Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1943

Vol. 92 No. 2

Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Byrne

Yesterday nearly all speakers gave a very warm welcome to this Bill. I join in that welcome, and I say that the Bill is the first step towards a real improvement in the conditions of certain people and is one worthy of sympathetic consideration by every member of the House. My only regret is that the Minister has not gone far enough. In the few minutes at my disposal last night, I asked whether it was correct to assume that a parent with four children, aged nine, 11, 16 and 17 years, will get nothing whatever under the Bill, and if it were possible to get a clear "yes" or "no" to that question, I should be very glad.

The Minister will conclude the debate.

Mr. Larkin

But he will not say "yes" or "no".

Mr. Byrne

He does not give us the opportunity of knowing before, he replies, so I must proceed, like Deputy Dillon, Deputy Larkin and others who raised the point yesterday, on the assumption that it is correct—that a person with two children, aged 9 and 11 years, and two others aged 16 and 17 years will get nothing. If that is so—has not the parent of these children a very serious grievance against the Minister and against the Dáil? Take the case of a man with those four children earning £3 or £3 10s. per week. He must bear the same taxation in his purchases of those commodities on which taxation is to be imposed for the purpose of raising this money as the better off man, so that the parent with four children of these ages will be worse off than ever. We are told that there is to be extra taxation of 1/- a lb on tobacco, 1/2d. a Ib. on sugar, 1/2d. a pint on beer, and 2d. a Ib. on tea, and for a man with £3 per week, who is to get nothing from the Bill, that represents a very serious impost. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that point, and do something for the parent with a small number of children who will not be entitled to benefit, but will have to pay the taxation out of very small wages.

I would also suggest, as other speakers suggested, that in order to finance this scheme the Government ought to borrow the money for the first year and give us an opportunity of seeing how it will work. I am of the same opinion as other speakers that it is not a substitute and must not be accepted as a substitute for good employment or good wages. It is the duty of the Government and the House, after this Bill is given full effect to, to make some effort to provide good employment at reasonable wages. I want to congratulate the Minister and the Government on their courage in tackling this question. I do say there is the flaw which I have. mentioned in the scheme, and it is a very serious one, namely, that the man with a small family receiving small wages will get no benefit under the Bill but he will be taxed to the same extent in the purchase of his goods as the man with £10 or £14 or more a week.

Mr. Larkin

What about the bachelors?

Mr. Byrne

From that point of view, it does not appear to be fair, and I earnestly hope that the Government will do something to rectify the flaw which has been pointed out by previous speakers and by myself. Deputies have asked how the money is to be paid; whether it is to be paid weekly or monthly and by some method such as the present ration book. The mother of the children has a ration book and there ought to be some method of paying in that way. With other Deputies, I would prefer that the money should be paid to the mother— that she should be responsible for the collection of the benefits for the children under 16 years of age. That is a matter for further consideration. It gives courage and hope to ordinary back benchers like myself to know that if you keep hammering away sufficiently often and sufficiently long, and if the grievances of our people are exposed in that way, we can induce the Government by constitutional means to do the right thing for our people.

To my mind there are several remarkable things about this Bill. The first is the fact that it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible for it. It will be interesting to the House to know by what process of ratiocination the Government decided that children's allowances are part of Industry and Commerce. It certainly seems a little farfetched to my mind. I think it emphasises a matter which has been mentioned in this House on many occasions, and that is the desirability of amalgamating all these social services under one Minister, instead of having them as at present, distributed over various Ministers. The second point has reference to some of the things which have been left out of the Bill. In particular, I refer to Section 2, where the Minister takes power to do certain things by Order.

Unfortunately the general trend of much of our legislation to-day is to have merely an enabling Bill. The actual scheme does not come before the House and we merely give the Minister power to do certain things. Yet, in introducing the Bill yesterday, the Minister indicated what he proposed to do under this section. If he has his mind made up as to what he intends to do, why could he not have put into the Bill what he proposes to do so that the House might have a chance of discussing the proposals and arrangements to see whether they are what they consider the best possible? Not only that, but the Minister apparently has so little confidence in his ability to put what he wants in the Bill that in Section 19 he has given himself a power which I am quite sure is unique, namely, to do anything he wants within a year in order to bring the Bill into operation. He is given absolute carte blanche for a period of a year. It seems to me that these are things that should be thought out before the Bill is introduced, that the Minister should take the powers in the Bill rather than leave them until then.

There is one other extraordinary provision which probably can be better discussed in Committee. It is contained in the section which refers to the referees and which states that they are to be civil servants. I have no doubt, when we come to the Committee Stage, that the Minister will offer some explanation of why he wishes to confine these referees to civil servants. But it is when we come to another thing which is not in the Bill that I find myself most disturbed, and that is the reference which the Minister made yesterday to the proposals which, in due course, will appear before the House in the Finance Bill, I suppose next May, governing income-tax. It may be that I misunderstood the Minister and took him up wrongly, but, so far as I gathered, the Finance Bill will propose that for each child after the second, the income-tax allowance will be reduced by £20. I do not know whether the Minister has gone into the matter; I presume he has gone into it very thoroughly. But the actual effect of that will be that for very many people, instead of being a Children's Allowances Bill, this will become a Children's Disallowance Bill. Take the case, for instance, of a family of six children, one of whom is over 16 but is still attending an educational establishment and therefore still ranks for the income-tax allowance. At the present moment, there are six allowances of £60 each. If I understand the Minister correctly, under the forthcoming Finance Bill there will be two allowances of £60 and four of £40 in such a case; that is, there will be a loss for those paying on the full rate of £30. Against that, there being only five cliildren under the age of 16, only three children's allowances will be paid, totalling £19 10s. per year, a difference of £10 10s., if I am'correct. In addition to that £10 10s., of course, the taxpayer will pay, as every other taxpayer will, the increased taxes, whatever they may be, which are imposed to meet the expenditure on children's allowances. The Government have apparently decided that anybody having children is entitled to some special compensation from them, but in this case, instead of special compensation the taxpayer is getting a special liability.

It may be that I took up the Minister entirely wrongly in his reference to income-tax, and, if so, I hope when concluding the debate he will clear up the matter. I think, however, that it does draw attention to matters which have been before the House previously where only half the subject is actually before us, and we are told the other half will be dealt with in another Bill. It is most unsatisfactory. There is no finality to it. We pass a measure on the assumption that something will be done in the Finance Bill, then the Finance Bill comes along and, perhaps, does not do what we expect, but, in the meantime, the Children's Allowances Bill has gone through ar4 we cannot alter it. There is one other matter I would like to refer to, that is, the Minister's reference in his opening statement to what sounded like a sort of threat to the House— that if they pass this Bill, they must also pass all the Estimates and the Budget Resolutions, and so forth, without cavilling over expenditure. I do not think the Minister meant that as a threat. If he was, as I think probable, trying to bring home to the House that they cannot pass a Bill of this sort without paying for it, then I think he was fully justified, but the mere fact that we pass this Bill and agree that, in due course, we will provide the money, does not, surely prevent us from criticising other items of expenditure. I am quite sure the Minister did not intend it in that form at all, but it certainly had that suggestion.

Is maith liom gur chuir an Dáil fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Gan amhras, bille sea é gur cheart do gach Gael bheith móralach as, mar tá sé ciallmhar agus lán de ghrá Dé. Is locht ar an mbille seo ná fuil sé chó fairsing agus ba cheart dó bheith do réir daoine áirithe. Tá sé chó fial fairsing agus is féidir leis an tír a sheasamh. Ba mhaith linn go léir go mbeadh níos mó ag dul do leanbh atá ag fáil an deontais seo, ach dá mb'fhéidir leis an tír níos mó a sheasamh bheadh sin le fáil.

Chuir an Teachta O Broin ceist nóimeat ó shoin agus tá an cheist sin, freagruithe in alt 2, fó-alt (3) (c), in a n-abartar go gcaithfidh triúr leanbh bheith sa mhuirighin sar a bhfuighidh an tuismitheoir—an t-athair nó an mháthair—aon deontas i dtaobh aon leinbh. Is dóigh liom fhéin gur locht ar an mbille é sin. Cuir i gcás go bhfuil triúr leanbh i muirighin. Tá an tríú duine ag fáil an deontais. Má cailltear an duine is sine, no an tarna duine, caillfidh na tuismitheoirí an deontas. Locht ar an mBille sea é sin. Deirim-se go mba cheart go mbeadh an deontas le fáil ag gach leanbh go dtí go mbeadh sé 16 bliana d'aois. Ní féidir liom-sa a thuigsint ámh, fé mar atá an bille anois, conus a gheobhaidh aon leanbh an deontas tar éis é bheith 13 bliana d'aois, is cuma triúr no deichniúr sa mhuirighin. Deirim gur locht ar an mbille é sin. Aontuím leis an Teachta O Diolúin agus leis an Teachta O Broin go mba cheart an locht sin a leigheas agus aon leanbh atá i dfceideal an deontais tráth ar bith, ba ceart go mbeadh sé le fáil aige go dtí go mbeadh sé 16 bliana d'aois.

Aontuím i dtaobh an allúntais go bhfuil sé beagáinín beag Ní cheannóidh leath choróin anois an méad a cheannódh sé trioca bliain ó shoin cuir i gcás tá comhacht ceannaíochta an airgid ag laghdú. Ac nuair a bheidh deire le cruatan agus le buadboirt na haimsire seo b'fhéidir go bhféadfaí an bille seo do leasú agus an deontas a mhéadú leis.

Tá ní amháin ba mhath liom a mholadh. Sé sin, go mba cheart gan an t-airgead d'íoc as buachaillí a dheineann mioa-choirthe. Tá fhios againn, le cúpla bliain anuas, go bhfuil daoine óga ag dul as bcalach, agus deireann na bhreithimh gurb í an fhaillighe no ceal smaeht an athar agus an mháthar is cúis leis—na tuismitbeoirí atá cionntach. Is dóigh liom, fhéin gur mhaith an rud coinníollacha a chur isteach sa bhille ná díolfaí an liúntas thar ceann leinbh a daorfaí ins na cúirteanna. Rud eile, deirtear go ndíolfár an t-airgead uair sa tseachtain. Ní fheadar an maith an rud é sin. Abair go bhfuil beirt leanbh i muirighin i dteideal an deontais, beidh an tuismitheoir ag fáil coróinn sa, teeachtain de bhárr na beirte pin. Dá mbeadh an t-airgead le fáil uair sa mhí bheadh punt ag teacht isteach. agus b'fhiú rud éigin é sin. Ach má gheibhtear é in aghaidh na seachtaine déanfear spior spear de agus ní bheidh sé chó maith agus a bheadh dá bhfuightí púnt uair sa mhí.

I propose to make a. very brief intervention to join my voice with the general paean of welcome extended to the principles of this Bill from all parts, of the House and to express, with the majority of Deputies from the various sides of the House, regret that the Government could not see their way to go somewhat further when giving effect to the principles enshrined in the Bill. It is to my mind a danger to apply such a desirable principle as that enshrined in the Bill in too meagrely a fashion so as to negative to a very considerable extent its beneficent results in the minds of the people of the country. We have an example of that in previous attempts at social legislation by the Government and I regret that they have not handled it with more courage. Had they done so, they would have had a better hope of getting the benedictions and blessings of the country as whole in giving effect to this very desirable Bill.

There have already been remarks by various speakers as to the disabilities of families with certain numbers of children who will be rendered ineligible for any benefit, so I am not referring to that portion of it any further. A point was made by Deputy Benson which I endorse. I consider that the remarks he made, if his interpretation of the Bill is correct, show that one is not entitled to say that the Bill has no means test. Most speakers so far have commented on the absence of the means test as being one of the most desirable clauses in the Bill. I wonder if that is correct. We find that a man at the moment in the enjoyment of certain exemptions under a code of laws of the country, a tradesman or artisan in receipt of certain wages which make him liable to pay income-tax, gets a rebate in respect of his children. We are now told that, according to the Minister's words, under this Bill that man will lose something—he win get something on the one hand as children's allowance, and will have taken away from him more than he is getting—something which he was granted by the laws under which he was operating—in addition to the taxation which the father of a large family will have to contribute on tea, tobacco, sugar and other items set out in the Minister's statement. I am not grumbling if any man who is paying income-tax is asked to pay something for those less fortunately situated, but I object to the claim that this is a Bill without a means test. I believe that, in certain cases, this will cause considerable hardship, on account of that particular feature.

There is one point in which I am particularly interested, that is, the effect of this Bill upon persons who are dependent at the moment on home help or outdoor relief or some other kind of social assistance. In other social legislation passed through this House, provision has been made specifically that the payments under this Bill are not to be taken into account in dealing with the poor law authorities. I wonder if there is any significance attaching to that omission in this Bill. In the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935, we find & clause, Section 54, which says that,

"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 auch pension, except in so far as such pension exceeds five shillings a week."

We find the same thing in the Natiocal-Health Insurance Acts.

There is a great analogy between this Bill and what it stands for and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and it looks significant, if it was not an oversight, that no similar provision is made in this Bill to guide home help authorities when dealing with applicants of that character. I have much experience, as have other Deputies, of the hardships inflicted under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act on certain citizens of this country. In many cases, wLen they get a pension of 5/- a week, they suffer a loss by getting it, as the home help authorities, in their parochial outlook, say that the State is providing for those persons and they are entitled to cut them off. On inquiry, we have been told by the Minister—and rightly —that that Act did not preclude the local authorities from giving those persons the benefit of home assistance, where the case was proved to be a necessitous one, on top of the widow's pension. Yet that has been the outlook taken.

If that has been the outlook taken by the board of health elected by the people, we cannot expect much more generosity now from those who some people say are the nominees of the Minister, or, in any case, from the managers who take the place of the elected representatives and in whose hands the home help is left. If the local authorities are supplied with a Children's Allowances Act wherein there is a complete absence of what they are to disregard and what they are to deal with, I believe the position. will be much worse afterwards than it has been before. The Minister should ensure that that clause will be inserted in this Bill, if it has not been left out intentionally, to enable local authorities to disregard anything paid for children under this Bill when such people are looking for home assistance, so that this Bill will not militate against the payment of home assistance.

There is one other point which has been adverted to by several speakers. I wish to express my amazement that this Bill has been entrusted to this, Minister, whose Department already is overloaded with a variety of new tasks, owing to the new exigencies of the emergency. The Minister's staff is to be commiserated with on the vast volume of work of a very difficult character which has been imposed on it in recent years. With the Department of Local Government and Public Health administering the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, the Revenue Commissioners directly responsible for old age pensions, and now the Department of Industry and Commerce directly responsible for children's allowances, it is becoming a kind Of "a bob each way," as we say in racing parlance, putting new social services into every Department, even where the ordinary avocations have no relation to that particular kind of service. One would have thought that the Government would decide, in bringing in this Bill, to set up this long-talked of, long-dreamed of and long hoped for Department of Social Services. It may be that the fact that the staff is so scattered at the montent has something to do with it, and the fact that emergency services are being dealt with by the Department of Supplies may have had something to do in determining the Government's mind. We can only hope that when the emergency, passes, and the Department of Supplies recedes from the very honoured position which it holds at the moment, social services will be withdrawn and handed over, with other similar services, to a special Department.

I think the Minister was perfectly right, in introducing this Bill, in mentioning some items which would require to be taxed in order to produce the required revenue. I expect that he merely mentioned them in that way so that, if we did not like one of them we could choose something else, though the money would have to be raised. That was quite good and proper, but I would like to suggest that this is the only way—and the Government have now recognised it—to remedy what is undoubtedly a very grave social evil, namely, that an unmarried man and a married man, with a wife and three or four children receive the same pay. From the employers' point of view, I do not see how yon could have differential pay for married people. The Government has recognised that, and I think they are quite right in doing so at this stage. The war conditions have served to bring out that anomaly which always existed, even when the times were not quite as hard as they are at present for the lower paid members of the population.

I do not wish to go into the details as to where we are drawing the line. I suppose the Minister 'must draw the line somewhere. For instance, there is the case of a working man who has three children, one of whom is under the age of 16, but is an invalid. There are other variations of that type which have also been mentioned. Deputy Benson hag instanced the point of the income-tax payer who has his allowance for children reduced. The Government have drawn the line and have decided that this Bill is to cost the country £2,250,000. The first point that the Minister made was, I think, that he was going to divide the country geographically into zones and the object of that division was that people in Zone 1 would have. their annual review inside a certain one of the six-monthly periods. I take it he is going to divide the country into six geographical areas, the first one of which will come under payment in the first month, number 2 in the second month, number 3 in the third month, and so on. I suggest that it would probably be easier—and it certainly would be more easily remembered—if, instead of taking the country geographically, he took the people alphabetically, putting the people whose names commenced A and B into the first monthly period, the people whoso names commenced with C and D into the, second monthly period, and so on. The advantage would be that, after a very short period, people would become accustomed to it and everybody would know exactly when his or her turn for revision arrived. That would be better than the geographical arrangement, because a person might decide to live in another part of the country. The Minister may answer that people might also change their names, but I am offering him my suggestion for what it is worth.

It seems to me that, apart, from the ideographical division which the Minister proposes for the purpose of bringing this Bill into operation, he will also have to, make a geographical division from the point of view of administration. I do not know how many offices there would be in the City of Dublin, but, for the sake of argument, we will say that there will have to be some line drawn within which the people would go to a certain office to have their claims substantiated. That brings me to what I think is one of the defects of the Bill. At the present time we have to deal with unemployment, health, workmen's compensation, old age, widows, orphans, blind pensions and poor relief. Now we are going to add another, children's allowances. I suggest, with all the eloquence I can muster, that this is a most opportune time to put all these things together and have them dealt with by the one set of officers. I have in the past used an unfortunate word when I suggested that certain things should be "co-ordinated". The Minister, when he was introducing this Bill, said he was not prepared to co-ordinate the various allowances. I make him a present of that. I suggest he should bring all these things together under the one set of officers and make them responsible for administering the whole lot.

Mr. Larkin

Not workmen's compensation, surely. We are bad enough as it is. The Government have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Dockrell

I suggest they have. When a man' comes under workmen's compensation, the question arises whether or not he is to draw unemployment benefit.

Mr. Larkin

Once he is declared an injured workman he gets no unemployment benefit, though he ought to get it.

Mr. Dockrell

I suggest that has to be acknowledged by the Government Department. I contend that all those things I have mentioned ought to be brought together. I have done a little sum in arithmetic and perhaps, if I am wrong, the Minister will corireot me. He said that 340,000 children will qualify for benefit under this measure. I know that is only an estimate. At 2/6 a week that will amount to £6 a year.

It will amount to £6 10/-.

Mr. Larkin

£6 5s.

Mr. Dockrell

I think I will stick to my original figure, even if I am in error. The expenditure in that case will bring you to £2,010,000.

It will amount to £2,340,000.

Mr. Dockrell

Then it will cost more than the Minister has suggested. As regards the cost of administering the scheme, I am sure it will be very substantial. I suggest it would be absurd to appoint some hundreds of officials to administer it, because, in a very short time, after various schemes have probably been amalgamated, you will have old age pension officers and various other people pensioned off, and their services dispensed with. There will have to be some settlement of their claims. I suggest that now is the time when these nine services that I have mentioned should be co-ordinated. I do not mean that all the allowances are to be brought in on the same level —that can very well be done at a later stage—but now is the time, when we have a whole lot of superfluous officials floating about, to have the different services I have mentioned brought together so that they can be economically administered. Nobody is paing to suggest that this Bill repreaenta the last attempt at providing social services for the country. It does not matter where the advances may come from for more of them. At any rate this Bill does not represent the last word so far as social services are concerned. I think that all those social services should be brought together in one scheme. We have a lot of officials dealing with only one section of this problem.

Surely the Minister believes that the Beveridge scheme or something analogous to it, is going to go through in England. I, at any rate, believe that. Are we going to have any form of co-operation, reciprocal benefits or transfers? There is the old grievance of men who have been working at the other side and who, although they have been accumulating stamps for a long period, find that they are no use to them when they return here. They have to throw them into the sea or into the fire. I think that is one of the biggest problems facing the House, namely, to get a broad measure such as this of social security, seize it and get if on the right lines so that afterwards any amendment, addition, or subtraction can be brought about by a stroke of a pen. I hope that the Minister and the Government win gwe earnest consideration to that point between now and the Committee Stage.

I welcome the principles of the Bill. I am sorry to see that there is a need for such a Bill. That need shows quite clearly that the Government realise that the sums that wage earners are in receipt of are not sufficient to provide for themselves and their families. If their wages were aueh as to enable them to bring up their families in decency and according to Christian standards there would be no need for this Bill. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on its introduction. There are a lot of faults to be found in the Bill. Other Deputies have pointed them out, so that there is no need for me to repeat them.

The Bill, in my opinion, will be a blessing for rural Ireland, for labouring men, agricultural labourers, and sinall farmers with large families. I met a man on Sunday morning who has a family of nine. He described the Bill as a great blessing, and said that he would receive 2/6 for each child. Eight of them would be eligible, under the Bill.

Not if he has a family of nine. Seven is the very most that could be eligible.

At any rate, this man said that it was a great blessing that the Government had brought in this Bill. With other Deputies I would lie to see the aHawaoe increased to 5/-. After all, 2/6 is very, small Assuming that the allowance was 5/-, then the Minister said yesterday—and this was repeated, I think, by Deputy Alfred Byrne—that this would mean an inerease of 1/- in the on income-tax, 1/- in the £on tobacco, ½d. a pint on beer, ½d. a lb. on sugar, and I think 2d. on tea. That would mean that taxation would have to be almost doubled. We can see that the Government are going to claim great credit for this Bill, and if an election takes place they will try to ram it down the necks of the people that it is they who are responsible for giving this allowance to the people. But what they are giving with one hand they are taking with the other so that in reality it is the taxpayers who are making this allowance. That is the one point that. I want to make, that it is all the people who are going to pay for this in taxation, and that it is the people with families who are going to benefit.

The agricultural labourer with wage of 35/- or 36/- a week who has two children, will not derive any benefit from this Bill, and yet he will have to bear his share of the taxation necessary to finance it. I think the Minister should not have adopted any half-way measures. He should have given the allowance to every child, and made it applicable to those who were unemployed between the ages of 16 and 18. They, surely, are entitled to something. I read the Bill through to-day but I was not present yesterday when the Minister was speaking. I am not quite clear as to who is going to draw this allowance, whether it is the father or the mother. I think the allowance should be payable to the mother because she is responsible for all domestic needs. She has to try and make the financial ends of the home meet. As regards the administration of the scheme, I agree with Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Keyes that all these social services—unemployment assistance, national health insurance, widows' and orphans' pensions, home assistance and all the rest—should be run under one Department. The Government should establish a Ministry for Social Services. If that were done it would, in my opinion, tend to lessen the cost of administration. In addition, the one gang of officials could then deal with the whole lot.

Because they are nothing else. I have never seen any good result from officials yet. That has been my experience of all those inspectors, income-tax inspectors, pension officers and all the others. I can find no use for them.

The Deputy is speaking of them under privilege. He should bear that in mind. Ministers are responsible to the Dáil, not the civil servants.

Deputy Dillon and others said that money should be borrowed for the purposes of this Bill. I would not be in favour of borrowing for this purpose, because, if we borrow money, we shall have to pay it back. Of course, at present, moneys are borrowed for all social services, but I cannot agree with the suggestion to borrow in this connection at all. I should be inclined to say that the Government should issue money for the purpose, and then nobody would be affected by taxation. That is the principle upon which I was elected, and I must support that principle every time I speak. If I do not, when I go down to my constituents I shall be charged with departing from the policy and programme on which I was elected. The Government should issue money to meet the demands of this Bill and then nobody will be taxed. We see England creating millions for war, but we cannot create a couple of million pounds for children's allowances. However, I agree with the principle of the Bill, although I think the allowance too small, and should like to see it increased. I should also like to see every person under 18 years benefiting under the Bill, I am very glad that there is to be no means test to this case. Might I ask, Sir, if it is in order for Deputies to speak to each other while I am speaking?

It appeared to me that the Deputy was unduly disturbed by the few words the Chair did hear indistinctly.

I agree with the principle of the Bill, and congratulate the Government on introducing it, but I feel that there is room for much improvement. Probably this discussion which we have had on the Bill will bring about changes, and I hope the Minister will agree to make the improvements where we, the Opposition, think improvements should be made.

Mr. Larkin

In the Government or in thp Bill—which?

There could be a hell of an improvement in the Government. However, as I say, I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I should like to see the allowance increased.

None of us here thinks that this is the last word on children's allowances as a branch of our social services, and we all of us hope that, in the post-war years, with thrivirg industry and a prosperous agriculture we shall be in a position to put into operation a proper contributory scheme. I hope the Minister will, not let that aspect escape his attention. I have in mind the case of New Zealand. The original New Zealand Act of 1926, under which family allowances were paid, gave an allowance of 2/-per child to all children in excess of two. There was a means test in respect of a family income up to £4. When the Social Security Act of 1938, which superseded the earlier Act, was passed, the allowance was increased to 4/- per child in excess of two, but there, was still a means test in respect of a family income of £4. The Act was further amended in 1940, and payments were made in respect of every child in excess of one, and by the last amendment of the Act, in the Finance Act of 1941, New Zealand made the allowances applicable to all. The point about the scheme, however, is that it is a contributory scheme. I hope to see the day when we will have a proper comprehensive scheme of social security, and that all social services will come under one head and be administered by a Minister for Social Security, as in the case of New Zealand.

All sections of the House have welcomed the Bill. The inadequacy of the payments has been criticised as well as one or two other minor aspects, but, in general, it has been welcomed, and I think we are off to, good start. I hope to see the day when the Minister will be able to come into the House with amending legislation on contributory lines. I am mindful also of the point mentioned by Deputy Norton and others, as to how these allowances will affect the position of people on outdoor relief, and I, too appeal to the Minister to see to it that any allowances paid under the Bill and not specified in the Bill will not interfere with outdoor relief. I also appeal to him to extend, as is the case in New Zealand—it will represent only a relatively small amount of money—the allowances to mentally and physically deficient children over the age of 16. That is a very small thing to ask, and I think it could be done without incurring very much expense. Payment of these allowances should, in my opinion, be made, as in New Zealand, to the mother, and only in exceptional cases should it be made to the father, or other suitable person.

Deputy Flanagan spoke of a living wage, and said that tbew allowances are no substitute for a living wage. I remind the House, however, that even in a State such as New Zealand, where there is a minimum rate of wages there is also provision for children's Allowances. The Bill, in effect, is a Bill to help the bigger families, and if the people who are in the happy position of paying income-tax have to pay a little, more, that is what in meant by the Bill, and what we hope will continue—that is better distribution of the income of the country.

I welcome the Bill, although I am not satisfied that the Government have gone to the full extent to improve social conditions. However, the fact that there is no means test in connection with these allowances certainly makes the Bill one to welcome. What I should like to see is the giving of these allowances in respect of every child after the first—that is, that the allowance should start with the second child. The Minister, in his opening remark, said that the average family numbered 1.9, and on the basis of one-tenth, or because of that difference of .1 he decided hot to make any allowance in respect of the first two children. I am satisfied, that a certain amount of hardship will be caused by that decision, and that hardship will be inflicted oh the parents of big families. When I speak of big families, I relate the average family of 1.9 to the family of four. Take the case of persons with four children, aged 11, 13, 15 and 17 years, which is double the average family, and which we can call fairly large. What will happen in that case is that the first year one of those children will be eligible for the allowance. The second year, two of them will be over the age, with the result that the fourth will hot be eligible; in other words, with a family of four, the oldest being under 18 years of age, none of them will be eligible for the allowance. That is my reason for saying to the Minister that he should have started with at least the first child. That would only mean an additional cost of £1,000,000 per year. In other words, under the present Bill, the cost is to be £2,250,000 per year, and an extra £1,000,000 would take in the second child. I am satisfied that no taxpayer would hesitate to pay his share of that extra £1,000,000 so that the allowance would be available for the second child in a family.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister made reference to the fact that those who accepted it would be bound to agree to the increased income-tax and the extra tax on beer, tea, sugar and tobacco in order to meet the expenditure. We are all agreeable to that. But Deputies feel that they should have the right to speak on increased taxation. At the same time, I agree that the increased taxation has to be paid and that the people will have no hesitation in meeting it. There is one provision in this Bill on which I should like to be satisfied and that is the question of the six-monthly review. Am I to take it that if there is an area that does not come under the review within a certain time and a child receiving the allowance happens to die inside the six months, the allowance will continue in operation in that caae until such time as the review takes place? Then, again, if a child happens to be born into a family three or four or five months prior to the review, am I to take it that there will be no allowance given until the review takes place three or four or five months later? I ask for this information, owing to a provision in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. Under that Act, if a child does not attend school after the age of 14, the mother automatically loses the allowance. If a mother does not compel a child to go to school, or the child does not attend school, the mother is supposed to notify the Department that the child is not attending, so that the allowance can be stopped. There have been cases where the person did not give such notice and the allowance was continued for three or four or five months, with the result that all the money had to be repaid. That is one of the reasons why I want to get information on this question of the six-monthly review, so as to satisfy myself that if a child dies three months before the review the allowance will be continued until the review takes place.

Another point to which I should like to refer is that I think this allowance should be payable to the mother of the family. She is the one who is in charge of the younger sections of the family by day and by night and the allowance ought to be made payable to her. I suggest that the money should be paid by some kind of order similar to a postal order and that the mother should not be compelled to go three or five miles to a post office to cash it; that she should be able to give it in exchange for any commodity that she may require from time to time. That would avoid delay. In Dublin there is a post office in practically every street and in every city and town there are post offices convenient for the people. But, in remote areas with small populations, the post office may be four or five or six miles away from the person who wishes to draw the allowance. On the other hand, the mother of the family might be able to get something locally in exchange for whatever allowance she has got. That is the reason why I recommend that the system of payment should be such that she could exchange it for goods without having to go to a post office, as is the case with old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I welcome the Bill. I feel that the Bill is the prelude to greater things; that the Minister has only gone 50 per cent-of the way, but that he has gone a long way by abolishing the means test. I feel, however, that the Minister should have gone another 25 per cent. of the way and added another £1,000,000. If he had done that, I believe he would have gone a large part of the way to meet this much-needed extra social service.

Like others who have spoken, I want to express surprise that a Bill of this nature should be introduced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This is a social service which should, in my opinion. be under the Department of Local Government, which is at present dealing with matters of this kind, such as widows' pensions, old age pensions, and the administration of other such Acts passed by this House. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, the Minister expressed himself as being very pleased to be in the position of knowing that a Bill of this nature would be welcomed by every Party in his House and by all sections of the community. I think he might have gone further and said that he had been urged by all Parties in this House. and by various sections, of the community to bring in a Bill of this kind. In view of that fact, I do not think he need have had any hesitancy in going a little further than he has gone, because if there is any tax that people would pay ungrudgingly, people who are in a position to pay taxes—I suppose everybody will be hit by this measure—it is this tax. It is a pity, however, that, accompanying that statement, the Minister thought fit to bring into operation the mailed fist, to tell the House that this was the first and last word of the Government, and that if there was an adverse vote on the Bill, the Government would take it as a vote of no confidence and resign. That might not be a bad thing at all. However, I think the atmosphere that would be created by a statement of that kind is not an atmosphere in which to discuss a Bill of this nature. He said, and I say, that the people are quite satisfied to support a measure of this kind.

I think it can also be said that the people, especially the people concerned, will Ibe very disappointed at the meagreness of a Bill to deal with what I consider to be a very serious situation. The Bill, so far as its principles are concerned, is all right, but it only touches the fringe of a very serious situation. In consequence of the low wage standards in this country, a great many children, especially of the alleged unskilled workers, are suffering from malnutrition. One wonders how far this Bill will deal with a situation of that kind. Numbers of people who have read the reports of the proceedings on this Bill in the newspapers are of the opinion that if they have, say, six children, no matter what their wages are—even if them were four over 16 years—they will be given the allowance for the two children under 16.

According to my interpretation of the Bill—and that is backed up by the Minister's explanation yesterday—no children are taken into consideration except what might be described as qualified children. I do not want to be interpreted as advocating a means test when I quote this; but let us consider-the position of a man with a comparatively decent salary, who has six children under 16 years of age. He would receive the allowance in respect of four of the children. There may be an unemployed man, drawing unemployment assistance for a considerable time, and if he has two children under 16 and two over 16, he will not get the allowance in respect of any of them. I suggest that that is a very, very serious situation. The Minister and the Government should again consider the advisability of extending this measure to cover all children under 16, from the first.

I think it will be admitted that the first child born to parents is the most expensive child. All the expense surrounds the birth of that child. More money is required during the earlier part of the lifetime of that child than ia required for the other children. Articles purchased incidental to that birth, such as perambulators, and things of that kind, are in the family for years. The children born after the first do not cost as much as the first. The Minister quoted certain countries having schemes of children's allowances. Deputy Larkin dealt with some of them yesterday, notably Portugal, a country which we all know is noted for low wage standards. The Minister also referred to New Zealand and to the fact that a means test operates there. I presume that country was singled out by the Minister because of the fact that it has been cited by this Party very often in an endeavour to secure that legislation of the kind adopted by the Labour Government in New Zealand would be adopted here. The Minister forgot to tell us that there is a decent legal wage code in New Zealand, that the minimum wage, I think, is £4 per week, and that even though a man may have £4 a week, the children's allowance is paid in respect of the first and all subsequent children.

The Minister also referred to the fact that there will have to be extra taxation in order to secure tho money to finance this measure. Nobody in the House expected that it would be otherwise. The Minister gave certain instances of what the taxes might be in the coming Budget. I would like to remind the Minister that at the present time the Army is costing this country £10,000,000. I am not suggesting that that is not necessary at the present time, but I think everything points to the fact that this emergency will nut last much longer. Why not continue some of the taxation which is now being collected in order to maintain the Army, for the purpose of financing this particular measure?

In normal times, as far as I remember, the Army only cost this country £1,500,000. It is now costing £10.000,000, that is to say, £8,500,000 over and above what it was costing in pre-emergency days. I do think that, at least for the coming year, instead of increasing taxation, we might adopt Deputy Dillon's suggestion that, for the period of the emergency, this should be financed from loans, and that when the emergency is over the taxation which is being applied at the present moment in the maintenance of the Army could be so adjusted that some of it could be used to finance this measure.

Various Deputies have referred to the fact that there is no stipulation in the Bill to prevent public assistance authorities from taking the amount of children's allowances into consideration when calculating the rate of public assistance. I would ask the Minister to have inserted in the Bill, on Committee Stage, a section similar to that contained in the Widows and Orphans Bill which is as follows:—

"54. 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 five shillinga a week."

I may say at this stage that in a great many cases that provision has either been ignored or that many of the public assistance authorities have tried to ignore it. However, I think it would be better if the Minister would put something like that in the Bill because there is no use giving a thing with one hand and taking it away with the other.

Again, I would ask the Minister to have the allowance applied to all children. Even if it does coat more, the country will willingly pay the extra cost. The Bill as it stands, to my mind, is a certain amount of window-dressing. It will cost £2,250,000; there is no question at all about that. That is a big amount of money but a good many people will be disappointed when they find, when this Bill becomes an Act, that only certain children will be entitled to the allowance. To my mind, there will be a very anomalous position in various parts of the country. If we refer to the case I quoted at the beginning, that is going to bring about discontent and I am sure neither the Minister nor any other member of the Dáil wishes to see that in the country. The position is bad enough and I think it is necessary, if we are going to meet the situation fairly and squarely, to bring in some amendment which will secure that all children in the country under the age of 16 will be given the allowance of 2/6 a week.

In common with most other Deputies, I believe that the Bill is desirable, but I think it is really only a palliative where a remedy is required. The Minister instanced many other countries where similar measures have been introduced; and other speakers, including the Minister, referred to the Beveridge Report. The only difference between other countries and ourselves and the Beveridge Report is that, so far, the Beveridge Report is only a plan and has not been put into operation. Everyone will agree, however, that it is quite likely that certain principles in the Beveridge Report will be put into operation, though what shape they may take is another matter.

The advantage which I see in the Beveridge Report is that a survey was made to ascertain what was required to keep a family at a frugal standard of living. As many speakers have mentioned already, in this country we have no, such idea as to the standard. We know what, the desirable standard should be, but we have no information as to the cost of such a standard. We have various schemes, such as those for widows and orphans and for unemployment assistance, and now we have this new one.

While this Bill can do a certain, amount of, good, I believe it will work, in many cases, a certain amount of hardship. Some Deputies have mentioned the low wage-earner with a family of two. If these taxes are imposed in his case, he will not be in a position to benefit, but he will be paying for the benefits others are drawing. The reason for that is that you cannot operate a scheme like this without paying for it. Whilst the Minister was, possibly, more involved than usual in explaining what he meant by having to pay for it at a later stage, it is true that we cannot have benefits under this Bill if we are not prepared to pay for them. It may happen that paying for them will operate harshly on certain sections. There is one section which I visualise will suffer severely, that of the agricultural labourer, particularly when he has a small family. In his case, if the taxes the Minister mentions are imposed, he will be paying a halfpenny on beer, a shilling on tobacco and twopence on tea, to provide benefit for others which he cannot receive himself.

There are other drawbacks in the Bill, in connection with the number in a family and the age at which the allowance ceases to be payable; but I believe that all those drawbacks are due to our having no long-term scheme. These are only piecemeal attempts to deal with a situation which should be considered on a wider basis. I am not blaming the Minister for that, but I think it should be the duty of the Government to undertake such a survey as soon as possible.

Like Deputy McCann, I believe that a contributory scheme would be a bettci one, for two reasons. If you were expecting and getting a contribution from the beneficiaries, you would be able to pay to each child. While the scheme would cost more, it would result, probably, in greater benefit to the community as a whole. I suppose the fact that Deputy McCann mentions it does not indicate a difference of opinion between tile Fianna Fáil Deputies in South City; but it struck me rather forcibly that the Minister was against a contributory scheme and one of his colleagues wae in favour of it. The scheme is only palliative, where a more determined effort should be made to improve the general conditions in the country. Deputy, McCann visualised a more prosperous agricultural community after the war and a greater development of industry. I must say, so far as I am concerned, I can see no great improvement, but rather a disimprovement, in agricultural conditions in this country after the war. While certain industries may benefit, the indication here, so far as agriculture is concerned, is that we are going back rather than forwards.

I also have wondered why the present Minister—rather than one of his colleagues—introduced this Bill, and I presume he will explain that later. Various Ministers administer various Acts designed to alleviate distress, and, undoubtedly, it is more expensive to, have that done by different Departments rather than by one single Department. The Bill states that the referees will be civil servants; and then reference is made to investigation officers and deciding officers, but it does not state whether they are to be civil servants or whether they are to be picked by examination or in some other manner. It would be desirable that the Minister indicate how these people are to be appointed, as it is specifically laid down that the referees are to be civil servants, but no mention is made in the other cases.

I see that Section 19 gives the Minister rather sweeping powers, even though they exist for only 12 months. It is undesirable that a representative Assembly like this should give such powers to any individual. I believe that powers given in that way are a denial of the principles which a representative Assembly should hold dear. If the Minister could assure us that it is only a question of administration, it is quite likely that the Dáil would be anxious to assist him in every way; but, as the section is put here, these sweeping powers given to an individual are of an autocratic nature and are undesirable in an institution like this.

In regard to the income-tax provision, there is a good deal of doubt, and I wonder if the Minister would consider allowing people, who are in receipt of an allowance under the income-tax code in respect of children, to opt whether they will benefit under the income-tax code or under the Bill, and not force on them the provisions of the Bill and the disimprovement in connection with income-tax.

I think there is very little to be said about the general principles of the Bill. It has received universal endorsement, and I subscribe to the views that other Deputies have expressed. From the historical point of view, the inauguration of children's allowances shows quite a considerable advance. It is not so very long ago when, under the Factories Acts, children were looked upon in quite a different light from that in which they are regarded under this Bill. I remember reading a short time ago about a traveller who went into one of these old factory areas, and he referred to the fact that practically every child in that area over four years of age was earning its own keep. Those days have gone for ever, but they have some significance even to-day. The reason why children of that immature age were put to work was because of the inadequate wages earned by their fathers. It was the need to get some sort of a family wage that compelled the parents —much against their will, and against Christian principles and ethics—to put their children to such labour.

Inadequate wages have been referred to by other Deputies, and there is danger, perhaps a slight danger now— a danger which the trade unions possibly will guard against—that unscrupulous employers may avail of the fact that there are, under this measure, possibilities of forcing down the wages of certain classes, certain small classes perhaps not organised in trade unions. There is the possibility that an employer may say to a married man with a family: "You are receiving 7/6 or 10/- by way of children's allowances and, therefore, you should be willing to take less than the standard wage that is being given to an unmarried man not in receipt of these allowances." Perhaps it was for this reason—it is the only reason that I can find—that this Bill was put under the direction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is this very tenuous connection between children's allowances and wages, and perhaps it was for that reason that the Minister was empowered to safeguard the position of the workers generally, to see to it that there was no case made for the lowering of wages because this measure will benefit people who are in need.

There are several points in the Bill which do not commend themselves tp most Deputies. There is one point which certainly should not commend itself to the Government. To my mind —and this has been mentioned by other Deputies, and it is certainly correct—the offset mentioned by the Minister under income-tax will bear very heavily on the middle classes. The middle classes have been very strong in their support of the present Government, and it appeared to me to-be an act of political shortsightedness to alienate the support of those classes by adversely affecting them. I suggest, and it does not call for any question of confidence, I think—it does not upset the Government very much from the aspect of meeting the cost of this measure—that instead of acting as they suggest they will act in regard to income-tax, that the amount which will be received by this offset of £20 in the allowances for children should be taken off those who are paying the higher levels of income-tax, should be taken from those who are paying supertax, or from those earning excess profits. It should be scaled up rather than stand as at present, according to the intention of the Minister. However, there is plenty of time to do that, and we may have occasion later to talk more about this matter.

Another point relates to the period of payment of these allowances. Most of us understood, from reading the Bill, that they were paid half-yearly. I think the majority of Deputies considered that a good point in the Bill. Bowever, the Minister showed us that that was merely for the purpose of assessing the amount that will be paid during the period, and actually the allowance will be paid weekly, perhaps in the same manner as the old age pensions, through the post office. It is say opinion, and I am sure it is an opinion shared by others, that where there is only one child qualifying under this measure, the small allowance of 2/6 a week will not materially affect the income of the family. In fact, where there are even two or three qualifying, and where they receive 5/- or 7/6 a week, owing to the sharp rise in tne cost of living and the difficulty women have of making ends meet, the allowances will not materially affect the situation.

This weekly payment will mean that the benefits will not be as permanent as they would be were the period between the payments to be longer; in other words, if the payments were quarterly—and I suggest that the Minister should make them quarterly —the amount which would accumulate would enable provision to be made for family capital assets. There would be a better opportunity for an improvident family that ordinarily would not have sufficient money to provide boots or clothes and articles of that sort, whereas if the money is paid weekly it will just be regarded as a slight addition to the weekly income and it will be spent on food, consumable goods generally, and there will be no real benefit to the family.

There is another point in reference to the age. The Minister has made this a matter of confidence, and naturally one cannot trespass too heavily upon him, but I suggest a case tould be made for counting in those children who are over 16 years. Everyone knows from experience that when children are closely associated by age, When they are like steps of stairs, as they say; where, for instance, there is a family of four children aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 years, it is often the case that the middle class parent tries to keep all the children at school in order to qualify them for a better position in life, a position better, perhaps, than the father has. When the family has grown up, that is the period when it is of the greatest expense, and it is all the more necessary then that the parents should receive relief. I should like the Minister, where there are children up to 17 or 18 years, or whatever age above 16 he likes—to permit them to count in this scheme. The payment could be made to the children still under 16, but if they have older brothers and sisters going to school, being maintained at school in order to obtain a decent position in life, there should be an extension of the Bill so as to bring in the children yet at school and above the age of 16 years.

I should like to refer to the position of New Zealand. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Deputy McCann for setting out the evolution, of legislation in New Zealand, and showing us how they have broadened out from year to year until they are now in a, very happy position. I need not go ovor the ground again, because Deputy McCann has dealt with the matter very well. But he did not draw the moral, and I think it is well worth drawing the moral, and well worth disabusing the minds of Deputies of some of the points in reference to what may be called the loose phrase of the Minister When he said that there was a means test in New Zealand.

The Taoiseach, at the conclusion of his speech the other night, drew comparisons between New Zealand and Ireland. I do not think there is any necessity to go into that on this Bill, but there is this to be said about it, that it should be worthy of examination here why we cannot have the scale of social services that they have in New Zealand. That is not due, I think, to any difference in the area of the land, the size of the populations, the amount of arable land or in the size of the average holdings. These things are not material if we want to find the reason for the difference there is between the social services there and in this country. What is material, I think, is that there they have an entirely different philosophy and an entirely different viewpoint. They have an entirely different outlook on finance. We in this country are wedded to orthodox finance, while in New Zealand they have taken up an attitude which shows their independence of this orthodoxy.

The main reason, I think, why we cannot have these social services in this country is—I think it can be recognised by everybody—because of the burden, as the Minister truly said, we have to bear to relieve unemployment. He might have said, too, that in New Zealand they did not put into effect this high level of social services until they had first achieved a period of full employment. They could not have the social services they have in New Zealand at present and neither could we under the present level of productivity that we have here. It was only when they put every man to work in New Zealand that they were able to increase the level of productivity there, when they were able to arrange for adequate wages and to distribute the extra volume of wealth flowing from that increased productivity which could bear the extra burden of taxation: it was only in those circumstances that they were able to improve the social services. For instance, in 1935 the productivity there per head could be measured at £62, but in 1939, after the implementation of a policy of full employment, that productivity per head had risen to £83. There was more wealth available, more wealthy people to be taxed, and a more even distribution of wealth, and as a necessary corollary of that they were able to have improved social services in New Zealand.

The social service that we are concerned with in this Bill is there called a family benefit. It is not given under a separate Act, but is related and pined up to a whole series of benefits. Deputy McCann pointed out that it is known as the Social Security Act. When you view the other services that are rendered to the community there through the Social Security Act, you can see that the family benefits there are even in greater disproportion to those that we propose to give here. The family there receives 4/- for each child when the family income is under £5. No one in this country would object to a means test of that description: no one here would object to-having 4/- for each child if the family income was under £5. As well as that, they have widows' pensions there. There is 35/- for the widow herself, and for each additional child it is 10/-, and not 4/-. There is a superannuation benefit of 30/- a week at 60 years of age for either man or woman. There is an invalid benefit of 30/-, a sustenance benefit and universal superannuation covering all classes of the community. There is no need for me to go into details, but I just mention these to put this question of family allowances into its proper perspective. The family benefit there shows how much better off they are because they have broken away from financial orthodoxy and have implemented a programme of full employment.

The Minister said that what concorns the Government is to get the money to finance these services. He said that at the present time the Government are spending £8,000,000 on social services and, in addition, £2,000,000 on unemployment relief, making the total expenditure on social services, roughly, about £10,000,000 a year. If Deputies have followed my argument they can see where we could obtain the money. If we had full employment in this country we would not need to spend £2,000,000 on the relief of the unemployed or the amounts required for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefits. We would have available this extra number of million pounds which would enable us to have a much higher scale of benefits for children's allowances and for other social services generally. The figures that I have extracted would appear to indicate that the actual amount we spend on what are called social services is in or about £5,000,000. Old age pensions cost £3,795,000, widows' and orphans' pensions £450,000, national health insurance £389,000. We have the smaller sums for child welfare, the medical treatment of schoolchildren, the provision of school meals, the welfare of the blind and various other medical grants, which bring the total to about £5,000,000.

If we could have a new, orientation of our philosophy, and get away from orthodox finance by organising the country as it should be organised, then I think the argument is unanswerable that we could have very much improved social services, and could, without endangering the stability of the Government, have very much better children's allowances.

I welcome and support this proposal as the inception of a scheme that must he expanded and made more comprehensive. I say that with a full appreciation of its implications in terms of taxation, particularly when one takes into account our social conditions here: the low marriage rate and the late marriage rate, the difficulties of our circumstances, the high percentage of low incomes, and the difficulty, hardships and sacrifices involved in rearing and maintaining families by a very big percentage of our people. One, however, must agree that whatever sacrifices have to be made in the way of further taxation, if they help to solve these problems in any way, the sacrifices will have been made in a good cause and for a very excellent purpose. One can understand why this proposal has received the support of every section in the community.

The basic consideration for the House, in my opinion, is the provision of a subsistence living for every family in the State. The Minister described this measure as a social security plan. I do not think it is at all a social security plan, because, if it were, the basis would not be the number in family but rather the family income, and this scheme is not in any way related to the family income. The House has got no information—I do not suppose the information necessary to deal with the scheme on such a basis is available—but a Departmental committee was set up to examine the scheme some months ago, and I think the House has been very badly treated in that it has not got any schedule of statistics in connection with the scheme. We have got no information whatever, regarding family incomes, with the result that it is rather difficult for individual Deputies to examine the problem in any detailed way. The fact remains that if any real progress is to be made in this direction of social security a comprehensive survey must be made somewhat on the lines of that made in Great Britain by the people working under Sir William Beveridge.

One of the reasons for the low marriage and late marriage rate in this country is the fact that quite a big percentage of our people, although quite willing to marry and settle down in life, do not feel they can face the difficulties and responsibilities of marriage because their incomes are not sufficient for the purpose. For that reason, I suppose, we have quite a big percentage of bachelors and spinsters. This House, the Parliament of the people, as the supreme authority, must take cognisance of that situation, and some effort should be made to encourage more and earlier marriages. From that point of view, the introduction of this Bill is undoubtedly step in the proper direction.

There is an aspect of this scheme which I do not think has been adverted to by any Deputy and to which the Minister made no reference. We have heard and talked quite a lot in the last few weeks about the cost of living, about the danger of inflation, about the spiral and the causes of the spiral and about the Government's policy of pegging wages in'an effort to prevent inflation and that spiral. It has been suggested from the Government benches in the past that the natural corollary of a demand for higher wages is a higher cost of living, higher wages again and the continuance of the spiral, but there is undoubtedly the difficulty that circumstances where you have low incomes and big families are very bad at present and people are finding it not only difficult but impossible to maintain their families in any sort of comfort. While we cannot expect employers to differentiate between single and married men—as a matter of fact, very often the single man is the better worker—and while some of our industries cannot afford wages commensurate with the present cost of living, most industries can afford to pay wages sufficient for the single man to carry on in comfort, and, while wagea may not be sufficient for the married man, the employer cannot differentiate in that respect. The only authority which can intervene in a situation like that is the State, which, can help the family man by supplementing his income by the provision of allowances of this sort.

I do not agree with Deputy Connolly that this will be used in the other direction, that employers will be in any way inclined to penalise individuals because they are enjoying an income from the State. It does appear to me right and proper, that the State should make that provision. No one else is in a position, or can be expected, to pay a differential rate, simply because one of his employees is married and another is not. That is the advantage which the employer or taxpayer will have when he is asked to make a contribution to this scheme.

The Minister indicated what this cost of £2,250,000 means in terms of so much on tea, sugar, and so on, and a number of Deputies interpreted his remarks as suggesting that that would be the position when the Budget came along. The Minister merely gave that as an indication of what it meant in terms of taxation, and it does not follow that that will be the amount of the imposition for this purpose. I do not think that expenditure is necessary, because, with other Deputies, I believe economies can be effected and I think it a pity that, in considering this measure, some examination has not been made as to the possibilities of a co-ordination of all these social services. There is undoubtedly a good deal of over-lapping and a considerable saving could be effected in respect of rents and taxes and redundant employees, if these services were co-ordinated.

With regard to the means test, it may be argued with a certain amount of conviction that even on the basis of this amount of money which the House will, I am sure, make available, if the means test were introduced, it would mean that, in the case of low incomes, the benefits should be substantially increased. If the House decided to do such a thing and fixed an income of £250 or £300 a year as the limit beyond which families would not be entitled to these allowances, you would have a situation in which one-section of the people with low incomes would enjoy these allowances and, at the other end, the people subject to income-tax enjoying these allowances, while, in between, there would be a section of the people receiving no benefit at all. I admire the universality of the application of this scheme and I am glad that no distinction is made, that no means test is attached and that the scheme does not bear the appearance of a public charity and therefore carries no stigma from that point of view. I regret, however, that no attempt has been made to give the House, any information regarding family incomes.

It has been pointed out that if and when this scheme is put into operation you may have some people getting benefit that really do not want benefit, and other families in other circumstances not securing any benefit simply because they may have two in family over 16 years and two under 16, in a family of four, with a low income. At that particular age, when parents are entitled to benefit in respect of children, when an older child comes to the age of 16, a younger child may be disqualified as a result of the other child attaining the age of 16. That is the most costly period so far as a family is concerned. Young children of 14, 15 or 16 years, as a rule, have a very good appetite and arc very severe on clothes and boots. Taking that into account, and the question of schooling at that age, it is the most costly period in the life of a child. I think the Minister should reconsider that provision in the scheme. I do not want the Minister to quibble on this matter and I will put it in this way. Once a child becomes eligible for benefit, the benefit ought to continue up to the age of 16 years. The loss of the benefit at that period would be a very serious matter so far as the income of the family is concerned. I think the people generally have misunderstood the provisions of this Bill and that they will be grievously disappointed at that aspect of the proposal. I think the Minister would be well advised to reconsider it. I do not think it will mean very much. It will only mean an extra two years. I have no idea as to the number involved, but it would not be a very considerable number.

The Minister told us that the income-tax allowance for children is to be reduced to £20. I think that is grossly unfair. For people on a salaried basis, whose salary may be pegged under the policy of the Government to a certain level, a further hardship will be involved by reducing the allowance for children for income-tax purposes. The suggestion has been made that it should be left optional; that a man with a family, liable for income-tax, in making his return could indicate that he has not benefited by this scheme in any way; that he has not applied for a children's allowance, and therefore can benefit by the provisions of the income-tax code for children.

As to whether the scheme should be contributory or not, I agree with the Minister. I do not think it is feasible, in our circumstances, to make it contributory. The Minister gave figures of 480,000 in employment and 218,000 not in employment. They would be almost exclusively of the small farming class, as well as other classes, of course. That is approximately 50 per cent. of thp total number concerned. That means that if we had a contributory scheme, 50 per cent. of these people would have to make a contribution out of their own pocket. It would mean collecting money from people by way of stamps, or in some other way, merely to hand it back to them again. As the percentage of the total number that are not in employment is so high, it does not appear to me to be feasible to apply the contributory principle. Therefore, I think the decision come to not to apply the contributory principle in face of that is a wise one. It has been suggested by a number of Deputies that tfae mother ought to benefit and not the father. I am aware that in New Zealand and some other countries it is the mother who benefits by a scheme of this kind. I still believ is recognising the father as the head of the family. As he is responsible for the maintenance of his family, I think it ia right and proper that he should be the person to benefit and not the mother.

I do not think it was proper for the Minister to threaten the House by saying that this would, be made a confidence issue and that if any attempt was made from any side of the House to alter the principle of the Bill, so far as the amounte are concerned, it would be made a matter of confidence. After all, the Minister or the Government are not the final authority so far as the people are concerned. It is the responsibility of this House, as tile Parliament of the country, to make ft decision as to what benefits should be given, or what impositions of taxation should be made to provide for such benefits. It we believe in the democratic and the sovereign right of this House to make that decision—and I am sure everyone does—I do not think the Minister was justified in issuing such a threat. It would be time enough when the issue was put up to him, to inform the House that the Government would resign on that issue.

I agree with other Deputies who have suggested that it seems rather strange that the administration of this scheme should be entrusted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There seems to be a terrible mix up and conglomeration of interests in the Ministry generally so far as administration of schemes, especially social service schemes, is concerned. In fact it goes outside the social order altogether and Deputies are very often confounded as to what Minister is responsible in regard to supplies and everything else. One item that might appear to be the responsibility of the Minister for Supplies is discovered to be the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and vice versa. The same thing applies to the Minister for Industry and Corn merce and the Minister for Local Government Deputies and the public generally are confounded very often as to which Minister is responsible in regard to different matters. To my mind a reform is due, especially in a matter affecting social services, such as this, where the sum involved, when added to the amount already being spent on social services, brings the burden of taxation for social services to the very high level of approximately 25 per cent. of the total services. Reform in that direction is, as I say, desirable. Some consideration ought to be given to the unification and amalgamation of all these services with a view to securing economies and better services generally.

I think in that way the Minister might find some of the money to finance this Bill. Economies could undoubtedly be effected. Our level of taxation is already a very serious burden on our people. We are reaching the red mark, we have, in fact, long since reached the red mark in taxation. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the introduction of this measure, because, as I said, when it is properly in operation, when it is, in fact, at some future date made a social security plan, the benefits that will accrue to the community as a whole will fully justify whatever hardships may be involved in the imposition of taxation.

Very little can be said in connection with a Bill like this. I welcome the Bill to a certain point, but I cannot say I approve of the details of it. I had thought that when the Government would introduce a scheme of family allowances they would make good the injustice that has been done to the rural community in every scheme of social services that has been introduced during their period of office. In connection with the widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance, and all these social service schemes, the rural population have not got the same conditions and do not receive as much as the residents in urban areas. There is a preference in every case given to city and nrban dwellers. Therefore, I felt that in this scheme, at least, preference would be given to the rural community. I thought that the Government would include at least every child, after the first, of the farm labourer and those engaged in agricultural production. I would appeal to the Minirter, even now, to bring in that amendment so that the agricultural labourer would get the allowance, if not for every child, at least for every child after the first.

The same principle applies in the case of a non-contributory widow residing in a rural area. A non-contributory widow residing in County Dublin or any other rural area, who has three children under 16, will receive 2/6 under this Act. She will receive 7/- or 8/- under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. That is not sufficient for her and her three children to exist on, and she must then go to the relieving officer to get 3/- or 4/- more. I did think that this Bill would be more generous as far as the widows and orphans and agricultural labourers in rural areas are concerned.

I am very disappointed that preference is not given to residents of rural areas because, after all, it would benefit the nation if such preference were given. I am personally satisfied It would benefit this nation ultimately-It would encourage people to stay in rural Ireland. Boys who come to the age of 15 or ,16 years might get some useful occupation on the land. At present the tendency is—and rightly so—for poor people to draw on Dublin City. I could point out several ways in which it would be of benefit to give-a preference to the agricultural community in this Bill. It would encourage people to go back to the land and to stay on the land, where they would be a greater asset to the nation and better citizens. In fact, I believe if the Government went the whole war and gave an allowance in respect of every child in the rural areas, in years to come the people would say it was money well expended.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I welcome the principle enshrined in it. Like another Deputy who has spoken, I would appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the mentally deficient child and the child who is incapable of work. For other sections of the community that are not fit to help themselves—the aged, the widowed, the orphaned, and the blind, —something has been done, but there is one section—and the number is small— the mentally deficient, and the child incapable of work, for whom nothing has been done and who have not been considered at all. I would appeal to the Minister in the case of such children that the, allowance should be continued until the age of 18 years or longer.

I would say that in the case of the lowly paid workers there would be a hardship in connection with this Bill. Take the case of the lowly paid worker, particularly the agricultural labourer, with a family of six, the oldest of whom are 19, 18, 17 and 16, and the other two under 16 years of age. He will get no allowance at all although he will have to contribute to whatever form of taxation is imposed in order to pay for this Bill. I think there is great hardship involved there.

I will have to disagree entirely with Deputy Hughes and to say definitely that I think the allowance should be made payable to the mother. Again, I am only voicing my own personal opinion when I say that I would not have the money paid weekly. After all, 2/6 a week for one child, or 5/- a week for two children, is not a great asset to the home whereas, if that money were paid quarterly or certainly not oftener than monthly, it would help the parents in saving money for clothes and boots that they are not able to afford now. I would appeal specially to the Minister, when this Bill becomes an Act, to see that the payments are not more frequently than monthly—I do say that system of payments would be of greater benefit to the poor people—and also that the money should be made payable to the mother.

In regard to the method of financing this Bill somebody suggeated putting a halfpenny on the pint of beer. I would put twopence on the pint of beer and I believe it would be more just. That is a personal view. Anything I say is personal. I will say that, no matter who is taxed in connection with this Bill, there will be no cool-plaint. The only complaint in connection with this Bill is that the Minister is not going far enough, so far as the benefits are concerned.

This Bill, to my mind, deserves approval, because it is introducing a social service which will benefit a great number of people in rural areas. It will bring a measure of justice to the family man, which w twenty-five years overdue. It will help to uplifts home life. At the present moment, home life in this country is miserable for the man and his wife trying to rear young children. This Bill is more or less a half measure, but it is a beginning. As a result of this Bill, we will have, more or less, national regeneration and will put first things first. We all know it was economic insecurity that was the cause of the flight from the land, the low marriage rate and the small families. That is all due to social insecurity. Any man entering the marriage state with a very small income was starting life miserably. We all see happy young couples getting married and setting out full of life and then, some years afterwards, there are three or four children and we see the want and misery appear in their faces and see them becoming old before their time and dying years too young. This little measure of assistance now will help to produce a feeling in the country that the State at least is behind such persons when they enter the bonds of matrimony and that it will come to their aid when they are not able to help themselves.

There has always been the injustice in this country that a single man is paid the same rate as a married man. When we were paying in wages, that could not be helped but now family allowances such as this provide a, means to help a married man, so that he will get some increase to help him in the liabilities he has taken on.

I see that, under this Bill, many families will be excluded, so that not as many families as we thought will benefit under it. Some Deputies have spoken of the man with four children, two of whom are under 16 and two over 16, who will get no benefit at all. That is very unfortunate. While the Bill is quite good, I believe it would be belter if the Minister had started by providing for the second child instead of only for the third. Even in the small home, where there are father, mother and two children, the father may be more or less unemployed for long periods of the year, resulting in great misery and distress in that home, even with two children.

Like Deputy Tunney and others, I believe that this payment should be made monthly instead of weekly, as the monthly payment would help the family to get a few shillings together— maybe £1 or 30/—to buy clothes or other necessaries. I also believe that this money should be paid to the mother as head of the home, who has the worries of providing the necessaries for the family. We know that there are many good fathers, but there are also bad fathers, who spend most of their wages in public-houses and leave the wife and children in misery. I ask the Minister to see that this little pittance is paid to the mother as head of the family at home, as it often would occur, if paid to the father, that it would never reach the children or the mother at all.

I also ask that, in future, the social services be co-ordinated, as it costs too much money in officialdom to run these services separately. The time has come when the social services should be united under one head and one Department, so as to save the hundreds of officials that have to be brought in to operate these Acts. The Bill is a step in the right direction, and I give it my general approval, though it is not going as far as I would like. I have been at all times in favour of family allowances, and I am glad the Government has seen its way to bring in this Bill.

Deirtear gur fearr leath ná moath. Tá an leath seo go maith agus molaim é, agus uirim fáilte roimh an mbille seo, agus roimh an scéim atá curtha síos ann, ar son na ndaoine a bhfuil mise anseo ar a son. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil na gasúir ag fáil rud éigin faoi leith Is cuma liomsa cé acab an t-athair no an mháthair a thógfas é, tá mé cinnte go gcuirfcar go ceart é ar son na malraí agus nach rachaidh aon bhias de amú. Tá bealach ansco againn anois chnn ár ngrá do thaisbeáint don tír, agus don Ghaedhilg, agus chun a thaisbeáint go bhfuilimid dáiríribh fúithi. Is mairg nach bhfuil an Taoiseach anseo leis an rud atá mé ag dbul a mholadh a chloibieáil. Má tá sé dáiríribh faoi'n nGaedhilg tá seans faoi leith aige féin —agus ag an teach seo agus ag gacb duine eile bhíonna ag cainnt fúithi—é sin a thaisbeáint. Beidh gasúir na tíre, no a mbunáite, ag fáil an deontais seo. Tosófar leis an tríú gasúr. In áit ar bith a bhfuil gasúr fíor-Ghaelach atá in ann an Ghaedhilg a labhairt, ba cheart go mbeadh breis bheag le fáil. Thaisbeánfadh sin go bhfuil meaa againn ar an nGaedhilg. Thaisbeánfadh sé ár ngrá don tír agus nach bhfuil sé ar nós "cuma liom" againn, ach go bhfuilimíd dáiríribh faoi'n teanga. Séard atá uaim go mbeadh breis bheag le fáil ag na malraí a choinnigh an teanga in áirde agus, leis sin, a choinnigh an tír seo anáirde. Deir an sean-fhocal go dtaisbeánann na madaí fhéin múineadh an teallaigh. Mar sin, go cinnte, taisbeánann na malraí sin múineadh an teallaigh.

Anois tá mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire é seo a chur suas chuig an Taoiseach. Tá caoi anois ann a, thaisbeáint go bhfuil sé féin agus an teach seo in aon turus faoi'n nGaedhilg. An bhreis bheag seo atá mé a iarraidh thaisbeánfadh sé don domhan go léir go bhfuil meas againn ortha seo a choinnigh an Ghaedhilg beo.

I would like to add my contribution to the debate on this Bill. I am very glad to see that the Government has recognised the necessity for allowances to children. As regards whether the payment should be made to the father or to the mother, I am inclined to think that it is better to make it to the mother. Where you have a bad mother, you have a bad home; but, while the father can be bad, it is not quite as serious to ths home. Although I think the mother should, receive the money, that question should be capable of revision; and where a mother is manifestly unworfchy to receiv the money, it should be possible to pay it to somebody else.

In regard, to the income-tax deductions, I am sorry see the principle being introduced that these income-tax payers who have children's allowances at present will have them reduced in order to pay for the children of another section of the community. To my mind, that is a bad principle, because the income-tax payers who have children are not by any means the wealthiest class of taxpayers. This means taking from the section income-tax payers who have children to pay another section, and thereby really hitting at the most deserving class of income-tax payers. As a rule, people have children when they are young and when their incomes are not very high. I would prefer to see an increase, a cominensurate increase, in income-tax rather than this cut in the income-tax allowance.

There is one other matter I want to refer to, and it has reference to children over 16 and under 16. Let me take a family where you have four children, two over 16 and two under 16. According to the Bill, the parents of those children will get no allowance. I think I am reading the Bill correctly in that connection, and I think that seems rather unfair. At the other end of the scale, if you have four children under 16, you will get paid for two of them. It is rather hard that at the other end of the scale you will lose, simply because you have two children over 16. I trust the Minister will reconsider that matter. Taking the Bill generally, I must say I am very glad to see this principle being adopted in this country.

I should like, with other Deputies, to give my approval to the principle of this Bill and I should like to see it becoming the law of the land. Some Deputies have found fault with the measure of relief that is being given, but we all must realise that we have to cut our cloth, according to our measure. I am sure every Deputy here would like to double or treble the amount allowed under the Bill, if that were possibles At all events, it is a very good beginning and perhaps at some future time it may be possible for us to go further with our social services, with this and similar measures for the relief of the poorer sections.

There is one point on which I am not quite clear. I should like to know if this Bill will apply to illegitimate children. I should like the Minister to tell us whether it is contemplated that this Bill should make allowances for illegitimate children. It is not clear under the Bill whether those children could qualify. Perhaps the Minister will make that matter more clear.

There is another portion of the Bill that I do not like and that is the portion that refers to regulations. There are some regulations that will be made by the Minister or his Department at some future time. In passing legislation we seem in this country to have got very lazy. Whether or not it is the fault of the Parliamentary draftsman, I do not know. I do know that the Licensing Act that was passed here is certainly a monument to what I would describe as the laziness of the Parliamentary draftsman. We seem to have got into the habit of including regulations in our legislation and of putting through legislation by reference Ultimately we will arrive at the period when nobody will know what to make of any Bill. I do not know what the regulations that are to be made by the Minister under Section 20 of the Bill will be like, but I do think, in reference to, legislation in general, that we should be more explicit and then at least we will know where we are.

Taking this Bill generally, I think it will be welcomed by the people, but more especially by the poorer sections who are living in the rural areas. I think it is a step in the right direction, and no matter what it costs, or who will have to pay, I believe the community generally will welcome a Bill such as this as being worthy of our people and indicative of, the social policy that we would like to see in operation here.

Deputy Moran mentioned that he hoped the Minister would include illegitimate children. I warn the Minister not to pay attention to what Deputy Moran suggests. I would be very reluctant to vote against this Bill, but I would certainly do so if that suggestion were adopted because, to my mind, you would then merely be passing a law to encourage people to have illegitimate children. If that suggestion were adopted, then people would need to have three illegitimate children before the mother could receive any allowance. In my opinion, Deputy Moran's suggestion would be encouraging the women of the country to have nothing but illegimate children.

I do not think that is quite in accordance with what I said.

I am very glad to hear that. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill because I think it is a step in the right direction. I know from experience, from looking at working men in the country, that the married man has little hope of rearing a family at the present time. He is working alongside single men and getting the same wages. Labouring men have to work from morning to night and they must beg, borrow or steal if they have to rear a big family. I consider it is a Christian act to pass legislation of this sort, which will encourage people to rear their families in decency. At the moment the poorer people find it very difficult to rear their families.

I think the Minister should make some alteration in this measure. For instance, people in the rural districts who have two children should get some allowance. Take the case of a man with six children, four of whom are over the age and two under the age. Some people say that in that case the mother will not draw anything. It may be only a year or two until there are more, but still the parents will not draw anything. I think that is wrong. Four of the children may be at school and the parents may be hard pushed to pay for them. The children may be 16, 17, 18 and 19 years and it is very hard on the mother and father if they do not get some relief for the two other children. It must be remembered that the parents are getting on in years and some of the children may be inclined to go away from the home. I think there should be some alteration in the Bill as affecting families, of that sort. Parents in most cases have to work hard to bring their children up decently.

There is another important aspect. I understand the Minister warned us that the income-tax allowance would be reduced. Under present conditions the father of a family of six may be allowed some consideration in respect of his children, four of whom may be at school. That is a great help when parents are trying to school then children. I should like to know, in respect of that family of six, if they will get an income-tax rebate. If there was another child and if the parents were receiving an allowance for that child, would they get the whole income-tax concession?

The intention is that the rebate in the allowance under the income-tax code will apply only in respect of children qualifying to receive children's allowances.

That means that in the case I have instanced they would lose on one child only?

Exactly.

I do not think it is fair to penalise a family by taking that income-tax allowance off them. There may be certain classes who will draw the allowance, but I do not think it is fair to the majority. If you are going to penalise people in that way you are merely making the position more difficult for the father and mother anxious to rear their children decently. The Minister should take that aspect into consideration.

I should like to join with those who suggest that these allowances should be paid to the mother. The mother is the proper person to draw the allowances. Deputies mentioned that the payments should be made monthly. I do not agree with that. I know from experience of the country that weekly payments are more desirable. People find the existing conditions difficult enough. If they have to wait a fortnight for their wages they find great difficulty in meeting their commitments. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his proposal as regards doing away with the income-tax allowance for families. That would cause great hardship to middle-class people whose expenses in connection with the rearing of their families have been very high.

Some years ago there was the case of a widow with two children who married a widower with two children. Supposing there was another family as a result of this alliance, I would like to know how the Minister would treat the children. There was some row, I think, between the youngsters.

Was it over the family allowances?

Yes. If some row cropped tip again, I would like to know how the Minister would deal with it.

I was glad to hear the voice of Tipperary raised in connection with this Bill because I was afraid that it would not be heard at all. I am speaking as a Tipperary man for the people of Tipperary. I endorse every word that has been said in support of the Bill. Tipperary is a very big county. It comprises a very big rural area, and there is no county in the State, I think, where this measure will get a greater welcome. We have a large number of agricultural workers, and I hope they will be pleased when the Bill becomes law. I would like to know from the Minister what will be the position of English-born children under the Bill when it becomes law. Must they be resident here for a specified period before they become entitled to the allowance? We have some families of that kind in Clonmel. Their mothers are Irish, they married soldiers in England, and the children have been here since the outbreak of the war. I would be glad to know from the Minister if those children will be eligible for the allowance.

I also desire to welcome the Bill. I think that the Minister and the Government deserve great credit for the courage they have shown in bringing it forward at the present time when taxes are high and when people can ill-afford to meet additional burdens. The Government has been subjected to a certain amount of criticism for the nigh cost of living, and for that reason I think they deserve credit for the courage they have shown in bringing in this Bill. I suppose that, like other Deputies, I can see shortcomings in it, but at the same time I realise that it will result in benefit to a great many people. Speaking for the people in the City and County of Waterford I can say that it will be a blessing for many of them.

There are Just a few points that I want to make. The first is that I think it would be better if the allowance could be paid to the mother. If that were done it would make her realise her responsibilities to spend the money for the benefit of the children. If the responsibilities were placed on her, she Would be more likely to be careful in expending the money. It is enough for the father to handle his weekly wage. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept my suggestion.

My second point is that I think it would be well if the payments were made monthly. The allowance is a small one, and at the end of the month these weekly payments would enable the mother to get something worth while for the children in the way of clothes and boots. It is not easy to get these things for children out of the father's weekly wage. If the weekly allowance could accumulate for the month, the mother would be able to spend the money to greater advantage than if she received the small surir of 2/6 per week. My last point is that I regret that a great many people will suffer as a result of this legislation. I refer to those who had income-tax allowances in respect of their children. I fear that the proposal dealing with them will cause grave hardship. I would sincerely ask the Minister if he could not find some other way of dealing with those who will not benefit by the Bill so that hardship will not be inflicted on them. The Minister, as I have said, has shown great courage in bringing forward the Bill at the present time. I hope that he will be able to find some other way of getting the money necessary to finance it rather than by imposing sacrifices on those income-tax payers to whom I have referred. I welcome the Bill, and I am glad that I have been here for its introduction.

Níl mise ag dul ag rá go bhfuil áthas orm roimh an mBille seo agus gur maith an bille é, mar tá sin ráite cheana féin ag a lán Teachtaí. Is é ba mhaith liom-sa, ar nós go leor eile, beannacht Dé a iarraidh ar obair an Rialtais san mBille aeo agus ba mhaith liom freisin go mbeadh tuairim na Gaeltachta le cloisteál sa Tigh go fíor-mhacánta gan aon cur léi ná baint uaithe.

Níor chuala mé aon chaint i nGaedhiIg ar an mbille ach ó aon fhear amháin, agus b'fhacthas dom gur saghas fáilte ciotógach a chuir sé roimh an mbille. Ba mhaith liom a rá ar son muintir na Gaeltachta go gcuireann siad fáilte ó chroidhe roimh an mbille seo. Sé a dtuairim go bhfuil sé ar ceann de na rudaí is fearr dá ndearnadh do na daoine bochta fós, ní hé amháin i ngeall ar an rud maith atá ann ach ar an mbealach deas atá leagtha amach sa mbille le na dhéanamh.

Ní bheidh an oiread san cuir-isteach ar na daoine ag riaradh an Achta so is atá ins na rudaí eile ar nós congnamh díomhaointis agus pinsiúin. Is mór an truagh nach féidir leis an Dáil glacadh d'aon guth le rud maith mar é seo. Cheapfadh aon duine go nglacfaí leis seo gan an caointeachán agus an lochtúchán a cloistear go hiondual sa Tigh. Cheapfadh aon duine ó bheith ag éisteacht leis na cáinteacha sa Tighe go raibh an lucht cáinte agus an béal bocht sa tír seo níos líonmhairo ná in aon tír eile.

Ba mhaith liom-sa a chur in iúl don Dáil agus don Rialtas go bhfuil fáilte ó chroidhe ag muintir na Gaeltachta, roimh an mbille seo, agus pé bith tuairim atá ag an Dáil, ceapann muintir na Gaeltachta gurb é an rud is fearr dá ndearnadh fós é. Tá fhios ag gach duine go mbíonn muirigheanacha móra sa nGaeltacht, agus, ar an adhbhar sin, níl aon dalla-mullóg air faoi, agus cíonn siad go ndéanfa sé níos mó maitheasa dhóibh ná mar a dhéanfa sé in aon cheanntar eile sa tír béidir. Mar sin, cuireann siad fíor-chaoin fáilte roimh an mbille agus fágahn siad an lochtadh ag lucht cur-i-gcéill.

I join with other Deputies in welcoming the principle of this Bill as a first step in a social reform for labourers and small farmers. I feel that I am more or less alone when I suggest that these payments should be made weekly and should be made to mothers. My reason for recommending that arrangement is that, from contacts down the country and from knowledge of the position of people whom I represent, I know that county council workers, small farmers and labourers receiving payments monthly were very anxious that they should be paid weekly. It is also my experience that small farmers sending milk to creameries who are paid monthly, very often, from week to week, apply for payments of a few shillings on account. I suggest that the thrifty housewife will put the few shillings she gets into her savings bank, and while there is a lot to be said for allowing the allowances to accumulate and then paying them monthly, there is a danger that the improvident person who gets it in a lump sum will spend it in a short time.

In view of the fact that the Bill has received the blessing of everybody in the House, I think we ought not to be niggardly and I endorse every thing-Deputy Corry said and agree that we are not going far enough. I suggest that the allowance should be payable to every child from the first until the age of sixteen years. My reason for that suggestion is that it seems to be the accepted view, the desire of the House and the people generally, that the school age be raised from 14 to 16 years, and the poorer people, and people of moderate means with large families feel thafit would give them a sense of security, with the result that they would be more inclined to send their children to school up to the age of 16. It would also give to those fathers, of families who have to emirate to England a sense of security and I think that everybody in the House will agree that it is not desirable that a father should be separated from his family by being forced, through necessity, to emigrate to keep the home fires burning. For that reason, even if it costs extra money, the Government would be well advised to alter the provisions of the Bill and make the allowances payable in respect of every child.

It is, I know, rather hard to convince the Minister that he should do everything we want him to do and I quite understand that it is difficult for him to accede to every request, but I think it would be money very well spent. Even if it involved extra taxation, I personally would have no hesitation in going before my constituents and defending the Bill, and I have no doubt as to what their reception of it would be. If the Minister cannot go so far as to give the allowances in respect of every child, I hope, for the sake of the country, he will agree not to regard the first two children, even if they have attained the age of 16 years, as precluding the payment of these allowances.

The ideal thing would be to give it to all, but if the Minister cannot see his way to do that, I suggest that he give the allowances in respect of every child after the second until they attain the age of 16 years, irrespective of the ages of the first and second children. I think it is agreed by everybody—and I say this without any desire to create ill-feeling—that nothing created so much dissatisfaction in the country as the saving effected at the expense of the old age pensioners in past years, and I suggest that there is a danger of a similar situation arising now, if there is too much pin-pricking in respect of the present Bill.

These are the views, I feel certain, of the vast majority of the electorate of County Boscommon and the views also of my colleague, Deputy Beirne. I feel sure that, if the Minister doubts this, he need only consult his colleague, the Minister for Justice, who is closely in touch with the county. I should be very slow to believe that that Minister would disagree with any of the views I have put forward. So surprised would I be lo learn that he disagreed with these views, or suggested that they were not the views of the people of Roscommon, that I should be prepared to invite himself and the Minister concerned with this Bill to a common platform in Roscommon where they could see for themselves what the position is.

We will give themra platform all over the country.

We welcome the Bill as a first concession in the matter of social reform and we hope that better things will follow.

I have listened for some time with much attention to various speakers, practically every one of whom welcomed the Bill. I find it very hard, however, to welcome it in the same tones as those speakers, because the most extraordinary speech I ever heard here was that delivered by the Minister when moving the Second Reading. He did so under a threat, one might say. He is aware that the last thing which many members of his own Party want to hear of is another general election, and, knowing the feeling of the rank and file of his Party, he feels that there are many other members of the. House equally nervous about another general election. It was a most extraordinary speech from that point of view.

He is not far wrong, either. I could nearly tell you who told him that.

I think we all know who told him to say that.

There is no prize offered for it.

This is another piece of social legislation. I am glad to see that the principle is acknowledged. I am sure that many speakers who welcomed the Bill were really welcoming the principle of it. Like many other social measures passed by native Governments in this country, it falls very short of the sentiments expressed in the new Constitution, which has been BO much lauded. I have no doubt, however, that when this Bill becomes operative, Ministers and Deputies will be absolutely deluged with correspondence calling attention to grievances, many of which have been already mentioned by other speakers during the debate.

I join with those who have expressed disappointment at the fact that it is proposed to hand over the administration of this Bill to the Department of Industry and Commerce. When the Unemployment Assistance Act was introduced here, I remember all the praise that went forth from Deputies to the Government in acknowledgment of their intention to provide at least some assistance for unemployed people in the periods when they would be waiting for work. But, when that Act was handed over to the administrative machine to operate, we found that the administration was most chaotic. I venture to say that no Act was ever administered in such a chaotic fashion as the Unemployment Assistance Act, particularly in the earlier years. Those of us who are in touch with the various Departments know well that the mentality necessary for dealing with social services is the mentality to be found in the Department of Local Government. As one who goes to both Departments to discuss certain matters with officials, I can say that there is a totally different approach in the Department of Industry and Commerce to matters of a social character. We have, for instance, the view expressed and given effect to in regard to unemployed people by the Department of Industry and Commerce, that the reason why an applicant is not entitled to unemployment assistance is because he is not genuinely seeking employment. Then we have the operation of the Employment Period Orders. Those of us who live in rural constituencies know that the people affected by these Orders reside in parts of the country where no work is available.

Yet, under the Employment Period Orders, and under decisions of employment officers in the Department of Industry and Commerce, these people are practically condemned to starve. They are denied the assiatance, provided by Statute by this Dáil. I fear that the handing over of the administration of this measure to that Department will, in addition to the grievances which will be discovered as the result of the limitations of this measure, create many hardships owing to the manner in which it will be administered. I am disappointed that the Department most capable, of administering it will not be in a position to do so. The administration of the Department of Local Government, particularly in regard to widows' and orphans' pensions is appreciated by every Deputy, particularly by Deputies who have contact with that Department. In view of the fact that the report of the committee which considered this matter, and which is not available to the House, was, I understand, compiled in the Department of Local Government, and that all Parliamentary questions on this matter were addressed to the Minister for Local Government and the replies given by that Minister, I hope the Minister will explain why, when it comes to a question of giving effect to the principle of this social measure, it is to be handled by a different Department from that which has been dealing with the question all along. I hope that my fears will prove to be exaggerated, but I have very grave doubts. I hope the Minister will consider the many points raised by Deputies and that he will see his way to broaden the measure, because, no matter what the measure will cost, it is a matter for the community. I totally disagree with Deputy Mrs. Redmond when she talks about the taxpayers as if they were confined to some particular part of the country. The parents of every child who will I qualify under this Bill are taxpayers, and possibly they will feel the burden much greater than the people to whom the Deputy was referring.

I welcome this Bill. But, although I welcome it, I have no intention of congratulating the Government. I have no intention of making any high-sounding statements or uttering plausible platitudes to the effect that the Government are the people who brought about this Bill. The Government knew perfectly well that, if they did not do it, it would not be long until some other Government would be put in here to do it.

Therefore, they thought it as well to start the ball rolling. The ball has started rolling, but it is not going very fast. Half a crown a week is a very small sum indeed, especially when you consider the price of everything to-day. When you are in touch with people who are finding it very hard to exist, then you realise how little a half-a-crown can do. Nevertheless, it is an attempt. I suppose, in due course, the present Government, or some fisher Government, will extend, and, enlarge. the allowance. I, for one, would not be afraid to stand on a platform and advocate an increase in the amount. Threats from any Minister would not frighten us so far as that is concerned. If he thinks they will, he is very much mistaken. When he puts on the gloves, we are prepared to meet him.

If, in June, 1939, a Deputy stood up here and advocated family, allowances to the extent of £10,000,000 per annum, everybody would go grey overnight. I am sure the Government and Government Deputies would. The question-would be asked: where was it to come from? Yet, we are spending close on £10,000,000 to-day on maintaining a large Army to defend the people of the country. The Army are detending the women and children more than any other section of the community. The children will be the citizens of tomorrow. They will be the men and women whom we expect will follow in our footsteps and help to make this a better nation, help to keep the democratic institutions that have been set up in the State in existence. Therefore, I believe no sum would be considered too great for the purpose of maintaining children to-day.

With many other Deputies on the Labour and other Benches, I find fault with certain details of the Bill. I understand that if there arc three children aged respectively 14, 12, and 10 years, the child who is 10 years of age, who is receiving the allowance, will be automatically disqualified when the eldest child reaches the age of 16 years. That is very unfair, and I can assure the Minister that if he retains that provision in the Bill he will get a very big surprise when he goes before the country. As Opposition members, it is our duty to advise the Government and to point out to them that not only will the people be disappointed with this provision, but that every member of this House who is interested in family affairs is disappointed to find that it is the Minister's initention that in such a family, when the first child reaches the age of 16, it will automatically, deprive the third child of the allowance.

Most Deputies have said everything that could be said in regard to this Bill and there is very little left for me to say. I welcome the Bill as beginning but we must not stop at that. We must try to get the Government to realise the importance of assisting family life. If the breadwinner, the head of the family, had employment at a decent wage there would be no necessity for family allowances, but the fact is that the breadwinner has not got employment or a decent wage. In case, the only alternative is to grant some allowance to help in the maintenance of the family. The Government realise that they are responsible for providing work and purchasing power for the people. Having failed to do that, they know there is no alternative to introducing this scheme of family allowances. Therefore, it is nothing to shout about. It is nothing to be proud of. It is something which the Government were forced to do and it took them a long time to make up their minds about it. For that reason, I was disappointed that Deputies should stand up here and sing praises to tho Government for introducing this Bill. The Minister has nothing at all to be proud of. There might be something to be proud of if the allowance were 6/- or 7/6 per week. Then we could say it was a fairly reasonable measure. Half-a-crown is very disappointing but I suppose it is all that the State can afford.

I do not intend to delay the House but I desire to add my voice to all that has been said in regard to this measure. I took the trouble during the last two days to take a census in an area of three miles by one and a half miles around my house. I find there are eleven families in that particular area and that only two of them will benefit under this Bill. That may be an exceptional case. The worst feature of it, to my mind, is that the two poorest families, one of them happens to have two children, and the other, one child, will not benefit at alL I have only risen at this late stage to mention the anomalies in , the Bill. While I welcome it sincerely, I hope that in future it will be possible to improve the conditions in it, as we gain experience in the administration I of the Bill. It will probably work out better than it would appear to work out in the particular instance that I took the trouble to investigate.

I should like to say one word about the case to which Deputy Norton referred, of the children over 16 and under 16. It might happen, as Deputy Norton said, that the majority of the children in a family may be over 16 and, say, two children under 16. It may happen that two or three of them might be just over 16—say, 16 years and one month, 17 years and 18 years, and there might be two children of eight and nine years of age. The intervening children may have died, and the family would have ceased to benefit, although it was a big family.

I want to say one word as to the position of the well-to-do people, who, as the Minister rightly said, cannot benefit two ways. If they benefit under the Bill, they are not going to benefit under the income-tax code. I should like to say that if they do not benefit, they should not bo penalised. The case occurred to my mind that man might have five or six children, two of whom were under 16. He does not benefit under this particular Bill and he will be penalised to the extent that ho will lose the income-tax allowance on the other children. It may happen in certain circumstances that the mere fact of his losing the allowances that he receives under the income-tax code might raise his income-tax level and have a worse effect than appears. I should like the Minister to intervene with the Minister for Finance, when he is drawiny up the regulations as to income-tax and to arrange that it would be possible to effect some way out of the difficulty. I would ask him to see to it that if a man cannot benefit under the Bill he will not lose, that a man who has to educate his children on a fixed salary, who finds it difficult in these expensive times, will not be penalised.

I welcome the Bill on a principle that is backed by every member of this House. I hope it will be possible in future to increase the benefits under the Bill. I, for one, recognise the difficulties facing the Minister and I think be has faced up to it in a very courageous and efficient manner. I do not want to criticise. The defects I see in the Bill, will not, I hope, workout generally in the way in which I have indicated in connection with the particular instance I took the trouble to investigate, where in that particular three or four miles, the most needy families will not benefit.

Nearly every aspect of this Bill, in my opinion, has been dealt with. There are some good features in it and others that do not meet with approval. I have been particularly impressed by the fact that the means test—that terrible bogey of other social services—is abolished. I hope that will be taken as a headline that will be followed in other directions. Personally, I did not think that this scheme, when I saw the text, would cost £2,250,000. Not being conversant with the statistics, I thought £1,000,000 would go a long way. The first thing that struck me was the inadequacy of the sum: I considered 2/6 rather miserable. However, when I found even the 2/6 ran into £2,250,000, I must say I changed my views a bit.

Several Deputies have expressed their opinions about the family of three children where an allowance is payable to the parents because one child is qualified, but where it is withdrawn the moment the eldest member of the family reaches the sixteenth birthday. I do not see why the eldest reaching the age of 16 should disqualify the family. Surely, if they, were entitled to the allowance before that, they should be entitled to it after the eldest member, had reached the sixteenth birthday? A good deal has been, said about the mother being the nearest to the children and being the parent who should receive the money. Deputy Tunney, has voiced that opinion, and I am certainly in full agreement with it. The mother is the particular parent nearest to the children, the one who looks after their nutrition, clothing and other wants, and the Minister should consider making the payment to her.

Deputy Mrs. Redmond, I think, mentioned the making of the payment monthly rather than weekly. I am thoroughly in agreement with that, because it is a small amount when it is paid weekly, while if it is made monthly it would be a bigger sum and go further. The Minister should take it into consideration as well.

Various Parties in the House have claimed credit for this Bill. The Labour Party has claimed that it has been advocating such a scheme as is envisaged now, and Fine Gael does the same. It struck me as strange that it was not until Clann na Talmhan appeared on the scene that the Bill was introduced. It was one of the main items in the programme of our Party. It may have provided some inspiration for the Minister. A programme that sent 13 new Deputies into the House was, I am sure, worth paying attention to. I think the Bill is a good one and thoroughly approve of it. Two shillings and sixpence is small, no doubt, but it runs into £2,250,000, and is a step in the right direction. I hope that the points which other Deputies have raised will receive the full attention of the Minister.

Many Deputies discussed this Bill in relation to the recommendations contained in the report of Sir William Beveridge to the British Government and made comparisons, unfavourable to this Bill, between its provisions and the recommendations of that report. I think that is unfair. It is not contended that this Bill contains provisions for a comprehensive social security scheme. It is brought forward here As a necessary addition to the services existing in this State, an addition which it is barely within our means to provide. It is also unfair because the report of Sir William Beveridge to the British Government contains proposals, the fate of which is not yet known.

So far as the attitude of the British Government is concerned, no indication has yet been given that they propose to adopt the report. In fact, Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Home Secretary, a member of the Labour Party, intimated that examination of these proposals has already shown a number of them to be unworkable. It is, perhaps, noteworthy that the proposals submitted to the Beveridge Committee by the British National Labour Organisation for family allowances are much less attractive than those contained in this Bill. These proposals visualised family allowances payable in respect of children after the third and only in the case of families with incomes of less than £3 per week. It may be that the British Government will adopt some or all of the Beveridge recommendations, but until they have done so I think it is unfair to parade those proposals here as if they were in the same category as this Bill, which represents a scheme worked out in detail and brought forward for enactment here by a Government prepared to implement it.

It is necessary for us, in any case, to relate our social services to our own needs and our own resources. Whatever may be proposed by committees in Great Britain, whatever may be possible in other countries, our development must be related to our own conditions and resources. These are not the conditions and resources which obtain in highly industrialised countries like Great Britain or the U.S.A., and they are not the conditions and resources of the Labour Party's Utopia, in New Zealand. Even in relation to New Zealand, the Labour Party should try to obtain some better appreciation of the facts. I think Deputy Connolly was talking nonsense when he said that the fact that social services operating in New Zealand are more attractive than those prevailing here is not due to a higher output per head or a greater national income or to any other material cause, but due solely to the fact that the Labour Government in New Zealand have got views about finance which are, in our view, unorthodox.

That is nonsense. So far as I know, the views of the New Zealand Government in relation to finance are no different from ours. There was a time when they showed a certain amount of reluctance to pay their external debts, but that is hot an unorthodox view and is one which we are loath to adopt. It is true that New Zealand is vastly more wealthy and undeveloped, and is capable of sustaining a population several times the population there now, and that the standard of living and the social services can be higher than they are in this country. This is not an undeveloped country which only a few decades ago was inhabited by savages. This is one of the settled countries in Europe, which has been for 2,000 years maintaining the largest population which the resources of the country and the degree of technical development at the time could provide. At times, we have been sustaining a larger population than those resources were capable of providing with reasonable livelihood.

It is a fact that we have, for example, more people over 70 in relation to our population than in any other country. That fact must influence the benefits which it is possible to provide in old age pensions. If there were a smaller number of people over 70, if we had the same proportion of our population in that age group as other countries, we could, with the same amount of money, provide larger old age pensions than are now being provided. It is a fact that other features of our population's structure are different from those of other countries, and, consequently, the devices which we adopt here in order to relieve causes of want must differ from those adopted in other countries. In no two countries in the world where schemes of children's allowances are in operation have the same methods of administration been used. The scope and basis of the schemes are everywhere different. Nevertheless, it can be said that, despite our comparatively limited degree of industrial development, we are in the forefront of social progress. There are very few countries in the world, including countries far wealthier than we are, and which have been developed industrially to, a far greater extent, which have the same range of social services as we have here. I think it is a wrong approach to our problem to pick the best which has been found practicable in any other country, and to propose the adoption of a similar device here, irrespective of the circumstances which may surround the adoption of such a device elsewhere, or the circumstances which may from time to time prevail here.

The suggestion has been put forward that we should have availed of the introduction of this Bill to bring about a co-ordination of the existing social services. There is a great deal of misunderstanding concerning the operation of the existing social services. There is nothing like the degree of overlapping or waste to which Deputies have referred. It is a fact that everybody would like to see some combination of these services. They think it is possible to get a readjustment of them which will reduce the administrative costs and, perhaps make possible an improvement in the benefits which they confer. Deputies can take it for granted that the Government had the same idea at one time and they examined that idea in great detail. It is practicable to combine the administration of these services into one Ministry, but the idea that they can be combined in their administration in such a manner as to prevent waste which it is alleged now exists is fallacious. There is practically no waste. Although national health insurance comes under the Department, of Local Government, and unemployment insurance comes under the Department of Industry and Commerce, the same officers are responsible for the enforcement of both Acts. The officials of the Department of Finance carry out the investigations required under the Widows' and Orphans' pensions Act and required under the Unemployment Assistance Act, and also the investigations under the Old Age Pensions Acts. Deputies may take it for granted that the Department of Finance is there to ensure that there is no avoidable waste, no expenditure in administration which can possibly be eliminated.

The question has been asked why the Department of Industry and Commerce was selected for the administration of this Bill. I am quite sure if the Minister for Local Government had introduced the Bill that many Deputies would have suggested that the Department of Industry and Commerce would be the more appropriate administrative medium. Deputies have referred to the National Health Insurance Acts and the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act which, with the Old Age Pensions Acts, come under the Minister for Local Government. In fact, the Minister for Local Government is not the administrative authority in relation to the National Health, Insurance Acts. They are administered by the board of the Unified Society and, in so far as old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions are concerned, they, are in the main Finance services. Most of the officials engaged, in work in connection with the administration of those Acts are Department of Finance officials, but there exists in the Department of Industry and Commerce a headquarters staff which supervises the administration of the Unemployment Insurance and the Unemployment Assistance Acts and the Employment Exchange services, which is capable of absorbing the work of administering these Acts much more readily than any corresponding staff in the Department of Local Government.

I know that people may consider that the giving of this additional work to the Department of Industry and Commerce in present circumstances is undesirable, but we are not dealing solely with present circumstances, but with the circumstances that will prevail in the future. The fact that there is one Minister, in charge of the Department of Industry and Commerce and another Department is, shall I say, purely an accident. The question which the Dáil must consider is whether the Department of Industry and Commerce, as such, with the Minister responsible to the Dáil for its operations, should not, in fact, administer this legislation. I do not know that any other Department is more suitable. It may be at some stage there will be a regrouping of Government functions. If that should happen, then the question as to which Department or which Minister should be responsible for this and other Acts relating to social services, can be brought up again.

Some Deputies criticised the speech I made in introducing the Bill on the grounds that it was unnecessarily belligerent. I think that was the phrase used by Deputy O'Higgins. The mere fact that all Parties in the Dáil are agreed on the principle of the Bill and that there has been throughout the country, so far as the opinion of the people has been expressed, similar agreement, is a dangerous situation. Bringing forward a Bill of this kind, on the principle of which we are all agreed, is not merely an occasion for cooing at one another; there are dangers and problems associated with the inauguration of a service of these dimensions which, in such circumstances, the Dáil might neglect to give full consideration to. I consider it my function to impress on the Dáil not merely the benefits which the Bill will confer, but the problems which it will create for the Dáil and for the Government in the future. In so far as I have intimated that there are two provisions which have to be regarded as a matter of confidence, I felt I was merely giving Deputies information to which they were entitled. I would be neglecting my duty if I acted otherwise. That does not mean that the Dáil cannot reject these proposals. There might be a desire expressed to have more money paid out, to have higher rates of benefit, to give the benefit to more people. If the Dáil decides, by a majority, to reject the proposals of the Government in favour of some other proposals, it is free to do so, provided it understands that that will involve getting a Government that is prepared, not merely to amend the Bill, but to take at a later date the responsibility for bringing to the Dáil for adoption the taxation proposals that will be the consequence of their decision. We have to consider these proposals not on a basis of sentimentality, but on a basis of reality, and the taxes that will have to be borne by the people in consequence of the enactment of the measure would be very real indeed.

Deputy Cafferky said he was prepared to stand on any platform and justify the expenditure of more money under this Bill. Anybody would do that. No moral courage is required to stand on a platform and urge that the people should get more. I will believe what Deputy Cafferky says when I see him on some platform justifying and defending the specific tax that would be necessary to make the expenditure he contemplates possible. Deputy Corish said no one would grudge paying the additional taxation required to establish a service like this. That is nonsense. Everybody grudges paying taxes. There is not a member of the Dáil or a taxpayer who does not dislike paying taxes. It is the most natural reaction to any imposition. It is not possible for the Government or for other Deputies to take up the attitude of Deputy Alfred Byrne, the attitude which says "Give everybody more but nobody less." That is a very comfortable stance to take, but it is not realistic. We cannot give everybody more and at the same time ensure that nobody will have less, through a measure like this. We may, through industrial development and agricultural reorganisation, better arrange the wealth-producing capacity of the country, but we cannot do that in a social service measure of this nature. The passage of the Bill as it stands will involve an expenditure of £2,250,000 a year, but if there is an extension of the Bill such as Deputies have suggsstcd, involving larger sums, then that will mean that some one here will have less. It will not be merely the income-tax payer, the nebulous, wealthy class to which Deputies have referred, who will have to bear the cost of the inauguration of this service. Such people, as Deputies have referred to, a man and his wife and two children, a man and his wife and one child, and a man and his wife with no children at all, will directly or indirectly have to contribute from their resources the funds, or part of the funds, necessary to give this increased income to larger families. That is what we are proposing. We are proposing that the smaller families, the bachelors, the people with less than two children, should contribute from what they have, so that those who have larger families than theirs may get their incomes augmented. That is the aim of this Bill—to augment the income of the larger families. I stated that in introducing the Bill, but it is necessary to state it again. We are not proposing to do more than that.

Deputy Hogan referred to the allowance made by local authorities to the foster-mothers of boarded-out children, and pointed out that it represented much larger sum per head per week than we are contemplating in this Bill. Of course, it does. We are not proposing to give through this Bill to the heads of families sufficient to maintain their children over two—sufficient to meet all the expenses of rearing those children. We are not proposing, as Deputy Hogan said, to create complete security against poverty. That is not the aim of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is, as I have said, to augment the income of the larger family so that the difficulties which those families have in providing their reasonable requirements under an economic system based on standard wages will be minimised. We are not proposing to do that by digging for gold in a gold-mine under this building, but by taking in taxation from the rest of the community the amount required for that purpose.

Now let me take some of the specific details of the Bill to which reference was made. One of the features in this Bill is that we have made no condition of parentage or relationship in order to qualify. Deputy Moran asked one question and Deputy O'Donnell asked another question bearing on that point. The qualifying condition is that the children should be resident with and in the custody, care and control of the person receiving the allowance. They may be adopted children, they may be relations, they may be the children of a deceased relative, they may be children who have come here from some other area and taken residence with a family here. So long as they qualify in other respects they qualify, and the allowance will be paid so long as they are resident with and in the care, custody and control of the person claiming the allowance.

It has been suggested that we should make this payment to the mothers. The provisions of the Bill will permit of each family deciding for itself whether the payment should be made to the mother or father. If the suggestion made here is that we should make it mandatory upon the administrators of the Bill to pay the allowance to the mother, and the mother only, I disagree strongly. Similarly, as regards the wisdom of the other proposal made, that we should pay monthly instead of weekly so that people would get a sum of money to enable them to buy clothes and not dissipate the weekly income in a less provident way, how far should we go in interfering with the domestic arrangements of families?

I think that the tendency among Deputies who have spoken on this matter was to regard the heads of families, fathers and mothers throughout the country, as being incapable of managing their own business properly. I do not think we should take that line. I think we should give this assistance to the family and leave it to the good sense of the heads of the family to use the allowance in the best possible manner. I do not believe there is any substantial number of fathers in the country who will use the allowance for the purpose of getting drink for themselves and who will not spend it wisely in the interests of their dependents. It may be that in the case of fathers who are mentally deficient, or for some other reason, it would not be proper to give the allowance to them. In such circumstances, arrangements can be made to ensure that the allowance will be paid to the mother. It may be that a father and a mother are, say, mentally deficient, and therefore would be unsuitable for obtaining the allowance. Again, we can make arrangements to ensure that the income will be given to a responsible person in the family so that it will be used for the benefit of the family. I do not think we should go any further than that. I do not think that we should stipulate that only the mother should get it. There may be some social theory behind that suggestion. If there is, I disagree with it, and I strongly support the view expressed by Deputy Hughes that we should regard the father as the head of the family, and responsible for the proper utilisation of the family income.

Furthermore, once this allowance is paid, it is to be regarded as part of the family income, and not as a separate revenue allocated to a particular purpose. It is part of the total amount available to the family for the support of the family. Deputy Larkin (Senior) appeared to me to make the suggestion—I am not sure that I understood him—that the allowance should actually be paid to the children. I would not at all agree with that suggestion.

Mr. Larkin

I said that the child is entitled to the payment, and that the parents would spend the money.

I want to say further, in regard to the suggestion that the payments should be made monthly instead of weekly, that the regulations to be made will, perhaps, permit of that being done in exceptional circumstances. I do not think it should be the general rule, but the possibility of the payments being made monthly, or at longer intervals, will not be pre-eluded by the regulations.

Why not leave it optional?

Again I want to express the view that when we are augmenting the regular income of the family we should leave it to the family to spend the income as they think best in their own welfare. If they think it wiser to save the 2/6 a week until they have 10/- or £1 to buy some article of apparel, that is their business and we should not force them. We should make them the allowance and let them use it as their discretion suggests.

Must they cash the vouchers every week at the post office?

It will be possible, under the regulations, to provide in certain cases for the payment of the allowance at longer intervals. Various references were made as to the cost of the scheme. Most of the Deputies responded, rightly, to the contention which I have put forward—that voting for this Bill carries with it the obligation, at a later stage, to vote for the provision of revenue and of further taxation. I noticed that some Deputies talked about defraying the cost of the Bill from economies. If there is any Deputy who can propose economies that will be acceptable to all Parties, and that will be capable of yielding a saving of £2,250,000, I will undertake, on my part, to support an agitation to put up his effigy where Queen Victoria now sits. I think that such a man would be a genius well worthy of that recognition. I do not believe it is possible to effect economies of such dimensions. There may be savings possible in administration and other costs, but the total of all these savings would be insignificant in relation to the cost of this measure. At the present time we are bearing abnormal costs. We are providing for the Defence Services amounts far in excess of those that normally would be considered reasonable. We have imposed additional taxation for that purpose. Some Deputies have said that when the need for those Defence Services has passed, the taxation that we are levying under that head now would give us plenty of money to spend on purposes of this kind. It is a completely foolish idea to think that the taxation now in force could be operated in normal times without having serious consequences on the industrial and general economic development of the country. The burden of taxation which our people are now bearing must be imposed because the services which it provides must be there, but in normal times taxation at a similar rate would be a handicap upon the development of this country, and would make it almost impossible to promote an expansion in productivity which alone is the real basis of social development.

Will the Minister move to report progress?

I think I should be able to finish in ten or 15 minutes in accordance with the arrangements made earlier to-day. There are not very many more points I have to deal with. I was going to say that the idea that services of this kind can be paid for by borrowings is fundamentally unsound. It is quite true that, at the present time, the national Budget does not balance, but when we inaugurate a new service of a permanent character, involving a permanent charge upon the national Exchequer, we must be prepared to contemplate a solution of the problem of financing that service through taxation and not through the temporary device of borrowing. Deputy Flanagan has his own ideas. He and the naive people who voted for him are under the impression that the idea of debasing the currency, of putting bad money into circulation, is a new idea. It is as old as the science of government. From the dawn of history, or since the invention of currency, governments have tried to get out of their financial difficulties by this device of putting bad money into circulation. We are not going to adopt that device, but it is just as sensible as that put forward by more pretentious Deputies, that we should pay for a service of this kind by borrowing only.

Other Deputies appear to have the impression that it is possible to pay for a service of this kind through income-tax alone. That, again, is a fallacy, and, in my opinion, a dangerous fallacy. Deputies are, I think, aware of the financial procedure prescribed by the Constitution. There is not, and never has been, any earmarking of particular revenues for particular purposes. All the revenues of the State from taxation and otherwise are paid into a Central Fund, and out of that Central Fund all outgoings come. It is regarded as contrary to the best practice to earmark the proceeds of particular taxes for particular purposes. Consequently, when at a later stage the general level of taxation here is increased, nobody will be able to say that the total proceeds of income-tax are going to meet the cost of social services, or that the proceeds of some other tax are being used for some other purpose. All the proceeds of all taxes go into one fund, and out of that one fund all outgoings have to come.

The taxes I mentioned here were for illustration purposes only, and I hope that no Deputy got the idea that I was trying to anticipate the recommendations of the Minister for Finance, or that the particular taxes which I mentioned will be those which will come into operation. In fact, I made it clear that the estimated revenue from these particular taxes was based upon normal experience. That revenue would not be realised in present circumstances. There would be no point, for example, in putting a tax of 2d. per lb. on tea, when we are subsidising the price of tea to the extent of 8d. a lb. at the moment. A far simpler device would be to withdraw, or to reduce, the subsidy. These taxes were mentioned by way of illustration. That illustration was necessary to enable Deputies to understand the size of the problem that will face the Government when this Bill is enacted and claims for payment made under it will have to be met out of the Central Fund to which I have referred.

May I say also that I find completely unattractive the idea put for ward by Deputy Larkin (Junior) that there should be a general levelling of income through the operation of income-tax? The social conditions which he has in mind to me appear particularly unattractive, and in fact would not be capable of realisation.

Mr. Larkin

Does the Minister suggest that it is not possible to get over a quarter million pounds from an increase of 1/- in the rate of income-tax?

I am glad the Deputy reminded me of the point. Some Deputies assume that the taxes I mentioned, which would bring in roughly £2,250,000, if doubled, would bring in twice that amount. That is not true. There is a law of diminishing returns which operates in relation to taxation as well as other matters. The doubling of these taxes would not bring in double the amount, and the trebling of these taxes would not bring in three times the amount. Roughly speaking, 6d. in the £ on income-tax brings in half a million pounds, but it is not true to say that an income-tax of 10/- in the £ would bring in twenty times that amount, or £10,000,000. In any event, I think that, in our social organisation, there must be rewards for study, diligence, experience and hard work commensurate with their value. If there are not these rewards, we will not get either study or hard work. It may be that a genius will starve in a garret to produce a masterpiece, and that some scientist will devote his life to research and forget about to-morrow's dinner; but, in the main, people work hard, undertake particular studies, try to gain experience and apply their intelligence to particular problems, in the hope that they will get thereby, not merely a better standard of living for themselves, but future economic security for their dependents. That is one of the attractions to people to work hard, and if you withdraw that attraction, by a levelling of incomes through the imposition of income-tax, you will get a much poorer response to these inducements.

It would be better if we got away from the Budget.

There was a discussion upon the methods by which the costs of this Bill could, be met other than those which the Government had in view. May I say also that, in relation to income-tax, there are considerations affecting this country which must be kept in mind? We are very adjacent to another country, the people of which in the main speak the same language as ourselves. A very large number of those who have big incomes have residences in Great Britain as well as in this country, and, under the double income arrangement with the British Government, they pay tax in the country of residence. It is a comparatively simple matter for these people to change their official residence from one country to another, and if there is a big disparity between the rate of tax in operation here and the rate in operation in Great Britain, we can lose a substantial amount of revenue by a very simple action on the part of a very limited number of people. It has always to be kept in mind as a practical consideration, therefore, when proposals to increase income-tax are put forward, whether in fact we lose revenue instead of gaining revenue by the process.

Surely that has no meaning in present circumstances?

Why not?

Look at the British income-tax.

I do not want to go into the matter now, but remember that the British income-tax arrangement provides that a substantial portion of the amount paid is credited to the taxpayer and will be refunded to him at a later stage.

Even so, there is a big disparity at present.

Let me say again that I am presenting a Bill not to deal with an emergency problem but with a long-term problem, a Bill which will have to continue to operate and to be financed long after the emergency has passed. I am discussing the problems which arise in relation to that Bill, not as temporary problems, to be met by ad hoc devices for the moment, but as problems which will face this Government or our successors when, we hope, the war and all the problems of the war have become only an unhappy memory.

There was a request by Deputy O'Higgins for more information. Apparently he had the impression that the Government had information concerning family conditions and population statistics which was not available to him. That is not correct. The only information the Government has in relation to these matters is that ascertained through the Census. The reports of the Census are published; they are available to the Government and they are available to Deputies. I am rather surprised, however, to note that Deputies who apparently want to claim for themselves the credit of having been the originators of the family allowances scheme are now revealing that their proposals which they put to the country were based either upon no information at all or upon a misunderstanding of the information available. I was quite interested in the confession of the last speaker, who claimed for his Party all the credit for the family allowances scheme, that he did not think this Bill would cost £1,000,000. Apparently he committed his Party to the introduction of a family allowances scheme under the impression that the cost would be an insignificant fraction of what it actually is.

I think what Deputy O'Higgins wanted was the inter-Departmental Committee's report.

I am going to deal with the inter-Departmental Committee's report. There was an inter-Departmental Committee set up. Let me say at once that the publication of that report would be of no value. The Government did not accept the report as the basis for the Bill, and the Bill is not based on that report. That inter-Departmental Committee was set up, not a few months ago, but three years ago. I know that Deputy Lynch told us that the beginning of the idea of family allowances was some speech made by Deputy Dillon last year or the year before. I know that it was claimed on behalf of Clann na Talmhan that the advent of that Party to the Dáil had the effect of spurring the Government into the introduction of this measure. The Labour Party said it was always their proposal and, in fact, that they are entitled to the credit because they pushed the Government into introducing it. Fine Gael, no doubt, has a somewhat similar claim. The fact is that this idea of supplementing the existing social services by children's allowances scheme has been under consideration by the Government for a considerable time. We took into consideration not merely the political attractiveness of such a service, nor merely the benefits it would confer on the beneficiaries, but all the other considerations—the cost of such a service, the taxation that would be necessary to defray the cost of such a service, and the effects of this taxation on the general economic development of the country.

We did not rush into a decision to inaugurate such a service. That inter-Departmental Committee was set up exactly three years ago, on the 22nd November, 1940. It was set up following long consideration of this problem by the Government. The report of the committee was received on a subsequent date and it was very carefully considered by the Government. We decided that the recommendations contained in it were inadequate to meet the situation and it became necessary to depart from them and work on a new basis.

One very important point has been raised in this discussion and that is the case of families where two children are over 16 and two under.

I know that point as well as the Deputy. It was the next point on my notes to be dealt with. We fixed the maximum qualifying age at 16. In most countries where a family allowances scheme is in operation the maximum qualifying age is 14. If we had brought in a Bill with 14 as the maximum age and met a point that has been raised by increasing the age to 16, we would be appearing to meet Deputies. In fact, what Deputies are proposing is that we should increase the maximum age to 18. We do not propose to do that. I think there would be something to be said for a proposal to reduce the age to 14 and giving a larger allowance. I have not worked out what the effect on the finances of the scheme would be by reducing the age from 16 to 14. We considered the pros and cons of every proposal. I have mentioned various alternatives. We could give 1/- for every child, and 1/6 for every child after the first. We could give 2/6 for every child after the second. We could give 3/6 for every child after the third. But the Government decided that the best arrangement, having regard to the financial considerations and the nature of the problems that we want to deal with— the inadequacy of the standard wage to provide for reasonable requirements of a family of more than the average size—was a payment of 2/6 a week for all children under 16 after the second. Again let me emphasise that we are not making payments to children. We are giving additions to the family income in respect of the number of children who have to be provided for——

Mr. Larkin

Why does the Irish Press print it as a Children's Allowances Bill?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I do not think the difficulty which Deputy Dillon had in understanding the provisions of this Bill last night is as great as was suggested by him. The intention is that in the case of families containing children under 16 years, we will augment the family income to the extent mentioned in respect to the number of children over two. As soon as a child passes over 16, it ceases to qualify. As soon as a child is born, it becomes qualified. In fact we determine the qualifications of a family to obtain this allowance at six monthly intervals.

Mr. Byrne

What about two brothers under 16?

If there are children in excess of two under 16, the allowance is paid. If there are not, the allowance is not paid. Deputy Byrne, who wants us to extend the scheme in order to give the allowance to a larger number of families, must realise, and in fact stated here, the problem that is created for families who do not qualify but who will have to pay taxation in order to make this service possible. The wider we make the scheme, the more taxation they will have to pay. The Government tried to strike a balance between the claims of one section of the community and the resources of another. This is our proposal.

Mr. Byrne

Will a person with two children over 16 and two children under 16 get anything?

No. It will be given only in respect of children under 16, in excess of two. Take 14 or 15 or 16 years. No matter what age is taken, the same problem will arise.

Under the Bill as it stands, it is possible for a man with £8 a week and four children, under 16 to get an allowance for two of them, whereas an agricultural worker with 36/- a week, with two children under 16 and two over 16, will get nothing.

I do not know if that is an argument in favour of a means test. It seems to be. You can take a whole lot of illustrations. Look at what a man with 16 children will get under the Bill. I want to deal with one other point. Reference was made to the proposal to modify the allowances under the income-tax code so as to offset, in the case of income-tax payers, the benefits they will receive under this Bill. It is not intended that this reduction in the allowance will be effected except in respect of children who quality tor the allowance; in other words, the modification of the income-tax allowances will apply only in respect of children under 16 years of age, in excess of two. If there is a child over 16, in respect of whom that allowance is granted because the child is at school obtaining whole-time instruction, then the present allowance will operate. The reduction will only operate in the case of children qualified under the Bill for the payment of children's allowance.

Reference was made to Section 19. I refer to this matter because it may avoid discussion later and prevent amendments being put down. Section 19 gives the Minister power to do certain things by Order, including modifying the Bill in order to bring it into operation. It was suggested by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney that that was a legal innovation. I pointed Out that it was in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and he said that it slipped his notice. I say now that a similar provision is contained in similar Acts passed in this Parliament and in the British Parliament at least for the past 25 years. It is no legal innovation. In the Unemployment Insurance Act, passed as far back as 1920, there is precisely a similar provision. In the Local Government Act of 1925, in the Local Government (Dublin) Act of 1930, and in the National Health Insurance Act of 1933, there is a similar provision. It is necessary to have such a provision and power to make such modifications as are necessary to get the Bill into operation. That is the limit of the power and it appears there only for one purpose. If we come up against a minor difficulty, there must be delay in the preparation of amending legislation and the submitting of that legislation to the Oireachtas and its passage by the Oireachtas. It is to avoid that possible cause of delay that the power is taken and the power can be used, not to modify the principles of the Bill, but merely to effect such modifications as are necessary to get it into operation. I think it is a wise safeguard and should be attractive to Deputies, who are as anxious as I am to get this service into operation as quickly as possible and payments made under it at the earliest possible date.

May I say that the suggestions put forward by various Deputies that this Bill should be used to penalise parents whose children do rot attend school, or to compensate parents whose children are native Irish speakers, or to deal with juvenile criminals, of one kind or another, do not appeal to me? I do not believe in trying to kill two birds with one stone unless I am certain of doing it. I have seen more energy wasted trying to kill a flock of birds with one stone than would pass a dozen Bills of this kind. I think we should try to achieve the one purpose we have. If there is need for amending the law in relation to school attendance, or any other law, let us tackle it as a separate matter. Do not try to do it as a side issue to the enactment of this Bill. I have dealt with all the points that were raised.

Mr. Larkin

Would the Minister suggest that we should sit until this Bill is enacted? Would he agree to do that?

I certainly intend to get this Bill, if possible, through the Dáil before the Christmas Recess, so that I can go to the Seanad immediately after the Christmas Recess, in which case, I should hope, it will be possible to have, all the arrangements necessary to begin bringing it into operation about the 1st April. I do not mean that payments will begin on the 1st April, because there must be examination of claims and registration of claims. It will take some time before payments are possible, but we can at least make the appointed day the 1st April, if we get it out of the Dail before Christmas. If we do not get it out of the Dáil before Christmas, there will be a delay of a month or six weeks, perhaps even two months, because it will involve waiting until the next session of the Seanad before it can go ,there. There is one other thing I want to say before I finish. It is not correct to say that the Government is bringing in this Bill reluctantly or under pressure. The Government is bringing in this Bill because it believes it is desirable that this improvement in the social services of the State should bo effected. The suggestion made in a daily newspaper this morning, that the Government is introducing the Bill reluctantly and merely because it appears politically expedient to do so, is entirely without foundation. The Government are standing over this Bill as something in which we believe, something we are prepared to defend in the Dáil and in the country.

Mr. Larkin

Why did you turn your coat?

I was not conscious of doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

I should like the House to meet me in this matter. I should like, if there were agreement, to take the Committee Stage next week. I think it would save time. If Deputies think that is too early I would be prepared to leave it over until Tuesday week.

It is a very short time.

Tuesday of next week —oh, no.

If at all, I should say Thursday of next week

Thursday of next week, with a week between that and the Report Stage.

Yes. Whether we get through the Committee Stage on Thursday will depend on the nature and number of amendments.

The Bill cannot be amended very much.

That is true.

I think the House will facilitate the Minister in getting the Bill through before the Christmas Recess, but we ought to have an opportunity of looking at it before the Committee Stage, even if we pass the Report and Final Stages one day after the other.

If Thursday of next week is suggested, I am agreeable.

Could we have certain liberality in regard to the submission of amendments, having regard to the fact that the time is a bit short?

I think the Deputies have up to next Tuesday. As far as I am concerned, I will not raise any point of order, if that is what the Deputy is concerned about.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will it be the only business on that Thursday? If there can be any accommodation, we ought to get it. There should be no other business on that day.

Probably. I should not like to say definitely that that will be the situation.

Would the Minister arrange only to have the Committee Stage on that day?

Exactly, if possible.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 2nd December.
Top
Share