Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1943

Vol. 92 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In pages 4 and 5, Section 3 (3), to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraphs:—

(a) subject to paragraph (b) of this sub-section, a child shall be regarded as being maintained by the person mentioned in whichever of the following sub-paragraphs is applicable—

(i) where the child normally resides with his father, the father,

(ii) where the child normally resides with his step-father, the step-father,

(iii) where the child normally resides with his mother, who is a widow or is living apart fromher husband, the mother,

(iv) where the child normally resides with his step-mother, who is a widow or is living apart from her husband, the step-mother,

(v) where the child is being educated at a boarding school or is boarded out for the sole purpose of attending school, the person with whom he would otherwise normally reside,

(vi) where the child is an inmate of a hospital, the person with whom he would otherwise normally reside,

(vii) where the child is an inmate of an institution (other than a hospital) and would otherwise normally reside with a person who contributes towards the cost of his maintenance in the institution, that person,

(viii) in any case to which none of the foregoing sub-paragraphs is applicable, the head of a household of which the child is normally a resident member,

and the child shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person;

(b) in any case to which any two of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a) of this sub-section are applicable, the child shall be regarded as being maintained by the person mentioned in the first in order of the applicable sub-paragraphs and shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person.

It will be recollected that, in the course of the Second Reading debate, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney raised a question on the legal implications of the terms used in sub-section (3) of Section 3 with particular reference to "the custody, care and control" by a person of a child. An examination of the matter seemed to indicate that it was desirable to avoid the difficulties that might arise from a possible interpretation of these words. Consequently, it is proposed to delete that sub-section and insert a new sub-section. The purpose of the new sub-section is to get rid of this legal difficulty to which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred, and to make it clear that residence with is the main proof of maintenance of a child by an adult. Where the child normally resides with the father, the father will be regarded as maintaining the child; where the child normally resides with the step-father, the step-father will be regarded as normally maintaining the child. If the child's mother is a widow, or is living apart from her husband, then the mother or, as the case may be, the step-mother and so on down the list. The paragraphs in the new sub-section set out the person with whom the child normally resides. That person will be regarded as the person maintaining the child. There is an omnibus clause to deal with possible circumstances not visualised in drafting the sub-section.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

May I draw the Minister's attention to the words at the end of paragraph (a), following the description of the persons with whom the child may be residing, "and the child shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person". I quite understand what the Minister means by having those words inserted. Cases may arise in which one of the parties to the maintenance of the child may be making a moiety contribution. Would the Minister mind looking into that point so that no subsequent litigation might arise out of it?

Mr. Lemass

I gather the Deputy's point to be that, from the purely financial point of view, the child might, in fact, be maintained by some person other than the person with whom the child is residing.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Not entirely.

Mr. Lemass

Even if there is a contribution for the child, it will still be regarded as being maintained by the person with whom it resides, and in the order set out: if with the father, then it is the father who will be regarded as the person maintaining the child, and if with the step-father, then it is the step-father. If any two parts of the sub-section apply in a particular case, it is the first one that will operate. Circumstances may arise in which a mother is living apart from her husband, and is, say, living with another man. As regards the children coming from that alliance, it is the father who will have the claim if the children are living with the father.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I am not interfering with that. I am not disputing that point nor do I want to alter the arrangement that is here. What I am at is: If we assume that two persons have a liability towards the maintenance of a child, we will take for the sake of argument that one contributes 6/- per week and the other 4/- per week. I am making no case as between one and the other, but what I want the Minister to have examined is whether this terminology interferes in any way with the 4/- a week contribution made by one of the persons? In other words, could it be interpreted in a court by reason of this clause that the said 4/- was not being paid at all, although the person would be subsequently liable for an additional 4/-?

Mr. Lemass

I will look into that, but I do not know if the difficulty could arise in so far as we definitely provide that the person with whom the child resides is regarded as responsible.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

The point I am making is, if there is a moiety contribution, does this particular sentence, drawn as it is: "And the child shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person", in any way interfere with that arrangement whereby a moiety contribution is made towards the maintenance of a child? Is the position affected by the way in which this particular sentence is drafted?

Mr. Lemass

I understand the Deputy.

Mr. Norton

Is not the position this on the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, that if there is a contribution by two or more persons what the expression in the section means is that the person with whom the child resides is regarded as responsible?

Mr. Lemass

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

Is this amendment No. 1?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

On this amendment the question of establishing clearly the maintenance of the child arises. One of the tests of maintenance arises when children are at school and you have to determine who is paying the school fees. I want to suggest that that test of maintenance ought to be eliminated, because you will find in a number of cases, notably in the case of a widowed woman who may have five or six children, that perhaps a relative will undertake to educate them. They are at school, and, in fact, I have a case in my mind in which a relative is paying for the maintenance of the children, but none of that lady's neighbours know that her circumstances are such that she has to call on the assistance of her brother who has family responsibilities of his own. If that test is applied that lady will have to display her affairs——

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. The only test is: would the child otherwise normally reside with her?

Mr. Norton

Residence is the test.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, residence is the test. Paragraph 5 covers that. Where the child is at a boarding-school, the person with whom he would otherwise normally reside is regarded as responsible.

Mr. Norton

In other words, the person with whom the child resided before going to school.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, and the person with whom he spends his holidays.

Mr. Dillon

As the Bill was originally drafted it was the person paying for the child.

Mr. Lemass

That is a difficulty in the phraseology which has been cleared away.

Mr. Dillon

So that the question of where the child goes home on holidays also comes into it?

Mr. Bennett

One of the points we discussed on the early stages of the Bill was whether the father or mother would get the allowance. Here in paragraph (ii) we say "where the child normally resides with his step-father". I would prefer to say "where the natural parent was alive". I would prefer that the mother would get the money. One can visualise circumstances in which a step-father would not have the same interest in the child as its mother.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy dealing with a case where two parents are separated?

Mr. Bennett

No; where they are living together.

Mr. Lemass

May I explain that what is here does not interfere with the general arrangements to which I referred in the earlier discussions which permits of any member of the household, including the mother, being nominated as the person to whom the allowance would be paid for the purpose of determining who maintains the child? The sub-section of the section does not interfere with the methods of payment although discretion is given to make the payments to the mother if that is a suitable arrangement.

Mr. Bennett

But, as this stands now, when the Bill becomes operative, in the case of a family where the mother is alive and there is a step-father, the allowance will automatically be paid to the step-father.

Mr. Lemass

The step-father will be the claimant.

Mr. Bennett

Could we not alter the section to read so that the natural parent would get the allowance? I think everybody would assume that the natural parent would be more interested in the child.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Is it not the fact that the mother will be maintaining the child, even though that child has a step-father?

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. Where the child normally resides with the mother living apart from her husband, yes, certainly, in that case.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I am taking it that this amendment does not displace Section 3, sub-sections (1) and (2). Am I right in that? In other words, where a person was maintaining on the said qualifying date three or more children, if those children are residing with the mother and the step-father is in residence but the mother is supporting the children, who is qualified?

Mr. Lemass

The phraseology in Section 3 (1) (c) defines the conditions which qualify a person and one condition is that he was maintaining the child on the qualifying date.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Precisely.

Mr. Lemass

We have to define what constitutes maintaining the child. You see if the child is residing with the father or step-father or mother, then the father or step-father or mother is deemed to be maintaining the child because of the fact that the child lives with them. There may be internal family arrangements whereby somebody is in fact making a contribution.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I am afraid we are in disagreement. Suppose there are three children living with the mother and step-father, but the mother is maintaining them by her earnings, or she is in possession of the premises, does this amendment we have here—I did not think it did until the Minister said so—interfere with the arrangement whereby the mother maintains them?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, the step-father gets the allowance.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

The step-father gets it although the mother is maintaining them?

Mr. Lemass

It is the step-father who is the head of the house.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I do not think that was the intention of the House. I think the basic intention was that whoever was maintaining the children —maintaining them, mind you—was the person to get it. In other words, if the father and mother were both alive, and the child was living with an uncle, the uncle would get the allowance?

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Suppose there are a mother and step-father, but the mother is earning, or is in possession of whatever means there are for providing for maintenance? Here now, for the first time, that step-father will get the allowance by reason of the fact that he is the head of the household?

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

So it is residence rather than maintenance.

Mr. Dillon

But, surely, it is consistent with the principle we have already laid down, that whatever abuses might exist in certain households where the father was not as good a man as the mother—if I may use a bull—we should recognise the father as the head of the household and make the payment to him. The House will recognise there is a distinct and normal father and mother and step-father, but one has to recognise that when a married woman with children re-enters matrimony, the step-father is the head of the household if he and his wife are living together as man and wife. It would be rather strange to suggest that this second marriage had some kind of defect in it and that the distinction within the family should be emphasised. The obviously desirable thing for the step-father is that he should assume, with the consent of all parties, the role of head of the household. It would be rather unhappy if Dáil Eireann decided that we did not recognise a second marriage as a satisfactory family arrangement and persisted in the relationship of the natural mother. The ideal situation should be that the step-father steps into the shoes of the deceased parent and assumes the headship of the household with the willing and close consent of all the parties, and it is in very few cases you will find that it is necessary to make a distinction, because of the possibility that a step-father might abuse the allowance, or misuse money he might receive for his step-children. We should assume that he would use it with as much scrupulousness for his step-children as for his own children. I think Dáil Eireann should act on that assumption.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I am not disputing the case of the right of a father to get the money where he is maintaining the family. I am putting the case where there is a mother of the children and a step-father in residence, but the mother by her earnings or from her own resources is maintaining the children. There is a case there for the money being paid to the mother if on no stronger ground than on Section 3 (1) (c): "was maintaining, on the said qualifying date, three or more children...".

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy understands that there is no means test and no investigation of the family circumstances. So far as the administrators of this Bill are concerned, they will have no knowledge of the circumstances of the family. We are dealing with the family as a unit. We are not attempting to investigate further into family affairs.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

You are adopting something from the income-tax code.

Mr. Lemass

There are certain cases —I got a letter this morning from a man in Cork who said that his wife, having read the Bill, flung him out of the house so that she would get the allowance.

Mr. Cosgrave

I put the other case, and the Minister ought to examine it. There are cases in which there are excellent reasons, but in the case in which the family income has its source from the mother, I think it is a very great mistake to introduce a provision like this.

Mr. Dillon

Would not the Leader of the Opposition feel that there is a great deal to be said for abstaining from any investigation of intimate family details, and that the advantage of that abstention far outweighs the very occasional undesirable circumstance where this peculiar situation arises: that there is a step-father who is contributing nothing to the family, and that the mother is the sole wage earner; in fact, the sole maintainer of the children? I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that that is a very rare circumstance, though, of course, it can arise. Surely, if we set ourselves out to legislate for every conceivable kind of obscure complication of that kind that can arise, we would land ourselves in endless difficulties, and in this supreme difficulty, that we would have to set up an inspectorate which would cross-hackle every family as to who is actually doing the maintenance. Surely that is a most undesirable thing. The whole principle of the Bill has barred and bolted the door, apparently, against the bureaucrat. It is one of its best features. Undoubtedly, the desire to do that will create a certain number of anomalies, and we must pass this Bill in the certain knowledge that within 12 months' time we will be confronted with a group of these anomalies which will have to be abated in the best way we can. But, they are all being allowed to develop in the certain knowledge that they will develop in order to secure this supremely important principle, that the bureaucrat will not be thrust into the centre of the family. I must say I find myself entirely in agreement with the Minister there.

Mr. Tunney

In the case of serving soldiers, to whom will the allowance be paid?

Mr. Lemass

That will depend on the circumstances.

Mr. Tunney

Take a soldier from Crumlin who is stationed in Germanstown and whose wife and nine children reside in Crumlin. Surely, in that case, the allowance would not be sent to the father?

Mr. Lemass

It would be paid to the mother, I should say, if the father is not living at home. Of course, there are soldiers living in married quarters.

Mr. Tunney

In the case of soldiers who are living in barracks, it will be paid to the mother?

Mr. Lemass

If the father is not residing in the home, the mother will be paid the allowance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 5, Section 3 (3), to delete sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following subparagraph:—

(iv) was not permanently resident in any institution, the costs of his maintenance wherein are wholly defrayed by the governing body of that institution, or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or out of the funds of a local authority, or are wholly defrayed in any two or more of such ways.

It was Deputy Hogan raised the question as to the wording of the subparagraph in Section 3 (3). I explained that the intention was that the only case that was being eliminated for the purpose of ensuring that the family allowance would not be paid was where the child was permanently resident in an institution and the family made no contribution at all to the maintenance of the child. The wording of the sub-section appears to be somewhat ambiguous and, therefore, I prepared an amendment to remove that ambiguity and to make it clear that it is only where there is no contribution of any kind from the family to the maintenance of the child that the family allowance will not be paid.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 5 to delete Section 3 (6) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(6) A person shall not be entitled, otherwise than under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of this section, to payment of more than one children's allowance in respect of any week.

This is a drafting amendment to clarify the sub-section which was suggested by Deputy Cosgrave during the Committee Stage discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Mr. Dillon

On the Report Stage, I want to say a few words. We have now passed the stage at which we can propose any amendment to the Bill in this House. As a matter of fact, neither on the Committee Stage nor on the Report Stage was any person other than a member of the Government in a position to propose the amendment I have in mind because it would operate to place a small additional charge on the Exchequer. I am going to urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce to introduce in the Seanad the amendment necessary to make of this Bill the complete success that it should be and could be. I believe that 90 per cent. of the persons who interested themselves in this question of family allowances recognise that the financial burden which will be placed on the State is considerable and that they gladly salute the courage of the Government in undertaking this at the present time. There may be those who will try to make the case that the family allowances are inadequate. Doubtless, the family allowances are inadequate in the judgment of us all if we had not to consider the resources from which we have to finance the scheme. But, if we consider those resources, then I consider that the family allowances now made go probably as far as any reasonable Government could have been expected to go.

But, having courageously gone thus far, for some utterly astonishing reason the Government have chosen to spoil the whole thing by an interpretation of their purpose which will result in little or no economy, but which will give rise to endless disappointment and dissatisfaction throughout the country. Ninety per cent. of the people believed when this Bill was published that, if they had three children, the family would receive in respect of the youngest of these children the family allowance until that youngest child had attained the age of 16 years. But now it is clear that the Bill means that the family will get no allowance in respect of that child if the eldest of the children is over 16 when the Bill passes into law. I urge on the Minister to amend that——

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order. The Deputy is confined to discussing the Bill as it is.

Mr. Dillon

That only applies to the Fifth Stage. This is the Report Stage.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is confined to the Bill as it is.

Mr. Dillon

I have intervened on the Report Stage in order to avoid that dilemma which arises on the Fifth Stage. I could not put down an amendment to this effect because any amendment I would put down would be ruled out of order on the ground that it would put an additional charge on the Exchequer. The Minister could do this. It seems to me fantastic that the Minister will not do it, because the additional charge would be microscopic and it would make all the difference between this measure being welcomed all over the country as a virtually flawless social reform and its being received with consternation by a very large number of people who had high hopes when it was introduced. All I am asking is this: that the families of this country should be divided into two categories: those with only two children and those with more than two children, and that in any family where there are more than two children all the children after the first two should qualify the family for the family allowance until they had reached the age of 16. I do not believe that that concession would cost the Exchequer £50,000.

Mr. Lemass

£500,000.

Mr. Dillon

Has that been made out?

Mr. Lemass

I gave the figure before.

Mr. Dillon

Even if it did cost £500,000, is it not infinitely worth it?

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy not appreciate that, if we adopted that suggestion, we would conceivably be paying a children's allowance to a family after the first two children of the family had married and were rearing families of their own and were drawing family allowances themselves? The Deputy is assuming that there is only a year between the first two children and the others.

Mr. Dillon

I have been trying to cover the Minister's flank throughout this debate in regard to all sorts of fantastic points raised against him, that this and that anomaly will arise. We all know, who have any experience of legislation, that anomalies are inevitable no matter how much care you give to the drafting of a Bill. I know that you have families in which you have a situation where you have people who, at the very end of their married life, suddenly have a child 15 or 20 years after the last one has been born. But that is not a common occurrence. I agree, too, that you could have a very anomalous situation if you had a boy or girl married at the age of 20 or 21——

Mr. Lemass

That need not be the circumstance at all. The first two qualified children may be nephews living with a couple only recently married, and you could have the family structure of a nephew of 15 years, another nephew of 14 years, and a child of six months. Does the Deputy suggest that we should keep on paying that family even if one of the nephews is 32 years and the second 31 years?

Mr. Dillon

I would be quite prepared to say that the concession I am seeking should be made in respect only of children born to the family itself, and not to adopted children, or to children who are only children of the family for the purpose of this Act. If the Minister says that he is not prepared to give it in consideration of the class of case that he has just mentioned, I think it is a fair reservation. If he would come with me so far as to say that, in respect of the children born of the family, he would provide that, after the first two children, the family will receive family allowances in respect of each ensuing child born of the family, until it has reached the age of 16, I think he would remove, by that method, the last defect from the Bill. I am quite prepared to concede that what I may call the constructive children of the family should be debarred, but for the children born of the family I ask for a concession, and I submit that he should make it, even at the cost of £200,000 or £300,000 more. No reasonable Dáil will ask him to go further than he is going at the present time, unless and until the circumstances undergo a change and a very much larger income and national revenue are available in this country.

I am particularly anxious not to leave any flaw which would permit of effective agitation in the early future leading to a demand on this, or any succeeding Government, that any additional substantial concession should be made under this Bill. Such demand should not be made. It will take some time to adapt our national finances to the strain of this measure. For those reasons, I most strongly urge on the Minister to consider whether, at least in respect of the children born of the family, he could not make the concession that I have suggested. If it is made, I am certainly prepared to defend this measure in the country or anywhere else, as the utmost limit of social justice that this or any other Government could reasonably be asked to undertake in response to the national demand for the institution of this system of family allowances.

Mr. Bennett

I would like to support the case made by Deputy Dillon. There is just one point that I would like to refer to. The Minister said in reply to Deputy Dillon that it might possibly happen that some of those children would be married and rearing their families. Might I suggest, and I think Deputy Dillon might fall in with it, that the Minister might agree to bring in an amendment in the Seanad on those lines, and insert the provision that in all cases where children over 16 were being maintained by the family this would apply? That would obviate the difficulties of the Minister, because if the children were married and settled down they would not be maintained by their parents, and some of them might have reached the age of 18 or 21 and have left the family and got work to support themselves. In all cases where the children were maintained, the younger children would get it.

Mr. Lemass

That matter has been fully considered. It was discussed here merely in relation to the normal run of families where there was only a year or two between every child. Even though it was put in a different way the same result would be achieved.

Mr. Dillon

No one asked that the allowance should go on until the child is aged 18.

Mr. Lemass

It is not an allowance attaching to the individual child. It is a contribution to the family by reason of the size of the family. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the service is intended to help large families. We are not, therefore, bringing the child into it with half-a-crown a week attaching to it. It is only if the size of the family is such that assistance of this kind is desirable or necessary it would be given. May I say that in fixing the maximum age of 16 we have gone as far as any country in the world has gone? No country in the world has made the allowance—where they have given it at all—except up to the age of 16. In the majority of cases it is 14, and having regard to the cost of even a slight modification in the scheme I think we should let the scheme work as it is now.

I do not know what precisely the population structure is at the present time. Deputy Connolly was good enough to send me a letter containing a number of estimates which he had made, based on the 1926 census, and which appear to indicate that the number of children benefiting under the Bill would be substantially larger than I had suggested in the Second Reading debate. His calculations were based on the census of 1926, and my calculations were based, not on the census of 1926 but on the census of 1936, which showed a very considerable, almost alarming, drop in the number of children in the country. It may be remembered that, at the time, it aroused considerable discussion in the country, and caused apprehension in the hearts of a number of national school teachers. The indications are that the reverse change has taken place in the meantime, at least in so far as the total population of the country appears to have increased since the beginning of the war, despite the fact that a number of people over 22 have emigrated; and the suggestion is that the number of children has again risen in comparison with the number in 1936. We will have more precise information concerning this from the register of population now being taken. It is impossible to find out what the actual cost will be, and it would be wiser to await further information than to proceed with developments now. The total amount which this country can provide for social services is limited, and the more we spend on this one the more restricted is our ability to provide assistance under other services.

I think that when Deputies are speaking on a Bill of this kind, they should keep the whole picture before them, because efforts to make this service more satisfactory in its operation may have a very detrimental effect on our ability to carry out the perhaps necessary improvement in other services. If it is generally recognised that the whole scope of our social services is inadequate, considering the humanitarian purposes they are needed to serve, we must remember that our ability to improve them is restricted by the wealth of the nation, its productivity, and other resources. We cannot get the improvement we desire in the services until we get the increased resources that will make it possible, and we should be very slow to elaborate existing services until we are satisfied that such elaboration is essential and immediately necessary for the removal of want. Rather should we concentrate our available resources in the direction in which they can do most good. I think that, over and above the £2,250,000 for which this Bill calls, any sums we can provide for relief of distress can be best spent in directions other than that indicated by this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Dillon

At this moment, I claim the privilege to say that we have travelled a long way since I first raised this matter in Dáil Eireann in the autumn of 1938. On that occasion, not only amongst my own colleagues but amongst Deputies on the Government and other benches, I was regarded as rather a "wild catter"—a man who advocated new things just because they were new and who did not think things out. In the classic phrase of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was "wrong". The Minister will forgive me if I experience a certain mild satisfaction in having brought him to the point of introducing my Bill and steering it through Dáil Eireann. Next time he is tempted to say that Deputy Dillon is wrong, I invite him to dwell on the fact that Deputy Dillon brought him along the stony road of conversion and induced him to sponsor a measure which he had recommended to him.

Having said that, I want to add that I recognise that the Minister has, amidst his multifarious faults—and God knows they are many and deplorable—certain good qualities, and one of them is a doughty courage. He was once described by the Irish Times as a doughty fighter. They waxed very enthusiastic about him. That was one of the very rare occasions on which the Irish Times was right. He possesses one of the very rare qualities which anybody—even the Irish Times—would be justified in praising. I want to salute that courage to-night, as manifested in the bringing in of this Bill. If the Minister's name is associated in the history of this country with this reform, it will do something to remove the verdigris from his reputation and the general execration with which his name will be ordinarily remembered because of the havoc he has wrought to our nation. I venture to promise him that, in memory of what he has done to-day, if an attempt is made to burn his effigy in the times to come, I shall be there with my quota of water to quench the conflagration. If a statue be erected and if it be pelted with mud, I shall be there with my rag to rub off a little of it as a memorial of the present occasion. When posterity come to judge him, I shall ask them to spare him from the verdict he has otherwise so richly earned. I now venture to anticipate and to say that, when his political death is decreed by the court of the people, I shall ask them to review the sentence and to go no further than political penal servitude for life. Any man responsible for a measure which, in my opinion, so vitally improves the social services of this State is entitled to some indulgence from posterity for his follies and even for his crimes.

Over and above that, I think that this country is giving a lead almost to Europe in the institution of this system. I ventured to prophesy six years ago that we would establish family allowances, and my promise has come true. I venture to forecast now that within the next decade every country in Europe will follow our example. I am happy to think that this nation has set an example to Europe in this superb reform. It is true—in a predominantly Catholic country it is right on occasion of this kind to recall the fact—that this is not an ideal solution of the problem with which we are dealing. The ideal thing, from the Catholic social point of view, would be that we should have an economic setup in this country which would permit of every wage earner having a family wage for the work he does. I thought that over a good deal, and I came to the conclusion that, in view of the smallness of the units of industry and agriculture in this country, it would be impracticable for us to hope for the organisation of industry on lines which would permit of the establishment and maintenance of the ideal system of the family wage payable by the employer to the man whom he employs. The ideal being impracticable, I think we are doing the next best thing—that is, allowing the existing wage structure to function and to correct the anomaly inherent in such a system by providing from the common purse the differential in wages which we would have preferred industry to supply directly. What we are, in fact, doing here is: we are correcting the anomaly of the unmarried man and the man with family responsibilities having a similar reward for their work. In doing that, I believe that we are doing something which conforms with the highest standard of social justice to which any Government could aspire. I congratulate this Government on undertaking the task, and I rejoice that the measure we are about to pass will pass with the unanimous consent of the Legislature.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

I cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing on behalf of my constituents a word of thanks to the Government for having at last brought in this measure, and a word of thanks to the Dáil for having put it safely through. It will come as a boon and a blessing to many families in Dublin. In view of Deputy Dillon's eulogy of the Minister——

Mr. Dillon

Of a very qualified description.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

In view of that qualified eulogy, I think that a very special word of thanks is due to Deputy Dillon, who first advocated such a measure and who has been advocating it for years. When he first spoke about it, he was practically a lone fighter. Many Deputies were very sceptical about the whole idea. Some went so far as to laugh at him when he spoke about it. Now, the children for whom he fought such a valiant fight will have the last laugh. At the same time, I am very glad that Deputy Dillon, on the Second Stage, sounded a necessary note of warning, which he has just now repeated, that we must not regard a scheme of children's allowances as anything like a substitute for a decent family wage. This House, in putting through this measure, should send out a warning to all employers that they must not make it an excuse for not granting a decent family wage, that they must not make the fact that a man receives 5/- or 7/6 by way of children's allowances a reason for not increasing his wages where such wages are inadequate.

Mr. Tunney

I did not intend to speak on this at all, but, in view of the statements made by Deputy Dillon and other Deputies, I should like to say that I happen to be one of those people who, since the days when I worked as an agricultural labourer, believe in this scheme of family allowances. I have always felt, however, that the agricultural labourer should be put on the same level as any other member of the community when it came to the matter of family allowances. I must say that I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of this and other measures of social justice, but I feel it is my duty to say that in this particular regard the Government could have shown more appreciation of the work that is being done by the agricultural labourer.

In saying that, I do not mean to take away from what the Minister and the Government have done in this matter of social justice, but in view of what Deputy Dillon has said, I think I should point out that if the Government had followed Deputy Dillon's advice in former years there would be a lot of hungry children in this country at the present time. Apart from that, however, I think that the Minister, in dealing with this scheme of family allowances, should have given preference to the agricultural labourers, rather than to other sections of the community.

It is very hard on the agricultural labourer, with four or five children, two of whom are 15 or 16 years of age, and two or three of whom are under that age, to be deprived of the allowance, and I would urge on the Minister that preference should be given to such people because, after all, these are the people who form the main portion of the community and who have to do the real work of the community. Compare the case of a boy who gets into the Civil Service, or into other sheltered positions, with that of a boy working on a farm. The boy working on the farm has to work from early morning until late at night, on every day in every week of the year. He has, practically, none of the comforts of life. In fact, he has only a bare existence, and I think that such a state of affairs should not be allowed to exist in a country such as ours. Therefore, although I appreciate what the Minister has done in connection with measures of social justice such as this, I would appeal to him to be more lenient in the case of these allowances to agricultural labourers.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to say, merely, that in any remarks I uttered in the course of this debate I did not wish to take away from Deputy Dillon whatever credit may be due to him for his efforts in bringing about the introduction of this Bill. Whether or not it is a historical fact that he was the first to advocate such a measure, it is true that he did speak on many occasions in favour of such a Bill as this, and, of course, any Deputy who speaks as often as Deputy Dillon is bound to be right some time. The only thing I wish to say, in regard to the remarks of Deputies Dillon, Byrne and Tunney, is that I hope that when, next May, the Minister for Finance will be dealing with the financial measures that are an essential part of the whole scheme, the enthusiasm of these Deputies will be still undimmed.

Question put and agreed to.