Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Nov 1943

Vol. 92 No. 1

Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill, as the title indicates, and as Deputies are aware, provides for the inauguration of a new social security service in this State involving the payment from State funds of allowances in respect of children under 16 years of age living in families of more than the average size. The idea of establishing such a service, I think, has received support from all Parties in the Dáil, and from many quarters outside the Dáil. In fact, so general has been the approval given to the principle of the establishment of a children's allowances scheme that it might at first sight appear unnecessary for me to speak here to defend or to justify the principle of the measure. Unfortunately, however, most of those who advocated or supported, in the Dáil or outside it, the establishment of this service chose to ignore the very troublesome business of proposing how the cost of it should be met. As Deputies know, or as Deputies should realise, that is a matter for the taxpayer. In one form or another, the cost of this Bill will be met by the taxpayer. That is a fact which I ask Deputies to keep in the forefront of their minds during the discussion upon it. Because this Bill, if enacted, will impose additional burdens upon the already heavily burdened taxpayer, I think it is necessary, irrespective of the attitude of Parties in the Dáil, to convince him that it is in the national interest and in his own interest that he should pay more money through taxation to enable this service to be established.

The practice of paying allowances in respect of children has already been established in some other countries; in some cases through State schemes such as we propose to establish here; in others by means of voluntary arrangements applicable only to employees in particular industries. I think it may help Deputies if I give an outline of the main features of the schemes in operation in other countries. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the information that I propose to give. Deputies will understand that, in present circumstances, it is not easy to get precise information concerning the legislation of other countries. It is clear, however, from the information available to us that, both in respect of the method of paying allowances and the scope of the service, the schemes in operation in other countries vary very considerably. There is, in fact, no element of uniformity between them.

In some countries, notably in Hungary and Holland, the equalisation fund principle is still maintained. Deputies who have studied this matter will know that the earliest record of the organised payment of children's allowances is in the history of the equalisation funds, as they were called, established on a voluntary basis by the employers in particular industries principally in France and in Belgium. The employers in particular industries there made payments, related to the numbers of workers employed by them, into funds established for their industry, and from these funds allowances were made to married workers with children. Objection was taken in trade union circles to that principle. It was alleged to be occasioned by the low level of wages in the industries concerned, and, in fact, for many years there was, amongst trade unionists in countries where the trade union movement was widely established, a general objection to the principle of children's allowances, mainly because the idea of children's allowances was associated with these equalisation funds operating in France and in Belgium. It will be obvious, of course, that any such scheme could apply only to workers employed for wages, and even though in France and elsewhere, these schemes were, in course of time, made of general application and compulsory by legislation, nevertheless they were limited in their scope to persons who were employed for wages.

In Belgium, in Italy, and in Spain the contributory principle was adopted; payments of children's allowances being made from funds created by the contributions of employers, workers and the State, somewhat on the same lines as the unemployment insurance fund now operating in this country. In Italy, the workers' contribution was abolished by an amending Act of 1939, and in Spain the scheme was extended to farmers by a special arrangement on an equalisation fund basis. However, it will again be noted by Deputies that any children's allowances scheme based upon the contributory principle is necessarily limited in its scope also to workers employed for wages. In the case of Italy there is a means test. It is not easy to understand clearly how a means test can be operated in relation to a contributory fund, but presumably the Italian Government was prepared to defend the principle of workers paying contributions to a fund from which, in certain circumstances, they could not draw benefit.

In Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and now in France, the children's allowances schemes in force are, as is proposed for this country, State schemes—that is to say, the total cost is met by taxation, and the schemes are administered by the State. A scheme was introduced in Portugal last year, the full details of which I have not got, but which appears to be applicable to family wage-earners of Portuguese nationality employed in stated occupations, although the list of occupations which I saw appeared to cover most of the occupations likely to employ large numbers. In the New Zealand scheme a means test operates, the allowances paid being adjusted on a sliding scale basis to ensure that the total family income, taking the children's allowances into account, will not exceed a prescribed limit—a limit which has been already varied since the scheme was first introduced. In Australia, in Germany, and in France the schemes in operation appear to be nation-wide in scope, as is proposed for this country.

The age limits fixed to qualify for children's allowances in the various countries in which schemes are in operation vary—from 14 years in Italy, France, Spain, Hungary and Belgium, to 16 years in Australia, New Zealand and Germany. In no case does the age exceed 16 years, although some countries have limited provision for the continuation of the payments after the maximum age has been passed in the case of incapacitated children. In Australia and in France, payment is made in respect of qualified children other than the first; in Germany, if there are three or more children in the family, as is proposed here; in New Zealand in respect of all children, but subject, as I have said, to a means test which fixes the limit of family income beyond which allowances are not paid, irrespective of the size of the family. I have not attempted a comparison of the value of the allowances, which would be of no utility without information as to the prevailing price levels.

The trend of opinion everywhere appears to be in favour of the establishment of a service such as this as a necessary provision against want. So far as one can gather from reports presented to the Governments of Canada, the United States, Great Britain and some other countries, public opinion there appears to support the establishment of such a service. The basis of the argument in favour of the establishment of a children's allowances scheme is that, amongst the many causes of want, apart from unemployment, ill-health, old age, widowhood or orphanhood, there is the fact that in an economic system such as ours, where wages are related to standards of productivity, or determined by supply and demand, the amount which the wage earner can obtain is frequently inadequate to provide for the reasonable requirements of a large family. Just as the income of a farm, or the earning capacity of a fishing boat is determined by the size and productivity of the farm or the utility of the fishing boat, and not by the needs of the owner, so in an industrial system based upon standard wages, established by trade union action over a number of years, want may be created amongst persons who are employed if the size of their family is such that the standard wage is inadequate to meet their reasonable needs. It is, I think, necessary to emphasise that the basis of the whole case for the establishment of a children's allowances service is the need of large families. I should like Deputies to keep that fact before them when discussing the terms of the Bill.

The Beveridge Report presented to the British Government stated that social surveys carried out in a number of British cities revealed certain results. These surveys appear to indicate that, of all the want shown to exist in those towns, from three-fourths to five-sixths, according to the precise standard chosen for want, was due to interruption or loss of earning power. Practically the whole of the remaining one-fourth to one-sixth was due to failure to relate income during earning to the size of the family. I should like to quote for Deputies paragraph 13 of the abbreviated copy of the Beveridge Report published by the British Government. Paragraph 13 is as follows:—

"Abolition of want requires, second, adjustment of incomes, in periods of earning as well as in interruption of earning, to family needs, that is to say, in one form or another it requires allowances for children. Without such allowances as part of benefit or added to it, to make provision for large families, no social insurance against interruption of earnings can be adequate. But, if children's allowances are given only when earnings are interrupted and are not given during earning also, two evils are unavoidable. First, a substantial measure of acute want will remain among the lower-paid workers as the accompaniment of large families. Second, in all such cases, income will be greater during unemployment or other interruptions of work than during work."

Similarly, the Labour Review, published by the United States Government, contained a survey of the social service schemes in operation in various countries and the review prefaced that survey by indicating that the basic consideration in all cases leading to the establishment of that service was the fact that an income which will provide a minimum standard of health and decency for a married man with a small family may well be insufficient in the case of a large number of dependents.

I want to make it clear, therefore, that the purpose of the Government in proposing this Bill to the Dáil is to provide means of assisting in the alleviation of want in large families. I may say in passing that it is not contemplated that the enactment of this measure and the establishment of children's allowances, will influence either the birth-rate or the marriage rate. It is my personal opinion that it will not have any effect on either. Want which may be created amongst the members of larger families under a system of standard occupational wages can be just as real as want resulting from interruption of earning due to unemployment, ill-health or any other cause. The children's allowances service is designed to alleviate that want by effecting a redistribution of income. It was pointed out here, in the course of the debate last week, that, in effect, every social security service entails a redistribution of income, and this new service which we are establishing is designed to carry out such a redistribution for the specific purpose of benefiting large families and preventing the development of want in large families which are inadequately provided for, even though the wage-earner may be getting the standard wage for his occupation or even though the income from the farm, the fishing boat, or any other occupation of the bread-winner of the family may be, in every other sense of the term, average. Now, State action, to effect a redistribution of income within the community, by taking from one person part of the fruits of his labour in order to give it to another person who, from the point of view of his contribution to the national wealth, safety or development is no more worthy of it, can only be justified by the existence of real need. It is clear, therefore, that we must be able to show that there is a real need for this service in order to justify the burden that will be placed on many people in this country in consequence of its establishment. It is clear, as was pointed out in connection with other social security services, that a redistribution of incomes does not increase the aggregate income of the community: it merely means that we transfer purchasing power from one section of the community to another. Every penny that any family may get as a result of the payment of children's allowances will be taken, in fact, from some other family or some other individual by means of taxation.

In deciding, therefore, the extent to which we should like to increase the purchasing power available to the heads of large families, we must also remember, and keep clearly in mind, the extent to which it is desirable and justifiable to go, in taking away purchasing power from others. Having regard to the evidence of distress amongst members of larger families, the Government is prepared to defend increasing the tax charge by £2,250,000 a year, which is the amount that will be required to finance the service proposed by this Bill. To give the assistance contemplated by this Bill, to the families that will benefit under it, will mean an increase of 25 per cent. on the amount that is already being provided for the normal social security services here. As a result of the present emergency, certain expenditure has been undertaken here to relieve particular kinds of hardship directly caused by the emergency, and I am not taking such expenditure into account or regarding it as normal expenditure on social security services. We make available something up to £2,000,000 per year to finance unemployment relief works, and, properly, that amount should be taken into account, in determining the amount provided by the State to relieve the consequences of unemployment, ill-health, old age, or orphanhood. At the present time, social security services proper, are costing, roughly, £8,000,000 a year in this country, and if we are to take into account unemployment relief, the figure would work out at about £10,000,000. We are proposing, under this Bill, to increase that expenditure by £2,250,000 per year.

Now, I do not know whether the people, either inside this Dáil or outside it, who have advocated the provision of this service, are prepared to go to the extent of saying that if we decide to increase taxation upon our people, so as to make available an additional sum of £2,250,000 for expenditure upon social security services, it would be better to spend the whole of that sum upon children's allowances of the kind that this Bill contemplates rather than in any other way. It must be recognised, having regard to, the resources of this State, both now and in the period that will follow the conclusion of the war, that the establishment of this service, the imposition of this new charge upon the taxpayers of the country, must inevitably mean that any other further and substantial change in our social security services must await the advent of better times. Those who support this Bill in the Dáil, therefore, commit themselves, first of all, to the view that it is better under existing conditions, or under the conditions that we can contemplate as existing in the immediate future, that increased expenditure upon social Services should take the form ot children's allowances rather than any other form. They commit themselves to the view that the need for such a service exists to the extent that would justify the increased taxation required for that purpose.

I submit also that those who support this Bill in the Dáil commit themselves also to the supporting or the tax proposals which will afterwards come before the Dáil in order to enable the necessary sum to be raised. It is unrortunate that it is not possible for the Dáil to discuss, at one time, all the possible implications of this Bill. The Bill, as it is introduced, outlines certain charges that will come upon the Exchequer if the Bill is passed, and then, at that stage, the Minister for Finance will bring forward proposals here to meet those charges. That being the case, we are not now in a position to discuss this Bill fully or possible modifications of it, without immediate reference to the taxation that will follow on it. We cannot discuss the taxation proposals when they come up, with immediate reference to this Bill, but Deputies who want to approach this question seriously must obviously bear in mind that voting for this Bill puts upon them a moral obligation at some later period to vote for the taxation that will be required to make the implementation of the Bill possible. It would be a dishonest trick, both on the Dáil and on the people of this country, to support now the establishment of this service and then, at a later stage, to vote against providing the money required for the purpose.

In order that Deputies may understand the magnitude of the proposal we are now discussing, I should like to point out that, upon the basis of our experiences in normal times, the raising of a sum of £2,250,000 would require new and additional taxes in respect of the following commodities:— 1/- in the £ on income tax, 1/- in the lb. on tobacco, 2d. on tea, ½d. on sugar and 1d. a pint on beer.

Mr. Norton

Are these alternatives?

Mr. Lemass

No. The sum total of all these taxes would yield less than that sum. At the present time, these taxes would yield an amount somewhat less than in normal times, but I am putting the case upon the basis of normal pre-war experience. It would I require the aggregate yield of all these taxes to enable us to provide the amount required to finance this Bill. I have stated the reasons why children's allowances schemes have been adopted in other countries, and I have expressed the view that the same reasons operate here, and that the same need exists here; that the same cause of want is effective here, and that, consequently, it is desirable that we also should equip ourselves, by means of this new service, to eliminate, if possible, that cause of want.

I have explained that the Government, after considering each aspect of the matter, including the burden of taxation that the enactment of the measure will involve, has decided that the Bill Should be introduced and that it is prepared to defend it. I know, as I have stated already, that the Dáil is more or less committed in principle to the inauguration of a children's allowances scheme. I think, however, that a review of the general circumstances should be given here so that those who have, at some stage, the privilege of paying for the establishment of this service will know precisely why these burdens are placed upon them.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

If I might interrupt the Minister for a moment, could he say how many children it is anticipated will benefit under the scheme?

Mr. Lemass

I propose now to explain the particular form that the Bill has taken. Clearly there are many alternative methods of operating a children's allowances scheme. I have indicated already that, in no two countries where schemes now operate, is there similarity either in method of operation or in scope. We considered all the various alternatives. We considered, not for a very long time I admit, but nevertheless considered, the principle and method of equalisation funds on the lines of the Dutch and the Hungarian schemes. We, however, rejected that. We considered the possibility of providing this service on the basis of contributions and setting up a fund like our Unemployment Insurance Fund to which workers and employers would contribute. I think that there is a great deal to be said in principle for having a contributory basis for new social service schemes. I think myself—it is a personal view—that if we can get acceptance of the contributory principle, in the matter of expanding social services, we are likely to get more effective progress than if each new social service has to be a direct charge on the Exchequer, and through the Exchequer, on the taxpayers as a whole.

Mr. Anthony

Why does the Minister not indicate that in his Bill, that it is a contributory scheme?

Mr. Lemass

We have not a contributory scheme, and I am going to explain why we have not. We decided against the principle of contribution in this case, first of all, because there is no practicable method by which you can obtain contributions except from persons who are employed for wages. Persons working on their own account would not make regular contributions. Clearly, therefore, if we were to adopt the contributory principle, the scheme, would have to be limited in scope, as the unemployment insurance is limited, to persons employed for wages. In this country a very high proportion of our occupied population is not employed for wages. Of the heads of families, married men, widowers and widows occupied, totalling about 480,000, 219,000 work for wages. The balance work on their own account. They are mainly farmers, but the number would also include fishermen, tradesmen, small shopkeepers, and many other classes. It is clear that if we adopted the contributory principle, this scheme could not apply, except to about one-half of the population. It would be possible at some stage if it were considered desirable to superimpose on this nation-wide scheme that we propose a contributory scheme applicable only to the definite classes who would pay contributions, but it is not proposed to do that now. The Government decided for reasons I have indicated upon a State scheme—the scheme outlined in the Bill, one which provides for administration by the State, and the whole of the cost of which will be defrayed by taxation.

Now let me deal with the main features of the scheme as it appears in the measure. Deputies will have noticed that it has these outstanding characteristics. First of all, we have no means test. I do not know what the view of the Dáil is likely to be on that aspect of the Bill. We decided it was desirable from many points of view to get rid of the principle of the means test in relation to this service if possible. That ensures that there is not the slightest suggestion of charity associated with the allowances. They will be payable to rich and poor alike, to all persons irrespective of their circumstances. The operation of a means test, as many Deputies know, involves an inquisition into the affairs of families which is often resented and which is, as a general rule, undesirable if avoidable. The means test which at present operates in connection with the old age pensions service or the widows' pensions non-contributory service is, however, limited to income derived from the ownership of property or from a pension or some other asset of that kind. In this case, however, if we decided to operate a means test we would have to take into account not merely income derived from the ownership of property or a regular income secured through a pension or in some other similar way, but also earnings because clearly, in relation to a service of this kind, the means test, if it is to be just in its operation, would have to take into account all forms of income including earnings of the members of a household.

Deputies will immediately appreciate the immense difficulty of the task which would confront us if we were to attempt to estimate either, in prospect or retrospect, the income from the earnings of the members of each family. If we decided to have a means test it would also involve a very substantial increase in the cost of the measure for administrative purposes as well as an increase in the administrative difficulties associated with it. In fact, taking into account the adjustment in the income-tax code, which the Government contemplates, it may be said that the institution of a means test would involve in administrative costs for the State as much, or almost as much, as is involved in paying the allowances to everybody. It is proposed to offset the benefit that may be secured by persons in the income-tax paying class through the inauguration of the children's allowance scheme by a reduction in the allowance now made in respect of children under the income-tax code. It is intended that the allowance now made in the income-tax code should be reduced by £20 in respect of third and later children under the age of 16 years. The effect of that modification will be that, persons liable to the full rate of tax, will lose roughly about £7 10s. Od. per year per child against the children's allowance of £6 10s. Od. per year per child, while persons liable to the half rate of income-tax will lose about £3 15s. Od. per year per child. It is not possible to get a completely mathematical adjustment of the allowances under the income-tax code to offset in full the payment of children's allowances, but the broad proposal which is in contemplation— which may be modified, when Finance Act next year comes before the Dáil, in respect of details—is designed to secure that, in general, the amount that will be paid out in respect of children's allowances to persons in the income-tax class will be recovered by a modification of the income-tax code.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Is the Minister allowing for that in the £2,250,000?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, I am allowing for that in the estimated cost.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say what that reduction is estimated to yield?

Mr. Lemass

I will try to get that figure for the Deputy, but I could not give it now. It may be possible to say what that modification would have yielded in specific years, but the total yield varies, as the Deputy knows, from year to year and I could not attempt to forecast what the position next year will be. That is the first feature of the Bill to which I wish to draw specific attention—that it is proposed to pay these children's allowances without a means test.

Secondly, it is proposed to pay these allowances in addition to all children's allowances at present payable under other social security services. That, at first sight, might look like piecemeal legislation and be objected to by persons who would like a symmetrical system. I may say that the Government examined very fully the possibility, as well as the desirability, of co-ordinating all the children's allowances now payable under existing services and those that will be payable under this Bill. Finally, it appeared clear that to attempt such co-ordination at present might well provide far greater anomalies than would, in fact, be removed by it. The payment of these allowances in addition to all the other allowances payable under the unemployment insurance scheme, the unemployment assistance scheme or the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme is a simple procedure. It is likely to be administratively convenient and will involve less unforeseen risks than would accompany an attempt to co-ordinate all those other allowances in a single scheme. It is, however, desirable that the Dáil should appreciate what is intended.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister say what difficulties were experienced in she attempt to co-ordinate?

Mr. Lemass

They were not difficulties which could not be overcome, if we were prepared to contemplate certain families entitled to benefit under this Bill not getting the full amount of benefit which they would secure when these allowances were paid supplementary to existing allowances. The difficulties related to the attempt to secure that these allowances would, in all cases, be improved correspondingly. We are proposing here, as I intend to show later, a flat rate allowance, but as Deputies are aware, the allowances under existing services are not flat rate allowances. Either the payment is higher for the first child than for the second, or is higher for the second than for other children, or there is a tailing-off in the size of the allowance where there is an increased number in the family.

The allowances payable under this Bill will be payable in each of the six-monthly periods for which they are determined, irrespective of any change in the family circumstances in the meantime. Whether the family becomes richer or poorer, whether the head of the family is employed or unemployed, whether he remains in health or becomes incapacitated or dies, during each of these periods the allowances payable will remain unchanged. The allowance proposed is 2/6 per week for each child under 16 years of age, after the first two. A family with three children under 16 years of age is above the average in size, and, as I have already mentioned, the intention here is to provide a scheme which would give assistance and relief to families above the average in size. The average number of children under 16 in families in this State is slightly less than two: it is 1.9 in fact. Assuming that the average family consists of father, mother and two children, it is only families which are above that in size which will benefit by the Bill. As I have mentioned already in reply to Deputy Norton, the allowances proposed will be payable on a flat rate babis. Whether there is one qualified child or a number of qualified children in a family, the payment will be at the rate of 2/6 per week in respect of all.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Did the Minister say he would make payment in six-monthly periods, namely, twice a year?

Mr. Lemass

No, I did not. I propose to deal with that later. I have mentioned that the Bill will cost £2,250,000. It is quite obvious that it would be possible, within that financial limit, to pay less per child to a higher proportion of the children in families or to pay more per child to a smaller number of children. It is, however, necessary to understand that, because every family of children has a first child and more families have a second than those who have a third, the increase in the number of children in the family in respect of which the allowance will be payable has a very considerable effect upon the financial basis of the proposals. If we proposed to give 2/6 to all children after the first, instead of after the second, the increase in the cost would be more than 50 per cent.: instead of having to provide £2,250,000 per year we would have to provide £3,500,000. If we were to give 2/6 to all children, the cost would be £5,250,000.

If, however, we decided to work only within the financial limit already indicated—£2,250,000—and to give the benefit of that expenditure in respect of all children, instead of children after the second, the allowance per child would be only 1/- per week. It is clear that, in such circumstances, the family with one child, two children or three children would fare better and the family with four or more would fare worse. As the basis of the scheme is to give assistance to larger families, the Government decided upon a payment of 2/6 per week for all children after the second. I want to make it clear that that decision by the Government is irrevocable. It comes to the Dáil as the considered opinion of the Government as being the best manner of inaugurating this scheme here, and must be regarded as a matter of confidence. Other parts of the Bill —the detailed provisions for the administration of the scheme—are open for consideration andv discussion by the Dáil and, if satisfactory proposals are brought forward, the Government will be prepared to adopt them. Upon the size of the allowance and the number of children per family in respect of whom it will be payable, the Government is standing firm; and a defeat of the Bill upon these grounds, or the rejection of these proposals by the Dáil in Committee, would involve the resignation of the Government.

Under the Bill as it stands, 150,000 families will benefit, the number of children in those families being 620,000 and the number who would qualify for benefit being 340,000. Deputies will observe that the provision governing the qualification of a child is confined to the broad basis that the child lives with and is in the custody, the care and control of the claimant. There need not be relationship, much less parentage, established. We are proposing to make this payment in respect of all children who qualify by living in families. The head of the family will be entitled to make application for payment in respect of all children living with him or who are, in his custody, care or control. Children being educated at boarding schools or undergoing treatment in hospitals or resident in institutions at the expense of their parents or guardians are also covered. Children in reformatory or industrial schools or residing permanently in, or maintained in, institutions where the parent is not liable to make any contribution to their maintenance, are excluded. The father of the children will be the claimant in 90 per cent. of the cases and he alone will be entitled to receive the allowance. May I say that, in that regard, the various schemes in operation in other countries show wide variations. We have decided that it is better that, in normal circumstances, the claimant should be the father, but there is no reason why, as a domestic arrangement, the allowance should not be drawn by the mother of the children. Leaving aside social questions of one kind or another, the question should be decided by ,the husband and wife and it is proposed to provide by regulation for such an arrangement. Clearly, there will be cases where the husband, by reason of mental incapacity or other cause, will not be a suitable person to receive the payment. In such cases, arrangements will be made for making the payment to the mother, but we assume that, in normal cases, unless there is a specific arrangement to the contrary, the father will be the claimant and to him the payment will be made.

The provision concerning the half-yearly assessment of the amount to be paid has caused some confusion. Some have even read into it an intention to make half-yearly payments. That is not what is contemplated. It is proposed that the circumstances of each family shall be determined every half-year and that payment will continue for the ensuing six months upon the basis of that determination, irrespective of changes in the family meantime. If it is decided that, on the 1st January, a particular family has two or three children qualified, even if there should be in that family another arrival, or if one of the qualifying children should die or pass over the age of 16, nevertheless, for the whole of that period of six months, payment will be made upon the determination arrived at at the beginning of the period.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

What I meant to ask the Minister was how often the payments would be made.

Mr. Lemass

The payments will be made weekly. I propose to deal with that matter also. I wanted to explain the proposal regarding the half-yearly assessment because it has caused some misunderstanding. It will be obvious that this method of operation simplifies administration. If we had to give effect, in respect of the amount of the allowances, to changes in the size of a family, immediately or soon after those changes occurred, then the administrative problem involved would be greatly complicated. By this system of determining the circumstances of a family every six months and paying for the ensuing six months upon that determination, irrespective of changes in the family, we get simplified administration, which will not merely ensure avoidance of disputes and difficulties but also minimise the cost. The intention is to have adjustments as infrequently as possible. They will not, in fact, be made at all during the six-monthly period except where it is clear that there has been dishonesty, resulting in overpayment, in which case the Minister is given power to recover, as a civil debt, the amount of such overpayment.

Another provision of the Bill which has led to some misunderstanding is the proposal to divide the country into regions for the purpose of administration. Let me make quite clear that there will be no difference as between one region and another in respect of the date on which the scheme will come into operation, or the amount of payment. The purpose of that division into regions is purely to solve an obvious administrative difficulty. If we were to have half-yearly re-examination of the circumstances of each family, and if there were 150,000 families, on the average, to be dealt with, a great deal of work would have to be done in a couple of weeks every period of six months, involving administrative and staff difficulties of an obvious kind. In order to avoid these difficulties and spread the work over the year, it is proposed that the date for reviewing the circumstances of each family be a different one for each of three districts. We shall divide the country, roughly, into three parts, with an equal number of recipients in each part, and we shall have a different reviewing date for each area, thus ensuring the spread over the whole year of this business of reviewing the circumstances of families and issuing new vouchers qualifying for payment during the ensuing period. In order to get that scheme into operation, while, at the same time, bringing the Act into force on the same date everywhere, it is necessary to have preliminary periods of varying lengths in each of the three districts. In so far as any advantage or disadvantage might result from this system of dividing the country into regions, it will result only in connection with these preliminary periods. In the first region, the preliminary period may be six months. In the second region, the preliminary period may be four months, and in the third region, it may be only two months. That will not affect the amount the family may receive in the period, but it will mean that in a particular region there will be a review of the family circumstances in a period of less than six months. That will apply only at the beginning of the scheme. After the first review, reviews will be in regular, recurring periods of six months ad infinitum. In so far as there will be a review of family circumstances in a shorter period than six months in the beginning, some families may gain and some families may lose, but it is obvious that no substantial injustice is being done.

It is contemplated that, the family circumstances having been determined and the amount of the children's allowances payable to the family having been ascertained, the head of the family will receive a book of cheques or vouchers—whatever you wish to call them—each of which will be cashable in a particular week during the ensuing six months. After the assessment has been made and the amount payable to the family has been determined, the head of the family will get this book of vouchers or cheques on which, subject to regulations yet to be made, he will draw upon the basis of presenting one per week, in much the same way as is done in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions at the present time. That is not provided for in the Bill. It is contemplated that these details will be dealt with by regulation.

As Deputies know, and as I know from personal experience, the big difficulty in relation to new social services of this kind is getting them into operation. Once you get such a scheme into operation, it can be made to run fairly smoothly. Staffs know what they have to do, the public know what they have to do and unforeseen difficulties are eradicated. It is in the first period of six or 12 months that special difficulties emerge and that regulations which looked all right upon paper, when first drafted, have to be modified to meet these difficulties. Therefore, we are proposing to leave to be dealt with by regulation these matters of detail, the method of payment, and other matters of that kind.

As Deputies will have noticed, we have an omnibus section in the Bill which gives the Minister power, within the period of 12 months after the date on which the Act comes into operation, to make any changes which appear to him to be necessary in order to get the Act working properly. That is a general power of a somewhat wide character, but it will operate only for 12 months. It is intended to ensure that problems which will inevitably arise, but which we cannot foresee at the moment, can be smoothly dealt with without the delay involved in bringing in amending legislation.

I think I have dealt with the main provisions of the Bill. I have stated the principles which justify the introduction of the measure. I have intimated the cost and how it will have to be met, and I have given the reasons why the Government decided upon the method of paying children's allowances. The question of the method is open for debate in the Dáil. Deputies may be able to foresee difficulties which I have not anticipated, or to suggest provisions better than those contained in the Bill for the purpose of meeting the anticipated difficulties. I will be glad to get suggestions of that kind.

In respect of matters of detail, I ask the co-operation of the Dáil. It is necessary to repeat that, in so far as the amount of money to be paid out in the form of children's allowances is concerned, it is not possible to allow the matter to be decided here. I do not say that the House is not entitled so to decide, but a decision against the Government involves a matter of confidence. The Government have fully considered this question. We have the responsibility at a later stage of proposing the taxation that will be a consequence of the Bill, and we could not agree that the Dáil should take a decision on the question of cost now without having very definitely in mind the taxation problem that will subsequently arise.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

It would have been of some advantage to the House if that portion of the Minister's speech relating to details had been circulated among Deputies in the form of a paper. When Bills are submitted to members of the Dáil, it is a waste of public time to have to read and re-read them, unless there is some indication as to the intentions of the Minister. One would have assumed from this Bill that it was intended to put it into operation in Connemara in the immediate future, and in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire in 12 months' time. One would also have assumed that it was intended to pay the allowances, every six months. There is no indication in the measure that it is proposed to pay the allowances weekly. I have spoken of this matter so often here in connection with various Bills, that it would seem to be of little use to repeat my suggestion, that a little information accompanying each Bill would save considerable correspondence with the Minister's Department and also the time of persons outside.

The Minister's treatment of this measure would lead us to believe that he has acceded to the recommendations or suggestions of persons in every political Party, and of most of the people outside. He says that this is not only the best scheme, but it is the only sensible scheme, and it is the only method of dealing with this matter. Then he goes on to say that it is going to cost £2,250,000 and that you are committing yourself to the imposition of that amount by way of taxation. I should like to differ with the Minister in this connection. It does not appear to me that this is a good scheme at all. I am not quarrelling with the amount of money involved from the State. With that I am in a measure of agreement— in more agreement than I have ever been on any other matter that I have had experience of under this Government for the last 11 years. I think in respect of the sum involved, which I have estimated to be about £2,500,000, I am in more agreement than I have ever been with this Government—that is, if it is possible for a person such as myself to be in agreement with persons such as they, and that is a very big speculation.

The Minister refers to this as social security. What social security is there in it? Assuming I were voicing the same nonsense as I have heard from the benches over there for five years from Ministers and their supporters, assuming I were to say what they would say, that Ministers are going to provide allowances for children in excess of 1.9 in each family, the crossroads would have been scenes of fire and brimstone. My view about social security is that the matter should be considered from the point of view of providing sufficient subsistence for every family in the State. I take it from the Minister's statement that that is beyond the administrative capacity of the Ministry and the Civil Service. I do not believe it is beyond the capacity of any other Ministry or of a Civil Service, properly handled. Is not that the essence of the Beveridge Report? We got a single paragraph read out of that. The essence of that report and, I think, the intention of the Ministry which set up the commission of inquiry was to ensure that, by reason of the suggested alterations that would take place in the social services of the State there, a sufficiency would be provided for every family in the State against want and all the evils that flow from want. We are not doing that. A man here may be earning 30/- a week, he may have two children, but he benefits nothing by this scheme.

The Beveridge Report, as I have said on many occasions, is not indicating social security, is not a social service or a panacea at all. It is designed to ensure that the population of Great Britain is going to expand, that there will be more marriages, that there will be a greater number of children. The one thing that operates against marriages in this country, and early marriages in particular, is the insufficiency of income. During a period here from 1933 to 1938 the average wage of the agricultural labourer was £1 a week. While £1 a week was the average wage paid to those employed by farmers, the average income of the farmer was less than that during some of the periods.

I am in disagreement with the Minister regarding the basis of his scheme. In my view, the scheme ought to be a contributory scheme, paid for by the person in national health insurance, by the employer, and with a subvention from the State, and an amount equivalent to what is given here should be made available. On that basis you would have an allowance of 2/6 a week paid for each child. It would not involve a very severe extra payment. It would be a better system than this one. This system, in so far as it is described as a system of social security, lacks practically all the characteristics of a scheme of social security. There is one extra patch, and it is a very nice question whether the patch is even of the pattern of the article patched.

The cost of administration of social services in this State is enormous. In my view, for what it is worth, this service should not be administered by the Minister's Department at all. It does not come either within the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Supplies, and, in so far as it is a social service at all, it could be very much better handled by the department which is handling national health insurance. Even in the case of national health insurance it, in my opinion, should have been divorced from the Department in charge of it at present. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, as such, is an entirely different personage from the one who should be dealing with this service. It is unlikely that he has gone into the question that I have already dealt with, namely that of a census of certain districts of the country showing what is the weekly income in a wage-earning family. I wonder would it be possible to get that information before the Bill passes through the Dáil? I think it ought to be. Without the information one cannot say off-hand whether this half-crown a week, even in the case of families of eight or ten people, is sufficient. It may be only a patch upon a patch. If the policy of the scheme is to improve the health of the, people, to make them less liable to disease and the disorders which arise from malnutrition, then it is obvious that we ought to have a social survey such as has been taken at the other side. Such a survey is the basis of the Beveridge Report.

The Minister read one paragraph from that report. I propose to refer to another which gives a measure of the social reform which is recommended there. It deals with ensuring that every family in Great Britain will have a sufficient income. It also urges that certain expenses which have arisen out of the varying forms of social service, or social legislation, over a long period should be minimised. Let me take what is called industrial assurance. It points out that premiums received by the industrial insurance offices over a year were £74,000,000, and that the expenses of management were nearly £24,000,000. Let no member of the House misunderstand that statement. It has reference to what is called life insurance, endowments and insurance which is payable at the death of a person. We have, at any rate, the statement that £74,000,000 were collected, and that the expenses were nearly £24,000,000. Is there anything in the form of industrial insurance in this country which is likely to be as costly as that? I believe that while we have not reached the high efficiency which has been developed over a long period of years in British industrial offices, the expenses here in connection with industrial insurance would be in excess of that. Now, that is waste if a service such as that could be administered by the State, and there is no reason why it should not. As Deputy McGilligan might put it, there is a considerable amount of "slack" to be got from wasteful administrative costs on these social services.

Let us suppose that one of the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge— the payment of a sum of money at death—were adopted. In regard to that there is twice and a half times more money collected for industrial insurance than there is in national health insurance. Over the long period of 15 years we have had here some amendments of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. That is a matter that is dealt with in this report of Sir William Beveridge, mainly with a view to correcting the waste there is in connection with that public service. When a man gets injured he is paid perhaps for a period. The matter is one between him and the society. Perhaps he rushes into debt. After six months or so a settlement is arrived at. He probably clears his debts with the little money that he has in hand, but when he resumes his industrial occupation he is not as efficient as he was before the accident. The suggestion in this report is that accidents should be in the same form as disease, and that a man should be entitled to get paid. In the case of negligence on behalf of an employer, there is no reason why the man would not have a right to action in connection with the negligence.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is before the House a concrete measure which proposes to grant children's allowances. The Dáil is not debating the Beveridge Report, nor social security in general, nor the cost of industrial assurance in Great Britain, nor amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Minister referred to one paragraph of the Beveridge Report, relevant to the need for children's allowances.

Mr. Cosgrave

I take it that under this Bill social services can be extended or restricted. The Bill is capable of extension or restriction. There is no earthly reason why twice the number of children should not be brought in under it, or why other things than children could not be included. The real point with regard to it is that the Minister said the Bill was designed to relieve want. We have got no information as to how many it is anticipated will be relieved of want by reason of this measure, nor did we get any information as to the number of families, subject to income-tax charges, which are going to be affected by it. The Minister says it is not possible to co-ordinate the administration of this measure with the various other social services at present being administered by different Departments. I cannot accept that. It is inconceivable to me. At the moment we have national health insurance, unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, home help and supplementary additions to unemployment assistance. Surely it ought to be possible to amalgamate the administration of these various services and thus lessen the cost.

The Minister was not particularly helpful to the House in connection with these proposals. He stated that he did not propose to have a contributory service. One advantage of a contributory service is that a person who derives benefit or expects to derive benefit is independent. There is a contribution from himself in such a case. There is a difficulty where a large number of people are not employed. The Minister would have the advantage of seeing how that could be dealt with if he had read the Beveridge Report, which contemplates contributions not only from persons in gainful occupation, but by persons in gainful occupation on their own account. It does not appear to be difficult to get small employers to take out cards to which stamps will be affixed. Consider the position of small farmers. It may happen that small employers are sometimes puzzled at the number of returns they have to deal with and the number of stamps they have to affix. But that is not an impossible task. It may be that we find it impossible to do here what was recommended after careful examination across the water. I must say that I cannot accept that view. To my mind the Minister has fallen down on this matter, having a certain amount of money available. Assuming that he accepts that statement, the Government has not sought to expand that from any other source. There is every good reason why it should be done, assuming that there is a sufficient number of families in this State needing 2/6 for every child. It is on that basis the proposals have shown their real weakness.

I am satisfied that if the Minister and his Department had made a study of the recommendations in the Beveridge Report, they would have got the information they required as far as making this a contributory scheme goes. It is true that this scheme is not a contributory one as far as family allowances are concerned. It is true that the recommendations of the Beveridge Report are that the State should pay family allowances, but it is made evident in that report, that as regards social security, every person in Great Britain with an income under £420 yearly should be a contributory person. Having laid that down after great preparation it ensures that, so far as persons with families are concerned, with the exception of the first child, they will have sufficient income, will be free from want, and consequently from disease, from malnutrition and the other evils to which reference has been made.

The Dáil happens to be a little different from a schoolroom and if a Minister comes here to explain a Bill he does not do so as if before a blackboard saying, "whatever I am saying you have to subscribe to." It is for the Dáil to decide and to see that the administration of the various State services is properly carried out, and to say what sum has to be levied by way of taxation. The mere addition of £2,250,000 does not qualify the Minister to say that we have to vote for these proposals. The real mistake he made was, that he sat down within his own restricted conclave of Ministers, and put up these proposals and was probably backed by the best advice that he could get from civil servants. Deputies have the last word. We happen to be a little too grown up to accept that kind of treatment in this House. In my view the general administration of this State could not be more extravagant, and it is not efficient. The proposals in this measure are not designed to make the social services of this State efficient, and we fail also to achieve the real purpose of social services, to eliminate want amongst families. In that respect this measure is short of what we hoped it would be. Considering the number of families that the Bill will affect, the real purpose of a social service of this sort should be to ensure, where there are children, that nobody would be in want. That purpose, I regret, is not achieved where the family allowance is only to be paid in respect of the third and subsequent children.

Mr. Norton

I welcome the proposal to provide family allowances for children in this State, realising as I do that the provision of such allowances is one of the ways of supplementing the family income and, in that way, one of the best means of helping to provide families with a better standard of life. While I welcome the principle of providing children's allowances, I am afraid this Bill has many obvious limitations, and I am not satisfied that these limitations could not have been overcome if the Government had given more study to the question of providing children's allowances, by endeavouring to co-ordinate a scheme of children's allowances with other social services which are operative in the State.

At first blush it might seem that any family in which there were four children could obtain allowances under this Bill, but closer examination seems to me to reveal this disparity, that it is possible for a family to have four children, aged eight, 12, 14, 16 or 17 and, although the family income may be certified to be low, they will get no allowance under a Bill of this kind. The two eldest children will be disqualified because they will not be "qualified children" under the Bill, and the other two will not qualify for the allowance because there must be three children in the family in order to qualify for it. While starting to provide a scheme of children's allowances we are apparently willing to pass over cases in which parents with four children cannot get one penny under the terms of the Bill. It is also possible to take a family with six children, four being over 16 years, and two under 16, yet notwithstanding the fact that there are six children, no allowance will be paid in cases of that kind. I shall come back to that part of the Bill later. What strikes me about the Bill is the smallness of the allowances provided. We are providing children's allowances of 2/6 a week. If we were considering this Bill in 1938, we would scarcely have made the allowances less than 2/6. Even in the circumstances of 1938 I think the Minister will agree that an allowance of 2/6 to each qualified child was not a very generous allowance; but when we come to fix 2/6, in the circumstances of 1943, when the cost of living has increased by 64 per cent. compared with 1939, I think such a provision is inadequate. In fact, the Government would have got nation-wide support for a scheme of raising the allowance to 5/- per week. Everybody in the State recognises that the inauguration of a scheme of children's allowances will make a valuable contribution to an equitable redistribution of national income, and will, in its own way, provide families with a better standard of living than that which obtains in the case of many to-day.

The Minister, in the course of his speech, which, I am glad to say, was an unusually informative one for the Minister, told us it was necessary to make provision of this kind in order to make up the lag in family income and in order to provide for those families where the standard wage or the family wage is not sufficient to provide them with a reasonable standard of life. It has to be admitted here and everywhere throughout the world that social services are more necessary in countries in which the standard of living of the people is low, and in so far as you have large masses of the people living in conditions of poverty, actual and relative, large masses of the people unemployed, or with a low wage code and a low standard of living, in order to avoid sheer starvation and obviate a deteriorating social and economic position, social services must be provided; but to the extent to which they have to be provided to cater for such circumstances as these, as distinct from their provision as a means of raising the family income, to that extent you confess that the economic structure of the nation is far from satisfactory.

Children's allowances will not be a substitute for family wages. Children's allowances on a scale of 2/6 per child, after the first two children, will be no substitute for a decent standard of wages. They will be a small substitute for regular employment and will provide very little sustenance in the case of unemployment. What we as a nation have to aim at is the providing of the maximum amount of employment possible for our people, and to the extent that we fail to provide that employment, to that extent will we find it necessary to resort not merely to this type of social service, or social salve, as one might call it, but to other types of social services, if one may so describe them, which take the form of the provision of free fuel and free milk. The recipients of all these benefits would much prefer to have a decent wage, so that they could buy fuel, milk and other commodities in the same way as Deputies buy these commodities; but to the extent that we fail to provide these people with that decent standard of life, with full employment at decent rates of wages, to that extent we shall find it necessary to introduce social services or social salves of this kind.

In so far as this makes any contribution to relieving poverty and lifting up low wage standards, it will be welcomed by every progressive-minded person in the House and in the country generally; but, as I said to the Minister, I do not think he is going sufficiently far by providing allowances of 2/6 per week. Let us take the case of an agricultural worker. His present rate of wages is 36/- per week, and it is one of the wonders of the country how he manages to keep a wife and family on such a wage. Let us take his case to illustrate the point I made earlier. Suppose he has four children, aged 12, 14, 16 and 17. If it is intended to improve that man's standard of living by providing children's allowances, this Bill does not carry out that intention, because two of the children are not qualified to be reckoned as members of the family for the purpose of the Bill, and the other two do not pass over the datum line which qualifies them for payment of even one allowance; so that in that case of a man with four children, not a single one will receive the allowance.

I think that may well be typical of a large number of agricultural workers, and if our object is to lift up the standard of living of persons who are below what might, in our circumstances, be considered a reasonable standard, I suggest that the Bill ought to be altered in order to cover cases of that kind, because, if it is passed in its present form, and with its present restrictions, you may well find large numbers of lowly-paid agricultural workers and other workers disqualified from benefit because of the provisions of the Bill to which I have adverted. However much the Minister is anchored to his £2,250,000, or to other features of the Bill, I suggest that, in reason, he ought not to try, because of general sympathy with the Bill, to push it through in that form, but ought to listen to a reasonable request that the Bill be amended to cover cases of the kind to which I have referred.

On the general question of the allowances, I think that having regard to the standard of living which large numbers of our people are forced to tolerate, to the fact that there is endemic poverty in many parts of the country and that, generally speaking, large numbers of our people have a low standard of living, the Minister might very well have come in with a much more vigorous scheme of children's allowances. So far as the raising of the necessary moneys is concerned, there are fruitful sources of income within the country which might be tapped in respect of these allowances. If we look at the returns published by the Revenue Commissioners, we will discover about 2,500 people who rake in between them an income of about £7,000,000 a year. The Taoiseach may scarcely believe that, but it is perfectly true.

The Taoiseach

I am thinking how much they have left—how much of it is taken by the State.

Mr. Norton

None of them is parting with the balance in order to get over the hardships imposed by State taxation, and I know a few people who would gladly swap places with them, even though the State has a rakeoff from their income. I think the Taoiseach would not have to go far to discover a few more. In our circumstances, a good case can be made for the payment of children's allowances in respect of the first and each succeeding child. I know that will cost money, but I know, too, that it is only by making a substantial contribution from State sources to many lowly-paid workers that you can hope, in our cirstances, to put up the family income. That matter might well have been examined by the Government, and, indeed, the whole scheme of children's allowances should have been examined by a representative committee which would have been able to give the Government a national viewpoint in respect of children's allowances and to recommend a scheme of allowances which would probably get universal support in the country.

There is one aspect of the Bill which puzzles me, and that is, why the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be in charge of it. It does not seem to be industry and it is scarcely related to commerce.

Mr. Larkin

Surely children are a very valuable industry?

Mr. Norton

I did not think it was one that needed so much protection as, apparently, the Deputy does. But this does not seem to me to be related to Industry or Commerce at all. I am wondering why the Minister has taken on the responsibility for administering this scheme of children's allowances, which I think is entirely separated from similar Departments in any other country in the world where this scheme of social services is administered. One could understand its being administered by the Local Government Department. One might understand an effort being made to co-ordinate the various social services. But I am puzzled to know why this scheme is being administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce, because it seems to me to have no close relation to any of the normal activities of that Department. In respect of this type of social legislation—social legislation which takes the form of old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment insurance —it would be very much better if all these services were co-ordinated into a Ministry of Social Services, so that we might endeavour to co-ordinate the services and to administer them without the inevitable wastefulness and overlapping which are inseparable from the administration of these schemes by the different Departments. As it is, our social legislation is growing up in a higgledy-piggledy way, one Department administering one type of social service and another Department administering another type of service. A new service seems to bear very little relation to an existing service, with the result that our code of social legislation, such as it is, is growing up in a spreadeagle way without any real co-ordination or without any effort being made to avoid the wasteful expenditure which goes hand in hand with the separate administration of these schemes. I hope that the Minister, or the Taoiseach, if he speaks on the matter, will give us some indication that the Government realise the necessity for co-ordination of the various social services, so that we can get an efficient Ministry of Social Services, and so that its task would be related solely to the promotion of the greatest measure of efficiency in the administration of our social services.

There are other aspects of this Bill which I suppose can be left for the Committee Stage. But, perhaps, it might be no harm to mention in passing, so that the Minister might look into the matter before the Committee Stage, that while we exclude in this Bill the calculation of children's allowances for the purpose of widows' and orphans' pensions allowances and for certain other claims under other social services, we appear to make it possible for a local authority to calculate children's allowances in ascertaining the means of an applicant for home assistance. I do not know whether that was definitely intended, but it appears to be the position from this Bill that a local authority can take into consideration children's allowances in ascertaining the means of an applicant for home assistance.

Mr. Lemass

Surely the local authority takes into account an applicant's needs.

Mr. Norton

Maybe so. But, in 1935, when the Widows' and Orphans' Bill was going through the Dáil, I think I raised that matter and stated that the State ought not, by providing widows' and orphans' pensions, relieve the local authority of the obligation of relieving need in the case of applicants for home assistance. So impressed was the Minister for Local Government of that day with the point, that he put into the Widows' and Orphans' Bill of 1935 the provision in Section 54 which reads:—

"In granting relief, otherwise than in an institution, to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive a pension, a public assistance authority shall not take into consideration any such pension, except so far as such pension exceeds 5/- a week."

It was recognised in 1935 that unless you did this, the local authority would calculate the income under the Widows' and Orphans' Act for the purpose of ascertaining the means of the applicant for home assistance. I suggest to the Minister that, unless some similar provision is put into this Bill, the local authority will be entitled to do in respect of children's allowances what the Minister for Local Government felt they ought not to be allowed to do in respect of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I suggest to the Minister that the point is well worth consideration having regard to what was done on a previous occasion.

The one other point I want to refer to is the provisions of Section 19 of the Bill. Section 19 gives the Minister power, within one year after the passing of the Act, to do certain things, the things being these:—

"If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation this Act, the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may by Order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Act into operation ...."

So far as that part of the section is concerned, I think everybody will approve of the power given to the Minister. But the section goes on to read:—

"and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect."

I do not know to what extent the Minister may be obliged to avail of the powers given in Section 19, or to what extent he would desire to avail of it. So far as this is merely exercising power of a routine character to facilitate the coming into operation of the Act, one can understand the provisions of this section. But, if the Minister is taking power to modify, to the disadvantage of applicants, the provisions of the Bill after it passes the Dáil, the Minister ought, in these circumstances, to agree that any such Order which he makes should be laid on the Table of the House, so as to give the Dáil an opportunity of discussing any amendment of the Bill after it had left the House. I think that is a reasonable claim. If the Minister feels that he is only going to exercise that power in a routine way, nobody will cavil at that. But, if the Minister feels that any Order which he makes modifies the provisions of the Bill so as to reduce its value or to make it more difficult for persons to secure benefits, then I think the Minister might consent to lay that Order on the Table of the House so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter. It would not, as the Minister knows, impede his right to proceed with the terms of the Order, but it would give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter and give the Minister an opportunity of hearing the views of the House on any matter which it was felt desirable to discuss in the House.

Mr. Donnellan

We, on these benches, feel it our duty to congratulate the Minister on the Bill. Of course, there are faults in every Bill, but we, on these benches, believe it is a step in the right direction and we hope that the day will come when it can be extended further and that the national income will be increased in such a way that all children under the age of 16 will be in a position to get an allowance without inflicting any undue hardship on the community. One matter I wish to congratulate the Minister upon is that the means test is not to be applied under this Bill. I only hope that that is a forerunner of the time when other Departments will do likewise, and that the means test will not apply to old age pensions.

I know this Bill will be a Godsend in rural areas, as one coming from a rural area. I have one suggestion to make to the Minister, which I would ask him to take very seriously. I would suggest that the allowance should be made payable to the mothers. The mother is the chief parent. As a father, I do not wish to say anything against fathers, but I would ask the Minister seriously to consider that point, because he realises, and every man here realises, that the mother is the chief guardian of the family. In all sincerity, I would suggest to the Minister to accept in the Bill the principle that the money should be made available to the mother. If that is done, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the money will be definitely of more value to the family, because this allowance is more or less to help in the provision of clothes and things like that, and, of course, the mother has the chief responsibility in that direction. I do not wish to delay the House, but I would ask the Minister seriously to consider that point. By putting the Bill through with the amendment I have suggested, I believe he will have added immensely to the value of the measure.

Mr. Lynch

I join with the other Deputies in welcoming the Bill as a new step, at any rate, in legislation of this kind. It is a beginning, and I think it should be welcomed as such. I think it is only fair to say that, if there is one Deputy who can claim chief credit for this, it is Deputy Dillon. I remember being in the House—I think over 12 months ago—when Deputy Dillon first raised this question here in what I, at any rate, consider was easily the best speech he ever made in the House. I think most of us who have been a long time in public life have become rather cynical about the value of speech-making. I think most of us who have contested elections for 20 or more years have come to the conclusion that speech-making, at the chapel gates, for instance, rarely makes converts. It is resorted to in order to create enthusiasm and make people go to the polls. I was cynical, as a matter of fact, with regard to the value of speech-making, but I admit that Deputy Dillon's speech in the House on that occasion with regard to children's allowances immediately converted me. I had not given the subject any great thought until I heard him make that speech. Certainly, I thought he made a most convincing case for the adoption of a scheme of children's allowances, or family allowances, as I think he called them.

Everybody in the Dáil, naturally, like Deputy Norton and Deputy Donnellan, would wish that we could go further in this direction but the fact of the matter is, of course, that the Minister in control of the Bill is the person who is responsible for levying the taxes, or at any rate the Government of the day are responsible for levying the taxes to pay for this. I think we can allow that all Parties in the House, whether they are in the Government Benches or any other benches, would be equally in favour of extending the provisions of the Bill if that were financially feasible at the moment. The Minister has told us that it will cost £2,250,000—and that, of course, is a substantial sum in a country such as ours—and he, fairly enough, from his point of view, put it to us that, if we are supporting this Bill, we must be in a position to say that we will support the necessary taxation to provide the money. I suppose the Minister has in mind his own performances when he was on this side of the House, because there was nobody who could argue so strongly for social services and, at the same time, there was nobody more denunciatory about high taxation when the Budget was under discussion, than he. But, at the same time, I accept what he has put forward as being fair play. He has said that, if we support this measure, we must be equally prepared to support the necessary taxation.

I, for one, in order to have a measure of this kind, would certainly be prepared to support taxation to the extent that he put forward or such other taxation as may be preferable to the items of taxation that he put forward. I think this is a sufficiently big step to justify an increase in taxation, and it is a sufficiently valuable step, because, having put on record that we accept this principle of children's allowances, the further extension of that principle to apply, later on, to every child, I am perfectly certain, eventually will come. People's consciences have to grow to these things. Twenty-five, 20 or even 10 or 12 years ago, these things were hardly thought of. Even in the countries the Minister mentioned, I understand, they are of fairly modern institution. But there is no doubt that when we have become more and more used to the idea, a demand will arise for the extension of this service in the future, and, of course, people will also have to foot the bill.

As a matter of fact, I would join with Deputy Donnellan in wishing that the mother should be made the claimant, but from what I gathered from the Minister's speech, I think that can be an arrangement within the family and I think that might be even more desirable. There would be certain cases where it might not be at all advisable that the mother should bo the person who would be handling the money. If the arrangement can be made within the family that the mother can be made the claimant, then I think the Bill as it stands will be all right from that point of view.

I do not think the Minister developed the matter sufficiently to make it clear as to what is the intention with regard to the adjustment of the income-tax code. Everybody, of course, will agree that persons who will benefit from the provisions of this Bill, should not get, as the same time, income-tax relief in respect of tlie same children, but what I want to know is this: Let us take the type of family to which Deputy Norton has referred: a family in which there are four children, two of whom are just over 16 vears of age, and two under 16; and let us suppose that the head of that family is a payer of income-tax. As things are at present, I understand that he can claim income-tax relief in respect of all the four children: in other words, none of his children come within the provisions of this Bill. Now, will that person be in the same position in the future as he has been in the past? Can he claim income-tax relief still, in respect of the four children, since the provisions of this Bill do not apply to him? To put it differently, if there is a person in the income-tax group, to whom this Bill does not apply at all, can he still continue to claim relief of income-tax in respect of his children?

Mr. Lemass

Of course, in respect of children over 16, he would not be entitled to income-tax relief unless they were at a whole-time school.

Mr. Lynch

Yes, I am assuming they were at such a school, and that the person concerned was entitled to claim relief in respect of these children, will this Bill affect him, or will he not be entitled to claim the same relief?

Mr. Lemass

I would say to the Deputy that the actual terms of this proposal will appear in the Finance Bill, when it comes before the House. The only thing I can say at the moment is that it is the intention to recover from income-tax payers the amount to which such income-tax payers will benefit under the provisions of this Bill; and the obvious way of doing that is by effecting a reduction in the allowances now made, when it, comes to assessing the amount of allowances to be given in respect of children's allowances under this Bill. It would appear to me that a reduction of, say, £20 in that allowance should secure the recovery of the amount payable to these children in respect of allowances. It may be that modifications will be made in this respect, but that will be the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, and such modifications, if any, will be set out by that Minister when the Finance Bill comes before the Dáil.

Mr. Lynch

Yes, I agree that persons who may benefit under the provisions of this Bill should not be allowed, at the same time, to claim relief in income-tax in respect of their children. Suppose that a person is not getting the children's allowances and has children, I want to get an assurance that such a person will be able to claim the relief that he has been getting already under the Finance Acts, and that he will not be affected by the allowances that are proposed under this Bill. A great many people with children are worried about this, and: want to know whether the provisions of this Bill will be operated to their disadvantage. Can the Minister tell me anything about that?

Mr. Lemass

The general aim will be to ensure that persons in the income tax-paying classes will sacrifice some part of their tax allowance so as to off-set this, but I could not deal now with the precise machinery that will be necessary in order to bring that about. It is a very complicated matter, and I suggest that the Deputy should bring it up when concrete proposals come before the Dáil, in connection with this matter, under the Finance Bill.

Mr. Lynch

Very well. Deputy Norton, I think, made a strong case: the case of, say, an agricultural worker with four children, two of whom have juat passed 16 years of ago, thus removing the two younger children from any benefit under the provisions of the Bill. I suppose, of course, that not alone the agricultural workers, but other sections of the community, would be affected in that way, and that it will be a matter of general application. I think it should be possible to make some provision to alleviate the hardships that might be entailed by such a provision in these cases. I do not suggest that any child over, for instance, 16 years of age, should benefit, but where you have a family of six children, four of whom are just immediately over 16, and ranging from that up to 17, 18 or 19 years of age, and two of whom are underneath 16 years of age, I think it should be possible for some arrangement to be made whereby the definition of a child, for purposes of that kind, would include children under 18, while providing at the same time that no person over 16 would draw the 2/6 a week. I think that something might be done in that direction. I admit that, probably, that would make things more complicated, but undoubtedly you have the case of low wage-earners with four or five children, who will be excluded from the benefits because only two of the children' are under 16 years of age, whereas the other children are barely over that age. I suggest that that would be rather hard on such a person.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat that I am glad to see the introduction of this Bill, because I believe that it is a first step in this type of legislation, and because I believe that, as a result of it, we can look forward to an extension in the future of the principles underlying the Bill, according as people's, consciences, as it were, become educated up to that point.

Cormac Ua Breisleáin

Ní maith liom moill ar bith a chur ar an Bhille thábhachtach seo atáthar a chur rómhaibh annseo sa Dáil agus mar sin de ní abróchaidh mé ach cúpla focal.

Béidh fáille roimh an Bhille seo ar fud na tíre, go háirid sa Ghacltacht a's ghním có-gháirdeachas leis an Aire ar son a leithéid a thabhairt isteach nuair atá an mhór-chuid de thíortha an domhain ag tabhairt a geuid ama do ghnoithí cogaidh. Is maith an comhartha é go bhfuilimid ábalta a leithéid de Bhille a thabhairt isteach san am atá i láthair. Beidh an Bille Deontaisí do Pháistí ina chuidiú mhór ag tuismitheóirí a bhfuil teaghlaigh mhóra acu, ach go háirid i gceanntair chumhanga agus sa Ghaeltacht—áitcacha a bhfuil teaghlaigh mhóra. Beidh sé ina chuidiú mhór ag aithreacha a's ag máithreacha nuair atá na páistí ró-óg la cuidiú leo.

Beidh na daoine bochta san ar fud na tíre buíoch don Riaghaltas agus arís ghním có-gháirdeachas leis an Aire ar son Bille chó Críostúil agus chó riachtanach a thabhairt isteach.

Mr. Hogan

If this measure is an indication of the acceptance of a principle, it is an advance; but if it is intended as a contribution towards a solution of the poverty problem, it is no contribution at all. The Minister described it as a social security service. I fail to see what social security there can accrue from the receipt of 2/6d. a week for the third child in a family where 36/- a week or less is the income. I fall to see what security there can be for a widow with three or four children, where one of them only is to receive 2/6d. a week. I fail to see where that can be described as social security in any sense of the word.

The Minister warns us in advance that, under no circumstances, is there to be any change, as to the number to be included or the amount of money to be expended. Might I, without infringing on that exclusion, remind him that in a similar service that allowance is not regarded at all as adequate, under the Department of Local Government and Public Health, where children are boarded out and are being paid for by the local authority. If the Minister would refer to pages 81 and 82 of the Local Government Department Report for 1940-41, he will find that there were 2,381 boarded-out children and that the local authorities, with the sanction of that Department, paid £40,598 for the maintenance of those 2,381 children. That was equal to £17 per head. The Minister says now that, in respect of a national responsibility, he will pay only £6 10s. 6d. per annum per head. It seems to me that the local authorities whom we are seeking to manacle, and in some cases destroy, had a greater conception of their duty towards children than the national Government, has. There is a very big difference between £6 10s. 0d. and £17, and figures are available if the Minister wishes to check it. I hope the Minister will make some compromise between the amount which the local authorities thought desirable for boarded-out children and what the Government thinks desirable in respect of the children of the nation as a whole. Otherwise, when he is describing this service I hope he will give it its proper name and not call it a social security service when it gives no security whatever against poverty.

The Minister did not give sufficient information in regard to the provisions of the Bill. Deputy Cosgrave seems to have made up his mind that the Minister's statement justifies him in thinking that the Bill cannot be administered in a sectional fashion. Those of us who have experience of measures administered by this Department know perfectly well that some of the things slipped in, in a casual fashion, in some of the measures have operated very grievously against those to whom they referred. Nobody imagined that the Employment Period Order in the Unemployment Assistance Act would work out in such a way that, in a rural area, in March, work is supposed to drop out of the sky and the men drawing unemployment assistance are told there is work for them in that area and that no unemployment assistance will be paid to them until October; yet that is how that particular measure is operating. Any measure to be administered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be examined under a microscope and any possibilities inherent in it should be canvassed to the utmost extent.

In the definition section of this measure, I find that a child is defined as "a person under the aye of 16." I am inclined to ask the Minister if that means under the age of 16 when this Bill is signed, on the appointed day, or on the qualifying date. These definitions seem to be more remarkable for what they omit than for what they include.

In another paragraph, the expression "the qualifying date" is given as "in relation to the payment period for a region, the date which is, by virtue of sub-section 2 of Section 2 of this Act, the qualifying date in relation to that payment period." Keeping the Employment Period Order in mind, I can imagine an Order being issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying that the measure will apply to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford on a certain qualifying date and that the rural areas will be excluded. I can see the Minister postponing the operation of the Bill in respect of rural areas and justifying his action in so doing. If the Bill becomes law on the lst January, land the appointed date is the 1st March, the Minister may appoint the 1st November as the qualifying date in respect of a certain area, which means that all the children whose birthdays occur between the 1st March and the 1st November are automatically excluded from the operation of the Act.

The Minister endeavoured to indicate that he does not intend that; but, in dealing with this section on the Committee Stage, I hope he will take the opportunity to convince the Dáil. I hope he will remove the doubts that exist in a great many minds, and that this Act will come into operation concurrently in all the regions, so that no disadvantage will accrue to anybody in a particular region. That possibility is inherent in this measure, and, unless those doubts are removed, I cannot see anything to prevent the Minister from taking advantage of them if he so desires. The present Minister possibly docs not so desire, but we do not know who may be Minister afterwards. Unless we have an assurance from the Minister responsible for this measure that he cannot, by the provisions of the definition section, exclude some classes, I am convinced the measure will not operate as smoothly as it should.

I notice that the investigation officers and the deciding officers are to be under the control of the Minister's Department. I think that is a bad system and that the deciding officers should be from some other Department. That system is operated in the Department of Local Government and Public Health, where that Department is the arbitrator between the Department of Finance and the applicants for old age pensions. On the Committee Stage of this Bill, the Minister should convince the House that the powers there are undoubtedly here will not be utilised through the regional division proposed in the measure to prevent every qualified person from receiving 2/6.

Dr. O'Higgins

In the main, I welcome the introduction of this particular Bill. No matter how Deputies of different Parties may criticise its details, the Government, and the Minister introducing it, have met a demand which has grown very considerably in volume from practically every Party in the House. Whilst welcoming the Bill, I deplore the Minister's manner in introducing it, and the circumstances under which it was introduced. Here is a Bill introduced to meet demands from representative Deputies, irrespective of Party, and it is introduced in an atmosphere of bluff, threats and finality. There is no necessity for that kind of thing. The Minister and the Government may have made up their minds that they were not going to budge an inch beyond the financial provisions of the Bill, or the number of children provided for, but there is no necessity for the Minister to come in here with an ash plant in his fist, as it were, waving it in our faces. Perhaps it would not be such a menace to our peace of mind, to the national safety or to progress if there was a resignation of the Government; that is a matter of opinion, but I do not like bellicosity when there is no occasion for bellicosity. This kind of shadow-boxing in association with what I might describe as a social welfare scheme, in respect of which the Minister was previously notified that it had, in the main, the support of all Parties, is entirely unnecessary.

With regard to the conditions surrounding the introduction of the Bill, for some 12 or 18 months past public attention here and elsewhere has been riveted on the question of State assistance for families. Time and again on the Order Paper of this House, questions have been addressed to the Minister or the Government as to when they would be in a position to make a statement with regard to family allowances or to issue to Deputies the report of the Departmental Committee which investigated all this matter. The answer from time to time was: "At some future date". Now here the Bill is introduced, no White Paper issued, no Departmental report, and we are baldly told that half-a-crown is the limit, that the first two children must be left out and that anybody who does not like that may lump it. Surely a Bill of this kind that, in the main, had general support, should be, and could be, discussed in this House in a more reasonable spirit than that. I should like to approach consideration of a Bill such as this with a table in front of me showing the number of families with one child, two, four, five, or six children and the cost of the scheme taking in all children or excluding the first two or stopping at the sixth or seventh. In that way, I could make up my mind as to the advisability of finally approving of a Bill of this kind when I had reasonable information as to the cost of alternatives.

In a neighbouring country long before any legislation is introduced the man in the street and the member of the Parliament are put in possession of all the information that is available to the Government, so that a member of Parliament is in a position to come into Parliament and discuss an important matter with all and every information that is available to the Government available to him. Now whether the State can give allowances only to children after the second or third child is a question of finance. It is a question of what the extra money cent entailed would be, if we were to take in the second child or even the first child, and every Deputy should be able to make up his mind as to whether the increased cost was justifiable or not, by knowing what the increased cost would be. We in this Party have examined various official returns, various volumes of the census issued, and we could not with any exactitude get any reasonable indication as to the number of families of various sizes. The number of children in each age group is clear enough, but we were anxious for some two years past to see legislation of this kind and to approach it with a full knowledge of the circumstances and the facts. I do not know why the Departmental report and the information of various kinds, which must have been collected in order to make the report of any value, has been withheld from Deputies. The report was asked for time and again, and it should have been available before this Bill was introduced.

I do not agree with the attitude of the Minister in quite casually throwing overboard any suggestion of having a contributory scheme. If we could have a contributory scheme and provide for all children, then I would welcome a contributory scheme. Everyone of us knows that there are difficulties, to a certain extent, in the collection of contributions from people other than employees. I have no doubt that is one of the matters which was explored and reported on by the Departmental Committee but I do not think it is treating the House fairly merely to walk in and say that because 50 per cent. of our people are not in employment, there would be too much difficulty in collecting their contributions. I do not say that there is not a sound case and a strong case for a non-contributory scheme, but no case has been made here for chucking overboard all consideration of a contributory scheme. If we could have a contributory scheme and provide for extra benefits for the children brought under the Bill, or the same benefits for the first and second child, then I would think very seriously before I would throw overboard the idea of a contributory scheme.

It is a matter for debate whether it is wise to exclude the first, or the first and the second child and provide for, say, all children under 16 irrespective of number. There is a lot to be said one way or the other. In other State-assisted schemes for dependent children, the other method of approach is the one used. The first, the second and the third child get State assistance, and then you reach a point beyond which no State assistance is given. It is certainly a matter that would reserve very full consideration and about which there should be very general discussion in an Assembly such as this. There, again, we have no figures. We have no figures whatsoever on which to estimate the increased or the decreased burden on the State. We are as conscious of the undesirability of overloading the people of this country with taxation as any Minister of State over there but we should like, in considering three, four or five different schemes, to have some figures showing the cost of the different schemes, the saving in one case or the extra commitments in the other. All that information has been withheld from the Dáil, whether deliberately or otherwise. I would consider it perfectly reasonable to suggest, on the Second Heading of this Bill, that further consideration should be adjourned until the House is in possession of the Departmental Report on which this Bill was based.

We have the Minister coming in and saying that the Bill is going to cost £2,500,000 and that on anybody who supports the Bill, there is a moral obligation, except he is guilty of political trickery, to put through the next Budget. This House, every week or every month it sits is putting through legislation that imposes penalties of one kind or another on the taxpayer. In the history of this House there never was the type of announcement that surrounded the introduction of this Bill—that there is a moral obligation on anybody who supports the Bill to support the Budget and that, if they do not do that, they are guilty of political trickery——

Mr. Lemass

Nobody said that.

Dr. O'Higgins

Can the Minister spell the word "economy"? Can he never balance any new concession to the people by a Government saving? When the Minister and his Ministry increased the administrative cost of government by considerably more than £1,000,000 a year, did we then hear him coming into the House and saying "that is so much on tea, so much on sugar, 1/- on tobacco and 1/- in the £ on income-tax"? Other Deputies speaking from these and other Benches, expressed the opinion that it was the wrong Minister and the wrong Ministry that were in charge of this Bill. Whether it is the wrong Ministry or not is a debatable point, but, if we are to judge the Minister by his antics in introducing the Bill, I certainly agree with those who say he is the wrong Minister.

Information has been withheld. All the relevant information which we have been told a Department of Government has been collecting for months has been withheld. We are asked, more or less in blinkers, either to take the Bill as it is, unaltered, or go without it. We take the Bill. We take it in the light of the fact that we are not in a position, as responsible Deputies, to consider any alternative. The data required fcy this type of Bill have been withheld from us. A number of points have been raised in the course of the debate which are worthy of deep consideration. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.