Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Jul 1949

Vol. 116 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare (Resumed).

Mr. Beegan

We have found from the Minister himself that social security legislation is not quite such an easy matter to formulate as we were told it was a few years ago. From the fact that preparation of the White Paper takes a year and a half, one can reasonably expect that legislation in connection with it or consonant with it will take quite as long. In view of the fact that quite a considerable amount of preparatory work was done before the change of Government, I think it is now quite apparent to everybody that this is somewhat more complicated than we used to hear. Whether it ever comes into operation or not on the lines envisaged by the Minister is quite another matter, in fact it is very doubtful that it will because, after all, the Minister for Finance has made a number of statements all in agreement with one another and even as recently as yesterday in the Seanad he emphatically reiterated his previous statements. Social security, of course, is a very fine thing and an ideal to be aimed at as far as the necessitous people of this country are concerned, but I think it has been agreed by everybody now that the best form of security is employment, particularly employment of a gainful nature.

I am sorry to say that that has not been a very strong point with the present Government since it took office. Spending money as the Minister has boasted of with regard to social welfare during the past year is a laudable enough thing, but when it is counterbalanced by the number of people who have lost employment I think it is a very unbalanced form of economy. Of course the unemployment problem has been relieved to a considerable extent by emigration. We heard a good deal about how emigration was to be ended with the change of Government but not merely did it not end but it has been considerably increased. It is all very well for the Minister to state that £2,250,000 is being paid out in old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, blind pensions, etc., but when we find that 9,000 people emigrated in 1948 in excess of the number who emigrated in 1947 I think it is reasonable to conclude that the amount that has been paid out by way of increases in social welfare has been very much more than offset by the loss to the country. It has been estimated by people who have made a study of this thing that every person who leaves the country is a loss of at least £1,000. If we multiply 9,000 by 1,000 we find that the loss has been very great indeed and it will take a long time before the amount of money paid out to what might be termed the non-productive sections of the community could be made good, in fact it is a loss, in my opinion and I am sure everybody will agree, that cannot be made good. We had emigration all the time and I am not one of those who believe that it can ever be ended in full because after all there are people who no matter what their circumstances are inclined to travel and try to find those very green fields they hear so much about in distant countries. The 9,000 people who emigrated in excess of those who emigrated in 1947 were undoubtedly physically fit people as otherwise they would not be permitted to emigrate and had they been kept in employment here the social problem would not be so grave as it is to-day. Every day since the present Government took office there has been unemployment here, there and everywhere.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible.

Mr. Beegan

I am relating unemployment and how it has been dealt with to emigration. The Minister for Social Welfare has established a commission on emigration and population and that is why I am relating it. At the present time a form of retrenchment is being carried out in a Department in which I am sure the Minister is very interested. There is a reorganisation in the Post Office at the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the Minister can be held responsible.

Mr. Beegan

I am just pointing out that unemployment is being permitted to continue.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of unemployment is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and was debated on that Vote.

Mr. Beegan

I think that unemployment assistance, unemployment benefits and all the rest come under the heading of this Vote, and the more unemployment that is created the more unemployment and unemployment insurance benefits that will have to be paid out. That is the point I want to make. Why the Minister agreed to the setting up of a commission on emigration and population is very difficult to fathom or understand. He knew the position. He was never very slow to criticise the Fianna Fáil Government with regard to emigration and he always gave us to understand that if he was in the place of the responsible Minister in the Fianna Fáil Government he would find a very quick solution. It should have been very apparent to him when he decided to set up this commission on emigration that it was going to take some time, and in doing so he should have known quite well that, as a result of the things that happened in the early days of the régime of the Coalition Government, a number of the people who were deprived of employment were going to lose confidence in the future.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

May I make a submission on a point of order? I understand that it was ruled by the Chair that we could not discuss emigration on this Vote. Is that so; and, if so, does the ruling stand?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but the Minister could be questioned as to the progress made by the commission which has been set up.

Mr. Norton

But only that.

Mr. Beegan

I think that is what I have been trying to deal with, and progress has been rather slow. We have been given the excuse that the reason why progress has been slow is that the members of the commission are very busy people and that they are not paid. Emigration is an acute problem, and this must have been realised by the Tánaiste and the Government when they set up this commission. There is, therefore, no reason in the world, if it was a question of payment, why they should not be paid.

Mr. Norton

That statement is most unfair and contains an allegation that the members of the commission are going slow because they are not being paid. I say that the people selected for this commission were capable, competent, eminent people with other occupations and interests. They have tackled this problem in a most expeditious manner and are rendering a very valuable public service. I think it is unfair to discuss the matter at all while the commission is still sitting, but I think it grossly unfair that the members should be accused of going slow and the whole matter raised of whether they should be paid or not. I appeal to the Deputy not to go into that matter.

Mr. de Valera

Was it not the Minister himself who first introduced the question of pay?

Mr. Norton

I protested against Deputy Lemass being offensive to the members of the commission by asking whether they were being paid or not when in fact they were working very hard and doing a good work.

Mr. de Valera

The matter was first raised by the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Beegan.

Mr. Beegan

I am not questioning the high opinion of the Minister of the people concerned. I think the Minister ought to have given his reasons why the report had not come out and not merely say that they were men in business and were not being remunerated. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but I do think that as this is a very important and acute problem there should be no obstacles whatever placed in the way of getting out the report. It has been mentioned by members of the Government that there is a labour shortage for schemes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of a labour shortage does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Beegan

I am relating it to the number of people who are unemployed and to whom unemployment assistance and benefits are being paid and also to the fact that the number of people who left my county in 1948 was in excess of the numbers for 1947. In 1948, 966 males left County Galway. In view of that I think it is no small wonder that there is a labour shortage. I think the Minister should try and get this report out as quickly as possible in order to try and bring back the confidence of the people who have lost all confidence in view of the policy that is now being followed.

Mr. Norton

They showed it in West Cork.

Mr. Beegan

It is a policy of retrenchment. I know all about West Cork and it was not an unfavourable vote for us.

Mr. Norton

At that rate you will be back in office in a thousand years.

Mr. Killilea

What about East Donegal?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Beegan.

Mr. Beegan

The Minister has spoken of the abolition of the means test, but he will admit that he was not the first to be responsible for such abolition. It was sponsored by Deputy Lemass under the Children's Allowances Bill. The old age pensions committees were doing good work and I believe that they should be given every assistance in continuing to do that work properly and discharge their duties as they have been discharging them in the past. I will say that in 90 per cent. of the cases they have discharged their duties in a conscientious manner.

I do believe, and I am sure that it is a fact, that the committees are always sympathetic to the claimant. I presume that that is the reason why they were inaugurated at the outset. In recent times, I have known of cases where it has happened that the committees, working in strict accord with the regulations, have as far as humanly possible given every consideration to the applicant in making their awards. I have known in some cases where the investigation officer has taken the usual step of appealing against the committee's award and when the cases came to hearing not only were the awards upheld but the amounts to the applicant were increased. I would like that in cases of that sort an explanation should be sent to the clerk of the committees pointing out the reasons for the increase because that would be a guidance to the committees in making future awards. Perhaps the reason why these increases of the awards were given was that these committees are not yet fully conversant with all the regulations and by giving this explanation it would be helping them in their work.

Another matter that I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is that of persons in receipt of sick or disablement benefit. In a number of cases it is no inconvenience for them to be paid monthly or fortnightly but in the cases of poor persons living perhaps with neighbours they are anxious that they should be paid these benefits weekly and I think that where an application for a weekly benefit is made it should be met. The late Minister for Local Government had acceded to such a request for weekly payments in the case of county council workers. The Minister for Local Government was very insistent on county councils paying their workers weekly, in spite of the fact that it was going to put something extra on the rates, and even though the workers, in my county, at any rate, did not ask for it and persons who are drawing disablement benefit are even more needy than people who have their health and are working.

Mr. Commons

I am one of those individuals who pay very few compliments to Ministers of any kind, but I want to compliment the Minister for Social Welfare on being able to get from the Department of Finance the necessary money to give increases to old age and blind pensioners and to widows and orphans during the past year. Whatever may be said to the contrary, the increases given have proved very beneficial, and, in view of the fact that most of them, or practically all of them, are given on a non-contributory basis, we can say that this country has now reached a stage, with regard to the payment of non-contributory pensions, at which it is almost as good as any country in the world. If they could be improved slightly and if the promised social welfare scheme which the Minister is to introduce increased these pensions by means of contributions from the people who are to get them in time, it is something which we would all welcome and which we would all like to see.

In this matter of social services, we are prepared to be fair to all Parties. We cannot say that the present Minister is the father of all these services. Old age pensions were first given by the British Government many years ago at the rate of 5/- per week, which in its time was a pretty valuable rate, and probably more valuable than the 17/6 of which they are in receipt to-day. At a later stage, the Fianna Fáil Government decided to give widows' pensions and children's allowances and the fact that this Minister has again improved the existing rates is in keeping with the upward trend of these rates. The position is that social schemes of this kind must be kept in operation for the benefit of those who are unable to help themselves and for that reason the Minister, having the handling of the Department the primary object of which is to provide for those who are unfit to work or who cannot be provided with work, deserves every encouragement and should get whatever advice can be given by the House to enable him to go ahead with this work.

On the other hand, social services can be abused and it is the abuses of the scheme that most people object to. For my own part, when I was a member of the Opposition and when this Department was being debated, I, with many others, was opposed to the idea of social services, and, like others, my reason for opposing them was the fact that I knew they were open to plenty of abuse. That abuse will always be there, despite the closest attention of the Minister and his officials. The abuse I refer to is in the fact that men well able to work and who should be at work are inclined to prefer to register at the labour exchange and draw unemployment benefit. It is perfectly true that no country can build itself up on social services and that social services have never added in any way to the production or output of any country, and, when men who are fit for employment prefer to lounge around and refuse to work, it is time the Minister should take notice and should see to it that some system will be provided in his new social welfare scheme by which it will be possible to catch these individuals who are of the type who bring otherwise good schemes into disrepute.

It is the duty of the Government to provide the necessary money for the financing of schemes of pensions and benefits for those who are unfit to work, such as the disabled and the blind; and, secondly, it is the duty of the Government to provide employment. If the Government fails to provide that employment, its duty is to provide money which will keep these people in existence until employment is found, but to-day we have reached the stage at which, due to the fact that so many have emigrated in the past number of years, there really is no necessity for the payment of any unemployment benefit, except in the very rarest of cases. If people think it wise for them to rely to too great an extent on the State, it is time they were taught otherwise, and people's individual efforts should be combined to help the Government in operating the social welfare scheme.

We must also remember that there are different grades amongst the people who are on the register at present. Deputy Lemass pointed out that these different grades existed and suggested that those fit for different classes of work should be classified under separate headings. To my mind, the greatest volume of employment which we are likely to have in years to come is to be found for those who are fitted for heavy manual labour. The different schemes which are to be operated will give employment to at least 20 men on heavy manual labour for every one man employed on the lighter type of clerical work and what we have to do therefore is to check up on the register, to find out the men who are fitted for this heavy toil and see that they get employment, and then to find out the men who, because of health or other reasons, are not fit for it and try to provide for them. Heavy manual work cannot be taught to an individual overnight—it is something which he learns from the cradle. I come from a constituency which can boast of some of the finest manual labourers in the world. Many people have emigrated from my county in the past 100 years, since the Famine, and have given by their hard labour, valuable assistance to other countries and the small farmers' sons in my constituency, as well as in others, have been brought up on hard work and taught from their very school days what it is to use their hands and the muscles of their arms, so that they will be able to go out and work for their living in later years.

I have a higher opinion of those people than I have of any other class. I regard them as being by far the most valuable class of people that we have in the country at the present time. The biggest amount of emigration takes place along the western seaboard and from Donegal, Clare and Kerry. I think the Minister should cast his eye in those directions and see if this emigration can be curbed by the provision of employment that would be beneficial and useful not only for the people concerned but for the country. I think that the Minister would be better advised if, instead of paying £1 or 30/- a week to any individual to keep him in idleness, he would provide him with another £1 or 30/- and put him into some kind of employment. A man drawing money in idleness is no good to anybody, not even to himself, while a man who draws money and gives a return in work for it is a benefit not only to himself but to the country. I think the Minister would be well advised to take those matters into consideration, and, if possible, couple up the work of his Department with that of other Departments so that there will be no overlapping and no wastage. If that were done, all Departments of State would be moving along the right lines. The people expect that from the Government. The members of the different Parties who support the Government and the Minister also expect it.

I now want to refer to the treatment of those in receipt of unemployment assistance when they are called before the Courts of Referees for an examination of their claims as to whether or not they are entitled to receive it. I I can speak from personal knowledge of this because I have attended those Courts of Referees to see how the people were treated. It is very rarely that I hand out bouquets to officials or others, but, in fairness, I want to say that I have found the Courts of Referees to be most lenient in their examination of claims. They examine them in every detail. I found that they take into consideration such things as the distance that a person is from the work that is offered to him, his family circumstances, whether he should be expected to travel outside his own county or to travel eight or 12 miles from his own home in which there may be old and infirm people depending on him. On the whole, I think there can be no complaint on the part of the people who come before these Courts of Referees. Their position is fully looked into.

The real trouble arises in the case of the smaller farmers in the West with valuations under £4. Unfortunately, they do not know what category they come into or how they can be described. Their holdings are too small to enable them to be called farmers and too big to be called labourers. Something will have to be done to give those people an idea as to what status they have in the country—those who are continually registered as unemployed. During the springtime many of them could not go out and work, even though they were offered £10 a week. They can be much better employed at home sowing the crops and cutting turf to provide fuel for the home for the rest of the year. Between the months of October and March or April they are available for work because very little can be done at home at that time. During those winter months they should be provided with work. There should be some regulation which would give them a clear understanding as to whether or not they are entitled to unemployment benefit in that period. I understand that, in the case of people with valuations of £4, there is a regulation which debars them from getting unemployment benefit during certain months of the year. That is perfectly right because, after all, they find that during those months they can be usefully and gainfully employed at home. Therefore, it would be wrong for a Government to be continually pouring out money into their pockets during that time.

There is another system under which the Department of Social Welfare is being hoodwinked. I refer to the case of people who settle down in life and become the owners of small farms of land, in some cases fairly substantial farms. The practice has grown up that many of these individuals do not become the registered owners of their holdings. They allow their fathers or grandfathers to remain on as a registered owner. People of that kind are entitled to make a claim for unemployment benefit. That may happen in the case of a man with a holding the valuation of which is £20 or £30. He can make a claim for unemployment benefit because he is not the registered owner of his holding, and by that means can pull the wool over the eyes of the Department. He can get the same amount of benefit as the man living on a very small holding or the man who is quite properly registered as unemployed. These are things which I see happening in my constituency. I hope the Minister will take note of them.

I think that, in fairness to the present Minister, we must give him the praise and the credit that is due to him. The increase in the old age pensions, for which he has been responsible, has been very welcome. It has been welcomed by every Deputy and the people, on the whole, are very well satisfied. It is all very fine to say that the increase given by the present Government has been only the small amount of 2/6. It has been pointed out that that is only the increase which has been given. Up to a point that is right and up to a point it is wrong, because another 2/6, which they were being allowed as a cash payment, had to be provided by the local authority. It was open to any local authority, at any time over a number of years past, to strike the necessary amount of rate to provide that extra 2/6. The local authorities were forced to provide it.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

No. The State was paying the local authorities.

Mr. Commons

As far as I know the State did not recoup the local authorities with regard to that payment.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It did.

Mr. Commons

As far as I know, if the local authorities did not strike a rate to provide that extra 2/6, the old age pensioners would have to do without it. The fact that the old age pensioners had to go to the local home assistance officer to get that extra 2/6 seems to me to suggest that there was no security that its payment could be, or would be, maintained. I am glad the Minister has found it possible to put across the page of the pension book the amount of pension payable to the recipient and this removes any doubt that there may be in the minds of some people as to whether or not they are entitled to this money. By doing that the Minister has done something for old age pensioners which they have long sought, and the same applies to widows and blind pensioners.

Deputy Beegan referred to old age pension committees. They are useful people in one sense, and in another sense they serve no purpose whatsoever. Rarely has any Deputy come across a case of a pension committee refusing an applicant the full amount. When the old age pension committees grant the full amount to the applicant the usual procedure is for the pensions officer to appeal against the decision and the case is finally decided in the Department of Social Welfare. A certain practice has grown up over the years—whether it is wise or unwise, I do not know—and that is that, on receipt of the pension, and if there is to be an appeal, the pensioner in question makes post haste for the nearest Deputy and asks him to intercede on his behalf—to see the Minister or some of the officials in the Department of Social Welfare and use his influence in securing the full pension. That practice has been in operation for many years; whether it can be destroyed or not, I do not know.

Deputies on all sides of the House must admit that after making representations on behalf of pensioners during the past year the increase given to those who consider their pensions too small has been very considerable compared with what was customary in previous years. That is proof that a certain laxity has entered the Department of Social Welfare, that there is a certain easing up, which all of us welcome. All of us are pleased that it has happened.

Deputy Beegan told us of the experience he had, that after the appeals were checked up and decided in Dublin the amount of pension granted was more than the amount allowed originally by the pension committee. That is proof that the Minister must have put his hand over his Department in the right way. Whether it is the result of an Order from him, or whether it is due to new regulations, there is a certain easing up as regards the allowance to pension claimants. It is very welcome and is fully in keeping with what we have been wishing for over the years.

The only thing which will tend to abolish representations of any kind will be the abolition of the means test. Everybody wants to see the means test abolished. The Minister when he was in Opposition here was always most anxious to see the means test removed. There are two ways of looking at this means test. When it is abolished the man who may be as rich as Croesus and the man who is as poor as a church mouse will be equally entitled to the old age pension. Whether we could leave it to the honour of old people who can afford to do without pensions to do without them, and expect them to withhold their claims and allow the money to go to the poorer classes, is something that will have to be considered. I have always opposed the means test. I have always maintained that a person who reaches 70 years is entitled to some consideration after his life's toil. If people have, through industry and keen management, built up a little bank account for their old age, they should be given credit for that rather than penalised. If the Minister decides that it will be possible to allow full pensions to people who reach 70 years and thereby abolish the means test, he will, I feel sure, have the whole-hearted sympathy of every Deputy. The means test is a sort of penal code that has been handed down to us and the sooner it is abolished the more our people will be pleased.

My real reason for paying compliments to the Minister is that I regard him as one of the Ministers who seem to be able to take on the Department of Finance and say: "I want so much money and you will have to provide it for me for these social services." I hope the new social welfare scheme that he intends to introduce will be on the same good lines as the Bill he introduced some time ago increasing the old age pensions. If it is, it will meet with a welcome reception in the House and I am prepared to give it every encouragement and assistance.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tá rud amháin le rá agam ar an Meastachán seo. B'fearr dhom é a rá i mBéarla i dtreo is go dtuigfhdh an tAire é. The Minister remarked to me the other day when I said I had something to tell him that he hoped he would understand it. In order that he will, I am speaking in English and I want to refer to a matter that concerns the movement for the restoration of the language as it affects the Department for which the Minister is responsible. I have here a national health and a pensions insurance card, one of the new cards published since the Minister took control of the Department. I have also the card that was in use for years previous to the change. The old card is bilingual and the new card is completely in English. An Teachta Tomás Ó Deirg referred to this matter yesterday and the Minister told him that there is also a card available in Irish for anyone who wants it.

It we are in earnest about this matter of the language we should act differently. This is an indication of a very reactionary, a backward, trend. The Minister for Finance is probably the nigger in the wood pile in this matter, but if it is decided that there is to be a uni-lingual card, why should it not be in Irish, and why should not any person who wants it in English have the English one made available for him—not that I see there is any necessity for it?

I think this is an outrageous change. After all the years that have been spent, in various ways, trying to make the national tongue the spoken language of the country, it is regrettable that we should have a tendency such as this. There is no danger of English, at any rate, during our generation. It is our own language that is in danger and this certainly, is a very bad sign. It is one of the straws which show what way the wind is blowing at the present time.

I appeal to the Minister to change it right away and put the language the other way round—have the cards in Irish and, if there are people who want them in English, let them have them that way. The uni-lingual card should be in Irish. If the older generation cannot read and understand these cards, there are young people in every household in every parish who can read them and they will be in a position to explain to their parents or their grown-up brothers and sisters what the cards contain.

I repeat that this is an outrageous change and should never have been agreed to by the Minister. I hope an alteration will be brought about immediately. If there is any sincerity in this Government with regard to continuing the work for the restoration of the language, they will do as I suggest. This debate has gone on for a considerable time and I do not intend to prolong it very much longer. Most of the matters which I would like to raise have already been referred to by other Deputies.

A good deal of the discussion has centred round the operation of the means test. Most speakers have dealt with it according to the experience they have gained and the knowledge they have acquired in their own personal efforts in dealing with this very touchy question. The Minister when he was a Deputy referred to this test as an iniquitous one. I would like to refer specifically to one matter with regard to the decisions arrived at by the old age pensions appeal committee and by the Department of Social Welfare. I have in mind people who grow old and who decide to transfer their property, let it be a shop, a farm or some other type of property, to some member of their family. Having done that, they apply for the old age pension. In numerous cases, particularly in the case of small farmers, the old age pension is granted in full by the local committee. It is immediately opposed by the social welfare officer. In my experience it is invariably opposed because it is alleged that the transfer was made for the purpose of qualifying for the old age pension. I think that is an outrageous suggestion. This is not the first time I have raised this matter here. I have protested on several occasions against that allegation. How can anybody decide as to what was the object which motivated such a transfer of property? How can a social welfare officer make that allegation? How can he prove that? When a man reaches 70 years the best days of his life are over. Any work that he may do after that age will be very little. I think the outlook of the Department of Social Welfare in relation to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act is wrong.

Mr. Norton

That has been the position since 1908.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Minister has spent the whole time interrupting in this debate. He has let scarcely any Deputy speak without interrupting him. I know that has been the position, but——

Mr. Norton

On a point of order. May I point out that the Deputy is now advocating amending legislation?

An Ceann Comhairle

Legislation would be required to change the position.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I thought it could be changed by regulation. I was under that impression. When a person, having transferred his property to some member of his family, applies for an old age pension, that person does not always get that pension. I think that is wrong. I was under the impression that Departmental regulations made under the Old Age Pensions Acts were responsible for that position. I thought that some years ago a previous Minister made some arrangement under which there was a certain relaxation on the part of the deciding officers with regard to their interpretation of transfers of that nature.

There is then the case of the labouring man working for a farmer or on the roads. His wife reaches 70 years of age and she applies for the old age pension. She is debarred because her husband is in receipt of a certain annual income. Within the past month I have come across two or three cases of that. I know that, as the law stands, there is no remedy for that situation, but it seems to me to be very wrong.

Reference has also been made to the operation of the Courts of Referees and their activities. I have had some experience of a Court of Referees. I have always found them very humane and very reasonable in their decisions. That has been my experience. I do not know whether there has been any change in recent times. Recently, I did come across a case where a man was summoned to work on the bogs in Kildare. He is a single man with aged parents depending upon him. They are not in the best of health and it is his responsibility to look after them. I think it is very wrong that a man in that position should be called so far away to work. I advised him to make a statement to the Court of Referees or to the local labour exchange explaining the position. I came across another case where a single man, without any dependents, could go if he wanted to go.

The whole problem with relation to employment and unemployment is the fact that people want work near their homes. They are not always prepared to travel. We have had experience of that down through the years. During the emergency plenty of work was available with Bord na Móna. Yet, on several occasions I believe there was a shortage of labour on the bogs. The migrants from the West of Ireland would not go to the bogs. They would not change over to County Kildare. They were in a groove. They were accustomed to travelling to the other side year after year. It is not always easy to change customs of that kind. The same applies to the rural workers in County Limerick. They want work as near as possible to their own homes. I suppose that is quite a natural desire. There are others who have no hesitation in emigrating to England. I saw young men and women leave work here in order to go to England. The same is happening now with regard to America. People are now permitted to emigrate there again. It is a very serious problem. We were promised a solution for it.

Mr. Norton

You were going to bring back the emigrants from America in 1932.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Minister need not shout about that at all. He was always shouting about emigration and he rated the previous Government for not doing anything with regard to it. He has not done very much himself since he went over to the Government Benches.

Mr. Norton

What about the emigrants you were going to bring back?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Minister is susceptible to criticism. He has been interrupting continually in this debate. He has let hardly any speaker speak without interruption. The solution to this problem of emigration will require the united efforts of all the people. It is a disease more than anything else. I understand that at the moment there is a scarcity of workers for the Bord na Móna machine-won turf schemes. The Government cannot escape responsibility for that scarcity because, following on the cessation of the hand-won turf scheme early in 1948, there was a big increase in the numbers emigrating. Those people who had been working on the bogs prior to that saw no other alternative available to them. Then when the Minister wanted——

An Ceann Comhairle

All that was debated on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Is not the Minister for Social Welfare responsible——

An Ceann Comhairle

For unemployment?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Unemployment assistance, and the question of unemployment comes in under that. He set up the Emigration Commission.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may refer to unemployment assistance, but not to schemes of employment.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tá go maith. Tá an dá rud ceangailte go dlúth le chéile. A Deputy from Mayo, Deputy Commons, referred also to the type of work that will be available in future, heavy manual work. There is a good deal of that available always, but it is very difficult sometimes in rural areas to get workers to undertake it. I suppose it is human nature again that the working section of the community want to get work in factories or other industries and to avoid heavy manual work if possible. That is another problem we have got to face. I suppose if the rate of remuneration for heavy work were better, there would be a better chance of getting workers to engage in this type of work. The essential work of the country cannot be carried on without such workers and they are becoming scarcer as the years go on. We, of course, are all anxious for the most suitable and softest type of work and it is no blame to people who are trying to better their position, as they think themselves, to try to get a different type of work from the ordinary work available in rural areas. The scarcity of workers willing to undertake that type of employment is a problem we must face in the future.

I probably would not have intervened in the debate at all were it not that I wanted to make a protest against the reactionary change which has taken place with regard to the national health and pension insurance cards. A similar change has taken place in regard to other cards made available by the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. C. Lehane

The same is true of children's allowances cards.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I have not seen these, but I would appeal to the Minister to make Irish cards available for everybody. Then if some people demand the English card, let them have it.

Mr. Bartley

I heard a remark made the other night from the Government side of the House that a great many matters that we now seem to regard, when in opposition, as virtues were looked upon by us as matter of detriment to the people generally when we were the Government Party and had responsibility for providing social services. I would say in reply to that that the argument cuts both ways. I do not think there is any political point to be secured by pointing to the fact that we were 16 years in office and that, because we complain of certain things now, that remark is good enough as a reply and as an argument. I should like to make the comment that the score was settled in the result of the last general election. When a question of education comes up here we are told that it was the teachers' strike that brought us down, and when it is a question of social services we are told that it was our negligence in the matter of old age pensions and things of that sort that caused our defeat. Again, if it is a finance Bill that is before the House, we are told that it was our Supplementary Budget that was responsible for turning us out of office. Whatever the cause may be, the fact is that the score has been settled.

We are at present in Opposition, as the Parties who now form the Government were 18 months ago, and I think we are quite entitled to assert our rights and to point out to the Minister that the matters that caused this interchange of places have not been dealt with by him as Minister in the way that he promised when he was in Opposition. After all, he and the Parties associated with him promised that they would abolish the means test for old age pensions, for example. What do we find? We find that the maximum income within which a person may qualify for a pension is now £52, whereas under Fianna Fáil it was only £39. I would ask the Minister to apply to this argument that the position has been bettered considerably by that change in the maximum income allowed, the remark of the Minister for Finance, so often repeated in this House, that the £ is now worth only 10/-. If there is no conflict between himself and the Minister for Finance as to the value of the £, then the least he should have done was to double the £39 5s. od. If he does not increase it very much more than £52, he certainly does not improve the position. He is not even attaining the position which these old age pensioners enjoyed before the war.

This Department of Social Welfare is of the first importance to the areas which comprise the Gaeltacht and the story of the Gaeltacht since the Government came into office has been a very sad one indeed. I do not at all agree with Deputy Commons, who also represents a constituency somewhat similar to my own, that men register because they are work-shy or because they do not want work. My experience has been that the reverse is the case—that men register because they cannot in any other way get work. That is the position in the constituency I represent. They register for work and if they are not registered they have no chance of getting it. As a matter of fact, they have no guarantee of getting it, even after registration. There are so many registered that men must, in fact, be in receipt of unemployment assistance before they have any likelihood of getting work. In any event, registration is the absolute minimum to enable a man to get work.

Another point which Deputy Commons made was that men do not register their land in their own names because if they do, they will not qualify for unemployment benefit. I take it that he was referring particularly to unemployment insurance benefit. I do not know what the position at the moment is but I know that I have many complaints from men who, whether the land was registered or not in their names, did not qualify for benefit. The user of the land was the important thing in deciding whether a man would qualify for unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance. If he lived on the land and if he got any benefit from it, that was taken as means and very often prevented him entirely from getting any assistance.

The social services which the Minister took over from the previous Government are very necessary for social welfare in general. I should like to point out, however, that there are things which minister to social welfare much more effectively and much more permanently and which strengthen the moral fibre of the people and their independence much better than any social service. I do not accept entirely the description of these services as so many medicine bottles, but they are not nearly so good as the other means whereby the people's welfare can be advanced. Of course the first amongst them is employment.

In regard to the question of employment, the Minister gave some figures culled from the records of the National Health Insurance Department. He gave a series of figures beginning in 1938 and ending in 1948 to show that sale of national health insurance stamps had increased. When the Minister has time, I would ask him to examine the figures for employment in the industries which produce transportable goods and which he will get readily from the Department of Industry and Commerce. He will find there that the steady upward trend of employment in these industries from the ending of the war in 1945 until Fianna Fáil left office was something over 3,000. For the first comparable period after the present Government came in that upward trend had been reduced nearly to 500. I think these are far more important figures for the Minister in regard to the question of social welfare than the figures for national health insurance stamps, because the figures represent, in the main, permanent employment, whereas a great deal of the employment represented by the figures for national health insurance cannot be so classified. That stopping of a very good trend has, of course, its result in heavy emigration and because of this emigration, which is heavier in the poorer areas than elsewhere, the need for still better social services is very pressing.

I do not think the Minister will require a great deal of persuasion to see that where young men leave the land, particularly the small holdings worked by family labour, the older people on these holdings are left in a very poor way indeed. After all, it is by the labour of the young men on these poor holdings that the people have been able to exist at all and it is a bad state of affairs to see that labour depleted. I admit that these young men have not full employment on their own holdings. For that reason, public works are necessary to enable them to eke out some sort of a decent existence. Because of the stoppage of these supplementary schemes, their services in producing turf, potatoes, fish and other food are lost to their aged relatives at home and these young men have had to clear out of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of unemployment does not arise.

Mr. Bartley

The lack of help which these young people were able to give accentuates the need for further social services. It has increased the need for better unemployment assistance allowances, better old age pensions, and generally better allowances for all those people who are catered for by the Department of Social Welfare. I want to reiterate a statement which I have often made—that the unemployment assistance service is not a demoralising one. It has been of great benefit in my constituency. The number of people who have been demoralised and made work-shy as a result of it is negligible. I do not know of any able-bodied man who has refused work and shown a preference for unemployment assistance.

If I were asked what was the net result in my constituency of the operation of the unemployment assistance service, I would unhesitatingly make one reply that in Connemara it has substituted a cash trade in the shops for that iniquitous ledger system. The ledger is finished as a feature of the relations between the customer and the shopkeeper in these poor areas. The people are now, in the main, paying for the goods as they get them and that has brought a degree of independence to them which they never experienced before. Whatever paying orders they got from America, from employment on public works or any other source formerly went automatically into the shopkeepers' till. The customer was given credit for them and was given goods. This continuous process went on and he never knew how he stood. Unemployment assistance was the most potent factor in wiping out that system. I know that the increase in the circulation of money during the war was a great help in the matter.

Now, however, we are falling back into a position in which the people in my constituency are again almost as much without hope as they were formerly. I am not saying that through any Party bitterness or any desire to score a Party point, but, unfortunately, it is only too true. The abandonment of the hand-won turf industry is the main cause of it. It seems to me that some mí-ádh has set in in the poorer areas with the change of Government. I am not suggesting that it is entirely due to the change of Government—it may be just a coincidence. Some industries which were set up in these areas do not seem to be doing as well as formerly. There is the toy industry, for instance. Then the Minister for Agriculture deliberately tried to stop another profitable industry—the tomato industry.

Mr. Norton

What has that got to do with social welfare?

Mr. Bartley

It is not easy for a Deputy representing one of these areas to avoid reference to these things because, as I said earlier, they are the things which cater for social welfare even more than our social services, which have been referred to as medicine bottles. I have no particular liking for the medicine bottles any more than the Minister who so dubbed them. I want to say to the Minister that the condition of affairs is such, if he wants to come anywhere near approaching the conditions of frugal comfort which the people formerly enjoyed in my constituency, that he will have to increase greatly the provision for these social services.

Mr. Hickey

The purchasing power of money being what it is.

Mr. Bartley

That is the keynote of the whole thing. The Minister for Finance, when he was on these benches, said that the £ was only worth 10/-. He said that our sterling assets were worth only half their nominal value. That statement could have only one argument and I want to apply it to this change in the means test. The maximum allowance is being increased from £39 to £52. I am quite positive that that does not give anyone anything approaching the value of the old age pension as it was pre-war. I do not think the Minister would attempt to argue that it does. I know that the Minister's plans were much more ambitious than he has been allowed to carry out. I know he supported the campaign carried on by an organisation known as Cothrom na Féinne which lambasted Fianna Fáil for a few years before the last election, mainly on the question of old age pensions. I think 26/- a week was their minimum, and men were to get it at 65 and women at 60. The Minister and his Party backed that, but his present proposals fall very far short of what the people were led to believe would be done if there was a change of Government. The score has been settled by our having been put out. We are now entitled to hoist the Minister with his own petard. I do not think he could claim that there is any justification for the preening of feathers which he displayed in his opening statement. I think the shoe is entirely on the other foot. I know that in certain cases in the operation of the new scales the position of some people has been worsened. Blind pensioners were getting the statutory allowance of 10/-, plus the cash supplement of 2/6, plus the local authorities' allowance. The interpretation which local authorities, in a great many cases, put on the new scale of payments was that they were no longer under obligation to subsidise these allowances. I know cases of blind pensioners where the position has been worsened as a result of the failure of local authorities to provide the money which they were under the impression the State, under the new dispensation, was providing.

Mr. Norton

It is due to the local authorities, so.

Mr. Corry

No, that is the Minister's job.

Mr. Norton

If reactionary local authorities will not do their duty, I cannot control that—for the moment, at all events.

Mr. Corry

Let the Minister control his Department. I will deal with this in a moment.

Mr. Bartley

A statement was made here by Deputy Commons, I think, that the first supplement was provided entirely by the State and that the second supplement was provided by the local authorities. I think the second supplement of 2/6 in County Galway was provided by the State to the extent of 75 per cent. In my area, a large number of old age pensioners had 10/- statutory pension, plus two half-crowns, making 15/-. Now the maximum is 17/6, which is an improvement of 2/6. What they ask in my area is why they are not getting 26/-a week, which was campaigned for, and why they are not getting the pension until they are 70.

Mr. O'Leary

What did you tell them?

Mr. Bartley

I told them to put it to the first Coalition speaker who came around and ask him what became of the £7,000,000 which the Minister for Finance said he had saved in taxation and in the savings on transatlantic air services.

Mr. Norton

Did the Deputy tell them his Party refused to modify the means test in October, 1947?

Mr. Bartley

I am telling the Minister that the score was cleared last year. On education, it was the teachers' strike; on social services, it was the old age pensions; and on taxation it was the price of beer and tobacco. That score has been settled and we are now in opposition. There is no use trying to fill up the void for the whole period this Coalition is going to be in, by constantly throwing up the 16 year period. That is over and finished with and some other substitute will have to be found.

Mr. O'Leary

What about Córas Iompair Eireann?

Mr. Bartley

I take it that Córas Iompair Eireann is going to be nationalised and that that will solve all our problems. I am prepared to wait and see. I am quite satisfied that my area has better transport than ever it had and I hope that, under the nationalisation scheme, that will continue to be the case.

The big idea behind the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare, as I understand it, was that we were not going to confine our attention merely to the administration of these social services that have already been established, but that we were going to have wider vision in regard to social welfare. I would ask the Minister to consider the various types of distress that occur for which there is no provision under any scheme I know of. Take, for instance, the chronic invalid and the unfortunate child who comes into the world with an incurable disability. I admit that they have the ordinary outdoor relief, but they have been taught to believe that there is a stigma attaching to it. In any comprehensive scheme, there should be provision for that type of affliction. Up and down the country, there are people who become chronic invalids and where the members of the family are good, thrifty, industrious workers it is hardly fair that chronic and incurable invalids should be left a burden for their entire lives on the industry of the family. That is one type of case. Then there is the defective child. I think the scope of social welfare should range out even further. Take the question of housing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I allowed the Deputy to go a long way.

Mr. Bartley

I think you will agree that the Minister ought to be reminded of one particular matter in relation to the provision of a house. It is a case of a widow with a family, who cannot avail herself of the aids which the various housing schemes provide.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would require legislation, of course, and legislation by some Department other than the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Bartley

What I am suggesting to the Minister is that, in the widening out of his vision in relation to social welfare, there are many matters which he might take into consideration. I mentioned one or two now. There are a great many others. I am not asking him to introduce legislation to bring part of the housing question within the Department of Social Welfare. I am asking that the Minister would—and it is very apt at the present time, as he has told us he is bringing in a White Paper on social services——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that in advance. We do not know what is in it.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister has referred to it himself.

Mr. Norton

I did not discuss its terms. I was indicating the stage at which it was. To try to graft on housing to a White Paper on social services is a flight of fancy, as the Deputy knows.

Mr. Bartley

If it is a flight of fancy, it is no more fantastic than some of the things the Minister said he would do when he would become a Minister.

Mr. Norton

Every one of them will be done. That is what is annoying you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us not get back to what the Minister said or did not say.

Mr. Bartley

With all due respect, the Minister did refer to the White Paper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He did, but not to the terms of it. He did not tell us what is in it.

Mr. Briscoe

He offered to let me have a look at it.

Mr. Norton

That is a great tribute to the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree.

Mr. Bartley

I understand that this White Paper is to be the basis of a new scheme of social services.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley will understand that if we were to travel over all the things that a comprehensive scheme of social security could do, there would be no end. The circle would be ever-widening.

Mr. Bartley

I will pass from it. I want to make one final remark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very well.

Mr. Bartley

I wanted to suggest that a social welfare scheme of so many medicine bottles, as it has been dubbed, was not the idea behind the scheme begun by the Minister's predecessor. There was a far wider field to be covered and I wanted to say to the Minister that I feel he should get down to the charting of that wider field as soon as possible. The Minister might very easily have said to me: "What have you in mind? It is very easy to let me out into the wilderness. Cannot you give me some landmarks by which to go?" That is really what I was at. There are a great many cases of families where there are distress and affliction which are not covered by any of the schemes at present in operation. Their number may not be very large in any parish but they stand out in relief because they are so obviously in need of attention. The average observer compares them with families that are not quite so badly off and who are provided for by various social welfare schemes.

Whatever improvements the Minister can bring about will be most welcome in the poorer areas. At present, there is a great need to supply some of the deficiencies created by the unfortunate effects of Coalition policy in various directions. Employment has been curtailed and the need of the people for assistance is greater in my constituency than it was at any time since the ending of the economic war.

Mr. Corry

I am particularly worried about the inactivity of the Minister for the past 16 months, particularly in connection with many views that we held in common. I remember on previous occasions attacking what is to my mind a wrong position in which an old farmer and his wife, on reaching the age of 70, find themselves unable to get the pension, although their property has been made over to their family who are the people who have earned the property, some of them having worked on that farm from the age of 14 to the age of 40 for no wages. In previous years, when we were a Government and the Minister was in opposition, he loudly applauded my viewpoint and supported it, and I expected that his first move when he attained the position where he could do things would be to change that condition of affairs. Instead of that, the Minister has remained completely inactive in that matter and a very grave injustice is being done to a very large number of people who would be entitled to the old age pension.

There is another anomaly that I would like the Minister to take into consideration. The ordinary labourer finds for practically the first 12 months after he reaches the age of 70 that he has to live on the wind. The Minister, in his wisdom, has increased the income allowance to £52 a year. That means that if that unfortunate man succeeded during the past 12 months in getting 17 weeks' work, he is automatically debarred from the old age pension for 12 months. I would expect a Labour Minister, who has been in office for 16 long months, to consider those old colleagues of his, the people for whom he bled and sweated, and that he would do something in those 16 long months to remedy that condition of affairs.

Mr. Norton

16 years are still longer than 16 months.

Mr. Corry

The Minister spent 16 years here howling about the injustice of it and howling about the outrageous Minister who was allowing it to continue and I would expect that the moment he got the opportunity he would look after those for whom, as he often told us, his heart bled, the aged and infirm. The Minister did not. The Minister sat down there for the past 16 months and completely ignored those two sections of the community and left them there under the same rotten condition of affairs, according to himself.

Mr. Norton

"The same rotten condition of affairs." That is a nice tribute to Fianna Fáil after 16 years.

Mr. Corry

Are we to wait until we get more Labour men here to help the Minister in this very knotty problem? If the Minister continues his inactivity, very shortly we will have to cut the arms of that chair so that he can sit down and stand up. He is getting too fat from laziness. That is one of the first two points I want to bring to the Minister's notice and I hope that, having brought those inactivities to his notice now, he will remedy them.

The Minister is a man who is very fond of telling other people what they should do, very fond of it entirely. I happen to be the chairman of a board of assistance down in Cork. Every month I receive a little notification from the Minister—a new form of the autocracy that is practised by, I might say, the three jolly pigeons, the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Social. Welfare and the Minister for Health. The three jolly pigeons write down to me every month——

Mr. Sweetman

Surely, a Leas-Chinn Chomhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

References of that kind should not be made in respect of any member of this House.

Mr. Norton

It is the only language he understands. Let him go ahead with it.

Mr. Corry

It is the only language the Minister understands.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am concerned with the dignity of this House.

Mr. Corry

I withdraw the remark. It is a new form of dictatorship which we have heard about so much in previous years except that they have a nice way of wording it:—"In response to appeals by local authorities the Minister considers that the bonuses should be increased by ..." and all the rest of that line. The result is that salaries have gone up in the Cork Board of Assistance by £35,000 in the last 15 months.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Do you object to that?

Mr. Corry

They have to be paid for in extra rates by the old person who gets no pension or by the labourer who reaches 70 years of age and get no pension.

Mr. Norton

The figure went up in Córas Iompair Eireann, too.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister will have a little bit of patience I will give him reason to shout before I have finished speaking. The Minister also writes that the local authority should shoulder their responsibilities. I am appealing to him to shoulder his responsibilities. The honeymoon period is over and it is about time that we got a little bit of work done. If the Minister considers that those under his care—widows and orphans, those in receipt of unemployment assistance and all the rest of those categories—can continue to live, with the present largely increased cost of living, on what they were getting previously he is living in the sky or in the air. Only a few weeks ago we had to increase the scale for the South Cork Board of Assistance by something between £7,000 and £10,000 a year owing—I was there as chairman and I did it—to the appeals of the Minister's colleagues on the grounds of the enormously increased cost of living on those people during the past 12 months. I am a heavy ratepayer and I am not at all anxious to increase the burden on the ratepayers of this country.

Mr. Hickey

Did you vote for it?

Mr. Corry

I had to give in to the appeal. The present position is that those individuals who have to get home assistance from the assistance authorities—as the Minister put it, "the taint of pauperism"—and taking them on the same line as those on the Minister's scale of unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and so forth, are getting from 7/- to 10/- a week more from the South Cork Board of Public Assistance than they are getting in contributory pensions from the Minister's Department.

Mr. Hickey

That is not so.

Mr. Corry

That is a fair basis to take. It is absolutely true. If Deputy Hickey will read, as I am sure he does read, the Cork Examiner, he will find the scale there and he will have to admit that my statement is correct.

Mr. Hickey

They are not getting more in home assistance.

Mr. Corry

I will not, on principle, pay home assistance and shoulder on the ratepayers any portion of the Minister's responsibility. Let the Minister live up to his responsibility. Am I going to come along, in the case of a person who is not entitled to anything from the Minister, and ask the ratepayers in my area to pay him on a scale from 7/- to 10/- a week more than they are getting from the Minister on the other line? Am I supposed to give in and take the Minister's contributory pensioners and give them the 7/- to 10/- a week of a difference? The Minister has to do his job and the Minister has to look after his people. He has to do it, but he is there for 16 months now and he has not done it. That is my complaint.

Mr. O'Leary

He will do it.

Mr. Corry

The same old story, live, horse, and you will get grass.

Mr. O'Leary

The people are better off now.

Mr. Corry

I am prepared to bet that you will not see that White Paper until within a fortnight of the next general election.

Mr. O'Leary

That is what you are afraid of.

Mr. Corry

That is what I know, but carrots will not attract any donkeys the next time.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy, before he begins making bets, should consult Deputy Briscoe.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to hear any interruptions from a jackass of a lawyer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I warned the Deputy that I would not allow any improper references to be made in this House in respect of other members.

Mr. Corry

Since I started to speak there have been constant interruptions.

Mr. Norton

On a point of order, surely the Deputy is not going to get away with calling another Deputy a jackass?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is not.

Mr. Corry

I withdraw.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I want the Deputy to withdraw the term without any qualification whatsoever.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy withdraws it but the Deputy protests——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Without any qualification.

Mr. Corry

Without any qualification.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And without any reference to it afterwards.

Mr. Corry

I wish to protest against the barrage of interruptions since I started. Either I am entitled to speak in this House or I am not. I am not——

Mr. Sweetman

That was the first time I interrupted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has very little sympathy with Deputies who invite interruptions.

Mr. Corry

I am making my case and if it is so good that it is getting under the hides of those opposite it is having a very good effect. We find the present position to be that the people who have contributed every week out of their earnings to the little pension to which they are entitled at the end are now getting less than the people the Minister alluded to. "Cash benefits," he said, "would be provided on an adequate scale without reference to the poor law or to the test of pauperism prevalent to-day." We find that the people who have to have recourse to the poor law and to the taint of pauperism are getting more than those who work hard, who pay out of their weekly earnings their contributions. These thrifty people now find themselves getting less by from 7/-to 10/- a week than those who are getting benefit, according to the Minister, under the taint of pauperism. I am not prepared, as I said, as a member of a board of assistance or chairman of that board, to advise my committee to shoulder the responsibilities that belong to the Minister and to his Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that three times already.

Mr. Corry

I hope I have thereby made it clear. It takes a lot to make it sink in over there.

Mr. Coburn

19,000 people in Cork thought otherwise.

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy wants to know anything about West Cork——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Corry

Keep the children quiet, then. As I said at the start, I do not wish to delay the House and those are the few instances I have to give. In my personal opinion this circularising of local authorities, this new dictatorship that has arisen under a new guise, should stop. Officials are either officials of a local authority or not. If they are officials of a local authority and, due to the action of the Government in increasing the cost of living so much, feel that they are entitled to increases in salary, the application for those increases in salary should be made to the local authority concerned, but the local authority under this democratic inter-Party Government is now completely ignored.

What we get is a letter down from the Minister telling us that in response to appeals from local authorities the Minister considers that a bonus of 12/- a week or an increase of salary for a 45-hour week, or something else of that description, should be given. If there is any justification or any case for increases of that description it should come from the officials to the local authority concerned. As a member of, I take it, a democratic State, I wish to protest against this autocratic attitude of the Minister and I state here that I think it is time it stopped. It will soon be a matter that local authorities should get out altogether and leave it to one official scratching another official up in Dublin with the Minister giving his blessing. I do not wish to delay the House further. I have given as briefly as I could what I consider to be the condition of affairs. I hope the Minister will get over his lazy ways and tell us what he is going to do in a not far-distant day.

Mr. O'Leary

After listening to Deputy Corry saying that he was chairman of a local committee in Cork, I, as a member of a local authority, say that his colleague in the Wexford County Council—Deputy Allen is chairman of that council—was one of the people who refused to provide the necessary money for home assistance to the amount of £2,500.

Mr. Corry

Due to increase in the cost of living.

Mr. O'Leary

The Deputy forgets that a motion was down when we were in opposition and his Party marched through the lobbies to vote against the old age pensioners having anything. I think the change of Government was worth while to give something to the people who were in need.

The cost of living has been very much referred to. The cost of living was increased on the old age pensioners who were given no increase in benefit by the then Government which the Deputy supported. There was no thought by the Fianna Fáil Government of these old people. I am very glad of the small increases that have been put into operation inside the last 16 months. They have been welcomed by the old people and widows and orphans throughout my constituency and a great number of people who were getting nothing have claimed that they come into their scope. I refer to the widows and old people who were debarred under the last Minister because they were not a certain age and had to go on the home assistance. Men in rural areas to-day are not cut off from unemployment assistance. Married men are still retained in the rural areas and that is one thing for which I thank the Minister. If those people in rural areas could not find work from June to October they had to go to the relieving officer but now they are granted unemployment assistance and can remain on the exchange. That is a relief to the ratepayers to a certain extent and in my own town the number of men who have to go to the home assistance officer are much less and they are no doubt grateful that this concession has been granted to men in rural areas.

I am also glad to be at this side of the House when the pension books are handed to old age pensioners all over the State to go to the Post Office for 17/6 a week rather than that they should go, as they had to under the last Government, for 2/6 to the home assistance officer. I think that is an improvement. When we took over and found the bills with which we were presented, such as that from Córas Iompair Eireann, when the Minister had to provide almost £500,000 to pay the employees last May, we recongnised the difficulty the State is in. I would like fair criticism because it is healthy, but we have had unfair criticism from the people who were in the Government that persuaded the people for 16 years that they were doing everything for them. The reason they were put out of office was their failure to do something for the plain people of this country who were in need. When the White Paper is introduced I think the people on the far side will stop talking because I am sure it will be 100 per cent. better than anything that was done by the one Party Government that held office. Now they are asking for impossibilities, but no matter what the Opposition say the people I represent, the plain working class people, the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, are grateful for the little, small as it is, that has been done for them. That is admitted by all sides. We have an assurance that something will be done for those people and our policy to do something for the plain down and out people of Ireland went a very long way towards changing the Government. We put the one Party Government out of power because they had forgotten those people. They played on them long enough with promises. The talk of Deputy Corry, the Deputy from Galway and other Deputies is making no effect on the plain working man throughout the country. It is only killing their own Party because the people ask why they did not do it and what they are talking about now when they were 16 years in office.

That is really the position in the country. We hear a lot of talk from the Fianna Fáil Deputies about unemployment to-day, but I remember, when I was on the Opposition Benches when Deputy de Valera was Taoiseach, that just shortly before he went out of office, at a time when there were 75,000 registered unemployed, he said in reply to me that there was work for the unemployed everywhere.

Much has been said of emigration, but I would like to ask some of the Deputies who have been so eloquent on the matter whether they are satisfied that it is unemployed men from the labour exchanges who are emigrating. Surely they must know that many of those now leaving the country are travelling by air, and nobody could ever accuse them of being men signing on at the labour exchanges. Many people with the best possible positions in the country have gone to live in America, Canada and Australia. If they desire to do so it is surely their own business.

During the emergency my busiest task was going around to Mount Street to try and get unfortunate unemployed men away to work in England, but if they were men from the rural areas or turf workers they could not get permission to travel because of Government regulations. At the same time concessions were given to others, and some had only to join the army to get free passes to Goraghwood. These people would not have been facilitated had they been going out of the country to do some honest work. These are all things which should be borne in mind by Fianna Fáil Deputies when they are talking about emigration and spreading lying propaganda. While all these things were happening under the previous Government not one individual member of the Fianna Fáil Party raised his voice in defence of the people. Whether they were compelled by their leaders to remain silent on the subject I do not know.

To-day we find them talking a lot about the numbers of people now unemployed in the housing industry and about the dropping of the turf scheme. Is it not a fact that had Fianna Fáil got back to power the turf production would have ceased anyhow because there would not have been room for the turf, stacks of which are still dumped in the Phoenix Park and at various points throughout the country? I am really terribly surprised to hear Deputies, elected by the people, coming here and making statements which they know to be untrue. I regret that any man should find it necessary to sign on at the labour exchanges and having done so myself I realise what a terrible position it is to be in and the miserable pittance which is given to a man for his existence.

It is the duty of every Government to provide full employment for those able and willing to work. It should too have been the duty of Fianna Fáil but in the light of the promises they made in 1932, not only to find work for those at home but to bring back the emigrants, we can see how poor their progress was. It took 16 years to open the eyes of the people to the inability of Fianna Fáil to deal with the problem but during that time they held on to power by threatening the people with cancellation of old age pensions, unemployment assistance, and other services if they were defeated. I heard a story of three people in the West living three miles from the post office who on the day following the change of Government debated as to whether their pensions would still be available. They drew lots and when the man elected went to the post office and returned with his pension the others said: "Well it shows us that the talk of the pensions being stopped was all rot."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling over a wide circle. He is outside the three-mile limit.

Mr. O'Leary

Yes, it is a wide circle, but that is actually the trick they used to hold power. On a matter of cash allowances, I recently had a question in the Dáil asking the present Minister whether he had circularised assistance officers telling them not to grant allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

From the Minister?

Mr. O'Leary

It purported to come from the Minister and when I put the question the Minister replied that no such circular had been sent out by his Department. To do that was going a long way in false propaganda. The Minister and his colleagues should see that there is no possibility of such things happening again. Actions like that were damaging to the whole structure of the State.

We have had a lot of crocodile tears from the Opposition about the poor of the country and the old age pensioners. They clamour for increased rates and pensions but when they were in Government they voted as a body against any increases.

I hope the Minister will issue the White Paper on the social welfare scheme as soon as possible. It is already very much overdue and the public is waiting anxiously for it. I hope the pensions will be given at 65 and that the pensions will be brought up to the 26/- figure operating in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We know that somebody must pay for these things and the workers in England and Northern Ireland are paying with 8/- a week for the social services but they look on it as money well spent. I do not believe anyone would object to a few pence a week extra on their cards if they knew that it was going to benefit their fellow workers, old age pensioners and the sick and infirm.

Mr. T. Walsh

I was both amazed and amused by the speech delivered by Deputy O'Leary. I was amazed to hear a Labour representative advocating emigration. He gives as one of his reasons for doing so that we on this side stated that there was work in full and in plenty, when it was not available. The House and the country know the reason why we had emigration during the war. No houses were being built because of lack of materials and factory production was held up for a similar reason.

Mr. S. Collins

Did you not build cinemas and luxury holiday camps?

Mr. T. Walsh

I will deal with that later on. We had none of the facilities which should exist in order to give full employment, and, if the Deputy was so anxious about providing full employment in the country, why did he advocate the sending out of the turf workers last year? This inter-Party or Coalition Government was responsible for that.

Mr. S. Collins

The decision was taken before this Government came in.

Mr. T. Walsh

The Deputy must have known the number of people who had to emigrate within nine months because of the action of the Government.

Mr. C. Lehane

It has already been ruled that references to unemployment and to the stopping of the turf scheme are relevant only to the Vote for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. T. Walsh

I am referring to emigration and not unemployment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled that emigration as a problem and unemployment as a problem do not arise on this Vote.

Mr. T. Walsh

I was replying to Deputy O'Leary who talked about unemployment and emigration for 20 minutes. I want to voice a protest against the insidious way this Vote was introduced. It was a continuation of the dissemination of deception practised all over the country last year. The Minister at column 1320 of Volume 116 of the Dáil Debates said:—

"The new maximum weekly pension for a widow without dependent children is, under the Act of last year, 14/- in the urban area where formerly it was as low as 7/6, and could not exceed 11/6.

He gave the maximum under his own scheme and the minimum under the Fianna Fáil provision.

Mr. Norton

No, I did not.

Mr. T. Walsh

You read out the maximum under your scheme and the minimum under Fianna Fáil. Was that giving a truthful picture to the country? I say it was not. You should have given the maximum in both cases.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should use the third person.

Mr. T. Walsh

The Minister went on:—

"In the rural areas, the same pension is 10/- where formerly it was 8/-. For a widow with ten children the maximum weekly pension is now 58/- in the urban area, where formerly the rate of pension was as low as 43/6 and could not exceed 52/-."

What was the idea in the Minister's mind when he quoted these figures in that way? Was it not in order to disseminate something that was not true; in other words, that his maximum was so much greater than the Fianna Fáil maximum?

Mr. C. Lehane

Would the Deputy say in what respect the figures are incorrect?

Mr. P. Walsh

They are incorrect in so far as he quoted the maximum figures under his own scheme and the minimum figures under the Fianna Fáil scheme.

Mr. Norton

I am sure the Deputy does not want to be consciously incorrect in this matter. Under the Social Welfare Act of last year there were four separate areas: cities, large urban areas, places with town commissioners and rural areas. I abolished these four areas and substituted two, and the comparison I made was a comparison of maximum rates to-day with maximum rates before that happened, and the reason why a phrase like "was 8/-and could not exceed so much" occurs is that I have now telescoped four areas into two. That is the only reason these two figures are used. The Deputy represents a Kilkenny constituency. Will he tell me what a widow who lived four miles from Kilkenny City had before 1st January last and what she has to-day? Is that not a fair test? If the Deputy has not got the figures. I will get them for him and give him a chance of reading them.

Mr. T. Walsh

That is what I meant to convey. There are now two areas, rural and urban. Prior to the advent of the Coalition Government there still were two classes—those regarded as living in rural and in urban areas, the qualifying factor for an urban area being the population. That was where the supplementary allowances were being given, so it does not make any material difference whether or not you change them from four to two, in so far as these supplementary allowances were being given.

Mr. Norton

Except that they all know that they are much better off than they were.

Mr. T. Walsh

The old age pensioner in the rural area gained to the extent of 5/-, whereas people living in urban areas gained only 2/6; but, in addition, people in urban areas got more than the supplementary allowance because they got free milk and some of them got food vouchers.

Mr. Norton

When had they the food vouchers?

Mr. T. Walsh

Up to 1946.

Mr. Norton

And then they were abolished and they got a cash allowance instead.

Mr. T. Walsh

They were still continued in some counties. They were continued in County Kilkenny.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is wrong.

Mr. T. Walsh

I am not wrong.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is.

Mr. T. Walsh

I know that the excess butter ration was continued in Kilkenny up to the end of 1946. It was said by the Minister that Fianna Fáil gave no increase in old age pensions in the 16 years since 1932.

Mr. Norton

I did not say any such thing.

Mr. T. Walsh

You said afterwards, when pressed——

Mr. Norton

Let us be clear about this. What I said was that old age pensioners in rural areas had a normal pension of 10/- a week back in 1916. After 32 years, 16 of which were under a Fianna Fáil Government, that pension was increased from a normal maximum of 10/- to 12/6—2/6 a week increase in 32 years. We gave 5/- in 11 months. Put that on a blackboard and look at it.

Mr. T. Walsh

I submit they got an increase of 6/—people who were in receipt of 9/- in 1932—because the supplementary allowance of 3/3 from the Central Fund and 1/9 from the local authority brought them up to 15/-, so it is not right for the Minister to say that Fianna Fáil did not give an increase of 3/3 per week to these old age pensioners from the Central Fund alone.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again later.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.