It does not seem that we are to have that amount of elucidation of the motion that one would expect. This matter, as has been said, has been a considerable length of time on the Order Paper, and the manner in which it was set out suggests that the different aspects of it referred to would receive some detailed examination from the speakers who have placed it on the Paper.
Those who have been listening will be able to judge for themselves whether the speeches delivered by the proposer and seconder have established a case for the acceptance by Dáil Eireann of the assumptions and recommendations contained in the motion. This is not the first time this matter has been discussed in the House. In the last Dáil, the matter was raised and a motion dealing with the amount of the allowances payable to blind persons was replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, who is at present dealing with public health. In the course of that discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to show, I think, to the satisfaction of the House, that considerable improvement has been made by Government action in the position of blind persons. One of the first things the Government did was to amend the legislation dealing with blind persons. The effect of the amendment was to give pensions to blind persons over 30 years of age.
The benefits which those persons might have been deemed to be receiving, and which would have counted against them as means under the law as it then existed, was no longer to be taken into consideration. In addition, the definition of "blindness" was altered to the advantage of blind persons, so that if, because of defective sight, a person could no longer follow his ordinary occupation, he became entitled to a blind pension. In addition to that, as the House is probably aware, local authorities have cast upon them by law the duty of providing welfare schemes for the blind in their areas. Where there has been any reluctance to prepare those schemes, I understand that local authorities have been compelled to do so, and to satisfy the Minister that they are of a suitable character.
The question of the blind is a very serious one. If I, as representing the Government, have to make the case that the amount which can be done for the blind, or any other deserving class of persons, is limited, nobody should assume that there is any lack of desire on our part to do more. The amount that can be done is limited because the cases of hardship are so many. On the Order Paper, there is a number of motions dealing with special cases of hardship which have become still more serious owing to the emergency—all clamouring for Government assistance. If the Government were to agree to give additional aid in any one of those cases, they would be asked to act similarly in regard to other cases.
I have said that there has been an improvement in the general situation of blind persons. That, I think, is admitted by those who have taken an interest in blind persons and who have been trying in a splendid, voluntary spirit to make their lot easier. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, when this matter was last under discussion, that, whereas in 1931-'32 the total amount spent on old age pensions and blind pensions — unfortunately, the figures have not been segregated —was £2,696,000, the amount in 1942-'43 was £3,935,000. That was an increase of approximately £1,240,000. In addition, the Government has introduced a scheme of children's allowances which has imposed a burden of £2,250,000 on the taxpayer. Blind persons, with families, will, of course, receive a considerable amount of benefit from that expenditure, in common with other persons with families.
A great deal of complaint was made on the present occasion and on the previous occasion about the means test. There is a limitation on the amount of the cash income which a blind person may receive under the State scheme and the local authority scheme but there is nothing to prevent a local authority from giving additional assistance in other forms such as food or other necessaries. I think that we ought to ask ourselves whether the local authorities can do more or whether what they are doing is not reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, before we agree to place this further charge upon the State. The Parliamentary Secretary explained to the House—I am merely quoting his figures—that in 1943 a married blind pensioner with two children in the City of Dublin could receive between cash, food vouchers and cheap fuel a total sum of 42/-per week. That may not be a reasonable amount. We should all like to increase it. But if we decide to increase it, we shall have to look very seriously at the position of other persons in receipt of public moneys by way of assistance schemes—widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions, unemployment assistance, and so forth. As I said at the beginning, if the Government were to accede to the principle of the motion in this particular case, however deserving the persons concerned may be, they would be coerced into increasing the amounts in the other cases to which I have referred. A very small increase in the amount of the old age pensions, for example, would cost the Exchequer £1,000,000 a year. I do not think that the persons who have argued the case for the blind on the ground that the additional expenditure would not be considerable will deny that, if the claims of the old age pensioners were under consideration later, they would advance the argument that the Government, having conceded an increase in one case, should do it in the other case.
Since the war began the vouchers for food have been made applicable not only to the pensioners but to their children. The children's allowances scheme has been introduced and, in addition, as I understand it, these vouchers were made available for the dependent children of pensioners. If the position was that the additional cash allowance which was granted in 1942 in the Borough of Dublin was not available in other areas, the Minister for Local Government, as the House knows, introduced a special measure by which, with the assistance of the local authorities, additional provision was made to provide food for persons in receipt of allowances under the local blind pensions and other schemes. So that, while the cash allowances may not have been increased as much as we would all wish, owing to our resources and the other calls that were made upon us, it cannot be said that the Government has not, through the introduction of food vouchers and fuel schemes, tried to see that the persons in receipt of public assistance of one kind or another were not neglected. Provision has been made for them. I think that is the position and that I need not dwell on it further. That is the general question of the provision of allowances under clause (d). What I am particularly interested in, of course, is clause (a) and, in addition, clause (b). The suggestion by Deputy Cogan that, in dealing with compulsory primary education we should have regard to the circumstances of blind children, is one with which I am in hearty accord. Clearly, when the Compulsory School Attendance Act was passed in 1926, it was hardly envisaged that it should apply to blind children. Presumably, it was only intended that normal children of school-going age should be compelled to go to school, as they have been since compelled between the ages of six and 14. To compel blind children to attend the ordinary primary school would be, as the Deputy suggests, perhaps useless and, I think, even cruel. There would hardly be a sufficient number of them in any one school area to warrant the making of special provision for their instruction in the local school. If primary education is to be made compulsory for them, it must be provided in special schools, where they can be gathered together and placed in the charge of teachers who are specially trained to deal with them. This will involve separation from their parents, as Deputy Cogan again mentioned. I think this point is a very valuable one. There is the aspect of the problem of the children having to be taken away from their parents and from the special ties that they must have. In the case of children who have not been given their sight or who are defective in any other way, these ties must be of special value to them. The bonds of affection and helpfulness, and so on, in the home must be much stronger in their case than in that of ordinary normal children. I do not know whether the Deputies who are proposing this motion think that all these children ought to be taken away. Presumably, even if legislation is introduced to deal with the whole problem, parents will still have the right to keep their children and to give them whatever education and training they themselves may consider suitable.
It is extremely difficult to get an accurate estimate of the number of blind children of school-going age in the country. The reason for this is that up to the time of the 1911 Census returns particulars were given in the census forms about blind persons generally. It was alleged that the parents were reluctant to give particulars as to mental or physical defects in their children and that, therefore, the returns were unreliable and misleading. Since then we have not the advantage of having figures, however incomplete they may be, based on the census returns. What we do know is that at the present moment we have a number of children in two primary schools in Dublin, at Merrion and Drumcondra. The total number between the two schools is 57, and it certainly can hardly represent the total number of blind children of school-going age. However that may be, I have been making inquiries through the school attendance enforcing authorities, and I have not been able to find that there is any considerable number of school children, so far as they know, who would require instruction and who are not at present being provided for. According to a report from the police authorities some time ago, they were able to trace only six blind children in country areas. Probably these figures are not accurate, but, even allowing for a generous margin of error, I think that we cannot accept, on the basis of the speeches that we have heard, the charge that there is neglect, that nobody is doing anything about this matter, and that, in fact, the whole situation is being overlooked.
As regards the figure of 7,000 which has been mentioned as the number of blind persons in the State, I do not know whether an appropriate proportion of these, such as one would expect in the ordinary population, would be of school-going age. It seems to be the case that the number of children blind from birth is very small. If that figure of 7,000 is accepted, and if the proportion of it who are, let us say, under 30 is greater than we imagine it to be—if it is more than some hundreds—nevertheless, the problem does not seem to be as great as some speakers would lead us to believe. Obviously, the first necessity for dealing with it is to have a proper census of the number of blind persons of school-going age. That matter is being examined. We cannot have a census which will be satisfactory without some form of compulsory notification. Under the new Education Bill across the water, the onus of ascertainment is placed on the local authorities. I do not know whether it is suggested, seeing that these schemes for the welfare of the blind are being carried out under the local authorities generally throughout the country, that they should not be the appropriate persons to make the census. However, I am having the matter examined and I hope that, as a result of co-operation between those concerned, really valuable statistics may be made available.
With regard to secondary education, this is entirely voluntary in this country at present. The State does not take the initiative in providing it in any area or for any section of the community. It is true that the Department of Education helps financially, it frames the curricula and inspects the schools, but these are established and owned by private individuals or by religious bodies and attendance is not compulsory. As in the case of the primary schools, it would be profitless, I think, to compel blind children to attend secondary schools established for normal pupils. If we are to make secondary education available for the specially gifted blind children who seem to be in a position to benefit by it, we must provide it in institutions where they can be congregated and where they will be placed under teachers specially trained for the work. As I have indicated, the number of those of primary school age seems to be small—we have not the exact figures— and the number looking for secondary education would be smaller still; and in actual practice, there would have to be a careful selection made.
The same principle would seem to hold in the case of technical education, that is, that we cannot as a general rule send blind persons to the ordinary technical or vocational schools established for the normal students. In this case also, as in the case of primary schools, special arrangements may be made, and I hope it will be possible to make them, particularly in the county boroughs. Deputy Keyes, who is interested in the matter, says it has been possible to make arrangements for special classes in Limerick; and I am sure that the vocational education authorities in the county boroughs or elsewhere would be glad to make teachers available. However, with the best of goodwill, the amount that can be done in that way will be limited, as obviously the teachers, if they are to be of value in this work, must have special training and must be able to give efficient instruction.
My belief is that, on the whole, the best method of tackling this matter satisfactorily would be to provide continuous training and to increase the provision made in the existing blind institutions, so that the children who had passed through the primary course would come on to some form of post-primary work, either to secondary—if they seem specially suited for it and there would be openings available for them later on—or to vocational training proper. There is a certain amount of vocational training at present and a certain amount of technical training, but it is limited. We have a sufficient basis in the existing institutions, we have the organisation and a certain amount of teaching facilities available, and these could be improved. The inadequate and, perhaps, unreliable and incomplete figures that we have show that there must be at least 200 blind persons in the country between the ages of 15 and 30, and 100 of these at least are maintained in institutions, as matters stand. Probably the number who would require special training and who would be willing to leave their homes and who would be capable of benefiting from being taken away for this training must be small.
Recently, I have had the matter examined by the inspectors and they have assured me that, as far as these two institutions in Dublin are concerned, the primary education, at any rate, is certainly highly efficient. Those institutions also provide some form of continuation education. We should like to get more done, of course, as regards the technical training of the blind children, and I have appointed a committee to advise me regarding their training, not alone during their primary course of instruction but subsequently.
The suggestion that the matter is being neglected by the State or by the local authorities is a suggestion which I think I have dealt with sufficiently. I may mention in passing that a great deal of valuable work is being done by voluntary workers. We have the National Council for the Blind working very actively throughout the whole country, entirely on a voluntary basis. Those who know these problems will realise that the intimate personal touch, the encouragement that social workers of this character can give to the blind or to other afflicted persons, is out of all proportion to the psychological advantages or even the material advantages that would be given under purely State action. I believe that there is scope for voluntary activity and for charitable effort in this direction. I am not saying that that should prevent the State from doing more, if it is possible, to deal with this particular problem, though allowance ought to be made for what is being done through charitable agencies.
I feel that, on this occasion, I should express my gratification and satisfaction at the amount that is being done. For example, I find that the national council has supplied 26 home teachers recently for the blind in their homes, where there was only one teacher ten years ago. They have three qualified teachers in Dublin City and County, and two in Cork City. They have supplied radios to the blind in very large numbers, and were it not for the existing difficult circumstances, I have no doubt that we would be well on the way to the point where all the blind would have the advantage of the radio. Then, the national council has been able to take up the special training of young men and women who have special aptitudes. Some of them—like the soldiers who lost their sight during the unfortunate explosion a few years ago—have been trained and are now able to carry on work. Others have been trained as music teachers; some have been trained as masseurs; some have been trained even as organists. There is the well-known case here in Dublin of a young man who secured his Degree in Music while acting as a city organist, although blind.
The national council has sent a number of young men across to London, where there are facilities which are not available here, and they were trained specially as shorthand writers, and now, I understand, they have good positions over there. As has been said, Providence may have endowed the blind with special aptitudes, and it should be the task of a proper system of training to provide the necessary facilities to bring out those special aptitudes. There are certain definite lines of work, apart from craft-work: it seems clear that for telephony, typewriting, shorthand, massage and music, the blind can be specially trained, and that many of them have a special aptitude for these particular lines.
With regard to the dispute referred to by Deputy Larkin, I am not familiar with the details of that matter. It is very unfortunate that there should be a dispute of this kind, as nobody realises more than those who are dealing with this matter—either from an official Government point of view, from the point of view of the local authorities or of the charitable organisations —that what is being done for the blind is limited and that it would be well indeed if more could be accomplished. It would be a pity if anything were done on the one side or the other to spoil that feeling of goodwill which seems to be necessary and to which, as I have said, I attach the greatest importance in dealing with these poor people personally and in helping them along and bettering their conditions.
What I do know, though I have no up-to-date information, is that some years ago in Great Britain the advisory committee to the British Ministry of Health recommended that piecework ought to be continued in the best interest of the blind and in their report for the years 1934 to 1937 they confirmed the view they had previously given in 1926, that on the whole, after carefully considering the matter, they thought the system of adhering to piecework payment was more suitable for the particular conditions of the blind. They went on to say that "in the operation of the system there should be such adjustment as would ensure for every worker a reasonable minimum wage, subject to proper safeguards for the maintenance of efficiency. The minimum wage may be subject to variation according to locality".
The basis which is taken in paragraph (c) of the motion, that the minimum rates should be based on the rates paid to workers in unskilled departments of the municipality, seems to be quite arbitrary and we were given no information as to the actual earnings of workers in the blind institutions at the present time. Figures that I have got seem to indicate that the earnings are not as low as one might have expected, having regard to the difficulty which often exists of getting high prices for the products of their work. It happened that in 1943 —and I am sure the same is true for 1944—owing to a special demand for baskets and so on, the remuneration improved somewhat. So far as I know, no complaint was made to the Government Department that the rates of pay were inadequate and that an effort should be made to improve them. As I say, I have not sufficient knowledge about the dispute, but I understand that, under the schemes promoted by the local authorities for the welfare of the blind for the augmentation of wages of outdoor workers in institutions, the agency must observe certain recognised standards. If there is a particular trade in question, the standards of remuneration in that trade and the standards of hours of work, bonus, and holidays and so on, must apply. In no case may the hours of labour exceed 48 per week, and so on. There is then a certain schedule laid down of payments according to the circumstances of the worker and, as I have said, owing to the emergency conditions, I think that the total remuneration has been somewhat better than formerly. In any case, I think the House would have to be sure that there was definite injustice, that everything possible was not being done to treat the workers fairly, before they could accept the contention in paragraph (c). As Deputy Cogan said the fact is that we all want to see these workers in blind or other institutions treated fairly. We want to see them get justice. If it can be proved that the present scheme is not giving them justice, then it ought to be revised and reconsidered.
I have given the house an authoritative statement on the matter from a body in another country. I have seen the returns of remuneration for the year 1943 and, as I say, they are somewhat better than might have been expected and than was generally the case heretofore. If I were to quote them, on the other hand, it might be suggested that these wages were an indication—which they are not—of what blind workers can always expect to earn. They have been somewhat better than usual. At any rate, I think we have not had sufficient examination of the matter. That there is injustice has not been demonstrated to us in such a way that we can accept the suggestion in paragraph (c). No other speaker referred to that except Deputy Larkin. He admitted that, as he described it, the hiatus had been got over and that apparently the conditions were as his organisation would prefer them to be. In these circumstances, I think, if that is the situation, the matter ought to be allowed to rest.
