Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister for Social Welfare inquiring, in view of the acceptance by the Government of the motion on the 14th February in the names of Deputy Norton and myself, when the Government proposed to introduce legislation to increase the rates of insurance benefit and assistance. In his reply the Minister indicated that it was the intention to circulate the text of the Social Welfare Bill very shortly. It was hoped this would be in operation in the autumn of this year or the beginning of next year, and that provision was included under which, if the Bill passed through the Dáil in time, it would be possible to increase the rates of unemployment benefit in July of this year.
My purpose in raising this matter to-night is to charge the Government with a gross breach of trust of this House. When the motion came before the House it was clearly set down in its terms that it had one main point of immediate concern. I am quoting from Volume 129, No. 4 of the Official Debates, the relevant paragraph. The motion stated, having introduced the question of unemployment:—
"That as the present rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit are totally inadequate to provide even minimum support for unemployed workers and their families in view of the present high prices, the Dáil is of the opinion that the Government should increase the existing rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit pending the passing of legislation to provide for improved social security."
There could be no ambiguity as to what was in the minds of the movers of that motion or as to what it was asking the Government to undertake.
In the course of that debate, I stressed that we regarded it as a main point of immediate concern, namely, that the motion was intended to draw attention to the personal economic position of the idle men and women and I went on to say that as a temporary expedient, pending the passing of necessary legislation, we could provide for increased benefit to meet the present situation. The Tánaiste, who represented the Government in the debate, expressed his appreciation of the manner in which the motion was phrased and had been presented by the mover and seconder and also his appreciation of the contribution by Deputy General Mulcahy. He confessed that when he had seen the motion he did not know whether it was intended to be an occasion for serious debate as a serious topic or was a manoeuvre in Party warfare. He continued by saying that he was glad that any unworthy suspicion he had on the subject had been allayed. That was in keeping with the high tone of the debate. It is remarkable and regrettable that not only the Minister but the Government and the political Party that the Government represents should stoop now to what was charged against me yesterday here by the Minister for Social Welfare, the playing of politics with the unemployed; and not only that but that they should openly prove themselves guilty of having attempted to put over a cheap and shabby trick on this House.
The argument has been made that the Tánaiste, in the course of his statement in that debate, qualified the acceptance of the motion by the Government in so far as it referred to increased benefits. That is correct. He clearly stated:—
"So far as the social welfare arrangements are concerned, we are going to bring proposals to the Dáil in the course of a few days. If there are certain implications in the motion that we may not like, we do not mind if it is adopted by the Dáil. I have stated the Government's position here. I do not think that I have left any room for any misunderstanding about it."
Up to that point one could suggest that there was no want of clarity in the minds of anyone. But that was not the end of the debate, nor was the motion put to the House at that point. Deputy Norton, replying to the debate, made it amply clear to the Government, through their spokesman sitting on the Front Bench—who at that moment happened to be the Minister for Education, Deputy Moylan—that, if they were proposing to accept the motion, it would be clearly understood that that acceptance was on the basis of the terms of the motion and would carry with it a clear and definite implication, for which the Government would be held responsible, and that there should be no ambiguity, either by verbal statement or by silence on the part of the Government, that, if the motion was being accepted, they were accepting a commitment that they would be required to meet. Deputy Norton said:—
"Let it be perfectly clear what the motion asks, so that the Minister will know what he is accepting. Portion of this motion asks ‘that the Government should increase the existing rates of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance benefit, pending the passing of legislation to provide for improved social security'. If the Minister is accepting this motion, as he said he was, let it be quite clear that he is committing himself to the acceptance of an obligation on the part of the Government to increase these rates of benefit. It is no answer to this motion to say that the Government intends to introduce shortly a comprehensive Social Security Bill."
When the motion was about to be put to the House, the matter was even further clarified. When the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was taking the view of the House on the motion, a number of Deputies rose to ask what exactly was the position in regard to acceptance of the motion. Deputy O'Donnell said:—
"Are we to take it, when the motion is accepted, that there will be increased rates of unemployment benefit?"
Finally, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said:—
"I understand that the Tánaiste accepted the motion."
Those statements were not made in a vacuum nor in the absence of the members of the Government. Deputy Moylan, the Minister for Education, was in the Front Bench. At one point he actually interjected a remark in the course of the debate, and quite clearly Deputy Moylan was neither asleep nor mentally elsewhere. It was put clearly that the view was being taken that if the Government allowed the motion to go unopposed, if they accepted the motion, they were accepting the obligation clearly laid down in its terms and clearly made manifest by those who spoke in its favour. The commitment was that before and pending the introduction of the general Bill for Social Security, legislation would be introduced to increase the rates of benefit.
It is very difficult now, in view of the Minister's reply to my question yesterday, to find proper and adequate words within the confines of parliamentary usage to deal with the situation. The Minister now states they hope to circulate the Social Welfare Bill in a matter of a few weeks. He expects that if that Bill goes through the House with reasonable expedition it would be possible to increase the rates in July. That is not the commitment the Government accepted.
It is necessary to examine what is implied by the Minister's statement in order to understand the full significance of what took place on 14th February and yesterday.
We have had experience at the same time in regard to this general question of social security. May I point out that the Government has now been back in office almost nine months. I am not going into the question as to whether or not they had a Social Welfare Bill ready before 1948, but they now have had nine months to prepare it. When we adjourned for the recess before Christmas we were informed that a Bill would be circulated before we resumed in this House in the new year. The Bill has not yet been circulated and we are entitled to question the assurance of the Minister for Social Welfare that the Bill will or can be circulated in a matter of weeks. We are entitled to say that until the Bill is circulated we have no knowledge of any definite character as to when we will see that Bill.
But granted we do see the Bill, the Bill is one of the largest pieces of legislation that can come before this House. It is coming before the House in a period when we enter upon the discussion of the financial business of the Government, and it is not unreasonable to expect that although all Parties in the House will be anxious to deal with that Bill in an expeditious manner, that particular business of the House as ordered by the Government will render it difficult, if not impossible, to have that Bill become law within the early months of the summer. The Bill having become law, there is still the administrative machinery to be set up and that is also a problem that is involved. From that point of view there can be no assurance, definite and clear, that by July of this year increased financial aid can be made available to unemployed men and women.
The alternative that has been put to the Minister is that in so far as we are all committed in principle to giving increased aid to those idle men and women, we should do it as rapidly and as expeditiously as we can. It can be done by introducing a short Bill which could go through the House, at the most in a week or two. In so far as payment is concerned, it is well known that alterations in the rates of payment to idle men and women at the employment exchanges do not require any drastic overhaul of the machinery. A Bill could be brought before the Dáil and effect could be given to it in a matter of weeks. Therefore, on the one hand, by the introduction of a short Bill inside a few weeks, we could give relief at an early date. On the other hand, if we wait for the Social Welfare Bill to become law I personally doubt, and I think most members of the House will doubt, that the increased benefit will be available in July.
However, that is not the purport of my complaint at the moment. I suggest that when the motion came before the House the Government had not the courage, although they desired to do it, to oppose the motion and reject it in so far as the proposal for increased benefit and increased relief for idle men and women was concerned, and they sought by what can be only regarded as similar to a three-card trick on a racecourse to fool the House into believing that they were accepting a motion although they had no intention whatever of giving effect to it.
As I said, it is difficult to find language to describe that kind of action, but it ill becomes any members of the Government when their action is queried then to suggest that we are playing politics with the matter. The politics were played in this House by the Tánaiste, representing the Government, on the 14th February, and by the Government when it allowed a motion to be accepted by the House with the clear and unmistakable understanding that the Government was aware that the House regarded the acceptance of that motion as a commitment to introduce legislation before the passing of the Social Welfare Bill to increase the rates of benefit.
They have now gone back on that commitment and broken faith with the House. I think it is a fair statement to say that they have been guilty of the cheapest kind of political manoeuvre, political trickery, by committing themselves to the course of what can only be regarded in terms as a deliberate falsehood—if I used the word "lie" I would be pulled up immediately; I cannot use it, but many of us, in our minds, will know the term to apply.
Despite the fact that I have possibly made bitter remarks—I refrained from doing so on the night the motion was accepted—I still appeal to the Minister, knowing the difficulties that he and the Government must face in getting major pieces of legislation through the House within the period between now and July, that even now he would consider the suggestion of dealing with this matter by the introduction of a short Bill. Let us now remove this question from the field of political controversy and in so far as we are committed to giving aid to these people let us do it expeditiously and without any further delay. As and when the Social Welfare Bill comes along it will be dealt with expeditiously, I hope, but let us not, in the meantime, deny to those men and women what we have agreed in principle they are properly entitled to. Let us at least maintain the standard we have set on the discussion of the motion. If we do not do that I think it is quite justifiable to regard acceptance of the motion by the Government on that occasion as one of the sharpest and cheapest political tricks we have witnessed in this country for many years and one that is unworthy of any Government or any political Party.
