputy Keyes, he intends to follow on those lines, and put forward the claim that a man should get from the State the benefits to which he is entitled. It is not right that his 10/6 should be taken from him, or from his mother, because it is from his mother it is taken.

No. If he has any dependents, this does not apply.

Mr. Byrne

I know that those boys who draw 10/6 a week will give 8/- or 9/- to their mothers. By depriving them of their 10/6, it is the family you are taking it from, and it is not right or proper. The allowances provided at present for single women who have given good service in some kind of employment, and who lose that employment, are totally inadequate. You are forcing people to the relieving officer, and in some cases you are forcing them into hospital. Forcing members of the Dublin working class, the tenement dwellers, into hospital in Dublin means forcing them into hospitals maintained by the municipality or the State. They are forced into those institutions much against their will. I do object to the kind of allowances provided at present. A man with 12 children who gets 25/- a week, pays 5/- or 6/- for rent. One woman told me that a pair of stockings which she bought 12 months ago at 9d., for the confirmation of one of her children, cost 2/4½d. to-day. How can they live on the allowances given, or in some cases on the wages given? I know that other members of the House are saying to themselves: "We all know similar cases." I know that every member of the House knows similar cases, and would like to say so if he were free to do it. In very many cases, conditions in Dublin at the moment are appalling, and I appeal to the Minister to do everything that is humanly possible to relieve the hardships of those people.

I am sure the Minister does not relish being reminded in these days of some of the wild utterances he made in the good old halcyon days of Fianna Fáil electioneering. Some years ago, round about 1932, round about a period when there was world depression, the Minister and his supporters annihilated, physically and rhetorically, the members of the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government for their failure to provide work or maintenance, when the Minister's Party manufactured the slogan: "Work or Maintenance," and wrote "Fianna Fáil" under it, "Fianna Fáil" over it, "Seán Lemass" to the right of it, and "Seán Lemass" to the left of it. We now find that, after 11 years of Fianna Fáil Government, there are 90,000 people in receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act, benefits which do not even provide them with a standard of living which saves them from malnutrition in a vast number of cases.

The Taoiseach was slightly perturbed a few weeks ago, when he was reminded that there was starvation in Dublin. He denied that there was starvation in Dublin, but admitted that there were hunger and destitution. Some people would call that hairsplitting. In fact it would remind some people of the difference between Document No. 1 and Document No.2. Whatever about that aspect of the matter, there is no denying the fact that, since the famine years of the last century, there has not been as much poverty and as much destitution in this State as there is at the present moment. According to the cost-of-living index figure, the cost of living has increased by over 50 per cent. during the past few years, but in respect of the poor, the very poor particularly, I think nobody could reasonably deny the fact that the cost of living has increased by very much more than 50 per cent. Such articles of diet as lard, bacon, offals, margarine and many other such commodities that were readily procurable a few years ago are no longer available to the poor people. Some of the commodities which I have mentioned are available at prohibitive prices. In many cases people in receipt of State benefits in Dublin City at the moment are compelled to live on dry brown bread, coloured hot water described as tea and fats of one kind or another.

What do they do with their food vouchers?

The effect of the present low rates of benefits on our economy may be described as disastrous. Men, women and children are under-nourished and their resistance to disease, particularly in the case of tuberculosis, is breaking down. The present low income of the vast army of people forced to exist on unemployment benefits will have a permanent deleterious effect on the health of the rising generation. It is a fact that the outstanding cause of tuberculosis is poverty. The benefits, or the pittances described as benefits, on which the vast army of people to whom I have referred have to depend for their existence, have produced a state of under-nourishment amongst them that scarcely enables them to offer any resistance to any form of disease. There is now alarm in all quarters and in all places in relation to the high incidence of tuberculosis in this country. As I have pointed out, the outstanding social cause of this disease is poverty, and that poverty is largely created by the absolute and dismal failure of the present Government to provide work or maintenance for the people of this country.

Deputy Davin referred to the excessive cost of the administration of these schemes. He pointed out that in recent years the cost of administration had increased by no less than 50 per cent. and that this increase was at the expense of the recipients of the so-called benefits. I would suggest to the Minister that if economies must be effected in any direction, that is the direction in which they can most safely be brought about. It will be a real economy to secure some saving in that direction. I hope when it comes to a division on this motion, that members of the Fianna Fáil Party will ignore the Party Whips, and think of the position and the rotten conditions under which people have to live, huge vast numbers of them, by reason of these totally inadequate State allowances. I know perfectly well that in the forefront of the minds of most of the Fianna Fáil Deputies is the coming election. If they do the right thing and walk into the right Division Lobby— in this case the left Division Lobby— when this motion comes to be decided, I can assure them that, having regard to the debilitated state in which the Fianna Fáil organisation now is, there is not the slightest likelihood or possibility that any form of disciplinary action will be taken against them by the heads or leaders of that Party.

I was expecting the Minister to have no hesitation in coming to the House to say that he had agreed to increase unemployment allowances. He has already admitted the principle by granting increases in wages to men who are in employment. Those in employment having received certain small increases as a result of the action of the Minister, I cannot understand why he would not save discussion in this House and admit that people who are unable to get employment are entitled to a substantial increase in their allowances owing to the increased cost of living. It has been pointed out to the Minister that the money to finance such increases is already there because the Government has raided the Unemployment Fund— each Government so long as I can remember—for other purposes. Year after year they reduced the deficits on their Budgets by raiding the Unemployment Fund. We suggest, therefore, that there is no necessity to go to any outside sources to find the money, and that sufficient is available to permit of a substantial increase in benefit for unemployed persons as well as extending the benefits to people unemployed in rural areas. A big mistake which the Government made was to suggest that because a man lived in a rural area, there was work available for him in that area. I know that in certain areas in my own county, the inhabitants are principally small farmers, and these small farmers are unable to employ anybody. They have to look for employment themselves on the roads and on turf schemes, yet in these areas labourers were treated as if they were living in large industrial areas where work was available and were refused unemployment assistance for a particular period. What was the result?

The home assistance authorities were faced with the problem the following week of giving assistance to the unemployed men, where they were satisfied they were unable to procure work. The Minister asked, during Deputy Hannigan's speech, what they did with the vouchers. They do not receive vouchers in the rural areas. It is as expensive to live there as—more so— in most portions of the City of Dublin. There is competition amongst the shops in the city, but there is none whatever in the rural areas, and a man is dependent on one or two shops. The shopkeeper has extra expense in bringing goods by road ten or 12 miles from the railway station. There is no necessity to put forward other arguments than those put forward here tonight. It is regrettable that a native Government could have 95,000 persons unemployed at the present time. Certainly, if the Labour Party had taken another attitude outside this House, all the Construction Corps, all the Army and all the L.D.F. would not be able to prevent the unemployed from securing food. But they come here, in a constitutional way, and ask the Minister to recognise the fact that these men are entitled to something more than promises and pittances.

We have had references to the Construction Corps, and the Minister, on the information he had received, points out that, if an individual puts up a good case, he is not deprived of his benefit. Unfortunately, the Minister was not aware of the facts. I had a case where an individual had no parents alive, but was residing with his grandparents, who were very old. He was unable to take up work in the Construction Corps, and when he came to a certain age he had nothing but what he received from home assistance. He was unable to get any work, as his name was not on the list at the Labour Exchange. So, it is not quite as simple as the Minister is advised it is. Most of the people are deprived of assistance on the grounds that they are not willing to join the Construction Corps. From what I have heard of the work by the Construction Corps in Glencree, I would not advocate the expenditure of public money on men joining the Corps. If the Minister makes inquiries, he will, probably, find that some men have a reasonable objection to joining, especially when they become closely associated with others in the district. That is not the attitude that all Irishmen should adopt towards one another, but there may be some men who are conscientious objectors. Why should a man or his parents or grandparents be penalised? Why should he be left off the register and not in receipt of unemployment benefit and without any chance of getting work offered by public bodies? Those are regrettable facts which the Minister should consider.

Without wishing to make any propaganda at all, I can say that we have had an increase in various sicknesses— in tuberculosis, for instance. It must be admitted that there is widespread malnutrition, and no member of the Party opposite can dispute that. If the Minister were in opposition he would be one of the loudest in condemning any Government which compelled men to exist on the pittances they have to accept to-day. If men had to live on the unemployment assistance allowance for a short time only, it might be easier, but when they are continually living on it—except for a few weeks relief work at Christmas—the food they receive is not sufficient to give them the nourishment necessary to prevent disease.

We know from the returns in connection with school medical inspections that there is a regrettable state of affairs, which we must do something to remedy. I expected that the Minister would be the first to rise here, when the motion was proposed, to say that he recognised that these men were entitled to some assistance and that the Government was prepared to fulfil at least some of their promises. We know that some individuals now in the Government made such glowing promises that they succeeded in getting into power. Yet there are 95,000 unemployed unable to find work and 250,000 working in another country. We are unable to export wheat and cattle now to a foreign country, but we are exporting human beings. The emigration from the towns in my constituency is continuing, with skilled, hard-working men leaving to work in a foreign country, because there is no other method by which they can maintain themselves and their families. If the Minister would put his officials at work to try to find employment for these men, even for half the wages they receive in England, they would be willing to work at home instead.

There are many useful schemes submitted by public bodies, which are held up under the excuse that the officials of various Departments have been transferred to the Department of Supplies or the Department of Defence for the period of the emergency. Rates have been raised by public bodies for some of these works, yet they have not been given a grant to enable them to give useful employment and to keep these men in the country. Besides, we may require the co-operation of every man in town, city and country to save the harvest. I suggest to the Minister—without individuals taking up a certain line— that he has no arguments to put up as to why the unemployed should not receive an increase in their allowance. It has been proved that the money is there and that the credit is there. While there are schemes ready for work on bog roads and on agricultural land the Minister should give some grant to enable the men to get some little extra money. There is no use in painting a bad picture about the conditions, but I have seen the men and I know what they eat. The Minister should go down in disguise to the bogs or roads where these men are employed and see the small wage they receive. With the scarcity of various things, they are unable to procure the food that Deputies and others can procure in the shops. The Minister would then have a different impression of what is going on in the country.

It is a well-known fact that it is according to your bank account or your orders that you get extras in the shops, over and above what your vouchers would procure. There is a scarcity of butter at present. I could show the Minister letters from very important and influential people in my constituency, who have sympathy for the poor workmen, and they point out that those who have the good bank account and can give extra orders, can get substantial supplies of butter, where it is not rationed, but the unemployed man or the man on home assistance is unable to get a ¼ lb. What we want in County Wicklow is to have the butter rationed as it is in Bray and in the city, so that everybody will get what they are entitled to, whether a ½ lb. or a ¼ lb., irrespective of their bank accounts. The Minister may say that we should be able to get sufficient in Wicklow. Wicklow is not in the same position as other places, because all the milk goes to Dublin and the farmers have to buy creamery butter themselves. Without any further debate in this House, the Minister should take these matters into consideration and should admit the justice of the claim made by the movers of this motion.

There is not much to which to reply. Deputy Everett was surprised that I did not stop the debate by announcing my acceptance of the motion moved by Deputy Davin and seconded by him. The motion asks the Dáil to declare that, in view of the increased cost of living, the Government should at once introduce proposals to increase substantially the existing rates of benefit.

My objection to the motion is the implication which it contains that it has not been done. It has been done. On more than one occasion, in consequence of the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the war, the rates of benefit payable under the Unemployment Assistance Acts have been increased. Deputies should not ignore that. Not a single Deputy has even referred to the fact. I think the Labour Party tactics are fundamentally wrong. This grotesque exaggeration in which they engage, this deliberately shutting their eyes to obvious facts, is getting them into the position where nobody credits anything they say.

Then, we have as bad a reputation as the Minister has.

I will look after my reputation and leave the Deputy's reputation to himself. Deputy Hannigan comes in and says there is more starvation in Dublin at the moment than at any time since the Famine. It is not true. Nobody thinks it is true. Not a member of the Labour Party, not even Deputy Hannigan, thinks it is true. I suggest to them that they should keep their apprentice on the rails and learn, themselves, the wisdom of trying to stick as closely as possible to the facts. As a Party in opposition, anxious to get increased power, a little judicious exaggeration or failure to deal with all the facts may be forgiven, but they have got altogether too far away from reality. There should be, at least, a substratum of truth in what they say. If they do not want to take my advice, they need not, but they have seven members in this House now—seven and a half counting Deputy Hannigan—and that is all they will ever have unless they try to deal with realities.

The people of this country are concerned with realities. They know what the realities are. They are not interested in the flights of fancy of the members of the Labour Party. They are interested, and we are interested, in any practical, constructive suggestion they have to make. We have got none to-day. We rarely get any from them. Of course, it is an easy thing to say: "Give out more money; increase the amount of unemployment assistance; give unemployment assistance to those who are not getting it now. Give, give, give. Do not bother about where you are to get it. That is only a detail. Keep on giving." Anybody could make that suggestion. One does not even have to be elected a member of the Dáil to make that suggestion. People who have not been elected to the Dáil have made that suggestion in anonymous letters to the Evening Mail and other publications. It does not get them anywhere. We have to deal with this problem in a constructive, practical way.

A great deal of money has been expended on unemployment assistance. The amount which is provided for that service has been increased substantially since the beginning of the war. It is quite true that the rates of unemployment assistance now in force do not provide against the possibility of hardship in the family of an unemployed man. We never contemplated that they would. We contemplated that the State should come in and, from the resources of the whole community, make available assistance to the man who was temporarily unemployed. That is why we called it unemployment assistance.

There is an obligation upon men, while they are in employment, to save against the rainy day of unemployment, or to adopt the usual precautions against the various mischances to which all human beings are liable. There is an obligation on them to avoid improvidence and to conduct their personal affairs rationally and intelligently. We accept the obligation to provide from the resources of the community help for those people during their days of misfortune within reasonable limits. The limits are fixed by the resources of the community, by the willingness of the people to contribute through taxation for that purpose.

"Why should we deprive this man of his 10/6, and that man of his £?" ask Deputies. These 10/6's, these £1's, these hundreds of thousands of pounds which are, in fact, being provided for this service, are not dug out of a hole in the ground under this building. They are taken from Pat Smith, John Murphy and Willie O'Brien, the workers in Dublin and the ordinary people around the country who are finding it just as hard as others to make ends meet. When we give 10/6 to an unemployed, single man in Dublin, or 30/- to 35/- to a married man, or provide increased assistance in some other form for those who need it, it means we are taking something from Pat Smith, John Murphy and Willie O'Brien, people who are fortunate enough to be at work, in the form of increased tax on their beer, tobacco or sugar.

The money which the Government expends on these social services comes from the people. The Government is, of course, quite willing to expend more upon social services. It may be a popular thing, approaching an election, to announce increased expenditure upon social services, higher benefits to those who come under the services, but at some stage the Government has to go to the people and say: "Here is the bill. We have been paying out this money on your behalf. We have been promising these payments at your expense. You have got to cash up now and that is going to mean another increase in taxation upon you, a higher price for taxable goods, tea, sugar, tobacco or beer." At that stage the people will object and the members of the Labour Party will object. In fact, if the Government does have to come to this House with proposals for increased taxes of these kinds nobody here will protest more strongly than the members of the Labour Party.

Question.

Have they ever failed to protest in their whole 20 years in this House? Did they ever vote for an increased tax?

We did not vote against the £9,000,000 for the Army and you get that from the people, also.

Did they ever vote for an increased tax? Of course, they did not and it is that fact which shows the insincerity of their motion. If they want to go before the people as a Party they will have to examine national problems constructively. They must be prepared to commit themselves not merely to the good things that they want to promise the country but also to the ways and means by which these good things are to be made available. They cannot have it every way. I know they have been trying to have it every way and that is why there are only seven or eight members here. If they ever want to become stronger and to realise their ambition of a Labour Party Government, they will have to come down, as we had to come, and put our proposals before the people——

And promise what you promised in 1932?

——which involved, not merely undertakings to make increased provision for those who needed it, but also the unpopularity of stating precisely how it was going to be done.

When did you say that you became unpopular?

He does not remember.

We cannot tell lies the way the Minister can tell them.

It is a fact that not everybody voted for us. There were some people who did not vote for what we proposed but at each succeeding election the number was still less. I think history will repeat itself.

Wait and see.

The Deputy has no alternative.

The Minister is whistling to keep up his courage.

I have stated here that this motion is unnecessary. It calls upon the Government to increase the rates of benefit provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act in consequence of an increase in the cost of living. Let us get the facts. Deputies in the Labour Party do not like facts but my job is to give them. We base our policy upon facts. The Unemployment Assistance Act was introduced in 1934. May I remind the House that it was introduced by this Government, that, before 1934, there was no such thing as unemployment assistance in this country?

Up to that time if a person became unemployed and exhausted his right to insurance benefit, there was no provision for him at all. In fact, up to a certain time, even the home assistance authority could not give him help if he was an able-bodied man. That is a matter of only a few years ago. This development of our social services, which began with the advent of Fianna Fáil to office, has already worked substantial changes in the social life of this country. Deputies are inclined to forget that. Of course, they naturally do not want to credit Fianna Fáil with anything. But it is our job to see that the full facts are put, including those things which are creditable to ourselves.

This Act was introduced in 1934, which was the first time in this country that unemployment assistance was made available on a nation-wide basis. It is true we had to lay down certain rules and tests in order to determine those who were to receive the benefit. You cannot have, in relation to a nation-wide scheme of this kind, a judicial examination of the circumstances of each individual. It is necessary to lay down certain broad rules and to say: "Those who qualify under these rules get the benefit and those who fail to qualify are out." We did endeavour to get the element of individual judgment introduced by bringing into operation the system of courts of referees, and any person who is refused unemployment assistance by the unemployment assistance officer has the right to go before the court of referees, a local court, consisting of a chairman appointed by the Government, a person chosen from a panel nominated by local employers and a person chosen from a panel nominated by the local trade unions.

That tribunal examines his case and decides whether, having regard to all the facts, he is or is not under the law entitled to unemployment assistance. Most people who are refused unemployment assistance exercise that right of appeal, and a very large number of them have their unemployment assistance restored to them as a result of decisions in their favour by the local court of referees.

The Act of 1934 established that new service and provided for the first time a statutory right to assistance in a large number of households where previously there had been real need of it. The scales of benefit which were laid down in the Act were not represented as adequate to maintain a man and his family in the same circumstances as he would have been able to maintain himself if he had succeeded in getting employment. The unemployment assistance provided was not intended to be a substitute for wages. It was intended, as I have said, to be assistance from the communal resources to the individual family during the period of the unemployment of the breadwinner. We did not think that we were providing means to enable individuals to maintain themselves and their families over long periods of unemployment. The total amount which could be provided for that service was determined and voted, and, within the limits of that amount, we endeavoured to do the best possible, having regard to the relative claims of various individuals.

The rates of assistance which were provided in the 1934 Act were increased by an Act passed in 1938, shortly before the outbreak of the war. They were increased, except in the case of single men without dependents, by 15 per cent. in urban areas and 10 per cent. in rural areas. In August, 1941, the continuity rule was amended in favour of the unemployment assistance applicant. I do not wish to go now into a technical explanation of what that meant, but it did involve a concession of importance in the circumstances then existing— circumstances in which a number of people were becoming not unemployed but under-employed, through the growing scarcity of materials and fuels and the inability of their employers to give them a full week's work in every week. It did involve increased expenditure on the service.

In September, 1941, the food voucher scheme was introduced. That food voucher scheme was an attempt to do what this motion contemplates, that is, to devise a method by which the value of the assistance which the unemployed person received would very with changes in the prices of the most essential foodstuffs. By giving him a right to a stated quantity of bread, butter and milk, irrespective of the prevailing prices of these commodities, we did in fact ensure that the value of the assistance he was receiving would continue to increase as the price of these commodities increased. In September, 1942, the amount of food provided on food vouchers was increased again. In that month, there was an increase in the fixed price of bread. To offset that increase, the amount of bread provided on food vouchers was raised by 50 per cent. and the effect was to do much more than to offset for the persons receiving food vouchers the effect of the increase in the price of bread.

In November, 1942, the weekly rates of unemployment assistance payable to persons with dependents outside the incorporated towns, that is, in the smaller towns and rural areas in which the food voucher scheme had not applied, were increased. In fact the rates payable in respect of dependents of unemployed persons in those areas were increased in that month by 150 per cent. There has been an increase in the cost of living, an increase which, taking one date with another, could perhaps be expressed as Deputy Davin expressed it, in terms of 58 per cent. One could take different dates or yearly averages and get a lower percentage, but I am not going to quarrel with Deputy Davin's 58 per cent. He said, of course, that the real increase in the cost of living was higher than the cost-of-living index revealed. The reverse is the case, and I am going to demonstrate that that is so.

The cost of living index is not really what its name implies—an index of changes in the cost of living. It is an index of changes in the prices of certain fixed quantities of a limited number of foodstuffs. In the year 1922, an investigation was carried out into the quantity of foodstuffs and other necessary materials which would be purchased by what was then described as a well-off artisan's family. These quantities of foodstuffs at the prices then prevailing, weighted in accordance with their relative importance in the average household dietary, determined what was the basis of the cost of living index figure for that year. As the prices of the quantities of foodstuffs taken into account in the calculation varied, the cost of living index figure was varied, and we are still working on that basis and still publishing a cost of living index figure which assumes that the average household is getting a cwt. of coal per week, two and seven-eighths ounces of tea per week, so many lbs. of bacon and so many lbs. of butter per week, and which takes no account of the fact that a number of the foodstuffs in the schedule are not available, that others are severely rationed, and that people could not in fact buy the quantities of foodstuffs which are the basis of the calculation.

That alteration of the circumstances has in fact upset almost entirely the validity of that index. If we were to attempt to prepare another index now, to decide a figure which would represent the actual increase in the expenditure of a typical family, on the expenditure of which the figure is based, even making allowances for the fact that if they cannot get coal, they have to buy turf, and if they cannot get enough butter, they have to buy jam, and if they cannot get enough tea, they have to buy cocoa, coffee and substitute materials, it would reveal a change substantially less than 58 per cent. The basic items have shown no change at all. There has in fact been no change recorded in rents which absorb a high percentage of the average workingman's income. The percentage increases in the main items are, of course, much less than the all-over average.

Deputy Davin spoke about the cost of rabbits having increased by 350 per cent. That is quite likely. The Government has been trying to encourage an increase in the price of rabbits in order to get people to trap them. A very large number of these unemployment assistance recipients throughout the country are not as unemployed as they would like to appear. They are busily engaged in trapping rabbits and making a good thing out of it.

The more rabbits they trap the better we like it, because rabbits are a pest. They do infinite harm to the harvest each year; they destroy possibly £1,000,000 worth of foodstuffs. If we could wipe them all out, no matter what price we had to pay for rabbits retail, it would be a great national benefit. But, although there has been an increase of 350 per cent. in the price of rabbits, Deputies or the public must not assume what Deputy Davin wants them to assume, that that represents a typical increase in the price of foodstuffs.

Take the price of bread. Bread has gone up from 1/- per 4 lb. loaf to 1/1 since the outbreak of the war. It was not until last year that the price of bread was increased. In fact it might not have been increased at all but for the agitation carried on in the previous year by certain agitators throughout the country who were urging farmers to demand more and more for their wheat. In the previous year the farmers got a substantial increase in the price of wheat, an increase which was not reflected in the price of bread by reason of the Government subsidy. The fact that the Government concealed the effect of raising the price of wheat led people to urge that the price of wheat should be increased still further.

It was because it was necessary in the public interest that the public should understand what the rising cost of primary commodities was likely to involve in retail prices in the shops that it was decided to allow an increase of 8½ per cent. in the price of bread. There is far more bread than rabbits eaten in the average household. While 8½ per cent. is no more typical of the average increase than the 350 per cent. mentioned by Deputy Davin, it is a far more important factor to the average unemployed worker that bread has only increased by 8½ per cent. than that rabbits have increased by 350 per cent.

It may be that our pre-war standards of unemployment assistance benefit were not as high as we would have liked them to be, but, in so far as they were reasonable in the pre-war period, they are still reasonable. If there has been a 58 per cent. increase in the cost of living, the fact is that the average family in Dublin, or in any of the towns where the food voucher scheme is in operation, which is depending upon unemployment assistance, has received increased unemployment assistance to a higher percentage than the increase in the cost of living.

Take a man with a wife and five children. Deputy Byrne mentioned cases of larger families and, to an extent, it is true to say that the percentage increase in the amount of unemployment assistance rose in relation to the size of the family. I am taking a family consisting of a man, with a wife and five children. At the present price of foods made available under the food voucher scheme, the increase in the unemployment assistance given such a family since the beginning of the war is 61 per cent. in Dublin. In Drogheda and Dundalk it is 85 per cent. It goes up by various percentages. In Balbriggan it is 100 per cent. The highest I have on my list is Ardee with 108 per cent. The reason why the percentage is higher in Balbriggan and Ardee than in Dublin is apparently because the rise in the cost of the commodities provided under the food voucher scheme has been greater in these towns than it has been in Dublin. But there is the fact that if 58 per cent. represents the increase in the cost of living—and I suggest that, having regard to the basis upon which the cost of living index is compiled, the actual increase in the expenditure of the average family is not so great as that—then we have increased the unemployment assistance available to the average unemployed family by more than 58 per cent.

In the case of the rural areas it was not practicable to provide increased unemployment assistance by means of the food voucher scheme. The food voucher scheme could only operate effectively in comparatively large centres of population where there is a number of retail shops readily available. There is no point in giving a food voucher to an unemployed man in a rural area entitling him to milk, butter and bread, unless he has immediately available to him a retail establishment where that voucher can be translated into supplies of the foods mentioned on it. For that reason we dealt with the problem in the rural areas by an increase in the cash benefits allowed in respect of dependents. We increased these cash benefits by 150 per cent. That does not mean, of course, that the total amount of unemployment assistance going into the average household was increased by 150 per cent., but it does mean that all over the rural areas an increase in unemployment assistance corresponding to the increase we had given in urban areas was effected by the Government Order of November last.

Let us take that typical family I mentioned—a man with a wife and five dependent children. At the present time such a man, assuming he has no means and is entitled to the maximum rate of unemployment assistance, in the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dun Laoghaire, receives £1 16s. 6d. per week in unemployment assistance. If his family is larger than the maximum provided for under the Unemployment Assistance Acts, or if there are special circumstances in his case which make greater assistance necessary, then the amount provided under the Unemployment Assistance Acts can be supplemented, and is frequently supplemented, by the home assistance authorities. In the county boroughs that typical family I mentioned receives £1 16s. 6d. In other urban areas, that is, towns which are not county boroughs but have populations exceeding 7,000, the amount provided is £1 11s. In other incorporated towns under 7,000 population the amount is £1 7s. 6d. In the rural areas and in unincorporated towns it is 23/-.

I think that, having regard to the total resources of this State, the fact that we are passing through a period of particular difficulty, that our national income is declining, that our total industrial activity is being seriously curtailed by a dearth of supply of materials and fuels, with the tremendous increase in expenditure necessary upon emergency and defence services, in making this provision for persons who are temporarily unemployed we are not doing badly. It is only eight years ago since the Government introduced a novelty in the legislation of this country by enacting a minimum wage for agricultural workers. Never previously in the whole history of this country had there been any attempt to prescribe a minimum wage for agricultural workers.

During the last war agricultural wages were fixed.

I am dealing with normal circumstances.

You ought to deal with facts.

In any event we passed an Agricultural Wages Act. We set out fixed minimum wages for agricultural workers. Do Deputies remember what the first minimum wage fixed was? 24/- weekly for a man who did 52 hours' work per week.

56 hours per week.

56 hours per week. A rural agricultural worker with a wife and five dependents, who is unemployed, can at the moment get 23/- per week. If the rural worker is prepared to enrol on the special register, which, I admit, involves the acceptance of an obligation to take work anywhere it may become available in agriculture or turf production, he can get, in addition to that 23/-, another 5/-. He can get exemption from Employment Period Orders and, during the periods in which he is not required in agricultural or turf production, he can get a preference for work on other Government schemes. That brings the remuneration which he is entitled to get when unemployed up to 28/-.

It is, of course, quite easy to urge that we should increase those rates still further. Nobody would like more than the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to be able to guarantee to every family under all circumstances freedom from want, freedom even from hardship. But we have to deal with facts. We have got to deal with human beings in this case. There must be an inducement to human beings to seek work and, obviously, therefore, there must be maintained a substantial difference between the amount a man receives when he is employed and the amount of assistance that is given to him by the State during the period of his inability to get work. These are the conditions that must determine the level of our unemployment assistance rates. We can, of course, easily manipulate the finances of the country so as to give out more money. There is no difficulty about that. We can give out £3, £10, £20, or even £30 a week, instead of £1. We can give out £30 a week instead of the £1 we are giving now, by the simple process of inflating the currency, but it must be remembered that the £30 will not buy any more goods or commodities than the £1 will buy. In that connection, there has been a lot of nonsense talked by the Labour Party, to the effect that by such a simple process as that, they can dispense with poverty. That would only go down with an unthinking set of workers, but the fallacy of that has been found out, during our own lifetime, in almost every country in the world.

After the last war, in many countries revolutionary governments came into power which were anxious to maintain their popularity with the working people, by giving the working people increased wages, and when the prices of commodities continued to go up as a result of that, the Governments of these countries endeavoured to meet that situation by keeping the printing presses going producing more and more paper money, until the whole financial apparatus of these countries collapsed. Now, who suffered the most under these conditions? Was it the men of property, or the workers—the men of no property? It was the workers who suffered. The shopkeeper who had goods on the shelves of his shop could make paper profits overnight if he did not sell them, and all he got for the goods he sold was bits of paper which might be worth nothing the next day. When the worker got his week's wages, in the form of bank notes, he proceeded to spend them as quickly as possible, because, the next week, or possibly the next day, the bank notes would be only so much waste paper. That is what the raising of wages, without some off-setting control, produced in many European countries in our own lifetime.

Now, we have been trying to protect the workers of this country against similar consequences here, and every Government in the world has been trying to do so by similar means. It is easy enough to say that we can create more money by the operating of the printing presses, but the Government of a country must look further ahead than to its prospects at the next general election. It must look to the dangers created by the war, and to the possibility of a complete collapse and the resulting destitution of the working people of the country—the men of no property—the men who never have known and never will know the security of property, and who have to depend on the wages they get to provide themselves and their families with sustenance, and I say that the Labour Party have failed in their duty during this emergency by not trying to work out a long-term policy for the workers and endeavouring to see for themselves what were the dangers that might ensue for the working classes of the country from the war situation. They should have urged upon the workers, as well as upon the Government of the country, the necessity for maintaining the checks upon inflation which the Government of this country has endeavoured to maintain, and which the Governments of practically every country in the world have endeavoured to maintain as a result of their experience of what followed from the application elsewhere of the principles which the Labour Party of this country are now expounding for the workers of this country.

Deputy Davin said here that the Taoiseach had expressed a doubt as to whether there were any persons in this country living below the level of a decent subsistence. The Taoiseach never said any such thing. He did say that there is no starvation in this country, and I also say that there is no starvation in this country. I am not going to say, of course, that there may not be a leak, here and there, in any system of social services, by which one family might be affected. We have many schemes of social services here, such as national health insurance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and so on. I am not saying that all these schemes are all that we would wish them to be, but we have done the best we could within the limit of our resources, and we have laid on the shoulders of the various local authorities the duty of examining the circumstances of each particular case. By these various bulwarks we have endeavoured to protect everybody against the possibility of starvation, but we cannot ensure that the whole machinery of administration will work so efficiently that in every household, assistance, to the extent required, will be provided. However, we have done as much as human ingenuity can devise to see that the total resources available to us will be used to ensure that it will be provided.

What does the Minister mean when he speaks of the total resources available to this country?

I mean that they are limited. There is only a certain pool of resources available in order to maintain the various national services that are required, and for the capital required for future developments. That pool may be expanded. It is fixed now for to-day. It need not necessarily remain static for the future, but our ability to maintain a decent standard of living for our people, or to raise the level of social security for our people, depends almost entirely on ensuring an expansion of the resources available to us. Deputy Davin says that there can be no expansion in our social security services until there has been an increase in our total capacity of production. That is not so. To an extent that a social service is a method of redistributing incomes it may be said that the only limit to its expansion is the willingness of the people to pay, through taxation, until we get a flat level of income for everybody. To the extent that it is true to say that a social service represents only a device for the compulsory insurance of workers, to cover the risk of their unemployment during certain periods, an expansion is only conditional on the willingness of the workers to pay, or to agree to deductions from current earnings to pay for future benefits. We have got insurance benefits, but Deputy Davin wants the benefits, under that scheme, increased.

It can be done, if you do not rob the fund.

With regard to the fund, 9d. a week is paid in respect of each worker, 10d. by the employer, and two-sevenths is paid by the State. Out of that fund comes all the benefit. In fact, that fund is not receiving sufficient at present to pay all the charges, and is actually going into debt.

What about the cost of administration of the fund?

The Deputy cooked the figures to suit his argument.

I did not.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until Thursday, 4th March, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share