Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1948

Vol. 110 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Food Vouchers Scheme.

Mr. Corry

The reply given by the Minister to me last Wednesday raises a very grave matter which has an effect on local authorities right through the country. This is a deliberate move on the part of the Government of this country to shift the burden from the Budget to the local ratepayers. Since 1941 the late Government gave £15,000 per year as a subsidy on food vouchers. One could expect, at least, that timely notice would be given of the change, but it was not made until the rate was struck, until the local authority—the county councils and the boards of public assistance—had their rates struck for the year. We got three days notice. We were told on the 24th that the food voucher subsidies would cease on the 27th.

The Minister stated in his reply to me that he had no intention of changing his decision on that matter and that this burden should go on to the ratepayers. It will mean that each local authority will have a definite deficit on their Budget for this year, a deficit for the amount which the Minister has stated. For South Cork Board of Assistance the deficit will be around £9,000. The Minister can speak in terms of three halfpence rates, but in Cork county the rates next year will be increased by 5d. in the £ owing to that manoeuvre of his and that 5d. will be borne by the very people that Deputy Connolly was so eloquent about. Those increases in rates are being passed on to those people whom Deputy Connolly tells us are going to be so well off.

Mr. Connolly

I never said that.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is quite satisfied with the burdens which he has imposed. However, a Chinn Comhairle, my duty in that respect is with the Minister. One would expect from a Minister who was so eloquent when he was in opposition with regard to Christian principles that when he is in power he would face up to his obligations as a Minister and not endeavour to shift on to the ratepayers and the local authorities the burden that was borne by the State up to now.

I am concerned with a very particular aspect of this. Round the cities you have certain built-up areas. We have a pretty large area of that kind in Cork, owing to slum districts, where the people had to be moved out to the country areas. Those unfortunate people found themselves, although they were city workers, classed as rural and they did not enjoy the benefits that they would otherwise be getting under the Unemployment Assistance Act. When I failed here in previous days to get justice for that particular section of the community, I had to puzzle my head about it and when I found this Act and that the Government had become generous and were giving food vouchers I found a way of making the State pay their share and I got the board of assistance to give them 1/- per week. If the local authority has to pay that this year it will take very good care that the State will have to pay also. The State will have to face up to the cases of city workers who happened to be shoved outside the city boundaries and therefore turned into rural workers and we intend to relieve our people of the £1,000 per year that was being paid on food vouchers. You can be very definite on that.

This raises a very definite and changed condition of affairs. We are told about economies in the Budget. If we are to economise by shifting the burden from one shoulder on to another I do not think that it is any economy at all. I do not know whether Deputy Connolly speaks for the people of Dublin or not, but I will give a small idea of what is going to happen next year.

Cormac Breathnach

He does not.

Mr. Corry

The people in receipt of food vouchers in Dublin have received £44,271 and Dublin will have to pay an increased rate of £66,000 odd. That, of course, is lightening the Budget. They will have the pleasure of knowing that they are doing that in order that the Minister can have cheaper wine in the Fianna Fáil luxury hotels.

The position of affairs is that the ratepayers this year throughout the country have already got a rather steep increase in the rate. In Cork County the increase is, roughly, 4/- in the £, and then it is considered a proper time to come along and increase that budget.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Are you including Deputy Derrig's compulsory sixpenny rate?

Mr. Corry

I am very glad to hear Deputy Lehane, and I am listening to Deputy Lehane, who was so anxious that farmers should not pay any rates at all. In the statement that the Minister sent down to the South Cork Board he said that when the Government, in 1941, decided to make a grant it was on account of the difficult times through which the country was passing. I take it that since the advent of the Minister's Government to office the people have become so well off that these difficult times no longer exist and the people can afford this extra burden that is thrown on their shoulders. I do not know what is the Minister's viewpoint.

When he got his orders from the Minister for Finance to cut and scar well and to forget his Christian principles, I am sure it was with reluctance that he proceeded to cut in on the poorer classes of the community. Every increase in this matter, everything extra that is put on, will tend, not to increased production, but to less production. I often heard the Minister here waking the echoes of this House about malnutrition. He is concerned no longer about malnutrition and food vouchers are no longer issued.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Did the 1/- a week outdoor relief which you gave them get over that difficulty?

Mr. Corry

The 1/- a week that I asked the ratepayers to pay in this matter as far as the people in that particular area were concerned meant from 19/- a week to £1 per week for each of these families.

Mr. Desmond

But you did not consider the people who got the bob a week; you considered the ratepayers.

Mr. Corry

I considered them and I did it. I know this is getting under the hides of some of the boys now and there is a certain amount of pleasure for me in getting under their hides off and on.

Mr. Desmond

You will be back in Cork again.

Mr. Corry

I was in Cork a long time before the Deputy and I will be there a long time after him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us leave all this in Cork.

Mr. Corry

I cannot help it if there are interruptions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that way.

Mr. Corry

We had Deputy Desmond's colleagues, of his own Party, present at the meeting in which an unanimous protest was sent to the Minister on this matter.

Mr. Desmond

A good job I was not there.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Desmond, of course, is a Party in himself.

A Deputy

You were the bulliest chairman there.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Lehane's Party were also there and they were most enthusiastic in supporting a protest against an increase in rates that would be caused by this manoeuvre of the Minister's. Of course, in order to keep the mixum-gatherum baby in power, Deputy Lehane and Deputy Desmond had to swallow all their principles here and we quite understand that side of the question. I want to know from the Minister how does he justify the additional burden being thrown on the ratepayers in such a period as this, when the ratepayers of this country have more than enough to do to meet their own obligations, without meeting the obligations of the State. The tax-payers are paying their debts by shifting them over to somebody else. That is what this amounts to. I consider this a very unjust action, a very unfair action. I would not go to the trouble of raising this matter here or protesting if I did not consider it grossly unfair, hasty, uncalled for and unconsidered. It is a most unconsidered action for the Government, after a decision has been reached and after a rate estimate has been struck, to throw a further burden on the ratepayers, knowing that they cannot budget for that period. That is the position. This is a burden that has been thrown on the ratepayers after the rates had been struck.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the third time the Deputy said that.

Mr. Corry

And it is a most important matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but it should not be repeated three times.

Mr. Corry

Apparently, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, one would need to repeat it a dozen times in order that it would sink in, and I am anxious that it would sink in. This matter came before the local body of which I am a member and also before the Cork Corporation, of which I am not a member, and both of these bodies gave their unanimous decision on it. We are, however, faced with this position that if the Minister considers it just to throw a burden of £175,000 on the ratepayers, that will mean not only £175,000 but one and a half times that amount. Next year the burden will be felt, because this year, having struck the estimate, we can only work on a deficit for the coming year and not balance our budget. We have not cheap wine or anything like that to fall back on to help us to balance our budget in local affairs, and we have to come down on the ratepayers, who are already hard-pressed, and exact this extra amount from them. I consider it a grave injustice on the Minister's part.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I assume the Deputy desires the Minister to reply. He should give him time.

Mr. Corry

I certainly am very anxious to give him all the time possible, so that we may hear his explanation of the Christian principles that induced his action in this matter.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

Having heard Deputy Corry's speech one would have no doubt, whatever, that his concern in this matter was not for any vindication of Christian principles at all, because the whole content and structure of his speech clearly indicated that Deputy Corry was raising this matter for one purpose and one purpose only. The ratepayers were pawns in his game, but his principal purpose in raising this matter was the hope of getting some political kudos out of it.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Corry is not bothering about political kudos.

Mr. Norton

But the Deputy has not enhanced his reputation for veracity by the statements which he made this evening, nor has he reached any particularly high light in mathematical calculations. I want to put the facts before the House, hoping to convince those people who are not as politically belligerent as Deputy Corry that what was done in this matter is a sensible apportionment of a responsibility that has been clearly recognisable in the Local Government Acts of this country for many years and which was particularly reinforced when his own Government passed the 1939 Public Assistance Act. The facts are these: the food voucher device was introduced in 1941 and one has to advert to the circumstances of 1941 in order to realise the emergency character of the device then resorted to. It was to ensure in the uncertain times through which we were then passing that certain classes of the community, the weakest and most helpless, would get certain rations at that time, doubt being expressed as to whether they would be available were it not for the fact that they had these particular title deeds to certain rations. That is not the position to-day. That was the position as it was seen then. In this matter I have to rely purely on the judgment of those responsible for the initiation of the scheme.

Mr. McGrath

But the Exchequer paid for the vouchers.

Mr. Norton

Let us come to that. I can show in the long run that this is a better proposition and also show that, before this Government goes out of office, the local authority will be paying less than it has paid during the past year and the past 16 years. The last Government decided that it would withdraw the food vouchers in respect of widows and orphans, in respect of old age pensioners and in respect of unemployment assistance recipients. Now, that was done by the last Government. They decided deliberately to withdraw those vouchers. They did not like food vouchers. Nobody does. I am surprised that Deputy Corry's lack of Christian doctrine is so great that he is now mixed up between food vouchers and Christian doctrine, as if one means the other. Everyone knows one is the negation and downfall of the other.

Mr. Corry

The Minister has learned a lot since he went over there.

Mr. Norton

Let me make my case. I listened to the Deputy and I expect a similar audience here — particularly when I am trying to put him right. The last Government decided to give a cash supplement in lieu of the withdrawn food vouchers. It followed from that whole position that a similar withdrawal should naturally take place in respect of home assistance recipients. I think the same practice should be followed, namely, that home assistance recipients should get an allowance in cash for the withdrawn vouchers. It was made clear to the local authority that, with the withdrawal, they should substitute an equivalent payment in cash.

Mr. McGrath

Out of the rates.

Mr. Norton

Yes, out of the rates; and I will tell you why. We said to the local authority: "We do not want to put you up against the impact of paying the whole cost of the cash substitute this year, and we will pay half the cost of whatever cash supplements you pay this year."

Mr. McGrath

The Minister did not.

It was half of what was paid in 1946.

Mr. Norton

Half of what was paid on the ascertained plan.

Mr. McGrath

Not half of what we are going to pay this year.

Mr. Norton

Half of what we paid in 1946-47. We decided to meet half of the cost of that charge and that promise still stands. The total cost to all the local authorities throughout the country this year will be approximately £149,000—not £175,000, as Deputy Corry said. This year the State will pay £74,700 of the total cost of substitution.

Why are we asking the local authority to do that? All the Local Government Acts passed in Britain before the change of Government, and here, have put the responsibility for relieving destitution on the local authority. If Deputies McGrath and Corry will look up the Public Assistance Act of 1939, passed by the last Government, they will see that responsibility was clearly placed as a permanent responsibility on the local authorities. In other words, the local authority has now the responsibility under the 1939 Act and under every previous Act for administering home assistance. As a matter of fact, the food vouchers were only a portion of home assistance: the bulk of it was already borne by the local authority. This was a temporary device to meet a temporary situation, and it has now been withdrawn. The State will pay half the cost of substituting the cash equivalent this year. Next year the local authority will go back to its normal position under the 1939 Act and every other Act, and meet the responsibility which the last Government— properly, I think—put on the local authorities of relieving destitution in their respective areas.

Now, Deputy Corry is talking about the weak and prostrate backs of the ratepayers. If the ratepayers are in that deteriorated financial position in Cork, it is not this Government which has placed those burdens on them. The ratepayers of Cork may feel satisfied with my assurance that the bleak picture of doom and disaster which Deputy Corry erroneously painted for them a few moments ago is not going to materialise at all. The additional cost to the South Cork Board of Assistance this year of having to pay the full cash equivalent of the withdrawn food vouchers—bearing in mind that the State will pay half—will be 1.2d. in the £. That is the sum they will need to raise in a rate this year and in a full year it will be 2.4d. If that were the only burden they had to bear, I think they would feel their future was indeed a very bright one. As for Deputy Corry's efforts—and Deputy McGrath's auxiliary efforts— to startle the ratepayers of Cork and drive them into a state of fiscal hysteria, I think the ratepayers can be satisfied that in this matter those Deputies are just playing politics and did not mean what they said.

Mr. McGrath

Does the Minister deny that it will be over 3d. next year?

Mr. Norton

There is some more information which will be particularly useful. I want to tell of some of the benefits the ratepayers of Cork will get from this Government. The old age pensions will be increased by 2/6 to 5/- per week and from that time the burden of home assistance, to substitute their modest pensions, will be taken off the local authority.

There is something further. At the present time, the local authority administers a supplementary allowance of 2/6, subject to a means test, to old age pensioners in rural areas and the State recoups them 75 per cent. of that expenditure. Under this new scheme, the local authority will not have to give any supplement. Instead, the old age pensioner in the rural area will get 5/- without any of this supplementary means test, from this Government, from the State; and the local authority —and this will be good news for the stricken ratepayers for whom Deputy Corry speaks—will be handed back £80,000 in a year under that scheme.

But there is still more cheering news. Everyone knows that the rates of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions were appallingly low and that, in case we would ever give away too much in this small country, we had four separate rates. Those four will go and two new rates will come in. They will be much better rates than those at present—particularly better in the rural areas—and because we will give these widows and orphans under the non-contributory scheme better pensions, we will take off the local authority the responsibility, I should think, of 90 per cent. of the cost of having to relieve widows and orphans, which they have had to do because of the low rates paid up to the present. Therefore, far from hearing dull and frightening news, local ratepayers can feel quite satisfied that the State— whatever Cork County Council is doing is a matter outside my control—under this Government will give them a fair deal. It is not putting burdens on their backs, but is taking burdens off. It is putting on to local authorities responsibility which properly belongs to them; and the State through increasing these pensions, is taking a responsibility which properly belongs to the State, but which up to the present under the last Government, has been shared unfairly with the local authority. Deputies Corry and McGrath can go home to Cork this week-end the bearers of really cheerful news.