Vol. 122 No. 8
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £238,710 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.
I think it has been the customary practice to take the main Estimate and the other Estimates together for the purpose of discussion.
It is usual to take, say, 60 to 66, and if any specific question arose on the other Votes it could be asked afterwards, but the main debate takes place on the first one. That has been usual.
The Estimates for my Department which I now submit to the Dáil include two Supplementary Estimates which arise out of the Social Welfare Act, 1950, which has recently become law. These Supplementary Estimates are for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare and for the National Health Insurance Vote.
The first is required in order that the Dáil may vote the additional money needed to pay the salaries and wages of the staff of the National Health Insurance Society after the transfer of the society to the Department of Social Welfare. This transfer has been fixed for the 1st August next by the Order recently made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present, House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
Deputies will note that the Supplementary Estimate for the office of the Minister for Social Welfare is a token one only, as provision is made under Section 16 of the Act to appropriate in aid of the Vote from the National Health Insurance Fund the approximate amount of the additional expenditure falling on the Vote as a result of the transfer of the society to the Department.
The second Supplementary Estimate, that for national health insurance, is required mainly in order that the Dáil may authorise the payment in the current financial year of the moneys estimated to be required in that year under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950.
The second item in this Supplementary Estimate, the additional provision under sub-head B of the original Estimate, is in respect of the two-ninths State Grant on expenditure on benefits and administration. There has been a substantial increase in expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits since the original Estimate was prepared at the end of last year due probably to the fact that full benefits are now payable to persons brought into insurance on 7th April, 1947, by the raising of the remuneration limit for insurance from £250 to £500 per annum. As the amount provided in the main Estimate under sub-head B is now likely to prove inadequate, advantage has been taken of this Supplementary Estimate to increase the provision under that sub-head.
The total amount provided through the seven Estimates for my Department for the year 1950-51 (including Supplementary Estimates) is almost exactly the same as the amount provided for the year 1949-50, whereas the total expenditure for 1949-50 exceeded the expenditure in the preceding year 1948-49 by almost £2,000,000. This increase in expenditure in 1949-50 over that for the previous year was due to the increased expenditure on old age and widows' and orphans' pensions brought about by the Social Welfare Act, 1948. That Act raised the pension rates and eased the means conditions in respect of both types of pension.
In the case of old age and blind pensions, the increase in the number of persons in receipt of pensions and in the yearly value of the pensions in payment since 31st December, 1947, may be seen from the following: On 31st December, 1947, the number of persons in receipt of old age and blind pensions was 149,314, at a yearly cost of £4,896,284; on 31st December, 1948, the number had increased to 152,539, at a yearly cost of £4,999,063, and at 31st December, 1949, it had further increased to 159,866, at a total annual cost of £6,959,502, the Social Welfare Act of 1948 having become operative in the meantime. The number of old age pensions payable this year is expected to reach the record figure of 162,000 and the Estimate of the Department has been framed accordingly.
During the two years from 31st December, 1947, to 31st December, 1949, therefore, the number of persons in receipt of old age and blind pensions increased by more than 10,000 and the value of the pensions in payment by more than £2,000,000.
In the case of widows' and orphans' pensions, at 31st December, 1947, the number of persons in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions was 37,102, at a yearly cost of £1,277,359; at 31st December, 1948, the number was 37,289, at a total cost of £1,294,147; and at 31st December, 1949, the number had increased to 43,299, at an annual cost of £1,709,168.
During the two years from 31st December, 1947, to 31st December, 1949, therefore, the number of persons in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions increased by more than 6,000 and the yearly value of the pensions in payment by £432,000.
While on the subject of pensions, I might mention a rather important ruling which was obtained during the past year from the Attorney-General, regarding the practice previously followed of assessing home assistance as means in respect of claimants to old age pensions. I had the question referred to the Attorney-General and, as a result of his ruling, any home assistance which a person may receive is now ignored in calculating his means for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Acts.
While there has been an increase in recent years in the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions and in the yearly value of those pensions in payment, it is satisfactory to be able to record a decrease in the past year in the number of persons claiming unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance.
The number of persons claiming unemployment insurance benefit at the end of March, 1949, was 24,943; the corresponding figure at the end of March, 1950, was 20,964. This is a drop of almost 4,000 persons in receipt of benefit. The expenditure on unemployment insurance benefit in the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, was £1,021,675. Final figures for the expenditure on the same benefit in the year ending 31st March, 1950, are not yet available, but the figure can be given approximately as £931,000. The decrease in expenditure on unemployment benefit in 1949-50 as compared with 1948-49 was, therefore, £90,000.
The number of persons claiming unemployment assistance at the end of March, 1949, was 50,346; the corresponding number at the end of March, 1950, was 40,371, a drop of almost 10,000. The expenditure on unemployment assistance in the year ending 31st March, 1949, was £1,498,897. The expenditure in the year ending 31st March, 1950, was approximately £1,369,000, a decrease of nearly £130,000 as compared with the previous year.
While the number of persons claiming both unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance has been falling substantially, the number of persons employed in occupations insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts has been increasing. In 1947, it was estimated that the weekly average of the number of persons in occupations insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts was 304,200; in 1948, the figure had increased to 319,700; and, in 1949, the figure further increased to 341,300.
The figure for 1949 includes about 11,000 persons brought into insurance by the increase in the remuneration limit for unemployment insurance from £250 per annum to £500 per annum under the Social Welfare Act, 1948.
It is worthy of note that an increase in employment and in the contribution income of the unemployment fund has the effect of increasing the Exchequer contribution to that fund and so increasing the amount which has to be voted for unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance.
In the year 1950-51 the sum of £460,000 is estimated to be required as the Exchequer contribution to the unemployment fund, an increase of £26,000 on the previous year.
I have mentioned already the great improvement in the position of old age and blind pensioners effected by the Social Welfare Act of 1948. Deputies will remember that under that Act the lower age limit for qualification for a blind pension was reduced from 30 years to 21 years and, at the same time, the weekly rate of pension was increased to 17/6. As a result of this change the number of blind pensioners increased from 5,446 at 31st December, 1948, to 5,885 at 31st December, 1949.
At my request, local authorities undertook a revision of the blind welfare schemes in operation throughout the country, and a revised standard scheme was circulated to them for their consideration. This revised scheme provided, amongst other things, for increased rates of allowances. I am pleased to be able to state that the revised schemes have been adopted by all but three local authorities, whose consideration of the matter is not yet completed.
The Consultative Council for the Blind continued its very valuable work during the year. In particular, it surveyed the position of the industrial employment available for male blind, and I expect to have a recommendation in this matter from the council at an early date. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of this council for giving their services in this worthy cause.
I have already referred to the Social Welfare Act, 1950, in connection with the Supplementary Estimates which are before the House. This Act was an important step forward in the integration and expansion of the social services which I undertook as my main task when I took office. As I stated when that Act was before the Dáil the merging of the National Health Insurance Society in the Department of Social Welfare was an essential preliminary to the introduction of a comprehensive scheme of social security for this country. The Order appointing the 1st August, 1950, as the day on which the functions of the society will be transferred to the Department has now been made. I wish, therefore, to take this opportunity to pay a welldeserved tribute to the good work the society has done since it was set up in 1934.
I would like to include in this tribute the Committee of Management, the trustees and the officers and staff of the society, both present and past. They have all helped in their own sphere to make the society the efficient organisation which it is to-day and they can all feel satisfaction in handing it over, not to disappear, but to continue its work of assisting those workers who have to be covered against ill-health and who are not able to make adequate provision themselves against the financial hardship inseparable from even short periods of sickness.
Since I last dealt with the Estimates for my Department the White Paper dealing with the Government's proposals for an enlarged and co-ordinated scheme of social security has been issued. The public has had time to consider those proposals and the Government has decided to proceed with the Bill, which will be based on the White Paper proposals. This Bill was introduced a few days ago, and Deputies will have an opportunity of discussing it after the Dáil reassembles in the autumn.
I have dealt with some of the activities of my Department and have reviewed the work of the past year. There may be other aspects of the Department's work on which Deputies would like further information. These will, no doubt, emerge in the course of the debate and I will endeavour as far as possible to deal with them when replying.
I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. The Minister has given us a lot of figures. I am afraid it would be impossible to deal with these figures because the Minister gave figures in certain directions and I would have to ask him to elaborate them by giving figures in other directions.
What I would like to draw attention to is the change in the Minister as displayed in the optimism with which he looks upon benefits that he has brought in now as compared to his view of the benefits that might be necessary when he was Leader of the Opposition here in 1946 and 1947. At that time he was a Deputy of the House and Leader of the Labour Party. He drew very vivid pictures of the sufferings of people who were drawing unemployment insurance and sickness allowances. Sometimes he made Deputies very sad. His picture of the sufferings of these people would draw tears from a stone. To-day he hardly referred to them. Perhaps the Minister believes that the fact that he is Minister has made these people happy, but that is the only thing he can claim because they really are drawing the same benefits now as they were drawing in 1947. The Minister has been in office two and a half years and has not done anything to change matters as far as they are concerned.
I felt, when speaking on this Estimate two years ago, that we should give the Minister a chance, that we should not be too hard on him, that we should give him time and that, if we gave him a little time, he might be able to do something. Last year I thought we had given him enough time and we made what one might call a mild attack on the Minister. Now he has been two and a half years there and he has not shown very much for his time. I do not know whether we should be too mild towards the Minister or not. Of course, when one looks across at the Minister, one finds it almost impossible to be too hard on him.
In August, 1947, the Labour Party issued a memorandum on what they believed to be a fair system of social welfare. They started off in a poetic vein. They said:—
"Our lands are fertile or can be made fertile; our crop yields are high in relation to the crop returns of many other agricultural countries; in a temperate climate, we have abundant rainfall. Our civilisation is rich in beauty and romance. Our annals are teeming with the achievements of great thinkers, inventors, poets, scientists, crusaders, who have enriched the history of mankind by their courage and genius. Why, then, is Ireland poor?"
Having launched out in the poetic, they go on to consider what would be a fair amount for a family to live upon. The Labour Party of the time—they were facing a general election—thought fit to put before the people of this country what they believed to be a fair standard of living for the ordinary family. I am sure the Minister would like to forget about it, but perhaps it would be no harm for the members of the Labour Party who are present now to have their memories refreshed in regard to the idea they had, coming up to the 1948 election, about what the standard of our people should be.
"It has been calculated" (they said) "by some leaders of medical opinion in Ireland that the lowest sum on which a family of five persons, including three children, could have been maintained in 1938 was 71/- per week. Assuming that this figure is generally reliable, and accepting the evidence of the official cost-of-living index figure, the lowest income on which a family of five persons can be maintained at present (July 1947) is £6 5s. od. per week."
That, as applied to the present cost of living, would be over £7 per week for a family of five persons.
The Minister who is speaking here to-day was the Leader of the Labour Party at that time. He either approved of that statement or he should have approved of it before it was issued. He approved of that statement and went to the electorate in 1948 promising, in fact, that if he was returned in the Government of the country no family of five would be expected to exist on less than £7 1s. per week on the present cost-of-living basis. He leaves sickness benefits as they were in 1947; he leaves unemployment benefits as they were in 1947. All he has done in these two and a half years is to get a higher contribution from them.
The Minister has a short memory or he purports to have a short memory. He forgets about his pronouncements in 1947. He comes to this House and tells us about all he has done in the past two and a half years. But he has not increased the benefits of these people who are drawing sickness benefit or unemployment benefit up to the standard of £7 1s. per week, where the bread winner is sick or unemployed. In fact, he proposes in his White Paper, in the case of an agricultural labourer who may fall ill or become unemployed, if he has a wife and three children, to bring him up to 39/- a week—not 141/- per week. Therefore, I think that when the Minister comes to this House and reads out long lists of figures of what has been done in the past three or four years, it is only right that we should remember the ideas expressed by the Minister and his colleagues in 1947 and compare those ideas with the ideas which they hold now.
The memorandum continues, in its review of the situation, to talk about conditions in Cork City. They quote a gentleman—I do not want to give his name, because he might not be too thankful to me if I should do so—in inverted commas as having said:—
"Judged by this table, only 12 persons (out of 684) spend sufficient on food per man as recognised by the British Medical Association diet; of these 12 persons, five are adults and seven are children."
In 1947 we were told that, taking a sample of the population in Cork City, only 12 out of 684 were getting enough to eat. What has the Minister and his Government done since 1947 to make that 12 any larger than it was out of 684? They go on, in their memorandum, which was issued at the time to the newspapers and for the use of the electors of the 1948 election, to tell the people of this country what a lovely country we would have here when the Labour Party would come into office. They go on to tell the people, in 1947, what the conditions would be. I quote further from the Labour Memorandum on Social Security, issued on the 25th August, 1947:—
"So that we may have social security in the sense that every member of the community will be assured of an adequate living standard, we must have full employment and a basic family income. That is to say, there must be jobs for all who are able and willing to work; there must be a basic minimum wage sufficient for the minimum needs of an average household. Let there be no mistake, unless and until these conditions are fulfilled, want will flourish in the homes of the poor; public relief or unemployment assistance will not banish it; charity may assuage but not remedy it. In any event, there is high authority for the affirmation that ‘charity can never take the place of justice unfairly withheld'."
"Justice unfairly withheld"! Evidently the Labour Party has an idea that justice can be fairly withheld or unfairly withheld. I do not know how they can think that. Perhaps the Minister will explain, when he is replying, how justice can be fairly withheld. They refer here to the fact that justice is unfairly withheld. They say:
"Once we recognise that full employment is economically desirable, it will be found to be financially possible."
Might I assume that the Minister, since he became a member of this Government, still holds the view that full employment is economically desirable? In this memorandum which was issued to the electors in 1947 to induce them to vote for the Labour Party, they were told if they did so, what a lovely country they would have. Does the Minister still believe that full employment is economically desirable, because he says that if it is economically desirable then it will be found financially possible? What has prevented it coming into being?
The Minister holds a very important position in the Government. The Labour Party hold the balance of power so far as this House is concerned and everybody knows that if the Labour Party demand firmly that a certain thing be done, it will be done, if it is possible to do it. They say here in their memorandum that it is possible, that if it is economically desirable, it is financially possible.
Would not that be a matter for Industry and Commerce?
It is a matter where the Minister could say to the Government: "It is economically desirable and, therefore, it should be done."
There is a particular Minister responsible for that Department, and the Deputy knows it.
The Deputy knows well that he refused to do what we asked him to do in 1932.
Deputy Davin will have every opportunity of making a speech. He is a great man at interruptions, but he seldom makes a coherent speech; at least, he never did in my 26 years' experience of him here.
Why did you call a general election for 1933?
Why did your Party issue this manifesto in 1947 and not stand by it? Why did the Labour Party make all these promises and then go back on them?
Do not get vexed.
It is hardly worth while getting vexed over. But why did the Labour Party do it and deceive the electors and why did they then go back on it? They say that "Action must be taken." This manifesto was issued to the electors in 1947 when they were considering for whom they might vote. We may assume that it was issued so that the electors would vote for the Labour Party. The Labour Party then said "Action must be taken"; in other words, action was not taken by the then Government. The manifesto declared "Action must be taken to increase real incomes either by a rise in wages or by a reduction in prices, as may appear economically desirable."
Surely that is Industry and Commerce? There are seven votes here open for discussion on the Vote for Industry and Commerce.
The Deputy is only a black sheep gone astray.
I advise Deputy Keane to cease interjecting.
May I draw attention to the fact that there are still unemployed—that has been referred to in the Minister's statement—and there should not be if the Minister had carried out his promises? This is what I read:—
"As has been pointed out frequently, full employment will not necessarily mean no unemployment at any time in any place."
They want in this memorandum to be perfectly fair—I will say that for the Labour Party. Possibly they were honest when they drew up this document, and they saw that there might be unemployment under certain conditions. For instance:—
"In the conditions which existed last spring when, over wide areas, villages were snowbound and roads were impassable, when there was dislocation of industry and transport, some unemployment was unavoidable."
So we were warned that if there was a big fall of snow there might be people unemployed.
Are we to take it from the Minister's speech, where it is indicated that the unemployed are still there in thousands, that we were snowbound for the past two years? It is the only excuse given by the Labour Party in 1947, that there should be no unemployment unless there was a big fall of snow. That is mentioned of page 10 of the manifesto, and Deputy Davin may look it up if he wishes in order to see if there is any other excuse beyond a big fall of snow. We had one fall of snow, but there was none since this Government came in, so that excuse does not hold.
The Labour Party do not like to make enemies, but they do make enemies in spite of themselves. They do not like to make enemies if they can avoid it. Evidently, when the memorandum was drafted, the Minister's astute mind was brought to bear and he said to the person drafting it: "Now, be careful. If you talk too much about this full employment they might get it into their heads that they will be drafted from one place to another," so there was a paragraph put in which said: "The objection has been raised in one quarter at least that a policy of full employment must involve the direction of labour; that is, that the natural right of a man to choose his job will be interfered with or curtailed when the State assumes responsibility of finding work for the unemployed. Of course, there is no basis for this objection. Insistence has been placed on personal freedom."
So there was personal freedom guaranteed to the electors in 1948—full employment unless there is a big fall of snow, full employment during the fine weather. The electors were told there would be full employment and at the same time they were warned: "Do not get it into your heads that labour will be drafted. Employment will be found for you, not that you will be sent to that employment." It was a lovely programme, but I am told—I do not know whether this is true, and maybe the Minister will give us an answer—that one of the reasons why the number drawing unemployment benefit is down is that the single men are asked will they take a job like the turf job.
I wonder is Deputy Ryan drifting into Industry and Commerce? He is no novice. If he were, we would give him every consideration. He knows very well what he is speaking about.
And this is a coherent speech.
On which side of the House?
I am talking now about the administration of unemployment insurance.
The Deputy is talking about men being sent to employment, and that was fully discussed already. It is a matter for which this Minister is not responsible —he has no function.
Then I will go down to the benefits proposed. I suppose that will be relevant. There is a great disparity, we are told, between the rates of benefit provided for unemployed persons as between one country and another and they have all one common feature except Éire, which was then under the Fianna Fáil Government, not the same as now. They had all one disparity except in Éire when the Labour Party were trying to seduce the electors to vote for them. They all had one common feature and that was that they aimed at maintaining a basic standard of health and vigour. We were not doing that until Labour came in. Every country in the world was doing it except Éire and this Labour Party made an appeal to the electors to return them and so make this country like every other country where there was a basic standard of health and vigour. How ought we to measure vigour, I wonder? Can the Minister give us any indication of the percentage of vigour now compared with 1947?
"In Great Britain, where the cost of food is 30 per cent. less than in this country, the basic payment for an unemployed man without dependents is 26/- per week. New Zealand allows the single man 20/- a week, but it must be observed that in New Zealand food is costing about half..."
So naturally that was not enough. The 26/- in Britain was inadequate for this country. The memorandum continued:
"The Labour Party considers that the basic payment at present prices for an adult unemployed man should be——"
What do Deputies think? Does the Labour Party remember now what they were saying around the country? Do they remember that in 1947, when preparing for the election, they said it should be 30/- a week, with an addition of 15/- for the man's wife if she is not gainfully employed? If she was, she would get more. That is plus 7/6 for each of the first two children, provided that in the case of unemployment it does not exceed 80 per cent. of the wage and in the case of sickness it does not exceed 100 per cent. of the wage. It was a very nice scheme for an election and the Labour Party got all the votes they could and then they came back here and changed their minds. After sitting on this job for a couple of years, the Minister has issued a White Paper. Instead of 30/, he proposes 24/-. Although the cost of living is higher here than in Britain, he is giving less. He wanted to do better than England because the cost of living is higher, but he is doing worse. Instead of the wife getting 15/-, he gives 12/-. He does not do much cutting in the case of children, to give him his due, and he only cuts it by a token, from 7/6 to 7/-.
There was a good deal of talk about the lowly paid man in this memorandum. The Ceann Comhairle did not allow me to deal with it as, not being a novice, Deputy Keane appealed to him to stop me. The lowly paid man is to get less. If he is unemployed, he will get 18/- and if he has a wife, 9/- extra. Imagine the Labour Party here in 1947, and when they were talking at the crossroads in 1948, if anyone had said to them that the wife of a labouring man could live on 9/- a week. What would they say? There has been an extraordinary change in their opinions. They are content now to go from 30/- down to 18/- for the lowly paid labouring man; from 15/- down to 9/- for his wife; and to reduce the first two children from 7/6 to 5/-. Their authority in Cork City said that a family of five could not live on less than £7 1s. 0d. per week. This was told to the electors in 1948 and led some people to think they would be well off if they voted for the Labour Party. Now the poor fellow finds that if he gets sick and has a wife and three children, he will get 39/-, not £7 1s. 0d. That is the measure of the Labour Party's promises and the amount they have achieved in two and a half years —or, rather, are going to achieve, as they have not done it yet.
The Minister, when he was Leader of the Labour Party, and I was sitting over there, was a most impressive speaker and often made me very uncomfortable in his advocacy of benefits. One would imagine, to listen to the Leader of the Labour Party then, that if he got into control, the labouring man would get a fair deal. After two and a half years, as far as sickness and unemployment is concerned, he is getting the same as in 1947, except that he has to pay a higher contribution. The only change the present Minister has made is to take a higher contribution, giving nothing but promises in return. Yet those amongst the Labour Party sitting there think he has done a lot.
Let the Bill go to the House and you will see.
I am delighted to see that Deputy O'Leary has joined up with the Labour Party. I do not want to see Deputy O'Leary coming down and speaking at the chapel gates about Communism any more. He can talk about something else from this on.
On a point of order, can you tell us whether we are supposed to be discussing the Estimate, the White Paper, or some document issued in 1947?
A motion has been moved to refer back the Estimate.
Perhaps Deputy Davin wants to silence me. I know he does not like to hear this. He thinks this memorandum should not be discussed. In fact, he thinks it should be burned and forgotten and never referred to again. It goes on to say that benefits should be given for all sorts of people, including marriage allowances. However, the Minister is dropping that. When I was in the Department of Social Welfare, I was anxious to have that included as a good social benefit. The Minister, I suppose, found it hard to scrooge everything into the financial part of his business, and had to drop that. Perhaps he will tell us why?
According to the Labour Party in 1947, they were to give these high benefits in regard to sickness and unemployment, and for fear there might be some member of the community they were leaving out, and therefore neglecting a possible vote, they said:—
"Everyone cannot be a contributor, and therefore we must have non-contributory benefits."
The first thing they took up was children's allowances. They said that for every child after the first two there should be 7/6 paid. The Minister is two and a half years there, and it is still 2/6. There has been no great change. That also has been forgotten. We are told that as far as retiring allowances are concerned—we used to call them old age pensions—under the contributory part of the scheme the old person will get 25/- a week at age 65. If he does not want to retire at 65 and goes on working, for every year he works there will be addition of 2/- with a maximum of 10/-; therefore he will get 35/- a week instead of the 24/- that is given now. If he has a wife she will also get the pension. It is given here as 20/- a week. Of course in the scheme it is 12/- and not 20/-. Non-contributory old age pensions will be paid at 65 and not at 70; the pension will be £1 per week and not 17/6.
Naturally a scheme like this had to be paid for and the Labour Party had to face up to that fact. They say that it will cost about £37,000,000. I do not know whether or not that is a fair calculation. On the whole, I think the Labour Party did not make it too high because they might have some difficulty in meeting it. Therefore, they kept it as low as they could. In discussing how this £37,000,000 can be met they say that within the next 12 months health and social welfare costs will be brought to £20,000,000. That is £20,000,000 off the £37,000,000, which leaves £17,000,000. Then they say that —"In a condition of full employment wealth will be created rapidly, the national income will expand and the burden of taxation become relatively lighter," and a man with an income of £3 per week—just listen to this—"may consider tobacco expensive at 1/7 per oz. but should his income go up to £5 per week he will probably be willing to pay more than 1/7" per oz. for his tobacco. I thought that it was a fixed principle of the Labour Party not to increase taxation on tobacco. Evidently they considered the matter at the end of 1947 and there did not seem to be anything very, very wrong in doing that. This document goes on to say:—
"If we are in a position within a year or two to provide more jobs than there are idle men; if we can fill up the unused time of the small farmers and the agriculture worker by giving him work in a State forest; if we prevent illness to the extent of 50 per cent. by eliminating unemployment and poverty; if we raise the level of wages for the lower paid sections of wage-earners our national income will show a speedy response."
They go on to say that in the year following the national income will go up to £275,000,000:—
"To raise this amount it will be necessary to increase income-tax or surtax"
I should say there is a margin of £2,000,000 left.
I would like to remind the Deputy that this is not relevant on this Estimate.
It is an alternative scheme of social welfare.
Is it the Fianna Fáil one?
No, it is the Labour one.
It does not appear to be relevant.
It is an alternative scheme of social welfare. Having raised the health of the people by 50 per cent. by waving a magic wand and putting everyone into employment and raising the national income to £275,000,000 and increased taxation by £9,000,000 there was still £2,000,000 short and they had to account for that somewhere.
"To raise this amount it will be necessary to increase income-tax or surtax, or both, on very wealthy people."
Now the Minister and his Party at the end of 1947 had the idea that contributions could remain as they were and, if they wanted more money, they would demand more income-tax from the very wealthy. What has the Minister done since he took office? He has increased the contributions and brought down income-tax. Was there ever such a surrender of principle on the part of a Minister? Before coming in, it was to be done by increasing income-tax. As soon as he came in it was done by raising the contributions of the workers and taking 6d. off income-tax. That is the result of this Coalition Government.
You are getting £500 a year and you pay no income-tax on it.
Your own Ministers will be getting it in a few months' time and they are hanging on in order to get it.
You will never get it.
I suppose 99 people out of 100 would consider that I am worth more than Deputy O'Leary.
"We believe the Irish people will endorse this scheme once its present advantages and ultimate aim are sufficiently understood. There can be no question of our not being able to afford it; its financial aspect may be summed up simply in the words of a well-known economist"—they do not give his name—"Whatever is desirable and physically possible, is financially possible."
Are we to assume that what the Labour Party issued in 1947 is no longer considered desirable by the Minister for Social Welfare? We were told then that whatever is desirable and physically possible is financially possible. If it is still desirable, it should be possible for the Minister to implement the scheme. But he does not now intend to do that. We can only conclude, therefore, that he has surrendered his principles in that respect and that that surrender was due to the exigencies of his position in the Coalition Government.
I will give the House the final paragraph. I am sure the members of the Labour Party are glad I have reached the final paragraph. They may as well have it, because it is very, very good.
"These proposals are not utopian; they are not meant to be. The benefits proposed represent the minimum sums which will carry a normal family over a temporary crisis; as prosperity gathers momentum, they must be increased—and increased substantially."
I suppose the Labour Party would boast that they were sincere in whatever they said to the electors. In their sincerity, they said to the electors at the end of 1947 that that was the minimum standard. The benefits they proposed there were the minimum benefits. Now the Minister comes along and proposes less than the minimum standard then laid down. Is it not a fact that the Minister is either proposing less than the minimum standard or the Labour Party were not sincere in 1947? Let the Minister tell us which it is. It must be either one thing or the other. When we have heard the Minister's explanation we can make up our minds about the merits or demerits of this memorandum issued in 1947.
What about the famous Fianna Fáil plan?
Deputy Davin should keep his hair on.
The Fianna Fáil plan was carried out and I must give Deputy Davin credit: it was carried out with the help of the Labour Party, of which Deputy Davin was then a member.
1932?
Yes.
2/6 in 17 years.
This memorandum was issued at the end of 1947. The Rules of Order do not permit of my quoting certain parts of it, but we have here in this document frequent references to poverty and semi-starvation. What has the Minister done to remedy that? He has done nothing. He has allowed those who are drawing sickness benefit and unemployment benefit for a whole two and one-half years to go on "in poverty and semi-starvation". Now, is that the act of a conscientious or humane man or was the issue of the memorandum in 1947 the act of a propagandist? Was the Minister a propagandist in 1947 or is he an honest, conscientious man now? That is the question that is to be asked.
They were as quiet as mice during all that time—at least so the Minister for Agriculture said.
Of course, there is no doubt that if the sick and unemployed could exist on promises, they would be much better off since the Minister took over, because the Minister and his Party in this House, and the members of the Party who are not in this House, have certainly made plenty of promises about what they were going to do, but none of the promises has been carried out. If increased contributions could be shown to be better than increased benefits, then the Minister has done well for the working man. But that is all that he has done since he came into office—to increase contributions and not to increase benefits.
The Minister referred to a Bill which he introduced a few days ago. We ‘cannot discuss it now. I can only say this, that since it took two and a half years to introduce the Bill, that would appear to me to be an extraordinarily long time for a Minister who actually said—as his lieutenants said in the 1948 election—that they had the social plan ready which is in this memorandum. There can be no doubt about this, that if the Minister had said to his officials on the first day he took over the Department: "Draw me up a Bill on the lines of that memorandum," the Bill could have been ready two years ago, and not now two and a half years after.
You are holding it up now.
That is very good. It is as near to the truth as Deputy O'Leary usually gets. As I say, it has taken the Minister two and a half years to introduce the Bill. He told us a few days ago that it would be a few months before it would be circulated. Well, if the Minister's view about a few months has the same meaning as it had in the last few years, it will be a long time before the Bill is circulated. Let us, however, take his word for it that it will be circulated in a few months; it will then take some months to go through the Oireachtas, and after that it will be a long time before it is implemented.
I think the Minister will succeed in going through his term of office, even if the Dáil runs its full course, before this Bill is implemented. The only question mark we have is this: will it be implemented, and will the Minister get his way, or will Clann na Talmhan get their way? Clann na Talmhan have said that the Bill will not pass so far as they are concerned. We will have to wait and see about that. It will not be the Minister's fault if they vote against him. The only fault, as far as the Minister is concerned, is that he has been far too long about bringing the Bill in. If the Minister had been serious, if he had been very anxious about these new benefits, this Bill could have appeared long ago in this House.
It seems to me, at any rate, to be a good thing that the Deputy who has just sat down has been exercising his intellect about Labour literature. It is a pity he did not take a similar opportunity a great many years ago. Anybody would think, listening to Deputy Dr. Ryan, that his concern for the interests of the people affected by this Estimate—the working people concerned—transcended the interest of the present Minister or of any other Deputy. Deputy Dr. Ryan would have us believe that the Party now in opposition are vitally concerned about the interests of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and old age pensions.
The wonder to me is that Deputy Dr. Ryan, and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, do not blush with shame when they talk about old age pensions. What is their record in regard to them? Let them examine it themselves. They were 17 years in office and they gave the old age pensioners an increase of 2/6 over that period with a means test, whereby the widow in a cottage, the man who had spent his years in employment on the land or in any other capacity—even if he happened to have a few pounds in the bank or a pig in his back yard, or if the widow happened to have a few hens running around the place—had the miserly 12/6 reduced by the Fianna Fáil Administration. In contrast to that, the first step that was taken by a Labour Minister for Social Welfare was to increase old age pensions by 5/-. That was an interim measure. It represented a contribution of £2,500,000 from the Exchequer for the welfare of old age pensioners. Now we have had this performance this evening. We were told by one ex-Minister of Fianna Fáil that he was a performer. We had another performer to-night telling us about his concern for the people who are affected by social welfare measures.
I want to take the opportunity that is presented to us here to-night of complimenting the Tánaiste, first of all, on the prodigious amount of work performed by his Department over the past year. Those of us who have contact with the Department in relation to the multifarious matters it deals with, have had the experience of prompt and efficient service. I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House have had that experience. I feel that the officials of the Department of Social Welfare have worked exceedingly hard in their aim to bring to the people, within the shortest possible time, the maximum and the greatest services in this sphere that can be achieved. I also want to say that I personally—I am sure the same applies to the more progressive Deputies—am very happy to observe the introduction of the social security scheme in the form of a Bill. When the House reassembles after the holidays, we will be looking forward to the speedy passage of that Bill through the House. The only possible barrier to its speedy passage is the gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Benches who see in it the seeds of their own political end.
We had an exhibition, on another occasion previously, when the Opposition obstructed a progressive measure of a similar type by every means in their power. I refer to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. They delayed the putting into effect of that measure for a number of months. I hope that we will not see a similar exhibition when we come to deal with the consideration of the Social Security Bill, because anybody who has read the White Paper, as issued by the Minister on social security, recognises that it does represent the greatest move forward in the sphere of social security which this country has yet seen, that it is in line with similar measures which have been adopted in other parts of the world such as New Zealand, Australia and other countries where Labour rules or has ruled.
They do not rule there any longer.
We, of the Labour Party particularly, are very glad that we are in a position to anticipate this measure and to have it written into the Statute Book at an early date. Deputy Dr. Ryan also referred—had the temerity, I might say, to refer—to the lower paid workers. The lowest paid workers in this country—and you will find a lot of them in the constituency which Deputy Dr. Ryan represents—are the agricultural workers. During the era of Fianna Fáil—17 inglorious years—the peak average wage was 50/-. What steps were taken by Deputy Dr. Ryan, who was Minister, who had the reins in his hands and who could formulate what plans he liked, to improve the lot of the lower paid workers? Ask any farm labourer in any part of the country how much unemployment benefit he gets when he is unemployed and the answer is: exactly nil, not one halfpenny. This scheme about to be introduced for the first time gives the agricultural worker the right to some form of subsistence when he is unemployed. I am aware of the fact that the scheme is hailed with pleasure by farm labourers throughout the country for that one reason alone. I feel sure that this Government, having accepted the Bill and all that it entails, will seek to put it into operation immediately. I am confident that they will not fall back on the old Fianna Fáil trick of waiting until the eve of a general election before anything of that kind is done, that they will not yield to the temptation, as happened before, of waiting until we go out to look for votes to see that children's allowances are paid. This legislation, which will be placed on the Statute Book of this country, is one of the best measures taken by this Government, no matter when we are going to have the next general election.
On a point of order, can we discuss the new proposals of the Minister before they come before us?
No. I understand that Deputy Dunne is making a passing reference to them.
If Deputy Dunne is allowed to discuss the matter, others will be tempted to follow him.
That is so. All Deputies are allowed equal advantages and no advantage will be allowed to one Deputy more than to another. A debate on an Estimate should not be used to anticipate legislation. I should like to remind Deputy Dunne of that.
I merely want to make the point that Deputy Dr. Ryan discussed this matter at fairly considerable length prior to your advent to the Chair.
He did not discuss it at all.
He did and was prompted by Deputies on that side to discuss it.
If the House wants to discuss it we shall discuss it.
Deputy Dr. Ryan apparently did some research and discovered a statement of policy issued by the Labour Party in 1947. I am not going to suggest that he obtained that document by any dubious means although it seems to be a custom of the Opposition when documents of this sort are produced to suggest that they must have been obtained by some underhand method. Some Fianna Fáil Deputies are experts at that. Some of the Deputies over there are more expert than others in research work of a less reputable kind than was mentioned by Deputy Dr. Ryan.
He forgot the speech he made on 22nd October, 1947.
He will not be allowed to forget it. We have the speech here. We have a list also of the division which took place following a motion moved by the then Deputy Norton in regard to the means test when the Fianna Fáil Party to a man trooped into the Lobbies to deny old age pensioners a few shillings a week more. These are the people who have the temerity now to come into the House and talk about what this Government has or has not done. On the single item or issue of the old age pensioners alone the Government has done more in the last two and a half years for the old age pensioners than Fianna Fáil did in 17 years. That fact was established, and it cannot be controverted by interruption, wisecrack or anything else. It is an undeniable fact. I am very happy that Deputy Dr. Ryan did that little bit of research work, because, as I have said, it is always an encouraging thing for those of us who are in the Labour movement to see any person openning his mind sufficiently to let in upon it some of the shafts of truth that are to be found only in Labour literature. That document we stand for as a statement of policy of this Party and when a Labour Government is established in this country it will be implemented to the full.
Some hope!
Let there be no mistake about that. Let us go back a bit and read some of the interesting things said by Deputy Dr. Ryan on the occasion of the debate on the motion to which I referred—the motion in the name of Deputy Norton regarding old age pensioners and the modification of the means test, on 22nd October, 1947. As reported in column 823, Volume 108, Deputy Dr. Ryan said:—
"As regards old age pensioners, I want to give rather interesting figures. In 1932 there were 77,900 old age pensioners getting the full 10/- per week."
Ten shillings in 1932 and 12/6 in 1947, as I told the House a few moments ago.
Nine shillings in 1932.
They had of course to prove that they were destitute. In the reply to the motion he said:—
"I am not in the mood to do it at the present time."
£500,000 only.
Deputy Davin should not interrupt his neighbour.
This is interesting too. Deputy Dr. Ryan went on to say:—
"I said, when I took over this Department, that I hoped within 12 months to have a scheme of social services published."
A vain hope evidently.
The Tánaiste is still waiting.
When he has criticised on the grounds of delay a statement such as this is a very telling one. One could go on quoting from this very interesting debate, but to me at any rate the most interesting part of it is the names on the Division List of the Deputies who voted against the motion to reduce the means test. One of them, another very good interrupter who is not here now, Deputy McGrath, also spoke. I think in fact I will read it all.
We cannot ramble over everything that was said on that occasion. I allowed you to deal with Deputy Dr. Ryan because he was Minister.
I have no intention of boring the House by reading what was said by all the Deputies, but I may as well read some, so that we will know what exactly their views were on social welfare.
I do not see the relevancy. I allowed Deputy Dunne to refer to what Deputy Dr. Ryan said, because Deputy Dr. Ryan was Minister in the Fianna Fáil Administration. That is the only relevancy I can see in his remarks.
Deputy Killilea figures prominently in it; Deputy Moran's name is not absent from it. Of course the other two Deputies with them, being like myself in the House for the first time, escaped.
It seems to me that Deputies who address themselves to this most important question of social security should try to do so in a constructive fashion. As a country, we are in a more or less enviable position from the point of view of population and resources. We, of the Labour Party, have always contended and firmly believe, as a principle of our existence as a Party, that full employment is possible of attainment in this country, but that there will always be more helpless sections of the community in need of assistance in the shape of social security and that it is in order to provide for such people that, in the ultimate analysis, social security is essential.
The scheme which is being introduced takes, as I have mentioned, some very important steps in relation to this matter. To my mind, one of the greatest disabilities under which the working people labour at the present day is the absence of provision for the circumstances which surround a death in a family. I am not going to transgress the rules of order by anticipating legislation, but I do think that any scheme which would embrace provisions for such a contingency as a bereavement in a working-class family is a good scheme and something which has not been thought of before.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House because of the restriction on the debate imposed by the time factor. I want to conclude by saying that Deputy Dr. Ryan and every Deputy of the Opposition Party will need to talk for an awful long time inside and outside this House before they are shriven for their neglect of the people who are catered for by the Department of Social Welfare particularly the old age pensioners. No matter what documents may be read here, no matter what may be said here, no matter how long and how strenuously an attempt may be made by some members of the Opposition, including Deputy Dr. Ryan, to justify their neglect and laziness in this matter in the past, one thing that stands out and can be verified in any part of the country is that the people of this land to-day know that they have a Minister for Social Welfare who is vitally interested in their welfare and who has vowed to bring in a measure that will benefit them enormously. They are giving thanks every day that they live that Deputy Dr. Ryan and those like him who had charge of their destinies are no longer in that position but that energy is being applied to their problems at the present time by this Government and particularly by the Tánaiste.
I was interested to hear Deputy Dunne speaking about Fianna Fáil having talked for a long time about social security schemes. It is very interesting coming from Deputy Dunne's benches because the Labour Party from whom, we are given to understand, all these security schemes emanate have been talking and talking and doing nothing else but talking and we are still waiting for the Minister's Bill to provide this much advertised social security scheme. There was never more talk in the country about any scheme; there was never more flag-waving; there was never such a stalking horse presented to the Irish people during the election and in this House since the election; but after all these years we are still waiting to see this scheme translated into a workable proposition before Dáil Éireann.
On the one hand, the Minister said that he wants to give these people benefits, but some of his colleagues are chary about giving them. There are some of his colleagues who, according to Press reports, take a poor view of the Minister's scheme. The matter has been discussed; there have been rumours about this scheme; again, in the words of the last Deputy, there has been a tremendous amount of talk, but there has been no action so far on the part of the Minister or on the part of the Labour Party. Perhaps now that the Labour Parties in this House have buried the hatchet, or say they have buried the hatchet, we might get some unanimity of view on this question. If the Labour Parties have buried the hatchet, it will be a good thing for the time and the procedure of this House and for the country in general. It would not appear, however, that this burying of the hatchet has gone very deep.
Unity in the Labour Party is not relevant to this Estimate or to the motion to refer back the Estimate.
It was suggested by Deputies on those benches, in interruptions of Deputy Ryan's speech, that that was one of the matters that was angering Deputy Ryan. I want to say on behalf of our Party that we were delighted to see the Labour Parties burying the hatchet between them.
Unity or disunity in any Party is not relevant to the discussion on this Vote.
Very good, but when a Deputy of the Labour Party—I do not know whether Deputy Dunne belongs to the red or the blue section of the Labour Party — starts to compare the position of old age pensioners to-day with their position in 1932, whether he comes from the red or the blue side, he should examine his conscience, be cause, let him come from the reds or the blues, he, by his vote, is keeping in this Government a Minister who reduced old age pensions by 1/- per week, from 10/- to 9/-, before Fianna Fáil came into power. Deputy Dunne, by his vote in this House for the past two and a half years, has kept in power a Minister for Finance who deliberately cut the old age pension from 10/- to 9/- prior to 1932. Deputy Dunne and the different sections of the Labour Party have kept in power Ministers who say that the value of the £ compared with 1939 is 10/- In other words, the £ sterling, at the time the miserable increase was given, represented 10/- compared with 1939.
How can this man now argue that that increase was sufficient, that it was justified or that the purchasing power of that pension is at all compatible with the purchasing power of the pension which the old age pensioner was getting back in 1939 or, going still further back, in 1932? These people should remember the words of wisdom uttered by the Minister for Finance, the Fine Gael Minister whom Labour Deputies have kept in power by their votes, when he said — and this is on the records of the House—that the £ had gone down in value to 10/-. I think it is now recognised that it has gone down a little further. What these Deputies should now be contemplating is an urging of the Minister to give the old age pensioners not alone what they have got but sufficient to bring the purchasing value of their pension up to the value of the pensions they were getting under the Fianna Fáil regime up to 1939.
The people who try to put over on the House the idea that there has been an abolition of the means test in connection with old age pensions are simply out of touch with the country. The very same inspectors examine the very same hens, the very same pigs, the very same cows and the very same valuations, and take the whole lot into consideration, and, on the basis of the comparative values of money as between 1939 and the present day, the means test at present is more serve and more strict than ever it was in the history of this country. Any Deputy who, in the ordinary course of his business, has to deal with old age pensioners who are seeking pensions knows that, where an old man has not transferred his farm of £5 valuation to his son, every stone, every brick, every shed, every cow and every hen is counted in the very same way as it has always been counted in arriving at means. It will therefore not deceive anybody when Deputy Dunne tries to suggest that the means test has been abolished. The means test is being operated as effectively through the Department of Finance as ever it was operated in the history of this State. I do not say that there may not be some justification for the means test. The Minister for Finance may believe that, so far as old age pensions are concerned, it is necessary to have some type of means test, but anybody who tries to put over on the House that there is no means test, or that it is not being operated in the same way as it has always been operated, is trying to delude himself and the people.
There is another matter with which I want to deal, a matter which arises mainly in counties from which there is migration to other countries. The Minister, I understand, signed some convention with the British Government in connection with people who may become ill, who may have an accident, or who may be hurt working on the other side.
Not accidents.
The Minister says "not accidents," but, whatever the reason, I want to tell the House—this is a most important question from the point of view of counties from which there is migration—that people who would normally have qualified under the Workmen's Compensation Act in Britain, prior to the new social security scheme in that country, after six months' benefit, are sent back here and thrown on the tender mercies of the National Health Insurance Society. They lose all the rights they would have had if the workmen's compensation code were still in existence in Britain. They have to come back here —let them be permanently incapacitated or partially incapacitated, or let them be injured for life — and they have no remedy against anybody. If these men were injured in this country, if they lost a leg or an arm in this country, they would, in the initial stages, be entitled to draw 50/- per week as workman's compensation and, under the Third Schedule of the Act, if the employers wanted to buy them off, they would have to pay a very substantial sum, a sum equivalent to the cost of buying an annuity of 75 per cent. of the amount of compensation they are getting. A man of 30 years of age would be entitled——
On a point of order, the Deputy is discussing the Workmen's Compensation Act. I have no responsibility for the administration of that Act, as you know, Sir. If anybody has a claim to make under that Act, he brings it to the courts and the courts decide the question involved. The Minister for Social Welfare has no power whatever in that matter.
I understand that the Minister does not administer the Workmen's Compensation Act. The only reason I allowed the Deputy to proceed was that he said that people involved in accidents in England were thrown back here on national health insurance.
I want to put it further. I say that the plight of these unfortunate people, migratory workers, who meet with accidents in England, who have to come back here and are thrown on the benefits provided by the National Health Insurance Society, is due to an agreement signed between the Minister and the British Government or some British Minister.
Again, that is untrue. No agreement of the kind was arrived at with the British Government and the Deputy who purports to have a knowledge of legal matters should try to interpret correctly the agreement which was signed.
