I have already pointed out that in October, 1923, the cost-of-living index figure for all items was 186 and in November, 1942, it had reached 273; that is, it had gone up by nearly 50 per cent. When we take food alone, in 1923 it was 190 and by November, 1942, it had gone up to 250, an increase of nearly one-third. I commented the other night on the 1927 Act. I have no further comment to make on it. I have no comment to make on the 1923 Act, except this, that at a time when the cost of living for all items has gone up by nearly 50 per cent., and for food alone by one-third, the Minister has not only gone back to the 1923 Act, but is not even doing as well as it. Under the 1923 Act, if an officer was 100 per cent. disabled he became entitled to a pension of £200 a year. This section contemplates that an officer who is permanently disabled in the present emergency may only get £120 a year. The Minister, in his explanation of the section, did not say why an officer, if he is 100 per cent. disabled, should get £80 a year less than he would have got under the 1923 Act. Neither did he say if he had given any consideration at all to the difference in the cost of living as between 1923 and 1942. As regards the amount set down as the marriage allowance to be paid in respect of the wife and family, in addition to the officer's basic allowance, the Minister has made no attempt to explain what inquiries he made to satisfy himself that he was doing justice to an officer and his family by providing only £30 for a married pension, or in the case of a man 100 per cent. disabled, he was showing any sense of justice for the man's wife and family by simply adding 10/- to the 42/- for the married pension. The Minister is creating a situation whereby he cannot assure himself that such a man will not have to go on poor relief if his family are to be kept in health and in clothing, and if the children's education is to be looked after. To the disability that such a man is labouring under, you are adding the shocking torment of mind that he is at home unable to work, spending all his day looking at his wife and family inadequately provided for. If there is any class in the State, facing the new world of tomorrow or the difficult world of to-day, that we should see is properly looked after, it is the class composed of the families of men who have given all their faculties in the service of the State and have become disabled.
We have seen the terrible disaster of war come on other countries of the world. Responsible people in those countries, in looking back over the past years, have come to the conclusion that it was their neglect of the unemployment problem, and the conditions arising from it, that brought about the present war. They have determined that, when peace comes, they will be energetic and careful to use all their resources and power of organisation to see that unemployment will not be a menace to their family life, and, therefore, a menace to their national and international peace. Here we have built up an Army. We are collecting millions of pounds from the people and are borrowing millions more to keep that Army to defend us against the impact of war. We also ought to show that we are prepared to defend ourselves against the type of thing that has brought other countries into war—the conditions resulting from unemployment. We should be seeking in that direction for a challenge to stir our energies, our abilities, and our capacity for organisation —to use all our resources so as to prevent the misery to family life that unemployment brought about in other countries. It is difficult, apparently, for us to set ourselves that challenge. We can, however, find a nucleus there that will direct our minds and be a challenge to us to use all our resources and guide us to the broader path later on. Are we prepared to ask ourselves to-day: Is this State ready to make adequate provision for the wives and children of men who are permanently disabled, so that the men will be maintained in a certain degree of comfort and peace of mind, with the assurance that their wives will be able to look after the home and family, that the children will get education and be maintained with the necessary food and clothing to secure their health, that they can feel that, so far from being paupers indebted to maintenance by the State, they are the children of fathers who have given their all, up almost to the very threshold of their lives, in order that the liberties and resources of this State may be able to be used for the benefit of the people as a whole? I do not think the House can avoid facing that issue and giving it a lot more consideration than it has given it so far. It is regrettable, in a discussion of this matter, that it should come to be argued about by way of question and answer. I submit with all earnestness to the House that the position we have before us in this Bill cannot stand. Deputies have said that we cannot afford to do more, that we will complain about the bills that will be submitted if we increase these amounts. I say that we cannot afford not to provide for the wives and children that I speak of.