I moved the adjournment of the debate on this motion at the last sitting for the purpose of reading what had been said and in order to make a very brief contribution myself. I think that Senator Counihan did useful work by bringing this motion before us. He did what is rare enough: instead of reading about the matter or merely expressing opinions about it, he endeavoured to work it out in and around his own farm. That sort of experiment is very interesting and while, obviously, any experimental figures arrived at in that way need considerable readjustment, the experiment does give us an indication of what could be done and of the feasibility of certain things.
There seems to be pretty general agreement in the House on the principle of the motion, except for a strange point made by Senator Fitzgerald about the meaning of the word "opinion". I think that went back rather too far for Senator Counihan or any of the rest of us—back to Plato. It is quite possible that on a motion of this kind, where there is general agreement about the principle, the suggestion made by Senator Hawkins might be valuable, that a committee of the House might look into the matter. However, I merely want to put a particular point of view about family allowances. There can be no doubt about it that we do need to take steps to remove, or to even out, the burden of families so that the person who brings a number of children into the world will not be visited with severe handicaps by contrast with his fellows. There has been a certain amount of talk about bureaucracy and over-intervention by the State. At the present time, and for the past ten or 20 years—particularly since the end of the last war—we are faced with the fact that there is more and more State intervention in favour of, as well as against, certain classes of the community.
The agricultural population has an important duty to feed itself, and to feed the towns, but it also has the duty which we must not forget, to furnish people to the towns, and, for that reason, I think that Senator Counihan was on good ground when he said that if we are going to adopt the principle of family allowances without applying it generally, we should begin in the agricultural areas. I am not sure of the meaning of the term "agricultural workers" in the motion because, looking at the figures, I notice that more than half of those employed in agriculture are not employed for wages —are not paid workers at all. The small farmers working with their own families, form, I think, 54 per cent. of those in agriculture and they, I think, should be brought into any scheme because their burdens and difficulties are almost as great as those of the labourers. In some cases they are greater still, as was pointed out by Senator Tierney dealing with a particular area. We have assisted industries in towns and employment in towns, and one of the great reasons for doing that, as was often mentioned, is that apart from the economic benefits, it gives us a variety of occupations, which, from a cultural point of view, enables us to make considerable progress. In spite of all that has been done for agriculture, and in spite of the case that has been made about the assistance given it for the last ten or 20 years, the truth is that within the last ten years, there has been a substantial decline in the number of persons engaged in agriculture. Whether any economic steps can remedy that I am really at a loss to know.
Senator Fitzgerald and others who talked about making farming an economic proposition, ignored the fact that in this country the farmer cannot consume, and neither can the town population, all the farmer produces and he must sell his surplus produce in another market at a world price over which this country has no control. Therefore, it would appear that there is a necessity to give him certain assistance. Family allowances are not a new principle. The principle is in our income-tax code. A man paying income-tax is allowed for a wife, roughly £100, and he is allowed £60 for each child. If he pays the full rate of income-tax, he gets off £22 for a child and at half-rate, £11. Similarly, in all forms of relief such as unemployment insurance, the principle of allowances for children is acknowledged and put into practice. I think the advocates of this scheme might find a very sound argument which has not been put forward here at all. That is, that there are various schemes of allowances for children which have been adopted recently and some of which go back to the British days. Each one of these schemes is praiseworthy in itself, but at no time has a general view been taken of the whole field. I think it might be found that if family allowances were adopted without any regard to whether the father was employed, or not employed, it would be found that certain other forms of relief could be cut out, and not only would certain money be saved in these directions, but, also, the cost of administration would be simplified, and there is hardly any doubt in the mind of anyone who knows either a given country area or Dublin City but that any relief scheme is very costly to administer.
I think there are cases where a household in receipt of 12/6 per week has two, and sometimes three, inspectors visiting it to check up on the amounts received. There is a considerable slack, so to speak, to be caught up in the administration of social services, and I think the cost of family allowances would not be found to be by any means as great as one would think at first, because a number of things already being done would be covered if family allowances were adopted. I merely wish to put the point that an investigation into family allowances would involve a certain revision and co-ordination of our social services in so far as they concern children, and, if it did, then we would have very considerable reductions in certain directions. As a matter of fact, at the present time, and for some years past, the number of children receiving home help has been on the increase. It increased from 1937 to 1941. The figure for 1942 is down slightly, but, at the present moment, over 39,000 children are receiving home help and over 2,000 children are boarded out, so that these are at present provided for, either by the State or local funds. It does not really make much difference, because, in the end, the cost must come out of the same pocket.
The principle of this motion is one with which I am entirely in sympathy, and it would be a desirable and useful work for this House if an investigation were made into what payments are made from local funds or public funds for and on behalf of children, including payments under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts. If that were done, it might be found that with no very substantial extra cost, the principle of the motion could be put into operation. I realise the difficulties of agricultural workers, and the extraordinarily hard conditions under which they live, but also, of course, in the cities and in the towns, there is a similar difficulty, perhaps not so apparent but, certainly, an investigation might result in the application of the principle, first to the country, and subsequently to the towns. I merely want to emphasise that the actual additional cost in the end, when you subtract the cost of other schemes, might not prove to be so great. I am supporting the motion.
