Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1943

Vol. 92 No. 7

Private Deputies' Business. - Allowances to Blind Persons—Motion.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

In the absence, Sir, of Deputy A. Byrne (Senior) I beg to move Motion No. 1:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the allowances to blind persons are totally inadequate, and requests the Government to introduce amending legislation that will permit the total payments from all sources to be increased.

I hope and believe that this motion will meet with unanimous support from all sides of the House, and that Deputies will accept its principle. It will not be necessary for me to elaborate the principle of the motion at great length, and I think it should only be necessary for me to state a few bald facts in connection with it. We are told that there are 7,000 registered blind, or partially blind, people in Éire, and it is reckoned, on good authority, that 75 per cent. of these people lose their sight after middle-life. Now, the position, in regard to the way in which we help them, is this: A blind person at 30 years of age receives a pension from the State of 10/- a week. In addition, the local authority concerned may grant a supplementary allowance up to not more than 6/- a week. If the local authority were to add to the 6/-, the State, under the present law, would have to reduce the blind pension to the extent of that increase. Accordingly, no matter what is done by the local authority, the total pension paid to these blind persons cannot be more than 16/-.

The means test applied in the case of blind persons, I understand, is the same as that applied in the case of old age pensioners—which, I think, amounts to £15 12s. 6d. of an annual income—in order to qualify for a pension of 10/-. In other words, under no circumstances can a blind person be in receipt of a total pension of more than 16/- per week. Now, when we consider the cost to-day of necessities, such as food, clothing and shelter, I think that every member of this House will realise immediately that that sum is totally inadequate, and that it is very unfair and unjust that we should not be able to do better for people who have been afflicted by blindness.

Very many blind persons are not able to get the necessary fresh air because they are perhaps not in a position to engage a guide to bring them out. Blind persons are in a special category in that, as I think everybody will agree, they need something more than the ordinary person needs. They need more fuel because they are much more confined to their homes than other people; they need something to help them to send their clothes and bedding to the laundry or to cleaners because they are not in a position to do their own cleaning. In addition, they often have to engage somebody to clean down the little dwelling. These three items are typical of the many little comforts to which blind persons are entitled and which we ought to see they get. My suggestion is that the law should be amended in order to ensure that there will be no means test and that every blind person will receive something from State funds to help him or her to overcome the handicap of blindness. I do not propose to elaborate on the matter of the means test, but it appears as if the Government are beginning to repent in that respect. When the Children's Allowances Bill came before us the week before last, we saw that the means test had been deliberately left out of it. The Government are coming to realise that a means test involves undesirable inquisitions and is a most revolting provision which nobody wants.

My second suggestion is that, having abolished the means test, there should be a disability pension of at least £1 per week—I am suggesting merely the minimum—to a single blind person and that proportionate sums should be granted in those cases in which there are wives and families. There is, I suppose, no sense in my arguing this matter any further. The bald fact is that they get no more than 16/- under the existing law. I do not propose to put forward any list of necessaries and their costs, because every member of the House knows full well that it just cannot be done on that amount. I suggest that the time has come when we should realise that persons afflicted with blindness should get much more adequate help from their more fortunate fellow-citizens.

Mr. Tunney

In seconding the motion, I appeal to the Government on behalf of these people, because, as Deputy Byrne has said, the number of people afflicted with blindness in the country is very small. They number only 7,000, and, in a Christian country, it is too bad to think that a great percentage of these unfortunate people are in want to-night. There is no question about that. Under present arrangements, they can receive no more than 16/-, and when we realise that it costs 25/3 to keep in inmate in the Dublin Union, what chance have these poor people who must live in a room in Gardiner Street or Mountjoy Square, where they have to pay a heavy rent? I am certain that every member of the House has sympathy with these poor people who are so badly afflicted, because we must all agree that loss of sight is a great affliction, and, the number being so small—thank God, it is so small—we should treat them generously.

Deputy Byrne said they should get £1 per week, but I say that £1 per week is not sufficient. A sum of £1 per week at present would not keep a person able to look after himself and surely we should not be so stingy in dealing with these few blind persons. I thought Deputy Byrne would have suggested at least 30/- per week, and, even if the bill amounted to a couple of thousand pounds a year, I guarantee that not one person in the nation would complain that the Dáil was over-generous in giving these people that amount, because everybody has sympathy with people so afflicted.

With regard to the means test, I am definitely against any means test, but if it is public property that some person has £1,000, with home comforts and somebody to look after him, I am not very worried about the application of a means test. There is, however, too much capital made of the means test. It is right to have a means test in certain cases. If everybody in a district knows that a person who has lost his sight possesses thousands of pounds—I do not care how unpopular it may be to say it—I am not in favour of giving 30/- per week to such a person. In the case, however, of a poor person in a room in Dublin and with no relations to look after him, I certainly would give 30/- per week. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government agrees to review the position with regard to blind persons. I am certain that if the Deputies on his own side gave expression to their views, it would be found that they are as much in sympathy with this proposal as I am or as Deputy Byrne or any other Deputy is.

I appeal to him to be generous with these persons, because, as Deputy Byrne said, they are in cruel want all the time. Why should they be in want of food, particularly in a country like this where we can be so flaitheamhlach with pensions to others who never needed them, never deserved them and should never have got them? I appeal to the Minister to do the right thing and to give at least 30/- to these few blind persons.

Mr. Bennett

I am in sympathy with this motion. The people to whom it refers, the blind, are more deserving of sympathy than any other section of the community. Their numbers are not large so that without making any great encroachment on the taxpayers it should be possible to help them. Every Deputy knows what a meagre pension most blind pensioners receive. The maximum amount, between the State contribution and what is granted by local authorities, is 16/-. It is not a very generous provision but, in the case of a blind man or woman, who is unable to do anything, it is not only ungenerous but completely inadequate. It does not need any remarks from any quarter to bring the position of these unfortunate people to the notice of the Minister. If the Minister cannot accept the motion he should make some gesture indicating the intention of the Government to meet the needs of these pensioners. While many of us do not like to ask to have expenditure increased, the amount that would be needed to increase blind pensions would not add a great deal to the general taxation.

Mr. Dillon

While everybody would be glad to provide for blind persons what Deputy Byrne suggests, with the present national income, that cannot be done. The money is not available. The national income will not permit this country to provide for all persons who are blind such a standard of comfort as Deputies wish could be provided for them. We are dealing with a restricted number of blind pensioners, but everybody is convinced that a similar case could also be made for increasing old age pensions and pensions of other persons who are prevented from earning a living by infirmity, sickness or affliction of some kind. I think it would be a mistake if this House simply failed to make any gesture at all, once the issue of the inadequacy of the existing rates of pensions has been raised. Members of the Opposition, of the Labour Party and other Deputies have called the attention of the Minister to the fact that the condition of persons depending on small pensions has become extremely acute and difficult. Bearing in mind the sum total of our resources, I do not think we can altogether relieve afflicted people from the financial hardships which they are suffering at present, but I do say to the Parliamentary Secretary, that the time has come when he, as representing the Minister for Local Government, ought to discuss with the Minister for Finance whether something should not be done to meet the acute crisis that has been created by the increased cost of living.

It is as much a charge on this country to prevent afflicted persons suffering from the consequences of the war situation as it is to maintain an army for its defence. I suggest that the time has come when the pension rates of these people should be reviewed, and if to increase them means that the strain on the Exchequer would be more than we can finance out of revenue, then we ought to make up our minds to do so out of borrowed money. The circumstances of old age pensioners——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is confined to the terms of this motion.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister is bound to say that one reason why he must resist a general scheme of 30/- for blind pensioners is that it is obviously impossible to deal only with the blind. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the position of all this class of persons was under review, and that he hoped with the introduction of the Budget, by whatever Government is then in office, something will be done to increase the provision made for them but that it must be done as part of a general scheme which would have in view total State expenditure. I know that the argument of inflation which will be pleaded as a defence against failure to make any provision is a strong one, but it can be carried too far. The damage done by being too conservative is greater than the danger that might arise from some slight departure from financial orthodoxy. For the duration of the emergency I suggest that the Minister ought to make some concession with a view to relieving the special circumstances of these people. I believe he will receive the united support of the House if he takes reasonable methods along these lines. On the understanding that it would be confined to the period of the present crisis no insurmountable difficulty would confront the Minister for Finance, when faced with the task of raising the revenue necessary to meet whatever concession the Minister for Local Government intended to make to this class of person.

Mr. Briscoe

I regret very much that the proposer and seconder of this motion did not satisfy me, or the House, that they had given this problem very much consideration. What Deputy Dillon has said is quite true, that everybody in this House has the greatest sympathy with those afflicted persons, with all afflicted persons, from whatever cause their affliction might arise, and it is regrettable that we cannot deal with them in a manner which will satisfy everybody, including the beneficiaries.

Some of us take a very active interest in blind persons, not only in the House but outside the House, in so far as we can do it, in a somewhat practical way. I believe that if a motion had been brought forward here, suggesting an examination of the whole question, with the object of seeing to what extent improvements can be made in regard to certain blind persons, it might be more satisfactory. So far as blind persons are concerned, there are some well-off and there are others very badly off. I believe the position is such that an investigation could usefully be made in order to see how far the situation can be met and how far pressure can be brought on the Ministers concerned to make available whatever sum would be necessary. We have to deal with persons who are partially blind and persons who are becoming blind, and in view of the fact that the total number is small, comparatively speaking, I think a complete examination could be made and suitable recommendations could be submitted not only to cope with what Deputy Dillon has correctly described as this inflationary period, but to deal in a more permanent sense with those people.

In the category of blind persons you have the young people who have been blind from birth, you also have persons who have become blind through accident, and then there are people who have become blind through a variety of causes. Blind pensions are applicable to persons once they reach 30 years of age. So far as young people are concerned, there is what I consider, and what I think Deputy Dillon would consider, adequate provision in the sense that the local authority can, if satisfied that a young person who is blind is not being properly taken care of, send such person to an institution. The local authority pays portion of the upkeep of that person in the institution and so does the Department of Local Government, so that so far as necessaries of life are concerned that young person is adequately provided for. In addition, that young person is taught some trade in the institution if he or she is considered suitable. Adults can go into institutions for the blind and provision can be made in a similar way, so that they can be taught trades and later they will be in a position to go into the world and earn a livelihood.

Deputy Byrne and the seconder of the motion did not appear to get very much together on this matter. Deputy Byrne made it clear that what he wanted was that over and above the 16/- provided there should be an additional £1 given to those people. I understood him to say that they should be given an additional £1 by way of disability allowance.

Dr. O'Higgins

He said the 16/- should be brought to £1.

Dr. Ward

Deputy Tunney suggested 30/-.

Mr. Briscoe

There is a difference of opinion as to whether it should be £1 or 30/-, but, it may be asked, would even 30/- give the blind person all the comforts, the food and shelter, that we think that person should have?

Mr. Tunney

It will give him almost double what the 16/- will give him.

Mr. Briscoe

If a person is so badly provided for on 16/-, twice that amount might not mean the comfort we would like to see provided. If the Deputies who proposed and seconded this motion are really anxious to have something done, they ought to propose that some committee of the House, or some Departmental committee, should be set up to inquire into the conditions of blind and partially blind persons who are or are not adequately provided for, or who can or cannot earn a livelihood. On top of that an effort should be made to see if better provision could be made for the training of these people for future employment on a permanent basis. The existing arrangement is not at all satisfactory.

We need not go far outside this country to see what are called State and locally-paid institutions, specially fitted to train and maintain in employment persons afflicted with blindness. We have not so many of those people to deal with, and we should endeavour to make better provision for them. From what I know about the problem, I would not feel happy if this motion were accepted, and even if the limit of what is asked was granted, I would not consider that that would deal satisfactorily with the situation. It would only mean that later on we would regret we did not deal with the matter in a better manner. I suggest to the proposer and seconder, and to all who are interested, that further consideration should be given to this question with a view to seeing if something better cannot be done for those people than discussing whether we should give them a few shillings extra in the week. We ought to deal with the matter in a more permanent and more satisfactory way.

Mr. Coburn

I rise with a certain amount of hesitancy to support this motion. I realise, after all, there is a limit to our resources and that this is a small country I think, however, in view of the very high cost of living, it is impossible for these poor people to experience even what is known as bare comfort. Deputy Tunney stated that there are about 7,000 people who will be affected if this motion is passed. So far as I understand it, Deputy Byrne's contention was that we should bring the amount allowed to £1, from the existing allowance of 16/-. We must take into consideration what that would mean annually. Assuming that 7,000 persons would receive £1 a week, that would mean £350,000 a year and, of course, if Deputy Tunney's suggestion were adopted, it would mean a lot more. It is questionable if we can afford all this. Then there is the other consideration, that every other person suffering from old age or any other infirmity would be equally entitled to some increase.

Deputy Briscoe referred to the fact that even with 30/- they might not be comfortable. My answer to that is that millions might not make them happy either. I am one of those who believe that money alone does not make a person happy, but I do agree that £1 a week is much better than 10/- a week, and that with 30/- a week a person would be much better off than with £1. But I look at things from a common-sense point of view. Deputy Briscoe suggests that this motion should be changed to ask that a committee should be set up to examine the whole situation. I cannot forget that were it not for the fact that Deputy Byrne put down the motion, the suggestion would not have come from Deputy Briscoe. However, it is not too late. The Parliamentary Secretary has the right, if he desires, to intimate to the House that he is prepared to set up that committee, and I am sure that Deputy Byrne will accept that guarantee, so to speak, and that every member of the House will accept it also.

I am not here for the sole reason of being in a position to cast a vote against the Government at all times. After all, each and every one of us has a certain responsibility to those who sent us here, and we must use a certain amount of commonsense. We have to realise that we are not a great empire possessed of vast wealth and resources of almost inexhaustible extent, and anything of a reasonable nature put by the Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, get favourable consideration from the House, including members of the Opposition, and also Deputy Byrne, who proposed the motion.

But, coming back to the terms of the motion and having personal contact with these poor people, I can quite realise the unfortunate position in which they are placed, especially those who are left on their own resources, having to fend for themselves with a maximum weekly income of 16/-. A great many of them do not enjoy that 16/- because public bodies do not make the supplementary contributions which the law enables them to do. Very few blind persons receive anything more than the 10/- and have nothing else to live on. Speaking on behalf of those people, I think I would be prepared, if the Parliamentary Secretary intimates to the House that he would be willing to set up a committee to inquire into the whole position as it affects all the blind pensioners of this country, to support him and as a result to improve their position. That is really what Deputy Byrne wants to do through his motion. If it can be done by any other means, I am sure he will be satisfied and the House, in turn, will be satisfied.

Mr. Roddy

I must say that I agree, of course, with Deputy Dillon that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance were to accede to every request made to him for increases in allowances, either to blind people or to others, eventually taxation would reach such a point that people in this country would not be able to bear it. Nevertheless, I consider, in view of the present exceptionally high cost of living, that some case can be made for, at least, an examination of the conditions under which many of these unfortunate blind pensioners exist. After all, they are suffering from a terrible affliction— one of the worst that could affect humanity—and that, as well as the unfortunate conditions in which they have to exist, should, undoubtedly, make an impression on the Parliamentary Secretary and induce him to grant exceptional treatment.

I know that the local authorities can to some extent subsidise the amount granted by the Minister to blind pensioners but I agree with Deputy Coburn that local authorities do that in very few cases. In fact, in my experience of one local authority I do not think they assist more than two or three blind pensioners, and I think that could be taken as an index of how pensioners are treated in other counties. I am perfectly certain that Deputy Byrne will not press his motion if the Minister will give an undertaking that he will consider the case on behalf of pensioners and will if necessary, set up a committee to examine their conditions and the nature of claims made on their behalf. I do think that the changes brought about by the emergency, by the war and the circumstances of the times make it necessary to give some special consideration to the claims of these unfortunate people. If the Minister is satisfied to set up such a committee, I feel that the House would give him every assistance and that the notice of motion on the Order Paper could be withdrawn.

Mr. Cogan

I would like to compliment Deputy Briscoe on his approach to this question. All of us realise what a grave hardship it is for any person to be deprived of the use of his sight. We realise also that the allowance at present provided for those people by the State is very inadequate if they have to depend upon it for their support, but as Deputy Briscoe pointed out, merely adding to the allowances provided for those people, while desirable and perhaps necessary in this present emergency, is not by any means enough. It is, I think, the feeling of every Deputy, and I am sure it is the feeling of the Parliamentary Secretary, that everything possible should be done to enable those people to secure that measure of happiness which the ordinary person enjoys through being able to indulge in some employment. Whether it may be employment that brings profit to themselves or not, it certainly occupies their time and keeps them from brooding on the unhappy conditions in which they have to live.

Anything that can be done, therefore, to provide for the training of those people, particularly at an early age, through institutions and other courses, is something which every Deputy will wholeheartedly support, and even more enthusiastically support than any request for an increased allowance. While I say that there is in this present emergency, having regard to the high cost of living, a case for increasing the allowances, at least temporarily, I would like to urge strongly on the Minister the desirability of accepting the suggestion, put forward so forcefully by Deputy Briscoe of an inquiry into the needs of those people, an inquiry extending beyond the limits of this State, where necessary, to find out what is being done in other States and to see how far we could enable those people to obtain the training which would allow them to employ their time fully and usefully, and in a way beneficial to themselves.

Mr. Maguire

This motion is one that will naturally appeal to people in general. It is an appeal on behalf of those unfortunate people who suffer from the affliction of blindness. Such an appeal strikes a sympathetic chord in the hearts of us all. However deserving it may be, the proposal—to my mind, good intentioned—is capable of very serious reactions. Personally, I agree, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and everybody in the House will agree, that it would be a magnificent thing if we could afford to give these poor citizens an increase. I believe they should get it. There is no use in trying to hide the fact that very serious increases in the cost of living have occurred, and it is absurd to say any more that inflation in this country has not set in. But, to select one class of people, and single them out for special treatment, and play on public feeling on their behalf, leaving out many other sections of the people who require an increased allowance, is not just.

I am reminded, at the moment, of one section of the community, a most deserving class, which has been left out of consideration entirely. I refer to disabled people. There are many families who have included in their numbers some person disabled from birth. These persons are a burden while their parents live, and probably are well looked after as long as their parents can afford it. After that, when they are almost unable to do anything for themselves, the household is perhaps badly able to support them and to buy the requisites they require in their condition. Why an appeal for that most necessitous class of people has not been made in the past indicates to my mind that the present application is not seriously intended, and has not as its foundation real consideration for the most necessitous class of the people.

I also have in mind many of our workers who have fairly big families, and who are tied down to a standard of wages not comparable at all with the cost of living. Why should not that section of the community also be included in the increased allowances from the State or from the industry in which they can make their living, if industry can afford to pay the increase? They, too, are deserving of consideration. I could draw very telling pictures of many of the working families I know throughout the country. They are compelled to exist on a standard of wages which, in view of increased prices, has not kept in step with the necessary outlay of their families.

Why leave out old age pensioners? They, too, are compelled to live on the restricted allowances they had before the war. Why not include them? Why are they left out of consideration? I think that the proposal, however kindly and well intentioned it may be, to consider one class of the community for special treatment over other classes is not equitable, and I do not think that a Legislative Assembly should pursue that course of action. What we should do is to face the position that the allowances of three or four years ago— even of last year—are no longer equal to the demand or to meet the cost of essential things. The Government will, one day, have to realise if this condition of affairs continues, that it is absurd to try to hold down prices and wages to a standard unless, at the same time, the conditions of the people are being kept in step with the increases in the cost of living. They are not.

No matter how vigorously the Minister for Supplies tries to control prices, he has not succeeded entirely, or anything like it. In regard to certain commodities prices continue to rise beyond those fixed by the Government. We are only closing our eyes to the facts when we quote statistics and show that the cost of living is such-and-such a figure. That figure is not at all representative of the cost of living. Whatever the Government may do about it, I think that the Children's Allowances Bill has more effectively brought people face to face with the realities of our economic condition here than any other Bill that has come before the House. These family allowances must be paid for by the poorest of our people. In all probability the financing of it will lean heavily on the poor as well as on the middle classes. The latter will have to contribute pretty heavily, to an extent probably beyond their means. If we are going to extend these services indefinitely, we know that we will have to do with a lesser number of things and contribute to the point where it will hurt most.

It is probable that an examination of the whole order of affairs here will be necessary. If our economy is going to be controlled by the present system of capital, under which we live, and if that order is going to be continued, then I am afraid it will have serious reactions. The point will be reached wherein conditions will hardly be able to bear the strain that is going to be imposed on them. I have said before in this House that the only solution for all this, to my way of thinking, is that we should try to get our people's minds away from the thing called "money" instead of making it the be-all and end-all of every enterprise, and of every plan that actuates men's minds, in the Dáil and elsewhere. When we ask for an increased allowance of money for this or that section of the people, we have got to realise that far more importance must be placed upon the things that we buy for money, and that an abundance of goods is of infinitely greater importance to the community than money in abundance. The thing is to find the means by which, when goods are there, they can be made available for those who need them.

At present the medium for doing that is money. Money is not plentiful enough in circulation. Probably, in some quarters it is so plentiful as to be beyond the needs of those who have it, but, in a general way, it is not available to the general community to enable them to keep in step with the ever-increasing cost of living. It may be that if the strain proves to be too great for the social conditions which we have been seeking to build up, we may then have to find some alternative such as increased allowances for blind people. I would strongly urge that every other section which is living upon a narrow margin should also be provided for. I am against making sectional differences, and because of that I am opposing the motion. I will accept it and support it if all other sections who are needy are included in the survey. Whatever inconveniences the Government or the community may find in providing for a levelling-up in the case of those sections of our people which need a levelling-up, I am prepared to incur the risk of taking responsibility for such a levelling-up, but only, as I say, if all sections are included in a general survey. I am opposing any sectional advance on the lines suggested.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

I cannot recommend the acceptance of this motion to the House. It is not necessary that I should say much in defence of that attitude because other speakers have already indicated fairly clearly to the House that we cannot concede what this motion is intended to secure to one section of the community without taking into consideration its repercussions on other sections of the community who are perhaps in equal, if not greater, distress. The motion, as Deputies are aware, describes the present allowance to the blind as totally inadequate. It calls for amending legislation that will permit of the total payments from all sources to be increased. The motion clearly contemplates that not only will the allowances to blind persons by way of State pension be increased, but that the allowances under the food voucher schemes, the cheap fuel scheme, the local authorities' schemes shall all be increased, with no very definite indication as to the extent of the increase. It is true that Deputy Byrne has mentioned the figure of £1 a week for single blind persons. In the particular area that Deputy Byrne is most concerned with, as I shall show the House later, single blind persons are at present in receipt of more than £1 a week. I, personally, would be more concerned about the married blind pensioner who has a wife and dependent children, but they, too, are in receipt of fairly generous allowances taking all things into consideration, under present conditions. At any rate, if we are to improve the financial condition of our blind pensioners we must make a similar improvement in the financial condition of old age pensioners, widows and orphans, unemployment assistance recipients, the recipients of home assistance, and so on.

Mr. Dillon

You contemplate doing that under the Children's Allowances Bill?

Dr. Ward

If the House believes that should be done, then a comprehensive motion should be put down and we should have some idea of the cost of it. We should come to some agreement as to the extent of the benefits that we propose to provide and should have some agreement as to how the money will be found to finance such a comprehensive scheme. It is nice to find Deputies from all sections of the House expressing sympathy with the blind. I am glad to see it.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

Naturally.

Dr. Ward

But I will be pardoned if I remind the House that 12 years ago, when I tried in this House to improve the conditions of the blind, I did not get the support of some of the Parties who are supporting this now. I welcome the change. But, I am entitled to point out to the House that since this Government took office the conditions of the blind have been very substantially improved. Away back in 1931 when a Bill was introduced in this House that embodied improvement of the conditions of the blind it was passed by a majority of the House but it was not accepted by the Government of the day. It has since been made effective and is to-day the law of the land. It is well that Deputies should realise that that particular enactment is a substantial improvement of the position of the blind. There are three important changes in so far as the blind are concerned. Under the old age pensions law before this Government came into office a blind person in order to be qualified to secure a State blind pension had to be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight was essential. In other words, if a claimant to a blind pension had sufficient sight to be able to perform any work for which eyesight was essential he could not qualify for the pension. The claimant had to be stone blind. Now we altered that and at the present time the claimant can qualify for a State blind pension if he is so blind as not to be able because of defective sight to follow his ordinary occupation.

Mr. Dillon

Which may be embroidery.

Dr. Ward

Quite so.

Mr. Dillon

Astonishingly enough.

Dr. Ward

That is not the only change that was made. Before the Act was passed by the present Government, the claimant had to be 50 years of age as well as satisfying the test as to the degree of blindness before he could be eligible for a blind pension. We reduced the age to 30 years. That I think was a substantial concession to the blind, but the most important amendment with the most far-reaching results for the blind, was the removal of the section that provided that in estimating the means account should be taken of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant. Under that section no matter from what source a blind person secured a benefit or privilege, whether from a charitable organisation or whether from a child who had got on in the world to be in a position to maintain a blind parent, that maintenance was estimated as income against the claimant.

We changed that and we are entitled to some credit for that. I do not suppose we will get it, but at any rate I think nobody can complain if I direct the attention of the House to the radical changes that this Government has made in the law in so far as it applies to blind persons. I should like to see a whole lot more done for them. I have already indicated that it is not to-day or yesterday that I have manifested a practical interest in them and in other sections of the depressed classes. But these things cost money. That is the trouble. I would be as happy as any Deputy in this House if we could provide the 30/- for a single blind pensioner that Deputy Tunney considers would be necessary. More would probably be necessary to maintain him in complete comfort, but if we are to be asked to do this do not let Deputies in the same breath complain about rising taxation.

Mr. O'Leary

We had £200,000 last week.

Dr. Ward

Yes, and you will want £2,250,000 for a Bill that is before the House. The Government is in the position that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and when Deputies go down the country and get on to the platform, or even at the cross-roads, they sometimes describe this Fianna Fáil Government as being very extravagant, and point to the fact that we have increased taxation. They do not always point out the manner in which we have imposed taxation or the purposes for which we have exacted the additional contributions. Now if on this social question we could put our heads together and if we could agree, unanimously agree, to go before the country and defend before the country any expenditure that was for the purpose of improving the economic conditions of the poorer sections of our community, whether that charge was going to be a charge on the central taxation or whether it was to be a charge on local taxation, we would prove our earnestness in these matters. If we stopped the criticism about rising rates and taxes and if we used a little influence over newspapers over which we might have influence, so that they should not complain of rising rates and taxes if they were increased for purposes such as we have under discussion to-night, we could then claim to be sincere in our concern for the poor.

I do not hope ever to see in this country a condition of things under which charity will no longer be necessary. Speaking for myself, I want to confess quite frankly that I do not think it is a desirable aim at all. It seems to me that there will always be scope in this country for charitable organisations and it seems to me that there is more spiritual benefit from the assistance that is provided through a charitable organisation than there is through the financial assistance that is disbursed by what is sometimes called the cold hand of the machinery of the State. In the City of Dublin that Deputy Byrne (Senior) and Deputy Byrne (Junior) have been returned to this House to represent, there is an enormous amount of work being done by charitable organisations, such organisations as the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Catholic Social Service Conference to mention only a couple. I do think that if the State bears a reasonable share of the burden it is far from being wrong in this Christian State to leave scope for the exercise of Christian charity. That view may not find a general acceptance but it seems to me that it is a better demonstration of Christian charity voluntarily to part with some of the extra world's wealth that you happen to have in order to assist your fellowmen than that you should wait to have it extracted from you by process of law. By all means let it be by process of law too, and particularly from the classes of the community who are not willing to part with a share of their wealth. That raises other thoughts and it is a matter we may, perhaps, have an opportunity of talking about again.

Let me say this: some Deputies hinted at it, some Deputies seemed to have a vague notion about it, but no Deputy who spoke in this debate to-night seemed to understand clearly what provision is made within the law for looking after our blind pensioners in this State. At the present time in addition to providing a sum, namely 10/- per week, from the State, the law also provides that local authorities shall put into operation a blind welfare scheme within their area. It has been said to-night truthfully said, that the cash income cannot exceed 16/- a week, that is 10/- from the State pension with 6/- pension from the local authority or some other source. That is true, but the local authority is not restricted in that way in the matter of making provision for the blind. They are not restricted to giving assistance in the form of cash.

The local authority can incorporate in their blind welfare scheme provision for assisting the blind in kind, by way of food allowances, by way of clothing allowances and in the hundred and one ways that they can assist, and they are only circumscribed in the amount of cash that can be given in addition to the 10/- State pension. Only 6/- in cash can be given in addition, but they can come up to Deputy Byrne's £1 per week without restriction whatever by making allowances in kind. In fact in the City of Dublin at the present time, when we take into consideration the combined State pension scheme and the local authority scheme, we find that a single blind person gets a State blind pension of 10/- per week, he gets 6/- from the local authority blind welfare scheme; he gets food vouchers to the value of 2/6 a week under the Department of Industry and Commerce food voucher scheme. He gets in addition vouchers to the value of 4/- a week, which has recently been sanctioned, to purchase food or other requisites. In fact, a single blind pensioner in Dublin at the present time has a weekly income of 25/-, including fuel allowance. That is getting very near to the point at which Deputy Tunney set his flag. When we come to the married blind pensioner with two dependents, we find that he has 10/- of a State pension, under the corporation blind welfare scheme he has 12/- for himself and his wife 6/-, for the children, food vouchers to the value of 7/6 under the State food voucher scheme, and under the corporation food vouchers scheme 4/-. In addition to that, each recipient of the blind pension is entitled to a fuel allowance valued at 3/2 per week. The married blind pensioner with two children is at present in receipt, between cash, food vouchers and cheap fuel of 42/2 per week. It may not be sufficient, but it is a fairly generous allowance taking all things into consideration and remembering that it has to be related to the provision that the State and the local authority are able to make for similar sections of the depressed classes of the community.

I therefore do not think that we can at the present time make any further concession. I have not the separate figures for annual State expenditure on blind pensions, because the pensions are subject to the same means test as old age pensions and, consequently, I have only the inclusive figure. But I would remind the House that in 1931-32 the figure stood at £2,695,632, while the estimated expenditure for 1943-44 is £3,935,000—almost £4,000,000. It may not be enough, it may not be near enough, but it ought to be granted at any rate that it is a very substantial improvement on the provision that was made ten or 12 years ago.

If the House should think that the whole field of our social services ought to be surveyed, that is a different matter. A motion can be put down to deal with that matter and it can be fully discussed, and, as I said earlier here to-night, the House can decide on the standard of security that the State is to provide for the poorer sections of the community. The House can decide a more important factor; the House can decide how that huge scheme is to be financed, if we are not doing sufficient for these depressed classes at the present time. I will repeat that, personally, I should be very glad to see more generous treatment for all sections of the poor and, particularly, the blind. But we are in the position that expenditure is mounting rapidly, taxation is mounting rapidly, rates are mounting rapidly, and that there is a good share of criticism, notwithstanding the fact that the improvement in our social services to a very large extent, when you leave out the additional expenditure on the Army, is largely responsible for the increased taxation which the general community are called upon to bear.

Mr. Linehan

While I, in common with everyone else, naturally would have the greatest sympathy with any person who suffered the tragedy of being afflicted with partial or total blindness, I see great difficulty, particularly as regards this motion, and generally as regards all the Private Deputies' motions that are now placed on the Order Paper. There are, I think, 13 in all, and ten of the 13 are making demands for increased moneys from the State for the benefit of particular people. There is a demand in this particular one, which possibly would be the smallest of the lot in terms of actual cash, for additional money. There is a demand from other parts of the House for money in respect of tillage.

There are demands for additional money for other types of pensions and assistance. The difficulty I see, if we are to legislate by motions such as this, is that we will get nothing here— even though they may be justified in point of time or of necessity—but demand after demand from sectional interests in the community that the State should provide extra benefits for each particular section.

There is something in what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that if we do face the situation as a whole and have a survey of our people's needs in their entirety, one can then consider burdening the State to a great extent with the moneys that would be necessary to give everybody in the community a reasonably good standard of income. But I doubt very much the wisdom of this House or any Government giving way time after time to purely sectional demands of this kind— not of course that this particular one could be described as an actual sectional demand. What I feel about it is this. We have to face the situation that we have a very small pool from which to draw our national taxation. We have to face the situation that every penny we pay out in increased benefits and allowances of any kind will have to be got from the people of the country, and that there is a vast number of people, even though they are workers or farmers or small traders who are actually earning and in gainful employment, living on very small incomes at the moment and who have been for many years living upon very small incomes. These are the people that this will react upon and that every bit of money spent by this House will react upon in the shape of increased taxation, and the benefits that will accrue to individuals will merely mean handing them out money, whether by way of cash or vouchers, and taking it back from them by way of increased taxation and an increased cost of living.

I can imagine that a case could be made—as some Deputies have made it —that, naturally, persons afflicted with blindness are in a much more serious position than anybody else; whether the allowances made for them are adequate or not is hardly the real point. But there are thousands of other people, people with families, even people who are working, who are on such a low income at present and whose standard of living is so low, that it is very hard to justify giving way to any type of sectional demand that will impose on them a further burden by way of increased taxation or an increased cost of living. I am not sure that we are facing the position properly by attempting to deal with motions like this, because I am satisfied that, if this continues, every section of the community, if they find the House or the Government giving way to one section, will make demands upon the State for increased benefits for their own particular section.

I cannot see that this House would be justified, apart from this particular motion, in passing a whole series of motions which will increase the general taxation of the country and increase the burden placed upon the community at large, and which will naturally be particularly heavy on the poorer section of the community. I believe that, if this House were to give way to all these demands, it would be a tragedy if the vast majority of the people, who are living on very low incomes and facing a very uncertain future on a very low standard of living, and who have no possible prospect of increasing either their wages or their business or the means they have of earning extra money, were to be more and more harassed by increased taxation and by an increased cost of living. If there was any of these motions which I feel we should give way on, it certainly would be this one dealing with the blind, but I am doubtful about the wisdom of any Deputy merely putting down a demand of this nature asking for increased benefits for any section without facing the situation as to what the reaction will be on the poorer section of the community and what the reaction will be on national taxation.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

The debate, I think, has done some good in providing an opportunity for discussing the conditions of the blind. Members of the Government Party have contributed to the debate. Most speakers referred to the general question of the conditions of blind persons and the arrangements for educating and helping them in other ways. I am glad the suggestion came from a member of the Government Party, Deputy Briscoe, that the Parliamentary Secretary should go very deeply into the whole problem. This motion was primarily intended to draw attention to the urgent necessities of blind persons whose allowances, in present circumstances, cannot exceed 16/-. The Parliamentary Secretary has himself admitted the position in that regard. No Deputy made any effort to show that that was a fair allowance for those persons. It is generally agreed that the amount is inadequate. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the changes which have been made by the present Government. We all appreciate those changes. The Government have done a certain amount of good work even if they have been slow in doing it. But that is not enough. Many blind persons are living in a condition which we ought not to tolerate.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the assistance in kind received by blind persons. I am surprised that he spoke about the 4/- food voucher, sanction for the issue of which was recently given. He did not tell the House of the struggle which various organisations working for the blind, and other persons interested, had to get the sanction of his Department for that small concession. The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the leaving of a certain amount of scope for the work of Christian charity. That is all very well but it would be preferable, in this case, at any rate, that blind persons should not have to depend on charity and that the State should help those of them who are not able by their work to bring a sufficient income to their homes. Many organisations are doing very good work, but it is very wrong that any person should, because he is afflicted with blindness, have to look for, or receive, charity.

Motion put and declared negatived.