Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 1958

Vol. 165 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Increased Social Welfare Benefits—Motion.

Mr. J. Murphy

I move:—

That in view of the great hardships which the high cost of living imposes on the unemployed, old age pensioners, the sick, and widows, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that all social welfare benefits should be increased.

In introducing this motion, I feel it should be discussed on its own merits without reference to previous controversies which were part of the last Budget debate. I feel that Party affiliations and loyalties should have no part in assessing its worth. I appeal to the House to realise that this motion cuts across, and indeed is even greater than, Party or Party policies. The part of the motion which states that the high cost of living imposes great hardship on the unemployed, old age pensioners, the sick and the widows cannot be denied and should be agreed by all sides of the House.

Since the last Budget was introduced, there has been a sharp increase in the cost of living the effect of which, to a certain extent, has been offset in the case of those who are organised and relatively strong to defend their interests through price and wage increases. This is not so in the case of the unemployed, the old age pensioners, the sick and widows, who have to depend on the goodwill of the Government for the maintenance of their standard of living. It surely will not be denied that the community as a whole are responsible for the welfare and care of our aged and unemployed. I claim with justification that this is a vital test of our Christianity. It is of little use to talk in pious terms of our spiritual empire and Christian State while tens of thousands of our people live on the border line of starvation and in abject poverty.

The high cost of living, I claim, is a direct result of Government financial policy. Nobody can deny the fact that these unfortunate people, through no fault of their own, suffer extreme hardship. Present conditions it can be said are the result of misgovernment, not alone of one Party, but of every Party since the foundation of this much-lauded, Christian and democratic State. I am convinced that no one present would like to live or support a family on the income allowed by the State to these unfortunate poor people. In fact, I challenge any Deputy here to try it just for one week.

Let us take a closer look at how, in practice, these allowances work out and see how an unemployed man, his wife and family really live. Here is a household bill taken from an account, given to me and verified by me, of a man, his wife and six children at present living in Ballyfermot. I want it on the records of the House, and, if needs be, to go forth to the world, as an indictment of the hypocrisy which has been a feature of all Irish Governments. This man's total income is £3 16s. 10½d. per week, which includes unemployment assistance and children's allowances. Out of that, he pays rent, light, fuel, insurance and bus fares. He is then left with £1 15s. 3½d. for food, clothing, school books and a dozen or so other little odds and ends to run a home. In this case, the man has a young child preparing for first Holy Communion and another preparing for Confirmation. There may be some in this House who do not know, but in the life of a working-class Christian family, this occasion should be one of joy for both parent and child. Can that be so in this case?

The weekly diet consists of bread, margarine and tea. If anybody doubts me, I can show him hundreds of similar cases only a stone's throw from this very building. He is left with £1 15s 3½d. for the week. He buys bread, two loaves per day, which cost him 16/4 per week, leaving him 8/11½ to buy tea, margarine and sugar for the week. Would anybody dare tell me that this is a good wholesome diet—two loaves a day, approximately ¼ lb. of tea, 1 lb. of sugar and ½ lb. of margarine among two adults and six young children for a week? This family, like thousands of other Irish families, do not taste Irish butter which is subsidised and exported daily. Neither do they taste foodstuffs like meat, fish, bacon and eggs. I do not think it can be disputed that this diet is completely and absolutely inadequate.

Here is a diet calculated to sustain working ability and health. It is issued by the Canadian Medical Association and subscribed to by Sir John Boyd Orr who up to recently was head of the World Food Organisation. The weekly diet for a man, his wife and only three children is as follows: milk, 38 pts.; cheese, 1½ lbs.; butter, 3½ lbs.; potatoes, 19 lbs.; fresh vegetables, 24 lbs.; dried vegetables, 1½ lbs.; fresh fruit, 8 lbs.; meat and fish, 8 lbs.; eggs, 1½ dozen; bread, 22½ lbs.; and flour cereals, 7 lbs. The contrast, needless to say, is striking. The hunger and hardship suffered by our unemployed and aged people in particular during the recent spell of cold weather can only be imagined by most in this House.

Let us take the case of a single man drawing unemployment assistance of 19/6d. per week. Can we say that is adequate to pay for rent, lodgings, food and clothing and, perhaps, a smoke, if he is entitled to a smoke? At column 957 of the Official Debates for November 21, 1957, the Minister for Defence stated that the Army diet from 26th October, 1957, to 1st November, 1957, Dublin and Dún Laoghaire average retail prices, cost £1 13s. 7¼d. While this may be a good wholesome diet, it is not by any means a luxurious diet. There are many here with Army experience who will tell you that many a young soldier could eat twice as much, if he got it.

The sole increase for a single man on unemployment assistance is 1/- in a period of five and a half years. This is expected to offset the cost of living which increased in that period by, roughly, 23 per cent., or 27 points. Is it any wonder that our young people are fleeing from the shores of this country? The young people who are left are faced with two things: either they must starve or steal.

Finally, let us look at the old age pensioners whose weekly income at the moment is 25/-. Our welfare workers report cases of real hardship amongst our aged people who helped to build this State but who are now left destitute. Their married sons and daughters cannot help these unfortunate people because of three factors. Their sons and daughters cannot help them through the high cost of living, because they have emigrated or because they are unemployed. The feeling of being forgotten or unwanted is not the least degradation which these poor unfortunate people suffer. They are unable to maintain themselves in a proper condition of health, due to the lack of essential foodstuffs. This in particular applies to the young children of the unemployed man. The health of these young children is being impaired at the very stage in their lives when they require the means of healthy development to enable them to take their place in the future affairs of this nation.

Can any Deputy say we cannot improve the lot of these unfortunate people? Many millions of pounds are spent on hospitals and sanatoria to combat diseases such as tuberculosis, which in many cases is the result of undernourishment. Would it not be far better policy for us to invest in the health of our youth? The Minister may say that we have no money, that we cannot afford to give these men any more. I have no doubt that the Irish people will consider that a downright lie. Many millions of pounds are invested in British joint stock companies by Irish nationals. I ask the Minister to tell the House why these patriotic investments are not taxed to the hilt.

Every year our playboys spend many thousands of pounds abroad on holidays. Surely here again must be a fruitful field for taxation. Why do we not tell these people that we have an economic crisis on our hands? Why must the weaker sections be called upon to pull us out of each crisis which is the result of Government financial policy? Why do we not tell those others that they have a duty to the community?

Many local government bodies have written to me supporting this motion. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party have passed similar resolutions. I hope to hear many members on the Fianna Fáil benches speaking to and supporting this measure. They were very considerate about the unemployed and aged people during the last general election. I hope they will support this motion now. I challenge the Government to allow a free vote of the House on this issue. I am quite confident that any Deputy would not face his constituents after voting against this motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I wish formally to second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to support Deputy Murphy. Deputy Murphy was elected by the people for whom he speaks, and I was likewise elected by the same class of people. Therefore, I do not think there are any Deputies more fitted to speak on behalf of the people mentioned in the motion than ourselves. The motion is something that everyone can accept—even the Minister. If the motion specifically stated that we should give all those people an extra 10/-, or any amount, I could understand the motion being opposed, but the motion merely asks that some improvement be brought about. That is all. It could be 3d. or it could be 5/-. No matter what we hope it is, there is nothing specified.

Therefore, the motion can be accepted on principle and there is very little in it that the Minister or any member of the Government Party can object to. It would be blatant hypocrisy if it were opposed, in view of the fact that at the election they claimed they would make things better. Having been returned, they cannot vote against a motion which merely asks that these people should receive increased social benefits. Prior to this generation, there was nothing in the nature of social benefits. Perhaps people were very simple, satisfied with potatoes and salt and the poorhouse; but I am not certain they would now be satisfied with that.

At some stage, it was decided there should be social benefits, but whatever yardstick was used then, no proper allowance was made for rising costs since it was decided to give those benefits. It was decided that a certain amount was necessary to save people from dire want. They could not expect to get enough to have a few points or a packet of cigarettes every day, but they should at least get enough to purchase the simple foods and perhaps a packet of cigarettes at the week-end. The minimum amount must have been laid down at one time and I would like to know if the increases that were given from time to time kept step with the increased cost of living. That must not have happened.

During the past few months, we had the Dublin Corporation strike and threats of strike elsewhere by workers, who said that, in spite of a wage of £7 10s., they needed another 10/- a week to compensate them for the increased cost of living. If they were serious in their claims, what must the unemployed require?

A single man gets 19/- while, if working, he would get £8 now. What then must his living conditions be like? We are inviting these people to go about and steal. It is a good thing, as has been mentioned, that we are not a very war-like people, or something would have happened. Emigration saves us from that and I am not at all certain that the authorities do not connive at it and drink another "half-one" every time they hear of another boatload going out, because it averts the danger of a riot.

In addition to the 19/-, the single man may get another 5/- from home assistance, but not much more. That is only in the case of a man residing on his own, towards the cost of the house. A man and his wife get 30/- and he may get an extra 10/—about the maximum—from home assistance. Compared with the man who is employed and getting £8, that man and his wife get 30/-. Take the person with a large family. The maximum allowance, if he has six, eight or ten children, is 45/- and he may get 15/- extra from home assistance; in other words, a maximum of about £3 to keep a family of ten.

I know the arguments about the lack of exports, lack of production and money, but we must not forget the people now running the country are the "know-alls" who have been telling us: "Put us into power and we will do what is needed." They are the people who have the responsibility and it is their job to find the means to carry it out.

We are being told that Partition will end—bunk! Even though the nationalists still shout: "Down with Partition", if it was put to them seriously to-morrow that they could come into the Twenty-Six Counties and have the same social benefits, I believe they would be insane to do it and would not, in fact, come in.

In England, the average employed worker earns about £12 per week because of overtime and other considerations, while the average worker here gets £8 and generally no overtime. Yet the person with six or eight, or even 20 children will not get more than £3, including home assistance.

When, in my maiden speech, I sneered at the miserable shilling granted as a result of the withdrawal of the food subsidies, the Taoiseach said: "Where could we get it?" They withdrew the subsidies. If they did it to the employed worker, it would have been bad enough, but the subsidies were withdrawn for the unemployed man also. How did it affect him? He got one shilling extra. I have investigated this matter and I have learned that a man will eat five loaves of bread a week—a poor man eats more bread than a well-to-do man who would have chicken and steak and so on. The addition to the price of bread was 3d. and, on the basis of five loaves per week, cost him 1/3. I have worked out that a man eats at least one pound of butter with five loaves and the cost of that pound of butter was increased by 7d.

The price of tea was increased. Then it came down a little, no thanks to the Government. I have worked out that a poor person, who uses more tea than the well-to-do person, consumes at least 6 ozs. a week. Taking the cheaper tea, that represents an extra 6d. a week as a result of the Budget. I have worked out the cost of the withdrawal of subsidies at 2/4 to the poor person on the three items I have mentioned. By way of compensation he got one shilling. Almost one-third of the community draw social benefits of one kind or another. I am a member of Dublin Corporation and I am concerned with differential rents. All the people who are tenants of the local authority were docked threepence out of that one shilling because the differential system is based on total income, irrespective of the source of income. These people got ninepence, not one shilling.

Since then, prices have risen. Bus fares are going up and all the firms that have been compelled to give an extra ten shillings in wages will put up the price of their commodities. All those depending on social benefits will have to pay an extra threepence here and fourpence there and so on. If the cost of the withdrawal of the subsidies was 2/4, it is no exaggeration to say that the other increases in the cost of services and commodities will amount to another 2/4. I say that those on social benefits have had their cost of living increased by at least 4/8 since the present Government came into office. The only compensation for that was the allowance of one shilling and, in the case of tenants of the local authority, ninepence.

The motion does not specify that all social welfare benefits should be increased by 4/8d. I think that should be done. We are not specifying any particular amount but simply asking that these benefits should be increased. It would be hypocrisy to deny that an increase is justified.

I am not particularly in favour of one Government as against the other, although I like to be fair. The Coalition Government did not do so well either but they did not spin the tale as much as the Government in power. They did not make such blatant promises. They were unfairly treated because it cannot be denied that the unemployment position at the time of their defeat was due somewhat to their efforts to balance payments. In trying to do that they were doing work of national importance, from which the Fianna Fáil Government benefited afterwards. While they did not do so well, at least they did not bluff or trick the people as much as the present Government did. I maintain that the present Government have not kept their promises and certainly have made the position of those on social welfare benefits considerably worse. I know that the argument will be that social services are costing more and cannot be increased. There are various ways in which we can do what we want to do.

We had a political revolution but we never had a social revolution. That is one of the weaknesses of our system. We took over many things that a social revolution would have changed. We took over a system based on imperialism, with all forms of vested interests financial and otherwise, and tried to carry on a Tom Thumb imperial State. We should have realised that there was a very big social problem and that we had to live according to our means. That applies to everyone from the President down, not merely to those at the bottom. It is too often the practice of Governments when thinking in terms of economy to make the people at the bottom pay for it. Before the French Revolution it was those who had little or nothing who were asked to pay taxes while the wealthy sections paid none.

The vital question is: where will the money come from? We have consular offices all over the world. We have the Army. I intend no reflection on the Army, but I say that it is organised on conventional lines and that I do not think we could ever make proper use of it. To a large extent it is a waste of money. There could be considerable saving on the Army. There could be a saving in administration, which is top heavy. For example, there was an advertisement in the Press for tenders for coal for Government Departments while we are asking the people to burn turf.

Last week I asked a question as to why we are importing ammunition but did not get a satisfactory answer. I was told that we could employ 1,000 men. I shall have another question down to-morrow about it. A business firm would change its system in order to make it pay, but our State is operating a Tom Thumb imperial system. Over the years many people have got into authority whose ability I personally doubt. That was the result of nepotism and giving positions to people who had not ability. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is constantly lecturing industrialists about initiative and ability but in our set-up here do we always demand ability or is it a question of who you are?

As an Old I.R.A. man, I could not be against the language, but I do say that there could be some economy in that matter at this stage. We ought not to be in such a hurry. The language is used as a red herring to cover up deficiencies. While I support the language and always will support it, I do not support it in the sense of giving responsible jobs to people who may know the language but who may be numskulls. I want efficiency so that we can get the best possible results from our efforts. If we try to do that, we may be able to get more out of the country and then give more.

At a recent meeting of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, a motion was passed providing that the rents of 20,000 corporation tenants shall be raised 3d. per room when the next rate is struck. In other words, 20,000 corporation tenants will have their rent raised from 9d. to 1/3 within the next few weeks. Do not forget that one-third of all corporation tenants are persons affected by this motion. Twenty thousand of them live in flat rent dwellings. One-third of that 20,000 will be compelled to pay 9d. to 1/3 more for rent in addition to all the other increases that have taken place in living costs since the withdrawal of the subsidies.

I should like the House to remember this also. Three days after the last general election, the Dublin Corporation—which is controlled by political Parties—raised the rent of those houses by 3d. a room. All these things have to be taken into consideration when considering this motion because one-third of the community is depending on social benefits and that one-third of the community is affected by every rise. I think I have said enough.

I put it to the Minister again that whether he agrees or disagrees with what I say or with what anybody else says he cannot object to the motion. If it specified a certain amount, he could object and say he could not do it. I am asking him to take everything which I and other speakers have said into consideration and to give something decent to the people in question. No matter how it is paid for, let it be paid for. It must be done unless we are to have a continuation of emigration and unless we are to encourage them to steal. If they are put to it, people will have no hesitation about revolting. I appeal to the Minister to give these people a reasonable standard of living—enough to give them just the simple foods and, maybe, a packet of "Woodbines" on a Friday. I am not asking for much more.

We must take into consideration all the rises that have occurred and all the rises that have yet to come. As a result of increases, the prices of commodities will be advanced to the consumers. Do not take advantage of the fact that these people are not organised. They are not corporation workers. They do not belong to a union. They cannot paralyse a city, leave the street lights on for days, and so on. They are just unorganised old men who want a bare existence.

I am sorry the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy MacEntee, who has just come into the House, was not present for my speech but I cannot repeat it now. I would ask him to be good enough to read my speech and give those people a little consideration.

Mr. Kyne

Will Deputy Kennedy, the Parliamentary Secretary, not say anything?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Kyne

I should like to support this motion—not support it in the abstract on the question of the principle as to whether or not an increase is justified but rather in the sense of looking for a specific increase that will offset the increased cost of living, as has to be borne by the people mentioned in the motion, that is, the social welfare group in general. Other speakers have said that the increases in the Budget have been compensated for, on the whole, by the organised group of workers securing for their members a 10/- per week increase. But, while this 10/- a week has been secured it is not suggested by the groups speaking on behalf of the organised workers that 10/- per week did compensate them for the increased cost of living.

It was admitted by the trade union movement and accepted by the Employers' Federation and, in general, throughout the country it was looked upon as a fact that the 10/- per week compensated only for part of the increase and that the workers agreed to carry the other portion as their contribution towards the national effort in the interest of the economy of the country while the employers, on their side, agreed to pay the 10/- and, if and where possible, not to pass on the increase to the consumers. There was an agreed policy and I understand it received the blessing and approval of the present Government.

The 1/- increase that was granted at the time the Budget was introduced cannot in any way be considered as compensation for the increases that have occurred consequent upon it. Everyone who is a member of a local authority and who has had any experience of dealing with this particular group of people realises that, over and above the benefit they receive under the Department of Social Welfare, they have to be subsidised by the local authorities in the form of home assistance of one sort or another. This home assistance is governed by a decision of the local authority which is usually a county council or a corporation. It is really moving the burden from the backs of the taxpapers and placing it on the backs of the ratepayers.

Whilst most local authorities are very conscious of the fact that these particular groups—the old, the widow, the sick and the unemployed, especially those on unemployment assistance—are in need of subsidisation in the form of home assistance, you will find that there is no uniformity throughout the country. One local authority is more generous than another. One local authority will provide, say, 10/- a week extra for an old age pensioner; another local authority may provide only 1/6 or 2/-. I suggest that, instead of the local authorities being made to provide for these people —as they are—it is the responsibility of the Government, through the Department of Social Welfare, to provide an increase.

The last speaker indicated strongly that an increase was needed and he did not put any limit on it. I am told, and the Book of Estimates bears it out, that a 25 per cent. increase, say, for unemployed people—those in the unemployment assistance group, whom I consider the most needy—would come to about £250,000. The man drawing on his stamps has a maximum of £3 1s. per week. That is not big but it may be sufficient to tide him over a period of unemployment. After drawing on his stamps for six months he goes on to unemployment assistance with a means test. That varies from 19/- to a maximum of 45/- benefit. I notice in the Book of Estimates that a 25 per cent. increase would cost only £250,000. Surely £250,000 can be found to give a 25 per cent. increase to these needy unemployed and their dependents? The figures can be found in the current Book of Estimates. I am quite sure that in all the other various categories a similar increase could be granted.

It is quite true that any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, representing a Government, will have to say to himself: "That is all very well. We all want to give an increase but where will the money come from?" I suggest that a luxury tax be imposed with these specific people in mind. If necessary, an additional stamp could be put on the packet of cigarettes. Let each carton or packet of cigarettes carry an additional stamp, the value being a 1d. or 2d. so that the smoker who gets his enjoyment from that habit or vice, whichever you call it, and who is addicted to it, may know that by smoking more and more he is contributing some specified sum to relieve the wants of this needy section of the community.

Let us have it on the cinema seats or on other forms of entertainment; let us have it on drink, if possible; let us have it on luxury goods. In my Party, although we are not anxious for taxation, we would welcome and agree with a denifite tax which was named and declared to be for an increase of benefit for the social welfare group.

However, I suggest that even all that is not necessary. Why was it that the master bakers were given a refund last year? Could the money which was kept for them not have been used towards the social welfare increase? I understand that it would give approximately a 25 per cent. increase to the unemployment assistance group. I would suggest that the butter subsidy, which we are now paying—roughly 1/3 a lb. for export—would provide 3 lbs. of butter for the unemployed at the former subsidy of 5d. per lb. In other words, butter could be used and eaten by the unemployed at a reduced cost, a cost cheaper than is being paid at present for other people outside the State to eat it. Surely there was an opportunity in these two things alone to provide an increase for the unemployed, for the sick, for the widow and for the orphan.

We in the Labour Party agree with this motion; we shall support it or any similar motion. We shall do more—we shall go into the Lobby to support direct taxation, if it is earmarked to pay for such an increase as this motion calls for.

Mr. Loughman

Deputy Kyne is to be congratulated on facing this motion in a realistic manner. It was refreshing to hear increased taxation for a specific purpose advocated in the Dáil. As I listened to some of the other speakers, I wondered if they realised that anything the Government gives by way of increases or grants must be collected from the people. Bearing that in mind, we must realise that this motion calls for increases which would involve a vast expenditure, in my opinion, if the increase is to be in any way useful to the people to whom it will be given.

I remember when the present Uachtarán, Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh, introduced the widows' and orphans' pensions legislation here. At that time, he said that the amount was small— it was 7/6, if I remember correctly— but he said that he hoped that, as the State advanced and the years passed, this benefit and other benefits of a similar kind would be increased, to deal with people of that description. He then had in his mind that what the State was able to provide was what should be provided. We must bear that in mind now, when we are considering increases all round.

I am sure that, when the Budget is being prepared, the Minister will have all these things in mind when he is considering the question of increases on the commodities Deputy Kyne mentioned. The Deputy promised his Party will support such increases.

Mr. Kyne

For a certain purpose, for an earmarked purpose.

Mr. Loughman

That is a rather difficult thing, but it is an increase in taxation just the same. When these increases are imposed on cigarettes, beer, spirits and cinemas, it is doubtful whether the amount realised in revenue will be increased. We are told, and I believe there is some truth in it, that we have almost reached saturation point where taxation is concerned and that if we impose heavier taxes, even to give benefits to people who, we believe, deserve them, we might find ourselves getting less instead of more. We would, therefore, be able to give away less than the sum which we are able to provide now.

I have the greatest sympathy with the people mentioned in this motion and I am sure the Minister has that sympathy also. I am prepared to admit that Deputies on every side of the House would wish sincerely to have increases granted to all the people covered by this motion. At the same time, we must bear in mind that we have only certain limited resources within the State and with these limited resources we must deal with the people involved to the best of our ability. I have always in my mind the fact that whatever the Government gives, it collects from the people first. If we try to collect too much, we may get less and, therefore, the people whom these increases are supposed to benefit will get less.

In view of the fact that all these matters will be dealt with when the Estimates come up and when the Minister is preparing his Budget, I would not think that there should be a division on this motion. I know that the Government will be very sympathetic regarding all the categories mentioned in the motion and that there will be ample opportunity for discussing them in the various Estimates as they crop up.

Again, I would compliment Deputy Kyne on his approach to the question. On this side of the House as well as on every other side, there is the fullest sympathy with the people involved in this motion. I have no doubt that the Government will do everything possible to give all the benefits this State can afford to all the people mentioned in the motion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary wish to speak?

Mr. Kennedy

We want to hear——

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is a safe procedure—to hear.

Mr. Kennedy

We want to hear Deputy O'Higgins.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want to say at the outset, in case it may be thought that I am anticipating the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in any way, that I am quite prepared to give way to either of them who may wish to intervene in this debate.

Mr. MacEntee

We would rather hear the Deputy's pearls of eloquence first.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This seems to be an extraordinary attitude on the part of the Government. This is a motion put down to deal with a matter which, as I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, is of considerable importance and, indeed, of vital importance to many sections of our people. I realise and appreciate that from the Government point of view this motion may be a difficult one and that the questions which the motion poses for the Government are questions that may be very difficult of solution. As far as a number of Deputies are concerned—and I believe I am one of them—I would like to approach this or any similar motion in a realistic way, assessing as far as I can the importance of the viewpoint put forward—and put forward in a moderate fashion—by Deputy Kyne on the one hand, and the arguments advanced on the other by Deputy Loughman. What opportunities have Deputies of making that kind of assessment on a motion of this sort, if we are not to hear from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of this motion? This is essentially a motion where the viewpoint of the Government should be expressed—and expressed at an early stage in the discussion.

At this time of the year, the Government and the individual Ministers and the various Departments over which they preside are, no doubt, examining the financial affairs of this country, the result of the taxation for the current year, and making up their minds as to what their budgetary proposals for the next 12 months are to be. It is not being too optimistic, therefore, to suggest that the questions posed by this motion are questions which must have been receiving some kind of examination by the Government and the various Departments. In view of that—and I think I am right in making that assertion—would it be too much to expect the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to give Deputies the benefit of their minds on this question? Would it be too much to expect that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what are the difficulties, financial and otherwise, which are posed by a motion of this sort?

I readily appreciate there must be difficulties. Things are not so easy of solution that simply putting down a motion in this House calling for an increase in this, that or the other will solve them. It would seem that, on the face of the words and the expressions contained in this motion, there is a strong case to be made to the Government for acceding to the request contained in the motion. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that there is truth in the point of view expressed by Deputy Loughman and it is something that many of us have failed to realise for many years, that is, that no Government can get money from the treetops, that money does not come out of the air, that no Government has a hidden source of wealth which they can tap when they want money and that for practical purposes every penny piece the Government spend comes out of somebody's pocket.

That was, to put it briefly, the argument made by the only Government supporter—as far as I am aware; I have not been here all the time—who spoke to this motion. It is not good enough that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should sit down silently and leave it to a Government backbencher to contribute to this discussion. It is a motion in respect of which if it is to be dealt with on any kind of reasonably sound and realistic basis, facts and figures must be put before us by the Government. It is easy to say—and, in saying this, I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of Deputy Loughman's contribution— that we sympathise with the old age pensioners, the widows and the orphans and the unemployed, that all sides of the House sympathise with them and would like to see them get increases, if increases could be given. That is true, but it is also very easy to say. The Government have the responsibility of taking decisions on these matters. They are directly responsible for the very big increase in the cost of living. They are responsible for the deliberate action which they took in their last Budget in removing the food subsidies and allowing the cost of living to rise. This is the second time in recent years in the history of Fianna Fáil where, by deliberate positive Government action, the cost of living has been increased and, of course, when the cost of living increases, it bears hardest on the weakest section of the people, the unemployed, the old age pensioner, the widow and the orphan.

We all know there are various commodities which are taken into the reckoning in calculating the cost of living index figure. A number of those commodities might not make any great difference to some of the classes of people who are referred to in this motion, but the essentials of life, the essential foodstuffs, bread and butter, matter to everyone and when bread and butter are increased in price, the weakest section of the community who depend on those foodstuffs as their staple diet have to pay the increase as well as everyone else. They cannot avoid paying it. It does not matter to some of these people whether jams or biscuits are increased in price, but it does matter to them when bread and butter are increased in price and, twice, in 1952 and again in 1957, the Fianna Fáil Government, by positive Government budgetary action, increased the cost of living in these essential commodities.

The Fianna Fáil Government when they took office, in the very first Budget they introduced, caused a substantial increase in the cost of living and spiralled up the price of bread and butter. That was done also by the previous Fianna Fáil Government, I think, led in Finance by the present Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee, when in 1952 the first inroad into the subsidies was made. All of us will recollect the Fianna Fáil publicity campaign during the last general election when Fianna Fáil leaders invited the people to vote for Fianna Fáil, so that Fianna Fáil could "get cracking".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has no relevance to the motion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is quite relevant, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion deals with increases in social welfare benefits.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It does, and the point I am going to make, and which I suggest to the Chair I am quite in order in making, is that the only notable way in which the Government "got cracking" was to crack at the food subsidies and to crack up the cost of living. Fianna Fáil "got cracking" in their last Budget. It is very easy for Fianna Fáil Deputies or Fianna Fáil supporters to give a horse laugh now when we refer to the poster: "Let us get cracking," but I want to tell the Deputy who is trying to imitate the hyena that as long as I am in the House, I will do my best to remind them and to remind the people of the Fianna Fáil "Let's get cracking" poster.

That was the Fianna Fáil appeal to the people in the general election. Fianna Fáil "got cracking" and the first crack of the whip was felt by the weakest sections of the community, the people for whom this motion pleads. The lash of the whip fell on their backs as soon as Fianna Fáil "got cracking," and now we are discussing this motion here and so far we have not succeeded in getting either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know what the Government views are, what the Government propose to do or whether the Government have any plans in relation to the question posed in this motion. One or other of those gentlemen should tell the Dáil what they propose to do.

They should tell us what are the difficulties involved. One might overlook their "Let's get cracking" poster, if it was not wedged in between the other posters which appeared during the general election—"Wives, Get Your Husbands Out to Work", "Unemployment Is the Test". The unemployed are one section of the people dealt with in this motion and it is suggested that unemployment assistance should be increased, in view of the hardship which the high cost of living imposes on that section. What has the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to say about that? I take it that the Government and those supporting them will concede that the cost of living has risen, that the rise in the cost of living has caused hardship and that the greatest hardship has been caused to the sections referred to in this motion.

As I said already, it is very easy for anyone, in Opposition particularly, to put down and support a motion like this. The responsibility is on the Government. The Party of which I have the honour to be a member contributed its share to the Government of this country on many occasions and was prepared to accept its responsibilities in forming the Government of the country. I do appreciate the position of the Ministers and the Deputies supporting him. I appreciate that he has got to face up to the responsibility of taking a decision on these questions. As I say, it is very easy for any Opposition Deputy to advocate wholesale increases in social welfare benefits. Can the Minister or the Government blame any Deputies doing that if they get no guidance from the Government on an important question like this?

As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to listen to whatever the Minister has to say on the matter. I am quite prepared to weigh up and assess as best I can the pros and cons of a motion of this sort. There is no doubt that, on the face of it, there is every justification for pressing the Minister to give some kind of special consideration to the classes of persons referred to. There certainly seems to be a very sound argument as to why the Government should review the position of these social welfare benefits in relation to the increase which has taken place in the cost of living.

I want to know what have the Government to say about it. Do the Government simply propose to say nothing, to let the Dáil vote on this motion in blinkers, without receiving any kind of official figures or any kind of guidance from the Minister or his adviser? I do not think that is good enough. I do not think the people would welcome the Dáil taking a decision on a matter of this importance in that kind of atmosphere. I do not think the people would welcome an approach to a motion of this sort taken without weighty consideration and without the Dáil having before it all the relevant factors.

There are many people, I believe, who are sick and tired of political fencing and so far as the Party to which I belong is concerned, we do not want to indulge in any kind of political fencing, or tilting even, on a matter of such vital importance, for the matter as of vital importance and I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that. It is easy to treat a motion such as this as a cod motion——

Mr. MacEntee

That is how the Deputy is treating it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If the Minister at this stage wants to intervene, I am ready to give way.

Mr. MacEntee

I am listening to the Deputy.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is the Minister prepared to make his contribution?

Mr. MacEntee

No, I am listening to the Deputy.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I hope I am correct in taking the Minister's intervention to mean that neither he nor his colleagues on the Government Front Benches propose to treat this as a cod motion, that they propose to give their views on the motion and let the House know whether a motion of this sort can be implemented, and, if so, how they propose to do it and, if not, why not. So far as we in this Party are concerned, we want to hear the Minister's views and I am not saying that with my tongue in my cheek.

I have already said, and I meant it, that we appreciate the difficulties of any Government coming to a decision on such a matter. We appreciate that the position occupied by the Minister and his colleagues is one which carries with it certain responsibilities and that they cannot shelve those responsibilities. I want to hear what the Government have to say about it. As I was saying before the Minister intervened, however briefly, this is a motion——

Mr. MacEntee

May I say that I would like to hear the Deputy say something about the motion? He has not been talking about it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I have been using my time well because I have been talking about the Minister.

Mr. Loughman

The Deputy has repeated himself several times.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Loughman had the courage to intervene in this discussion.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Casabianca courage.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

But for the fact that the Deputy has already contributed, I might be moved to make the same offer as I made to the Minister.

Mr. Loughman

You have made it so often——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Yes, and it is still not answered. Perhaps if Deputy Loughman squeezed down between the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, he might induce them to share in this discussion. The motion, as I say is one which has to be faced by the Government. The House is entitled to hear the Government's views before making up its mind as to its merits. On the face of it, it is quite clear that there are arguments in favour of it. I appreciate that the Government may have their difficulties. We want to hear what those difficulties are. Whatever review is necessary is one which the Government must undertake.

So far as I am concerned I genuinely want to hear what the Government have to say about this. When we hear what the Government have to say possibly we shall know how the motion might best be approached. Deputy Kyne in his contribution made some concrete proposals as to how money might be made available, and the purposes to which that money might be applied. I assume the Government have given serious consideration to that proposal and again I invite the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to let us into their confidence.

Mr. Sweetman

Let the Minister say something.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister reserves his right to intervene when he feels fit. He is not at the beck and call of Deputy O'Higgins or even Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

But a responsible Minister ought to give a lead to the debate.

Mr. Corish

I had a fair idea that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would not get in.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order, when at least four speakers have already spoken in favour of the motion, surely it is time we got some view of a responsible nature from the Government Front Bench in order to let other speakers know what the Government have in mind?

Mr. MacEntee

I am awaiting with interest Deputy McQuillan's speech on the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I am waiting to hear the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

I promise to listen to him.

Mr. Kyne

Is it not correct to say that Private Members' time finishes to-night and, if the Minister does not speak to-night, we shall not hear anything until next November?

Mr. Sweetman

That is why he is trying to avoid it.

Mr. Corish

We did expect that at least the Parliamentary Secretary might have intervened because, unlike the Minister, he has had an opportunity of listening to the speeches from every side of the House. There have been two Independent speakers and a speaker from the Labour Party; a speaker from the Fine Gael Party has just made a speech lasting approximately 25 minutes, and we had a contribution from Deputy Loughman of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is a pity that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will not intervene at this stage. The majority of the speeches which have been made have not been made in any vindictive way, nor have the Government been twitted with any promises they might have made in respect of this matter.

Deputy Kyne suggested a method by which all or some of the moneys could be raised for a reasonable increase in the social services. Perhaps that method might not be acceptable to the Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil Parties but surely we are entitled to a comment on it? As Deputy Kyne has pointed out the Book of Estimates will be published this week and the debate on the Vote on Account will start on Wednesday next. This means that Private Members' time will not be resumed until October but I assume that in the meantime, on the 1st May, old age pensioners, widows and orphans and the sick will know their fate for the coming 12 months.

As far as the last Government were concerned they had a reasonably good record where social welfare was concerned. We did make promises in respect of these particular categories and I think we fulfilled our promises in two Budgets. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that the present Government, and the Minister for Social Welfare, would continue that policy and give some increases in respect of some of the sections each year by at least trying to compensate them for increases in the cost of living since the last increases in assistance were given. I think it must be admitted by nearly every member of the House that the 1/- given in the last Budget did not compensate those people for the increases consequent on the withdrawal of the food subsidies. Especially it cannot be maintained that those in receipt of unemployment assistance, and widows' and orphans' non-contributary pensions have been compensated for increases in the cost of living. Deputy Kyne has pointed out that it would take something in the region of £500,000 to do so.

I know it is quite a substantial amount of money to give an average of 5/- per week to those in receipt of unemployment assistance and to widows and orphans in receipt of non-contributary pensions. It is true to say that an increase of 5/- per week for old age pensioners would cost at least £2,000,000. I do not want to advocate increases for one section more than another but, as far as old age pensioners have been concerned, they were compensated by increases of 3/6 over the last two or three years. However, nobody maintains that 25/- a week is enough to sustain them. There are old age pensioners who can supplement that amount by other means, up to having an income of about £1 a week, but I think the Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary, will appreciate that old age pensioners, especially in cities and in large and small towns, cannot supplement their income in any way.

The motion says: "In view of the great hardships which the high cost of living imposes on the unemployed, old age pensioners, the sick, and widows, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that all social welfare benefits should be increased." The House must agree that there has been an increase in the cost of living. It does not make much difference whether that has been as the result of the last Budget or not. The last Budget is history; its implications are a fact. What these people are concerned with is how the standard of living they had so many years ago can be restored. The motion suggests that the Government make every effort to see that the money is forthcoming to give them that compensation.

On the last Estimate, I made a suggestion mentioned by Deputy Kyne here to-night, that a special tax be raised in order to provide increases for the unemployed, old age pensioners, the sick and widows. Like Deputy Kyne I do not think that the people of this country, particularly the workers, would grudge paying a certain amount by way of tax on certain commodities which Deputy Kyne has mentioned—beer, cigarettes and, in particular, luxury goods. They would not deny old age pensioners an increase if they knew that a certain tax on luxury goods were to be devoted exclusively to old age pensioners, to those in receipt of unemployment assistance and to widows and orphans in receipt of non-contributory pensions.

I would, therefore, urge the Minister to continue the policy that was the policy of the last Government over three years. I know it is a tremendous task to provide increases for all these people in the one year. In 1956 there was a 25 per cent. increase given to those in receipt of unemployment benefits, sickness and disability benefits and to widows and orphans in receipt of contributary pensions. That cost a fair amount of money, especially when one adds on to it the additional £1,000,000 provided to give increases to old age pensioners.

The last Government were only in power long enough to introduce two Budgets. I can honestly say that, if that Government had been in power for the 1957 Budget, the unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' non-contributary pensions would undoubtedly have been increased. As Deputy Kyne has pointed out it would take only a sum in the region of £500,000 and he has suggested ways and means of raising that money. I would agree with the methods he has proposed.

Mr. MacEntee

Does the Deputy remember his speech on the 1952 Budget?

Mr. Corish

I do.

Debate adjourned.